ABC has a new poll up, and 86% of the country has more common sense than most of our congressional leadership:
In the rift between Congress and the Justice Department, Americans side overwhelmingly with law enforcement: Regardless of precedent and the separation of powers, 86 percent say the FBI should be allowed to search a Congress member’s office if it has a warrant.
That view is broadly bipartisan, this ABC News poll finds, ranging from 78 percent among Democrats to 94 percent of Republicans.
The issue erupted last week, after the FBI searched the offices of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., in a corruption investigation. Congress leaders objected, and George W. Bush put a 45-day hold on the seized documents to allow for negotiations.
William Jefferson- a uniter, not a divider.
chefrad
All this proves is that the public doesn’t understand the issue. The founding fathers inserted 1;6 for Congress alone for very specific reasons. They had seen how individual members of Parliament had been intimidated by Royal probes. WIthout this protection, there is a huge imbalance in the branches of government. Abuses of immunity were foreseen yet conisdered well worth the price.
Suppose Clinton had authorized the FBI to search the offices of the House impeachment managers?
Mean Gene
I do have one quibble with the FBI search of Jefferson’s office, if my concern can be called a “quibble”. OK, they have him on videotape accepting a bribe, they recovered money from his freezer that has the same serial numbers as cash he was given in that bribe. So, why do they need to seize all those documents and computer hard-drives? OK, I can see them searching the office fridge, freezer, coffee-maker and under the sofa cushions for more cash (nobody uses safe-deposit boxes anymore?). But why grab 45 boxes of documents and the hard drives? Do they think Jefferson was so stupid as to leave written records of his bribery transactions (I know, I know, don’t answer that question) or did they just grab everything they could think of so they could turn it upside down, give it all a good shake, and see what else fell out?
I guess my concern about this is that an already supine Congress could be frightened into…well, even greater supineness. An FBI raid on your office, even if its a fishing expedition that goes nowhere, is NOT going to help your re-election campaign. One can imagine a recalcitrant House member who refuses to come around to the Bush Administration’s way of thinking about a vote, returning to his/her office to find, standing in the hallway, a dozen guys in windbreakers with “FBI” stenciled on the back putting on latex gloves and taking practice swings with a battering ram. A bit over-the-top, perhaps, a bit cinemtatic, but these days, only perhaps.
Christie S.
I wasn’t aware that diplomats and elected officials could claim diplomatic immunity in their home countries. /snark
I don’t know about all the brouhaha and details about this case, but one thing I do have an opinion on: if the authorities get a warrant, they can search.
The FBI had a warrant, therefore they had the legal standing to search the premises. ::shrug:: That’s the way the law works in this country. Or, notwithstanding current “Administrative” directives, it should work.
demimondian
I don’t have a problem with a search with a warrant, but I absolutely want double-blind/court-review to apply to any material impounded during such a search.
Christie S.
Demimondian, I have absolutely no quarrel with that, either.
Steve
Ok, suppose he had? He still needs a warrant.
Yes, it’s theoretically possible for the judiciary and the executive to conspire to intimidate the legislature, blah blah blah, but it hasn’t happened in the 200+ years of the Republic which leaves me quite comfortable relying upon the warrant requirement.
Bob In Pacifica
It’s my understanding that the FBI refused to have anyone from the capitol police present when they conducted the search.
As others have mentioned, it seems like they already had Jefferson dead to rights. Why muddle the issue with a constitutionally questionable search?
And when will ABC run that poll about impeaching Bush?
Sazei
The NSA issue for Americans may have been a result of someone, like, say CIA, using NSA assets. So, if they did so and found it was congressmen, the answer may be to make sure americans agree that it is okay. It is definitely okay at DIA who has hired the CIA analysts who may already have had access to Americans’ records.
Americans have agreed outside use of NSA assets by other agencies is okay and so has Congress. DIA hired the CIA analysts that had the access, so it’s sure Americans are okay with all the access.
Perry Como
I’m surprised that people don’t understand the precedent this sets. The Executive branch hasn’t done this in the 200+ years since this country’s founding. Why is that? Has there never been Congressional corruption before?
The Other Steve
With two corrections.
The FBI hasn’t been around for 200 years, that is only in the past 80 years or so have we had a federal investigative force.
It wasn’t the Executive Branch working alone. They had a warrant. You get a warrant by talking to the Judicial Branch.
MN
It’s my understanding that the FBI refused to have anyone from the capitol police present when they conducted the search.
