Why Can't the FBI Search a Congressman's Office
Betsy's Page
I don't understand all this fuss and bother about the FBI searching Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office.
<<< 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.
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said Monday that he had concerns about the constitutionality of the search and was seeking a legal opinion. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader in the House, said that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with constitutional protections and historical precedent." Some House Republicans said they were also disturbed by the way the search was handled.
"I think it is really outrageous," said Representative David Dreier, the California Republican who is chairman of the Rules Committee. >>>
Is the argument that a Congressman's office on the Hill should be immune from search? If so, any crooked Congressman would know exactly where to hide anything incriminating. I don't think we have "sanctuaries" from searches in this country. The FBI went to a judge with an 83-page affadavit of why they needed to do this. A judge granted the warrant. But legal experts are still divided with politicians on both sides claiming that this was a violation of the separation of powers.
<<< Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."
Many legal experts and defense lawyers agreed with Gingrich. Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years, called the raid "an intimidating tactic that has never before been used against the legislative branch."
"The Framers, who were familiar with King George III's disdain for their colonial legislatures, would turn over in their graves," Tiefer said.
Washington defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel for the House who has represented numerous lawmakers accused of wrongdoing, also questioned the government's strategy.
"This is really an over-the-top move, and it could create some real blow-back problems for them in the courts," he said.
But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue."
The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office." >>>
If legislators feel intimidated from taking bribes to steer business with a foreign nation to one particular firm then I don't think that people are going to be too upset about this. This is reminiscent of the days when Congressmen would pass laws on employment and exempt themselves from the laws that the rest of the American people had to follow.
betsyspage.blogspot.com
nytimes.com
washingtonpost.com |
