Stupid-AssCrats……………Lots of Baggage!
Posted on 08/03/2007 3:34:45 PM PDT by Revel
WASHINGTON — The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case.
Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ginsberg was appointed to the Supreme Court by Reagan, but withdrew after a college buddy told the press that he had smoked pot decades in the past.
Sorry. I even put “William Jefferson” in the search engine and your article did not come up. It is hard sometimes to know what to search for with the various different possibilities in article titles.
I didn’t mean to seem like I was saying that this was already posted, but it included some analysis of the misleading reporting.
I don’t think there is much to this. Jefferson stole 90k and it was in his freezer. How he voted on a bill is irrelevant and shouldn’t be part of a search.
Of course if they found the 90k in his office, now that is a whole different story.
It sure didn’t take them this long to put Cunningham in prison. I guess they are afraid that the “media” will label them as racist bigots if they don’t play with kid gloves with Jefferson (DEMOCRAT! LOUISIANA!).
Interesting...
But does nothing to stop the process of bringing charges based upon the cash found in his home. It may take away some evidence that may have been in his office that would support the charges....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0501_ZS.html
Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V) to hear the appeal, since the District Court’s order was based upon its determination of the constitutional invalidity of 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g) on the facts as alleged in the indictment. Pp. 50507.
2. The prosecution of appellee is not prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. Although that provision protects Members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 185, it does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process. Since, in this case, prosecution of the bribery charges does not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation, the District Court erred in holding that the Speech or Debate Clause required dismissal of the indictment. Pp. 507-529.
Reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which DOUGLAS J., joined, post, p. 529. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., joined, post, p. 551. [p502]
Are you kidding? I once shorted the Feds $77.85 on a tax return, and they reacted with a telephone call from some government hack with a punitive tone, then a threat letter etc. You'd think I just attempted to overthrow the government. It was really funny when I laughed in this guys face over the telephone, as he became more threatening.
And they have this guy on video tape taking bribes from foreigners, find $90,000 in his freezer two years ago? And he's free today?
Obviously this guy has even more evidence of corruption on others in D.C.
He is a free man because he has not stood trial yet, or has that basic Constitutional right been waived in his case??
We may not like the pace, but we must follow the law.
I know it's hard for the royalists and fascists in FR to get it through their heads on this one but the President does not own Congress!
Whether or not it’s a victory for Jefferson, it’s a mortal blow to the careers of the FBI agents who concocted this BS.
Oh...Who's payroll are they on?
Now I know it takes a lot of words to get that idea across to some, but all it would have taken is for the FBI to have convinced Hastert that a raid should be made and he'd approved it.
He's the Constitutional officer in charge of the House of Representatives, and he takes care of the housekeeping, and answers the doors too.
I'd encourage anyone who still have qualms to take their complaint to the Nancy woman ~ see what she says.
Not the Presidents Fur Shur.
Someday I'd suggest you take a stroll through our Constitution. Check out the part about the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch.
Note who's on first, who's on second, who gets to be Commander in Chief.
Now, read closely about the parts concerning who does what to whom.
Then get back to me.
This title is very misleading. The Court did not rule that the search was unconstitutional - only that they were not allowed to search his sensitive legislative papers.
The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.
Naturally, the AP headline is a fraud.
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.