Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Justice Cannot Review Jefferson [D-LA] Evidence
CNN ^ | July 28, 2006

Posted on 07/28/2006 1:56:01 PM PDT by Swanks

On CNN: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES JUSTICE CANNOT REVIEW JEFFERSON [D-LA] EVIDENCE

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: 109th; housejustice; jefferson; ruling; williamjefferson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

1 posted on 07/28/2006 1:56:04 PM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Swanks

Gotta be a Clinton appointee...


2 posted on 07/28/2006 1:57:29 PM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

Will be fun to read the reason why.


3 posted on 07/28/2006 1:57:51 PM PDT by jaredt112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Friday barred the Justice Department from reviewing evidence seized from a Louisiana congressman's office during an unprecedented FBI raid on his Capitol Hill office in May.

A three-judge panel ordered a federal trial judge to ensure that Democratic Rep. William Jefferson be given copies of seized evidence contained on more than a dozen computer hard drives, several floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents.

The panel said Jefferson then must be given the opportunity to invoke legislative privilege claims in private with the trial judge.

4 posted on 07/28/2006 1:58:10 PM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

Before everyone hyperventilates, I thought there might be a seperation of powers issue here. I think this is going to the Supremes.


5 posted on 07/28/2006 1:58:33 PM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

The headline doesn't seem to reflect the order of the Court.


6 posted on 07/28/2006 1:59:38 PM PDT by OldFriend (I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

I can't find this story at the link you provided.


7 posted on 07/28/2006 2:00:00 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

You know, this is ok, get it to the supreme court, it will take a little longer but settle the question - can Justice investigate crooked congressmen, espically with a search warrant?

If the answer is "no" then the Republic is in danger.


8 posted on 07/28/2006 2:00:15 PM PDT by gondramB (Named must your fear be before banish it you can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

On CNN newzut also (thought it to be avail by now, but also at:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2006/jul/28/072807553.html


9 posted on 07/28/2006 2:01:24 PM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

Another Friday afternoon surprise. Buried by Monday. Our system is broken.


10 posted on 07/28/2006 2:02:18 PM PDT by samadams2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
"The headline doesn't seem to reflect the order of the Court."

The source does not often reflect the truth. ;^)

That said, it was a proper order. Much akin to an attorney's or doctor's office being raided. Have an in camera by the judge to review of allegedly privileged materials. Also, this is a new case and precedent is necessary for future raids and they already got the goods on this one. Hehehehe...

11 posted on 07/28/2006 2:03:45 PM PDT by eureka! (Heaven forbid the Rats get control of Congress and/or the Presidency any time soon....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

I can't pick up the links but it probably SAYS that until the legalities of search and seizure have been sorted out on the merits, the justice department prosecutors cannot actually go through the sealed seized evidence. It is being held by the Solicitor General, initially by Order of the President and probably confirmed or continued by the Court pending appeal.


12 posted on 07/28/2006 2:04:44 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smogger

Well, then that's a real dilemma . . . because if there is a separation of powers issue here, then the Federal court system has no jurisdiction in the case.


13 posted on 07/28/2006 2:05:08 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Smogger
There's a pretty fundamental "separation of powers" issue in this one ~ namely that the Executive (read "king") has no authority to conduct a raid on materials in or on or about any of the facilities of the Legislative body (read "parliament").

It's one of the very foundations of democracy.

Remember, in the history of the Republic, no cop had even attempted this.

Sic semper tyrannis.

14 posted on 07/28/2006 2:05:13 PM PDT by muawiyah (-/sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
So how do we manage the corrupt bastards in Congress?

Separately, our president is not a king and our Congress is not a parliament.
15 posted on 07/28/2006 2:11:46 PM PDT by Beckwith (The dhimmicrats and liberal media have chosen sides and they've sided with the Jihadists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
What a picky little devil you are ~ but, alas, the history of Democratic government has demonstrated time and again that the only way it can work is if the Executive is literally barred from entery into the precincts of the Legislative body.

Doesn't matter what you call them, king, executive, president, caudillo, prince, congress, parliament, majlis, diet, knesset, the principles are the same.

It is better to let this crook Jefferson get away with something than that the FBI and any other assorted group of jackbooted fascists be allowed to destroy the foundations of the Republic.

16 posted on 07/28/2006 2:14:41 PM PDT by muawiyah (-/sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

As ridiculous as this ruling sounds I am not unhappy about it. This will keep Rep. William Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, Lousianna in the papers.

It get repeated time after time that William Jefferson, DEMOCRAT, Louisiana stashed thousands of dollars in the freezer. Even the most simpleminded citizen gets annoyed at this guy getting special treatment. The Abramoff scandal is over most voters heads and hence, they don't care. But, a guy who hides money in the freezer is a known sleeze.


17 posted on 07/28/2006 2:15:27 PM PDT by Republican Red (Everyone is super stoked on Gore, even if they don't know it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

Politically you have this nailed.


18 posted on 07/28/2006 2:19:08 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

Most of the simple people won't even care!


19 posted on 07/28/2006 2:20:02 PM PDT by longhorn too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Swanks

I do not give CNN any "hits".


20 posted on 07/28/2006 2:20:22 PM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson