Like you and me, only better – both sides think so
Hastert, on the FBI raiding a congressman’s office, thinks the documents should be returned and the agents involved ought to be frozen out of that (case) for the sake of the Constitution.
Separation of powers should not impede with a valid criminal investigation. Ever. It’s a weak argument and TPTB should know better. But that’s not the case:
The raid also has united Democrats and Republicans in a rare, election-year accord. But while they stand together in opposition to an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders are acting on different political agendas.
It seems the only thing that both parties holding office can agree on is that they are above the law.
May 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
TPTB?
May 24th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
The Powers That Be
May 24th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
u.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6. … They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; …
Seems to me that there are circumstances where a congressman can be arrested. And there are no prohibitions concerning searches other than those generally applicable to all citizens.
I don’t quite see where these “separation of powers” crap is coming from. Assuming the acceptance of a $100,000 bribe is a Felony, then arresting the asswipe on the floor of the House of Representatives is explicitly permitted by the Constitution. Are these idiots claiming that a search conducted with a warrant signed by a judge (2 of 3 branches concurring in the operation) is somehow a violation? WTF?
Would that mean a judge could never be searched? How about a member of the cabinet? How about requiring the President to give a deposition? How about various congressmen and senators pull their collective heads out of their collective asses. (Hey, a guy can dream.)
May 24th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Darn, Bob beat me to it. The “treason, felony and breach of the peace” clause in Article I, Section 6 was what I was going to post…and taking a $100,000 bribe sure sounds like a FELONY to me. Especially since they had Jefferson caught red-handed taking the cash on video.
I would add just one thing to Bob’s post: If “treason, felony and breach of the peace” are indeed grounds for suspending the usual Congressional perks and privileges, then, based on the observed behavior, performance and demeanor of the current Congress, the Justice Department still needs to search 534 additional Congressional and Senatorial offices.
Better get started on those search warrant applications, boys and girls…
May 24th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
These clowns believe “interstate commerce” means that they simply need to recite its existence in each bill that they pass, so why expect them to know that they are also subject to arrest for felonies, even if they are in the Capitol.
For that matter, they don’t really have too much of a grasp on “shall not be impaired.”
I wish the FBI had done a “Rodney” on him and perp walked him out of the Capitol steps.
What a bunch of gypsies.
Maybe Nagin will come visit him in the joint.
May 24th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
The bribe money itself clearly was entrapment, however does the fact that he did accept the money make the search warrant valid? I think it does, and I have no problem with this warrant.
If, however they found a sum total of more money than they managed to bribe the critter with (i.e. let’s say the freezer had half a million in foil wrapped, cool (heh), hard cash) Now that would be particularly damning.
I see no reason why he should not be subject to a properly executed search warrant, doubly so if he was subpoenaed unsuccessfully already.
Even if he had a constitutional leg to stand on, (I don’t see one) I’d be saying “we’ll pretend the Constitution applies to you as soon as you start acting like it applies to us. Now what was that about the commerce clause again? The Bill of Rights?”
May 25th, 2006 at 1:50 am
SM, you need to research the definition of entrapment. Jefferson’s situation isn’t entrapment.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:22 am
SM, you need to research the definition of entrapment. Jefferson’s situation isn’t entrapment.
Explain.
I see the cops deciding to see if the critter-in-question would accept a bribe. The cops proposed a bribe, and it was accepted. Everything was caught on tape.
If, upon searching the house, they found more cash, that would seem to show that he was in the habit of taking bribes. They didn’t, so I’m assuming that he mostly sells influence via campaign contributions. That’s legal.
Of course, the search may turn up some more dirt, but it’s not public yet.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Bingo. You’ve just explained why it was not entrapment. If an honest but weak-willed Congressman had initially refused the bribe, and the agents had repeatedly pestered him and twisted his arms until he finally broke down and went bad, that would have been entrapment. Nothing like that appears to have happened here. The Congressmen saw an opportunity to make cold, hard cash, and he happily took it.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Fair enough, I’ll wait for the video. None of us were there, and I assume it has not been released.
I assume the guilt would be far more compelling if the FBI’s undercover had been solicited by Jefferson for the cash, rather than the other way around.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:03 am
I’m not sure there is a Constitutional prohibition against it, but apparently this is the first time in our country’s history that a search warrant has been executed inside the Capitol building, according to a report I saw on a cable news channel. It’s not the first time a warrant has been executed against a sitting Congressman, just the first time a Congressman’s office in the Capitol has been searched. Whether that is merely tradition or based on a history of judicial interpretations, I’m not sure. Congress does have the authority to investigate its own members, which may be the more appropriate course of action.
Still, it’s hard to muster much sympathy for people who are perverting public policy, squandering public monies, and deriving personal gain from public office. Once again I’m left wondering how we as citizens go about dissolving the federal government and installing a new one, which the Constitution clearly allows. What is the mechanism for doing so?
May 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am
If the search was unconstitutional, doesn’t that mean every Congressman who has complied with a subpoena in the past is a sucker?
May 25th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Rope.
Tree.
Congress Critter.
Some assembly required.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/oh-so-thats-why-speaker-hastert.html
“Reuters reported tonight that Hastert himself is under investigation by the FBI, after some convicted lobbyists are pointing the finger at him. If the Supreme Court stopped the searches, that could hinder the FBI from obtaining necessary evidence from Hastert’s offices. So it’s no surprise that Hastert came to Jefferson’s defense, and not just because both parties will watch each other’s back in their mutual corruption.”
see Perry’s blog for the link