And speaking of Mr. Jefferson, here is the story everyone is talking about:
Democratic leaders sought to distance the party from Mr. Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who has been accused by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. In doing that, the leaders tried to draw a distinction between the accusations against him and what they said was a much broader pattern among Republicans of trading legislative influence for campaign donations, trips and other perks.
Mr. Jefferson appeared on Capitol Hill to deny any wrongdoing. Facing a bank of television cameras down the hall from his Congressional office, which was raided by federal agents on Saturday night, Mr. Jefferson said that he would not resign and that he expected to be cleared.
In court documents made public on Sunday, the F.B.I. said Mr. Jefferson had taken bribes to help a small technology company win federal contracts and to help it with business deals in Africa. The F.B.I. said he had concealed $90,000 from the scheme in the freezer of his home in Washington.
“There are two sides to every story,” Mr. Jefferson said, without providing any details.
For all the intense partisanship that has surrounded the wave of legal and ethical cases on Capitol Hill, the Jefferson case brought some Democrats and Republicans together on one point: that the all-night search conducted by the F.B.I. raised questions about whether the executive branch had violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by carrying out a raid on the official office of a member of Congress.
A couple of quick things about this story that are worth noting.
First, I find it difficult to compare the personal corruption of Rep. Jefferson to the systemic abuse of power as demonstrated by the DeLay/Abramoff/Reed “Axis of Crony.” Jefferson appears to be a cheat and a crook, much like the Duke, but it is not, to me, evidence that the Democratic party is suffering from a culture of corruption. It looks to me like he was taking money to fatten his pockets- not quite the same thing as the culture of corruption that the Democrats intend to run against (and I think there is more than ample evidence of widespread systemic corruption in the current GOP).
That doesn’t mean Republican strategists, spinmeisters, and their echo chambers in the blogosphere won’t be able to blur the lines effectively enough regarding that distinction. My guess is that they will.
Second, I find the outrage that some sort of separation of powers has been violated to be a little silly. It already feels like congresspersons have some sort of diplomatic immunity and can basically get away with murder in DC. I am not sure about you all, but I am pretty sure if I got loaded, rammed my car all along Pennsylvania Avenue at 3 am, and then slurred all over the Capitol Police, I would be given a chauffered ride home. My general attitude is they should be treated like the rest of us MORE OFTEN.
Third, I am afraid to search the blogosphere, because I know I will find idiotic statements like this offering from our own resident rabble-rouser:
Personally, I think it is quite reasonable that the DOJ would raid Jefferson’s office, but not the offices of DeLay, Ney, Doolittle, Pomobo, Harris, Lewis, or any of the other Republicans under investigation.
That statement, although offered in jest here (at least I think it was- it is DougJ, after all), will probably be echoed with fervent earnestness elsewhere (perhaps by the Jane Hamshers of the left?), but is just silliness. It unfairly impugns the integrity of the FBI by suggesting they are nothing more than a politically motivated hit squad, it fails to recognize the length and seriousness of the current inquiry into Jefferson’s behavior, and it fails to acknowledge the fact that they had a warrant to search his office- something, unless I am mistaken, must be signed off by the judiciary.
And that is all I have to say about that.
DougJ
Pure silliness? Fuck you. Why don’t you put up another post about Cindy Sheehan.
DougJ
Actually, before I get in a real argument here, I want to know where you’re coming from, because it’s possible I’ve been unfair recently.
Are you still glad you voted for George Bush? Would you do it again if you had to do it over? If the answer is “no”, then I’ll lay off.
Mr Furious
I wrote a somewhat sleep-deprived post on this last night [link]. The Dems really need to be loud and proud about tossing Cunningham. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s the only way to avoid the inevitable “Column A and Column B” comparison of corrupt parties.
If they can’t throw him out, they need to yank every committee assignment from him and completely isolate him within the caucus. And the party needs to back a new candidate for his seat whether he runs or not. If they cannot get rid of him now, he needs to be gone after the election.
At the very least, running a challenger at him speaks volumes about the party’s stance on corruption.
