Full Version: F. B. I. Raids a Congressional Office
Let’s forget for a moment Rep. William Jefferson’s guilt or innocence or whether the press has covered his case thoroughly enough.
I would like to discuss yesterday (5-22-06) F.B.I raid on Jefferson’s Washington office.
Hardball Transcript, 5-22-06
David Hawkins on The Abrams Report, 5-22-06.
Questions
1. Was the F.B.I. raid on Rep. Jefferson’s office legal or illegal?
2. Does this raid set a good/bad precedent?
3. Was the raid yet another attempt by the Bush Administration to usurp power, thereby shifting the balance of power in favor of the executive?
Edited to add question:
4. Given that other Congressmen have faced allegations, what "at random"(?) factor made Jefferson the first member of Congress to have his office searched?
I would like to discuss yesterday (5-22-06) F.B.I raid on Jefferson’s Washington office.
QUOTE
REP. WILLIAM JEFFERSON (D), LOUISIANA: With respect to the search in my office the other day, I think it represents the—an outrageous intrusion in the separation of powers between the executive branch and the congressional branch and no one has seen this in all the time of the life of the Congress. As far as I know, there is no real authority for it. Beyond that, there were no exigent circumstances that I was aware. Under ordinary circumstances would require it.
Hardball Transcript, 5-22-06
QUOTE
DAVID HAWKINGS, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY” MANAGING EDITOR: HAWKINGS: Well, that‘s what the historians at the Capitol are telling us today. That there has never before been a raid of a congressional office in Washington. Actually, Mr. Jefferson‘s office in New Orleans was previously raided and the historians are saying that actually might have been the historic first, the time that they went to his New Orleans office and looked around.
But this is a big deal if you‘re a member of Congress, to actually have your workplace subject to search. There‘s a bit in the Constitution that says this isn‘t supposed to happen, that they‘re supposed to be—members of Congress are supposed to be free from being questioned about their official actions by the executive branch...
But this is a big deal if you‘re a member of Congress, to actually have your workplace subject to search. There‘s a bit in the Constitution that says this isn‘t supposed to happen, that they‘re supposed to be—members of Congress are supposed to be free from being questioned about their official actions by the executive branch...
David Hawkins on The Abrams Report, 5-22-06.
Questions
1. Was the F.B.I. raid on Rep. Jefferson’s office legal or illegal?
2. Does this raid set a good/bad precedent?
3. Was the raid yet another attempt by the Bush Administration to usurp power, thereby shifting the balance of power in favor of the executive?
Edited to add question:
4. Given that other Congressmen have faced allegations, what "at random"(?) factor made Jefferson the first member of Congress to have his office searched?
1. This is a very difficult question to answer, and I have very mixed feelings about this whole situation. I want members of Congress to be subject to the same proper procedures of law enforcement as anybody else; I also want to avoid the tendency towards an overpowering executive branch. I have the feeling that this is going to wind up in the Supreme Court, and that the vote will be razor-thin.
Certainly, members of Congress from both parties have expressed concern about this procedure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_...ngressman_probe
I have to say that the Justice Department did go through the proper procedure for obtaining a search warrant from a federal judge. That makes their case a lot stronger. I am leaning very slightly to the opinion that this was legal.
2. I think it may do more harm than good, although it could go either way. If all members of the executive branch and judicial branch are subject to the same kinds of search warrants -- if, in particular, we discard the notion of "executive privilege" -- than perhaps this could be applied fairly. However, there is certainly the possibility that this could just be another small step in the shift of power to the executive branch.
I'll avoid speculation about questions 3 and 4.
Certainly, members of Congress from both parties have expressed concern about this procedure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_...ngressman_probe
QUOTE
House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters Tuesday that the Congress will somehow speak to "this issue of the Justice Department's invasion of the legislative branch. In what form, I don't know."
"I've got to believe at the end of the day it's going to end up across the street at the Supreme Court," Boehner said.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said the Justice Department had never before crossed a line that separates Congress from the executive branch by searching a congressional office while investigating a member of Congress.
"I've got to believe at the end of the day it's going to end up across the street at the Supreme Court," Boehner said.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said the Justice Department had never before crossed a line that separates Congress from the executive branch by searching a congressional office while investigating a member of Congress.
I have to say that the Justice Department did go through the proper procedure for obtaining a search warrant from a federal judge. That makes their case a lot stronger. I am leaning very slightly to the opinion that this was legal.
2. I think it may do more harm than good, although it could go either way. If all members of the executive branch and judicial branch are subject to the same kinds of search warrants -- if, in particular, we discard the notion of "executive privilege" -- than perhaps this could be applied fairly. However, there is certainly the possibility that this could just be another small step in the shift of power to the executive branch.
