Posted on 04/03/2007 4:40:28 AM PDT by Ellesu
Pelosi and some other Democrats silent in fight against FBI raid:
Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., the target of a two-year public-corruption investigation, is finding himself with strange bedfellows.
Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., a former House speaker; Robert Michel, R-Ill., a former House minority leader; and Scott Palmer, the former chief of staff for Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., are among those who have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, backing Jefferson's argument that the FBI raid on his office last May was unconstitutional.
"These former leaders of the House had concerns about the integrity and independence of the institution, and therefore, they decided to file this joint brief," said attorney James Hamilton, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Gingrich and Michel, as well as former House speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash.
Jefferson's Democratic colleagues, most notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, have been conspicuously quiet as the constitutional fight over the FBI raid continues.
Jefferson has denied wrongdoing and late last year was elected to a ninth term. He overcame a barrage of negative publicity after allegations that he used his official position to promote business ventures in Africa in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. Court records show that the FBI found $90,000 in his freezer. Two of his business associates are serving prison terms after pleading guilty to bribing him.
Jefferson has not been charged with a crime. On May 20, more than 10 FBI agents raided Jefferson's offices in the Rayburn House Office Building. The raid provoked a constitutional confrontation that led President Bush to step in and order the FBI not to look at any of the documents seized so that the Justice Department and legislators would have more time to negotiate a compromise.
Federal prosecutors filed briefs Friday urging the appeals court to uphold the constitutionality of the search. U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ruled in July that the FBI had "demonstrated a compelling need to conduct the search," and the appeals court will hear oral arguments May 15 on the matter.
In the initial days after last year's raid, Pelosi and then-Speaker Hastert expressed anger over the raid and argued that members' legislative records were protected from seizure by law enforcement under the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution.
Polls later showed that the public was overwhelmingly critical of Congress for opposing the FBI search, dismissing legislators' arguments about separation of powers.
Pelosi decided not to file briefs at the appeals court after House Republicans refused to join her.
Nadeam Elshami, the speaker's spokeswoman, said that Pelosi still believes that "there must be clear guidelines that allow criminal investigations to proceed while also assuring that Constitutional guarantees of separation of powers are maintained."
But, Elshami said, "the bipartisan House leadership did not reach agreement on specifics of an appeal in this case."
Brian Kennedy, the spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "We declined to sign the brief for a host of reasons." He would not elaborate.
Robert Trout, Jefferson's attorney, said he welcomed the briefs that have been offered on his client's behalf.
"Members of Congress, whether they're liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, understand the importance of this issue in the proper functioning of Congress as a separate, co-equal branch of government," he said.
The legal battle over the raid has slowed the investigation. The appeals court ruled last July that the FBI could not start reviewing seized documents until Jefferson had a chance to challenge them. Jefferson has chosen not to challenge about half of the seized paper records and about 60 percent of the electronic records, according to court documents, and most of the unchallenged records have been turned over to the FBI.
OK, all the Newt for President guys stand up and wave now!! Now we don’t have to wonder why we don’t like or trust him anymore, do we. He never knows when to shut up. Never. He is that smart ass kid in the front row in grade school with his hand always up and waving. He’s the one who always has one more question. It is always about him and about his being right - and righter than everyone else. He is an unprincipled, smirking, limelight seeking %$*&%#^@*.
In my opinion taking lobby money is bribe money. How many congress persons are guilty of that?
Hannity of course will have Newt on sometime his week to put his spin on this one.
I agree with previous posters that these “friendly Republicans” are trying to protect something stored in their own freezers.
I don’t agree with you. All the FBI had to do was get the Capitol police to do the search; they could have accompanied them. I think it was a grave error in judgment. Whether it’s constitutional or not will be decided in the Court of Appeals or, ultimately, the SCOTUS.
Do you want the precedent on the books that the executive branch can raid Capitol offices — when Hillary becomes president?
The clash between the legislature and the executive is independent of that between parties, and at least to some conservatives, the principle of separation of powers is more important than any one member, even if he appears to be as guilty as handmade sin.
As far as Jefferson goes, I don’t know why he hasn’t been dragged in front of a judge, but that’s up to the Justice Department, not either party in Congress. Congress could kick him out, but I can’t think of a case of Congress expelling a member who hadn’t either been convicted of a crime or seceded from the Union.
well, newt just lost my support....Thompson/Delay in ‘08
It's all about integrity, and they're fighting for the right for corrupt politicians to hide documents in their offices....
Even if he did something wrong, it's because of racist attitudes and therefore he should not be held accountable.
Newt is not defending Jefferson, he is defending Congress.
To sharpen that a little, he is making the courts judge the issue of Executive enforcement of the law with evidence obtained by means that are beyond constitutional bounds.
Keep in mind Newt is a historian. In the overall scheme of things, the history of the Republic, he has determined this is an issue that deserves scrutiny.
Randy Cunningham was stupid. He could have changed over to Democrat and he would still be in Congress taking bribes today.
Scratch another one.
Why not, the whole cotton pickin bunch of em are crooks.
That old adage “Politicians make deranged bed fellows” is proving it’s self to be factual.
That is the boiled-down argument of Jefferson and his Republican lackeys.
Pubbies want to know why we no longer support them, look no further than this outrageous act!
You got it. They're afraid the same thing might happen to them. IOW, what are they hiding?
Carolyn
From FreedomPoster: Actually, from a strict conservative Constitutionalist standpoint, Newt may well have it right. There’s a real issue with separation of powers here.
If 2 of the branches agree that the 3rd branch can be searched, then it's still unconstitutional? That doesn't make sense, unless the legislative branch was not meant to have any check or balances against it at all. (Not that they accept that, anyway)
Separation of powers, with the inter-branch checks and balances set in place by the constitution, does not mean that congress gets a free pass.
But, then, CONgress does often appear to be the opposite of PROgress, doesn't it?
OK, all rhetoric aside, what is the course of action that should have been taken? If the FBI can’t investigate/enforce/search a congressman’s office, who investigates the congressmen?
Seriously? Who is the designated LEO who investigates congressmen?
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.