As others have mentioned, it seems like they already had Jefferson dead to rights. Why muddle the issue with a constitutionally questionable search?
The FBI also wouldn’t allow House counsel to be present for the search or Jefferson’s lawyer to be present for the search.
The FBI claims that they have Jefferson on tape AND the $90k in cash found in his home last August. If they have Jefferson so “dead to rights” as they say, what’s the delay in charging him? Article 1:6 lays out clearly that a House member won’t enjoy the protection if charged with a felony. That is clearly why the warrant appears to be illegal.
What we have here with this Bush administration is one middle finger after another to the country and to the Constitution. A warrant is only as good as the judges who are signing them. Bush has been nominating Republican party flaks, big donors with no training or experience to posts inside the government. He’s put his “Pioneers” and “Rangers” into the judiciary, into ambassadorships, into the State Dept. as deputy and Under Secretaries, the DoD, even a 24 year-old with NO WORK EXPERIENCE other than running a Good Humor truck one summer into Iraq to set up the Iraq Stock Exchange — There is a reason why the world and the country are in such disarray.
Do you know where the documents that were taken in the 18-hour raid on Jefferson’s office have been stowed for “safekeeping”? In the Solicitor General’s office. Because Bush (Cheney is really running things) has put forth the most original of positions: The Solicitor General is invulnerable to/above the law – can’t be subpoenaed, etc. Kind of like the Twilight Zone of U.S. Government.
These nonsensical ideas must be borne out of blow and booze, because they have no foundation in fact. After watching these Republican clowns in the White House for six years, there’s a pattern, “shock and awe” for the “stall” value.
Bush has got to go. And Democrats have got to get off their asses, stop cooperating and start blocking everything that these Republicans are doing. From nominations to legislation. And voters have got to learn the difference between a DLC democrat (democrats who moved to the right, far right, aren’t even centrists, like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Hillary Clinton, every Democrat who appears on Fox) and the democratic base, which also happens to share the same values as most people in America – liberals!
Pooh
Red herring, to a degree. I seriously doubt that Bush was involved in this in any way. That said:
yerp. Worth noting that from the info that has dribbled out, searching the office was something of a last resort (wasn’t there an item that he interfered with the search of his home?) so any ‘impasse’ is more Jefferson’s fault than the Feeb’s.
tzs
Cash in the freezer?!
Whatever happened to Swiss bank accounts?
Marcus Wellby
The big bucks are stashed away in some secret account I would imagine. The cash in the freezer was probably the “petty cash”.
Faux News
I keep opening my freezer hoping to find $90K and I all find are some horrible fish sticks.
Just as the former Governor of CT, John Rowland (R), said:
“I have no idea where the (free) outdoor jacuzzi came from. I came home one day and there it was in the backyard” (of his summer cottage). He recently just got out of Federal prison.
No money in the freezer, no jacuzzi in the backyard for me. Life just ain’t fair.
ET
I don’t really have a problem with the FBI siezing papers of a congressman during an ongoing investigation per se. Unfortunately, I don’t know if I trust the FBI, especially right now. This is an agency that does not exactly have a good history of steering clear of political/personal bias.
I know Jefferson is likely guilty of whatever crimes they are investigating him for and likely guilty of others they aren’t – heck there has been talk about him when he as on the state legislature. I am just uncomfortable with the placement of this new goalpost. I do so hate being paranoid and questioning the motives/actions of federal law enforcement as a whole – especially since I am sure most agents are dedicated professionals, but between politics, careerism, and brownnosing this leaves me wondering.
Brian
Not going to happen. Sorry. Gore won’t get installed in the WH, nor will Kos or Feingold, so you’ll have to get even angrier over the next 2.5 years.
Cheers!
Faux News
Not bad Brian, but I much more prefer when you tell the Lihbrulz on BJ to “suck a donkey dick”.
Mr Furious
Was that backed up by the poll that showed more Americans could name every Simpson than could name articles of the Bill of Rights? Or that more Americans voted for Taylor Hicks than anty President?
I think the search was valid, but the FBI could have handled it better. But this is hardly cut and dried and as simple as “Congress is no better than the rest of us”
Perry Como
While you get to watch nannystatism grow and the federal debt hit $10 trillion! Congrats on your Republican government.
Pb
The Other Steve,
To continue on with the corrections…
Aha–so we didn’t need that for 120 years! Still, the Constitutional issue remains the same, and just as old, and inviolate–until now.
