Court Blocks Feds on Congressman's Files (Democratic Rep. William Jefferson)

Breitbart ^ | 7-28-06 | Toni Locy

[STARWISE]

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.

[MNJohnnie]

And perhaps you just choose to ignore the fact that a Judge approved the warrant that was executed on the Congresscritter. This is NOT the fantasy case of bureaucrats run amok some of you seem to think. A legitimately swore warrant was executed on a suspected criminal. '

Simply AMAZING supposed "Conservatives" want to claim that one law applies to all of us and another one to Congress critters. The check on the abuse by an out of control police bureaucracy is NOT self defined "privilege" claimed by Congress. The Constitutional privileges claimed by Congress in this case MAY not be in keeping with what the Courts decide. System of checks and balances remember? Congress does NOT get to define the checks and balances any blankity blank way it feels.

Congress is claiming it's meaning incredibly broadly, that MAY or MAY NOT be an accurate definition. That is within the Courts purview, NOT the Congresses.

[The Red Zone]

Look in a mirror when you say "really desperate."

The warrant means that the court gets the documents. Not that the court has okayed any old thing the prosecution wants to do with them.

[Pablo64]

"His defense in front of the panel boiled down to five words:

Do you know who I am?"

That's six words. Have some more coffee. ;-)

[mrsmith]

"Simply AMAZING supposed "Conservatives" want to claim that one law applies to all of us and another one to Congress critters. "

LOL! That is the stupidest of all the silly 'arguments' silly lying liberals trot out.

"for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. "

You or I- or a judge or a president- can be questioned by a grand jury about what we say at work, but the Constitution says they- and only they- can't be.

A judge can give a search warrant for materials connected to our work- or a judge's or a president's- but the Constitution says he can't do that to them- and only them.

Oh yes, since you don't know: the Constitution means what it says to "Conservatives".

[InterceptPoint]

I know at least on thing they will find on the hard disk. It is an old article from Scientific UnAmerican:

"Experimental Evidence Shows That Freezing U.S. Currency Will Preserve It Indefinitely".

[mrsmith]

"The evidence is not protected. And just why would the judicial care about anything that was not pertinent to the criminal case against him. "

Indeed. Or the administration either.

So we can agree that removing the legislative work- which cannot be questioned in any other place- is no loss.

All the DOJ wants is the material that is evidence for the bribery case. They don't want the privileged material. The only problem was how to separate it from the evidence- which isn't privileged.
I wish the opinion was available, it sounds like the court that issued the warrant has a whole lot of work ahead of it.

"... secrecy..." certainly has it's drawbacks but, it's been wisely said that legislating is like making sausage...
In the case of legislative privilege the secrecy is to protect the legislature from being blackmailed and bullied by the other branches to thwart the will of the people.

[Revel]

I am afraid that they are all(the legislative) busy blackmailing each other. What a crooked bunch.

[mrsmith]

Undeniably, the legislature is our democratic Branch and as King Darius said over 2500 years ago:

"in a democracy, it is impossible but that there will be malpractices: these malpractices, however, do not lead to enmities, but to close friendships, which are formed among those engaged in them, who must hold well together to carry on their villainies. "

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me .. the accused gets to see what was taken .. but the prosecutors don't .. what's with that ..??

[Revel]

Our founders also saw a time when our system might become very corrupt.

"You ask me what kind of government we gave you. We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it" - Benjamin Franklin

"If you love peace greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

And there a bunch more quotes you should read:

http://www.liberalquicksand.com/

We have come to these times. It starts right there in the legislature. The Judicial is right in line with them. They subvert the will of the legislator and the local and state governments. When it comes to going after a creep like this guy then and only then are there hands tied.

Personally I wish that enough people in this country would realize that these career politicians bought and paid for with dirty money...Should go. Our Representatives should be normal people who are replaced on a regular basis. In that regard I can say "constitutional error".

[highimpact]

That's six words. Have some more coffee. ;-)

I don't think the coffee is the problem, it's the Bailey's IN my coffee that threw off my counting. LOL!

[MadLibDisease]

Mark

[jospehm20]

I don't remember DeLay losing an election. Perhaps you are confused?

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"I was referring to DeLay's decision to resign because he couldn't win re-election."

DeLay did not resign because he could not win re-election. He resigned because he has been indicted and could not get a trial in time to run again. He did not want to run while under indictment and decided it was best to let someone else try to win the GOP.

[SolidSupplySide]

DeLay did not resign because he could not win re-election.

I am relying on DeLay's own statement that his candidacy was putting the TX22 seat at risk. I don't think DeLay lied about this, but I respect your contention that he did.

[SolidSupplySide]

I don't remember DeLay losing an election.

Again, I was referring to DeLay's own statement that his candidacy was putting the TX22 seat at risk. The voters in his district were prepared to throw him out in the election. That is why DeLay resigned.

If, as I expect, the appeals court rules that DeLay is eligible to run, it is very likely that DeLay will withdraw. He simply can't win this election and he knows it. But by withdrawing, people like you will still be able to say DeLay never lost an election. But given the circumstances, that statement is/would be totally devoid of any meaning.

[SolidSupplySide]

Check your facts a bit.

I am always willing to look at facts.

Tom DeLay WON in the primary.

Indeed he did, but nearly 40% of GOP primary voters abandoned him. It was not a convincing win as he portrayed. DeLay's actions (resigning and attempting to be declared ineligible) speak much more loudly to the effect that DeLay was in trouble than his primary night assertions.

Then tried to resign - except that the Dems have tried to use the courts to block that.

You're just making stuff up. DeLay did resign. He is no longer a Member of the House. There's nothing the Dems can do about that. Could you please review "the facts" again?

If DeLay stays on the Ballot he will still whip the Dem's butt. Then he can resign and have someone appointed. He's not out because of the voters - He did it for honor.

Unlike you, I don't think DeLay lied when he said that his candidacy put the TX22 seat in jeopardy. But if you want to think DeLay is a liar, you'll get no arguement from me.

[SolidSupplySide]

That sleazebag, politically motivated prosecutor in Austin got DeLay out of his position, but it just may not work since DeLay is still on the ballot (more Dim finagling) and DeLay just may win!

This is simply not supported by the facts. Ronnie Earle's politically motivated lawsuit is going nowhere. DeLay's most serious primary challenger acknowledged that Earle's indictment is politically motivated. The voters who voted against DeLay in the primary know that, too.

DeLay performed poorly in the primary because 40% of the Republican voters know that DeLay is up to his neck in the Abramoff scandal. Now DeLay's most serious primary challenger *did* raise the Abramoff issue.

DeLay can't win the general election, and he knows it. That why he said he resigned.

[SolidSupplySide]

I think the point is that it would be a good thing for this scandal to simmer along until election time, then erupt like an ugly zit to remind voters of what DemocRATs are really like. It would also blunt the DemocRAT charge of a Republican culture of corruption.

I agree with this assessment, but I still find it strange. If a Member of the House is corrupt, we need to get rid of them immediately. Jefferson needs to resign now. If he won't, the criminal case needs to go forward without delay.

Even though I agree with your assessment, it doesn't change my opinion. It is not a good thing for corrupt Congressmen (whether Democrat or not) to remain in the House.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"I am relying on DeLay's own statement that his candidacy was putting the TX22 seat at risk."

Put at risk does not equate to could not win.

Delay left the race, which is entirely different from his resignation in the House. The reason Delay left the race was so another Republican would have time to run and raise money.