The Democrats reallly need to have a clear, consistant stance on this and good talking points to go with it. The Republicans are not going to push this issue, they still suffer in the comparison. The real press will come from the media and they need to be able to counter any attempt to broadbrush this as a bipartisan problem.
Yglesias nailed it. The Dems might have a bad apple, they have a rotten barrel.
Pb
movin’ on up…
DougJ
Just to be clear, of course the Dems should toss Jefferson. But the DOJ should be raiding the offices of Doolittle, Pomobo, Ney, Harris, and Lewis as well. It’s that simple.
Let’s take a look at what’s happening with the Abramoff investigation: (1) no raids of Congressional offices, (2) the whole investigation being overseen by controversial Bush appointee Alice Fisher, and (3) the lead prosecutor has been taken off the case (by being given a judgeship).
Are those signs of a serous investigation?
I’m playing Devil’s Advocate a little bit here, but those are the facts. What do you make of them?
carpeicthus
Jefferson should be tossed over the side; corruption is corruption, and I don’t see any way this guy’s innocent.
That said, why would you completely write off that there would be any pressure to use executive forces for political ends? Isn’t part of the many DeLay scandals that he did just that–to an extreme, obvious degree–with the DHS?
Pb
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck… But seriously, who orders these investigations, and why haven’t any Republicans been raided? Perhaps because if they were, there’d be hell to pay, and someone would get fired? Do we have any evidence that the FBI *isn’t* being used as a politically motivated hit squad here?
John Cole
Has she done or said anything as stupid as you have recently? If so, give me the link.
And considering 99% of what you write is pure silliness, to the extent that we call writing silly provocative statements to inflame commentary ‘Dougj-ing’ a comments section, you are on particularly shaky ground here with your faux outrage.
Not sure what the hell this has to do with your assertion that the FBI chose only to raid Jefferson because he is a Democrat, something you have offered no evidence of and something that is a pretty nasty charge, but the answer to your question is “No.” I am unsatisfied with Bush’s performance, I am disgusted with the current crop of Republicans, and the only thing that is keeping me from voting straight ticket for Democrats is that you all keep offering up condescending asshats like John Kerry.
I have answered your questions. Now how about some evidence that the FBI chose only to raid Jefferson because he is a Democrat?
Krista
I think that’s a pretty safe guess, John. You have to wonder about Democratic strategists, spinmeisters, etc. What the hell is wrong with them, that they’re letting the Repubs constantly control the message? Have they all had lobotomies? Where were they in 2004? I know that some would say that the Dems shouldn’t lower themselves to the dirty tactics of the Repubs, but they’re going to have to start going for blood (figuratively).
DougJ
I’ll give two facts here about the raid:
(1) It was unprecedented. The DOJ has never raided Congressional offices before.
(2) There are about ten Republicans in Congress who are under some sort of investigation. None of them had their offices raided.
Look, if they go ahead and indict Bob Ney, Dusty Foggo, and two or three of the others (take your pick among Harris, Doolittle, Pomobo, DeLay, Lewis, and any others I’m forgetting), I will admit that everything’s on the up-and-up and that I was wrong. I’ll apologize to you and to Albert Gonzales, personally. I’ll go into one of those White House chats and see if I can get my apology through to Alberto. I promise.
Until then, color me suspicious.
Mr Furious
“We might have a bad apple, they have a rotten barrel.” Period.
Is that too fucking complex for those shitheads? Do they need to “boil that up” to a ten-point statement?
Idiots.
DougJ
And, John, I promise no more cheap shot jokes from me about your supporting Bush. I’ll show a little more respect from now on.
Blue Neposnet
They have been busy getting the President’s poll numbers to fall into Nixon territory. I think they are doing a decent job. It could be better of course, but they have effectively derailed the Republican juggernaught and are now in a good position to win back the House in November.
Re: Jefferson
I don’t believe it matters if the Repubs paint their corruption as bipartisan because it will just inflame the anti-incumbant feelings among the swing voters and that will hurt the Repubs more than the Dems.
Mr Furious
Also about the raid…
Much of the outrage is from the Republicans! Not fellow Dems loooking to cover Jefferson.
Is this a warning shot to keep the same tool from being used on them?