Not always. :(
Paul Wartenberg
That depends. Were the House impeachment managers committing acts of bribery?
We’re talking about a legitimate warrant that was issued as part of an investigation into a well-documented bribery case. If it were a businessman being investigated like this, his office would be searched. If it were a librarian charged with crimes related to his work, his office would be searched. If it were a contractor taking kickbacks, his office would be searched.
The only complaints should be 1) if there had been no warrant signed off on this, 2) there was direct evidence that the White House is pursuing this matter in a vindictive way. Neither point is the case here: there was a warrant (so go yell at the judge eh); the warrant was gotten by the investigators and there is no evidence they were encouraged to do so from the Oval Office.
Paul Wartenberg
There has. ABSCAM, anyone? I think this was the first time where the suspect (Jefferson) had refused subponeas to voluntarily give up related documents and materials to the case. All previous corruption probes had the suspects agree to submit to the subponeas. Because Jefferson refused, the FBI had no choice but to go ask for a warrant. They may well have known that searching a Congressperson’s office would unleash a firestorm of protest, but they apparantly need more evidence to confirm a conviction. While it looks like there’s a lot of evidence already gathered to nail the guy, a good prosecution requires as much evidence gathered to 1) ensure there are no loopholes, gaps, or basis of alibis, and 2) make sure all criminal activities are documented and the perp(s) duly punished.
Paul Wartenberg
Jefferson wanted to see if cold cash would be hard. You know, cold hard cash. Ayeah. ;)
Apparantly there’s a $100k opening deposit for Swiss bank accounts. ‘Tis a pity Jefferson had to spend $10k on other things, otherwise he’d be scott free…
Perry Como
Er, they go to the House leadership and ask them for the documents in question. As is, the Executive is now in possession of loads of documents involving, or related to, legislation. That’s a no no. Does Congress get to pull all the papers it wants from the Executive branch when it subpoenas someone from the Executive? Executive privilege isn’t written into the constitution. Speech and debate is.
demimondian
Brian’s planning on running against the Dem’s raising taxes to clean up after the Bush-shit, though. So he’s just drooling over the possibility of pulling the standard Republican MO yet again: wreck the country’s finances, get the grown ups back in power, and whine about the fact that Daddy takes the T-bird away. People won’t remember that the kids had driven the T-bird into the wall for fun, so the Republithugs’ll be right back in.
demimondian
Actually, yes, if there’s sufficient cause: _US v Nixon_.
Punchy
Apparently nobody in Congress watches the Sopranos. If they did, Jefferson would have a lot of scratch in his backyard pool shed, in his attic, and 6 feet underground….
As for why no Swiss accounts? The gov’t is tracking money deposits. They’re surely tracking credit card purchases and/or cash advances (I personally know this). I’m betting Jefferson knew this too, and realized he’d be nailed immediately tryin to open an “anonymous” Swiss account
Perry Como
I don’t remember exactly what happened, but didn’t the Executive branch still get to filter its own documents? i.e. Capitol Police didn’t just walk into the White House and seize documents (ala FBI in this Jefferson case). The White House produced the documents Congress requested after the US v Nixon case.
Angus
US v. Nixon only said that the President had to turn over papers related to the Watergate coverup, and Nixon still got to choose which ones were protected by executive privilege and which ones were not.
MN
I repeat the facts:
1.) A never-before Executive Branch intrusion into the Legislative Branch, an 18-hour search by the FBI who REFUSED entry/observation by (unheard of) House of Representatives’ Counsel and Jefferson’s own lawyer.
2.) The FBI justifies this unique event by saying that they have Jefferson “dead to rights” on tape (accepting a bribe) and evidence ($90k in marked bills in Jefferson’s home), both obtained almost a year ago. Why then haven’t they arrested Jefferson? Arresting him would satisfy the Constitutional requirement that a member of the House of Representatives doesn’t enjoy the protections of his office if he’s charged with a felony. Could the case against Jefferson not be such a “slam dunk” and this is the fishing expedition that the founders of the country understood could abused by an out-of-control and arrogant Executive?
I find it fascinating that with all of the glib comments from Bush-lovers, there isn’t one who is disturbed by the Bush administration’s inadherence to the rule of law, and the disregard of citizens’ rights and protections under the Constitution.
Is it because Bush-lovers think that they would be under some divine protection (because they voted for Bush) if they ran afoul of the law?