I'll avoid speculation about questions 3 and 4.
Was the F.B.I. raid on Rep. Jefferson’s office legal or illegal?
Legal as long as the FBI used a previous search warrant to find the $90k in a freezer in Jefferson’s home that led to the an affidavit to U.S. District Judge Hogan and then a search warrant for Jefferson’s congressional office.
Does this raid set a good/bad precedent?
Too soon to tell at this time if searching congressional offices is going to be abused for punishing political dissent. I guess this is what the Department of Justice meant by telling Congress to get its act together three months ago.
Given that other Congressmen have faced allegations, what "at random" factor made Jefferson the first member of Congress to have his office searched?
The “random factor” that he’s black and a Democrat? That’s a possibility, but my understanding is the FBI gave Jefferson the courtesy of a subpoena eight months ago. Jefferson ignored it. He deserves what he got.
As for Hastert wringing his hands about the delicate balance of power by this most impolite search he needs to shut his pie hole, check in with his accountant, and broaden his perception of what constitutes a strike against the Executive in the separation of powers theory. Some of us regular slobs want the government to use warrants every time they check our personal effects and information. Thanks to him backing the Patriot Act, for example, the FBI needs neither affidavit nor warrant to get the phone records of journalists. The Executive's new ability to sign National Security Letters authorizing wiretaps without judicial oversight provides all the checks and balances the FBI needs.
The popular civil liberties thinking that goes if the rights of the most vulnerable are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled, does not yet apply to elected officials.
Legal as long as the FBI used a previous search warrant to find the $90k in a freezer in Jefferson’s home that led to the an affidavit to U.S. District Judge Hogan and then a search warrant for Jefferson’s congressional office.
Does this raid set a good/bad precedent?
Too soon to tell at this time if searching congressional offices is going to be abused for punishing political dissent. I guess this is what the Department of Justice meant by telling Congress to get its act together three months ago.
Given that other Congressmen have faced allegations, what "at random" factor made Jefferson the first member of Congress to have his office searched?
The “random factor” that he’s black and a Democrat? That’s a possibility, but my understanding is the FBI gave Jefferson the courtesy of a subpoena eight months ago. Jefferson ignored it. He deserves what he got.
As for Hastert wringing his hands about the delicate balance of power by this most impolite search he needs to shut his pie hole, check in with his accountant, and broaden his perception of what constitutes a strike against the Executive in the separation of powers theory. Some of us regular slobs want the government to use warrants every time they check our personal effects and information. Thanks to him backing the Patriot Act, for example, the FBI needs neither affidavit nor warrant to get the phone records of journalists. The Executive's new ability to sign National Security Letters authorizing wiretaps without judicial oversight provides all the checks and balances the FBI needs.
The popular civil liberties thinking that goes if the rights of the most vulnerable are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled, does not yet apply to elected officials.
QUOTE
1.Was the F.B.I. raid on Rep. Jefferson’s office legal or illegal?
From the looks of it appears that it is legal. From the Cato Institute:
QUOTE
Jefferson is under investigation for bribery. Congress itself has expressly made it a crime for members of Congress to accept bribes (18 U.S.C. s. 201). The Supreme Court has held (in United States v. Johnston, 383 U.S. 169 (1966)) that the Speech and Debate Clause does not absolutely immunize members of Congress from prosecution under a valid bribery statute (enacted, remember, by Congress).
CATO blog article
QUOTE
2.Does this raid set a good/bad precedent?
It sets a valid precedent that as a member of congress, you will darn well be held accountable for what you do.
QUOTE
3.Was the raid yet another attempt by the Bush Administration to usurp power, thereby shifting the balance of power in favor of the executive?
This guy was filmed taking money and reportedly had $90,000 stuffed in a freezer. If the president is hunting down corruption, then I support him.
QUOTE
4. Given that other Congressmen have faced allegations, what "at random"(?) factor made Jefferson the first member of Congress to have his office searched?
Once again, this deals with bribery. The only reason why other elected members haven't had their offices searched is that they probably hid the goods elsewhere.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ May 24 2006, 03:12 PM)
QUOTE
2.Does this raid set a good/bad precedent?
It sets a valid precedent that as a member of congress, you will darn well be held accountable for what you do.
You may be right, if the next white, Republican fat-cat caught with his fingers in the cookie jar gets the same treatment. Otherwise, this event doesn't even set a precedent.
I think Ronnie Earle should have Tolm DeLay's Sugar Land office raided by state police.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.