Steve
The simplest answer I can give is that to get a search warrant, you need probable cause to believe you will find evidence of a crime. Jefferson, according to reports, is a guy who kept large wads of bribe money stashed in his freezer and elsewhere, and it’s fair game to go searching for evidence of a crime. It’s not just like “oh, we have a dirty congressman, let’s go rummage through his office to see what we find.”
As John says, the Abramoff scandal is more systematic and simply different in nature. I find it easy to believe that there wouldn’t be probable cause to go searching through, say, Doolittle’s office for evidence that he took a bribe from Jack Abramoff, unless there’s reason to believe Abramoff gave him a big envelope of cash and it’s still sitting around.
Incidentally, I believe the feds did raid Duke Cunningham’s home, and also the home and office of Dusty Foggo.
Al Maviva
I’m pretty sure it’s a partisan hit job. I suspect the FBI has enough leads on Congressional corruption that they can cherry pick cases, and probably don’t even bother unless the Member makes the mistake of high profile abuse of power, or otherwise does something that could upset the status quo.
Davebo
Seems Hastart, Frist, and even Newt are shitting their pants at the prospect of the FBI raiding congressional offices.
As well they should. But why Newt?
ppGaz
Jefferson must go. That interview yesterday (at an airport, I think) was one of the most embarassing gaffe-a-thons I have ever seen. The man should have been required to turn in his badge and keys right there on the spot.
If he isn’t guilty as sin, he is certainly doing a good imitation of somebody who is.
DougJ
But not Cunningham’s congressional office.
Steve
Like I said, it has more to do with whether you have probable cause to think evidence of a crime will be found in the congressional office, than it does to do with some kind of FBI office policy that they’re going to raid everyone’s office to be fair.
Dennis Hastert may start clutching his pearls at the thought of congressional offices being raided, but if it were all about partisan points, I don’t think the public really cares a lot whether it’s the home or the office or whatever being raided. A raid by the feds is a big deal, period. If people retain anything about this story, it will be the fact that tons of cash was found in the guy’s freezer, not the fact that the feds had the audacity to enter his congressional office.
Mr Furious
Yup. People who watch any of the thirty hours of Law and Order on every week will have no real objection to somebody’s office being searched… Stacks of foil-wrapped cash in the freezer, however? That’s an image to latch onto.
I’m with John on this one. Congressmen do NOT have diplomatic immunity. If they are committing crimes in their office, they should be prepared for a knock (or bash) at the door. Jsut like anybody else. I suspect there is a higher hreshold for doting “i” on the warrant, but that’s about it.
Mr Furious
Apparently there’s an extremely low threshold for my own spelling and grammar. Good thing I don’t type up warrants…
CDB
They couldn’t wait till congress was no longer in session? Yes they should have raided his office, after his job was done. It deprives the people in his district of representation.
DougJ
Then raid the fucking offices of the Republicans who are under suspicion too.
My prediction: at most one more indictment of a Congressman in the Abramoff and DeLay scandals (may not be able to avoid nailing Ney) before November. Then a bunch more after November. And don’t expect the press to question the timing.
DougJ
Unless they’re Republicans. Then they seem to.
ppGaz
Furious, “me too”.
And as for the issue of whether Jefferson’s case is getting different handling than some Republican’s case …
IMO, life and politics are hardball. If the GOP has the moxie to embarass Dems with Jefferson then so be it. The proper response is not to whine about it, but to play hardball in return. Give the bonesmokers no quarter.
Slide into second with spikes in the air and try to take out their second baseman. That’s how the game is played, so play it. Fuck the opposition, and stop whining when they spike YOU going into second. Sharpen up the spikes, and let’s play.
ET
Then there is this absurd comment:
“As bad as people want to say the Abramoff situation was, it didn’t lead to any House offices getting raided,” said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
FBI Raid on Lawmaker’s Office Is Questioned; Democrat Jefferson Denies Wrongdoing; Washington Post. May 23, 2006. pg. A.01
DougJ
How? We don’t control the DOJ.
All we can do is make noise that we need to see signs that Abramoff and Cunningham investigations are being taken seriously by the DOJ too. What else can we do?