Just like the pedophiles who hide behind priestly collars in the Catholic Church, Bush and those who support him aren’t patriotic law-abiding, freedom-loving and democracy-supporting Americans. They’re criminals. Ordinary Americans who voted for Bush did so because Republican officials whom they thought were respectable, honorable and honest vouched for his integrity. They were wrong. And anybody who continues to push support for Bush and the Republicans who back him are criminals. It really is just that simple.
How have I arrived at that place, where anybody defending Bush and this Republican party is dismissible as a co-conspiracist? Because 1.) Jefferson’s crimes are miniscule compared to the influence peddling by this White House and Republican party, and 2.) There were other lawful ways to obtain the information that the FBI/Executive Branch claim is connected to a charge of bribery against Jefferson:
There is no doubt in anybody of good conscience’s mind that this White House is on a fishing expedition to get information, blackmailable information, that they couldn’t obtain through their illegal NSA spying operations. That is the fact of the Bush administration and the Republican Party in the 21st millenium.
And, Brian? If Democrats don’t take the majority in 06 and the White House in 08, it will be proof of one thing and one thing only: Republicans have perfected election stealing, and the United States of America are all but a distant dream.
MN
DOJ could have gotten a felony charge against Jefferson and THEN executed the warrant…IF their case was as “airtight” as they have boasted, without over 200 years of precedent being stood on its head.
DOJ could have gotten a Special Master (see previous post). An 18-hour search of Jefferson’s office stretches credulity that this was anything but a fishing expedition and an act by the Executive branch to intimidate and cow Congress. That is further confirmed by the Executive branch leak to ABC that Hastert is under investigation, too.
This is an out of control President, and more than enough evidence exists for his impeachment.
Mr Furious
MN, some good points there.
Kimmitt
I’m on the same page as MN; Congressmen and women have to be carefully kept inviolate, or they will not have the capacity to resume their oversight role once the decision is made to get back to it.
demimondian
I don’t know about that. I know that computer forensic investigations typically take a lot longer than lay people expect, but I’ve never done anything like a physical search.
That said, we have a fair number of people here with law enforcement experience. Hey, real experts, how long would you expect to need to take to do a thorough search of an office for a set of documents?
The Other Steve
Well clearly, we all want Ward Churchill. Sheesh!
The Other Steve
I’m sorry. I don’t care what sort of precedent it sets.
If the police can come into my home with a warrant, they can go into a Congress critters office.
Nobody is fucking above the law.
Steve
Here’s a tip for you, friend: there are like 2 “Bush-lovers” at this whole blog. Find a better way to deal with those who disagree than simply writing them off as mindless partisans, cause it ain’t so.
Kimmitt
I appreciate this sentiment, but it’s really a much bigger deal if my Congressman’s afraid of the President than if I am.
Pooh
Well, here’s the thing, Congress can push back if they want to. Something along the lines of “I got yer investigation right here” (hands over subpeona or if they’re feeling really, nasty subpeona duces tecum to certain staffers in certain agencies…)
MAX HATS
Further, congress has the ultimate, and an ultimately one-sided, check on the president.
Boxtop
Brian Said:
Not going to happen. Sorry. Gore won’t get installed in the WH, nor will Kos or Feingold, so you’ll have to get even angrier over the next 2.5 years.
Wake up.
Kimmitt
Pooh and MAX HATS: That’s true until individual Congresspersons are frightened of exercising their authority. Their power to check depends on their inviolability. That’s the point, in my opinion.
Look, this is from a guy who says Bush is a fascist. You’re not hearing this from an enabler type. There are real separation of powers concerns here, and the last thing we need is a weaker Legislative branch.
Pb
The Other Steve,
Tell it to the executive branch–as I mentioned before, they’re the ones who can get a warrant without necessarily even having to go to a judge.
demimondian
Oh, for God’s sake.
Yes, the Executive has loopholes. Sometimes, we, as a society, compromise one principle to enhance another — government is, by nature, a conflicted task, which means that absolutism on any issue is…well, stupid. No, we shouldn’t stop watching the Executive. No, we shouldn’t stop complaining when it screws up.
But don’t make mountains out of molehills, either.
Devil's Advocate
Why are our honorable Congressmen — especially Dear Hastert — getting their knickers into a twist? After all, if they have not done anything wrong, they should not worry about a little search here and there…
I know that I have not done anything wrong, so when the NSA listens in on my phone calls, checks my e-mails, and keeps a log of the Web pages that I visit, I don’t fret…