Andrew
Well, Frist will say that we have to respect the judicial process and that intervening in the investigation and pending court cases would be undue politicization.
Perry Como
One word: precedent. It is highly unusual for the FBI to do something like this. The Executive using this kind of power is dangerous in the eyes of Congresscritters. Imagine a President Hillary ordering the FBI to raid the top Republican’s office in the House. They have reason to be worried about the precedent it sets.
Also, I’m not sure about the details surrounding the raids, but the Republicans could just be (rightfully) pissed that the Congressional leadership wasn’t made aware of the raid. You are talking about two coequal branches of government and it’s a bit rude if you don’t give the other guys a heads up.
DougJ
And don’t expect anyone to question the narrow “victories” Blackwell, Dewine, and the rest eke out on those Diebold machines in Ohio either.
Edmund Dantes
It’s funny to see them actually concerned about separation of powers when it affects them directly, but where were they for say the past 5 years. Did they miss that whole unitary executive thing?
ppGaz
That’s a whine.
You take whatever opportunities you get, and you use them to the max. You shove every sharp stick you can find up the poopchute of your opponent.
Pooh
In principle, I’m with John here, there’s nothing special about a Congressional office if you have PC that evidence exists therein, and if he’s stupid enoigh to keep stacks of blood money in his congressional office…BUT, Doug’s point is a good one in that this gives the plausible appearance of a bipartisan culture of corruption where none exists.
Plus, I’m not sure which of the statements are more instantly risible…Newt’s is pretty good:
Except of course for the whole torturing, renditioning, wiretapping, signing-statementing, data-mining, and Padilla-ing the justice system things of course.
And Forti’s is question-beggingly bad:
Kimmitt
My sincere hope is that the next Dem to hold the Presidency does not wimp out. He’s been given a lot of power, and it really is time to clean house.
Of course, with Diebold and the traditional media in the tank, there’s a case to be made that there won’t be a Dem in the White House for a very long time…
Al Maviva
Don’t worry, Furious. Spelling errors are considered de minimis errors and usually held harmless – important typos such as an error in the address of the location searched are the exception. And there’s even a good faith exception to that, sometimes.
Admittedly it is worse on the Republican side because they have the power right now, but you make a fatal error in the argument if you assume that Dem members have no power, therefore there can be no corruption. The minority doesn’t control the agenda, and generally can’t move major policy issues in opposition to the majority, but the business of government isn’t one or two big ticket items alone. Rather there are thousands of little transactions that occur on a constant basis. As long as there is no major Administration or Cong. Republican dog in a particular fight, any Member of either party can move a debate substantially in the direction they desire, either via ordinary contacts with executive branch staff and appointees (testimony, correspondence, informal consultation), or if that fails through threats of obstructionism. Assuming that there is no Administration or Rep. leadership dog in the African telecom fight, it’s plausible that Rep. Jefferson believed he had the means to deliver on his alleged promises to influence the outcome of the debate, just as many members can plausibly believe they have the power to get a couple things fixed in their district. Y’all on the left need to understand the Dems aren’t as powerless as you make out, they get a lot done, especially when they focus on the wonkish detail stuff, and quit trying to put on a Kos-pleasing show for the cameras. Because they do have this power, they too are susceptible to corruption, albeit not to the same extent as the Republicans are.
Sherard
No doubt. As long as the corruption involves a Democrat, Tim can’t see anything other than an anomoly. If Republicans are involved, well then CLEARLY it is an “axis of crony”. Because we all know there has never been corruption before this administration and even if there had been, it was just individuals going bad. Not like these EVIL bushco people, they’re rotten to the core, because, well, Tim SAYS SO. Glad to know the burden of proof is so damn high.
tBone
Sherard, does the word “byline” mean anything to you?
The Other Steve
This one is kind of bizarre. The guy has $90k in his freezer and tape of him taking it in the first place and is claiming he’s innocent? Is the guy mentally sound?
On the other hand, what I find kind of disturbing is the MSM’s response.
– The claim of equivalency that Jefferson taking $100k and then apparently not being able to do anything in terms of laws is somehow equivalent to Duke Cuningham taking $2.4 million and pushing millions in defense contracts to his buddies.
– The actual fact that they’re spending more time talking about Jefferson than they did Cuningham
This just seems to me further evidence that the MSM can’t be trusted.
Sherard
Oh my, I should have read further still….
Democrats being bad = bad apples
Republicans being bad = culture of corruption
You can’t make up that kind of hilarity. LOL!!!!
It’s almost like Tim is mocking himself here. As if there were no “Democratic spinmeisters” posting on this very site!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
The Other Steve
Pretty certain I see John Cole’s name attached to this, not Tim F.
Mr Furious
And Sherard, the apples thing was me. Just my proposed talking point for the Dems. Though, IMO it’s pretty apt…
Perry Como
If the person isn’t 100% behind the Republican Party they deserve to be mocked.
Steve
You wonder if some people truly don’t understand the interlocking nature of the Republican political machine or if they simply enjoy acting wilfully ignorant.
The Other Steve
Actually, I kind of see this as a positive development, as Cole notes.
It appears to me that what has happened, and I think this was planned by Pelosi and Reid, is that by shutting down the Ethics Committees these issues went away from partisan spin and started becoming criminal investigations.
I am still curious why they raided Jefferson’s office and not Cuningham, given the Duke’s crimes were far greater. They raided Duke’s home. Hell they confiscated it and put it on the auction block.
Duke didn’t cooperate at first either, he went for months trying to come up with excuses.
John S.
Sherard must be a spoof if he believes:
Democrat being bad = culture of corruption
Numerous Republicans being bad = liberal bias
You have to make up that kind of stupidity.
ppGaz
We’ll find out when we examine the reports, the evidence, and the text of the warrants.
Darrell and his crack staff are working on those now.
Pooh
Re: The office, the more I think about it, considering what we know about Jefferson, it’s entirely possible that he’s the only one stupid enough to keep the dirty money at the office, and maybe the Dukestir at least had the decency to hide it underneath a floorboard in garage rather than taped to the bottom of his official desk next to the shotgun used to repel intruders.
Yes, I have watched way too many noir films…
Edmund Dantes
If I remember correctly, Duke was stupid enough to have an official bribe menu written up on his Congressional Stationery. So it does kind of lead one to wonder why his office wasn’t raided.
I don’t mind Jefferson’s being raided. I’m all for throwing out the corrupt. Everything so far is showing this guy to be pretty damn guilty. Get rid of him.
The Other Steve
He was also selling souviners with the Congressional Logo on them. Bowie knives for $500, that sort of thing.
I agree, I just think it’s fascinating how the media is trying to pump this up as some sort of massive Democratic scandal, while ignoring the Cuningham stuff.
DougJ
John, I take it all back, anything bad I ever said mocking you for the Sheehan fixation.
Volokh has had three fucking posts about the Slate “Bushism of the Day” in the past two days.
DougJ
In fairness, it was also posted, beside the drinks specials, outside of Signatures.
Angry Engineer
Perhaps the FBI had sufficient knowledge in each case to specifically target the location where the evidence was located, and didn’t think that Cunningham was hiding anything in his office? I don’t know the answer to that – it’s just a guess.
Sure seems that way – I think a few cockroaches feel as if they’ve been exposed to light. I have to say that I’m a bit surprised by who’s decided to speak up in this case – Hassert and Frist are normally the guys I’d expect to make hay, instead of taking a (pseudo-) principled stand.
Angry Engineer
If that indeed is the case, then yeah, I’d have to say that it’s more than just a minor curiousity as to why his office wasn’t raided.
Steve
It’s hard to believe no one has yet alleged Jefferson was targeted for “bribing while black.”
demimondian
I read that phrase, and wondered why you felt the need to drag drug use in. I mean, we already know what you think of Darrell.
I think I’ve been working too hard…
skip
Congressional immunity is like professorial tenure. You think it is a ridiculous perq inviting abuse—until you spend a little time dwelling on the implications of its absence.
This is the Jesuitical positing of the lesser evil. It come up again and again, over time, but I have yet to see a way around it.
t. jasper parnell
This is absolutely correct.
Angus
The Congress has a statutory police force (Capitol police) in which it has vested exclusive jurisdiction over Congressional buildings and grounds. The FBI has no jurisdiction to carry out searches and seizures unless it gets Congressional approval.
It’s the equivalent of New York police conducting a raid and search in Chicago without even telling anyone in Illinois.
Would it be OK for Congress to send the Capitol police to rummage around through the White House and the Pentagon?
Steve
Could you possibly provide a statutory cite for the claim of exclusive jurisdiction? This surprises me a bit.
Perry Como
Interesting. Found this:
fas.org/irp/gao/ggd96154.htm
And Title 18 is pretty broad (heh). Still digging for the statutory cite. How would jurisdictional overlap work in something like this? If the Capitol Building is the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police, is the FBI required to inform the Capitol Police of a raid or is that merely a courtesy?
Surprised no one has covered this on Volokh. Guess the Bushisms are too important.
Steve
I looked through the statute establishing the Capitol Police and defining their jurisdiction, and I did find some laws establishing the division of power between them and the D.C. Metropolitan Police, but nothing that could be read as a limitation on the FBI’s jurisdiction. It’s entirely possible it’s stashed somewhere else in the U.S. Code, but yeah, Bushisms.
Angus
That language about exclusive jurisdiction comes from Wikipedia, which provides no citation.
The Metropolitan police general orders say:
lefande.com/MPDGOs/310.01.htm
“1. The Capitol Police have exclusive charge and control for policing the U.S. Capitol Buildings and Grounds under the direction of the Capitol Police Board, which consists of the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol.”
This statute seems to imply the same (see the section on assistance from other authorities), though not as explicitly.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_29.html
I also found this, (halfway down the page):
JURISDICTION OF THE CAPITOL POLICE BOARD AND THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Pub. L. 96-432, Sec. 3, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1852, provided that: “On and after the effective date of this section [see Pub. L. 96-432, Sec. 4, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1853], that portion of C Street Northeast from the west curb of Second Street Northeast to the east curb of First Street Northeast shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Capitol Police Board and the Architect of the Capitol in the same manner and to the same extent as such Board or the Architect of the Capitol has over other streets comprising the United States Capitol Grounds, and the Architect of the Capitol shall be responsible for the maintenance and improvement thereof.”
uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C29.txt
Broken
It hasn’t been the Dems getting Bush’s poll numbers in Nixon territory. Bush did that all by his lonesome. Despite a Bush-friendly media.
Broken
I don’t have much problem with the FBI raiding Jeffereson’s office. I do wonder why Delay, Noe, Cunningham, etc, didn’t get the same treatment.
Perry Como
Okay, just saw this and it is starting to make sense:
A Congresscritter’s office is used for official business. So having Executive branch officers rifling through that Congresscritter’s office may violate the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution (there’s case law on it too). I guess it really depends on what they are looking for, but I can see why all the Congresscritters are getting nervous. 200 years of precedent are now being tossed aside against another branch.
Orin Kerr posted a teaser here.
The Other Steve
Isn’t Darrell supposed to say that?
Steve
Unlikely. Only one hit.
skip
“Now how about some evidence that the FBI chose only to raid Jefferson because he is a Democrat?”
The only way to REALLY reassure people is to fordbid raiding Congressional offices altogether. Damn, I wish the founding fathers had thought of that. They could have called it something like “separation of powers.”
KCinDC
I’m sorry it annoys John, but I too wonder why the only member of Congress selected for this FBI raid of a congressional office — something never seen before in the entire history of Congress — happened to be the one Democrat out of the pack of members being investigated. Moreover, he’s the only one videotaped in his illegal actions — something that will no doubt greatly increase the TV coverage of his case.
It’s difficult for me to believe that it’s just a coincidence that things are working out so well for those who would like to have Jefferson’s case get ten times the coverage of any Republican cases, so that they can claim the “bipartisan” corruption balances out.
That said, obviously Jefferson needs to go, immediately.
KCinDC
As for impugning the integrity of the FBI, I’ll start worrying about that whenever they decide to change the name of their building.