Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/23/2006 4:52:10 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35834

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

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/24/2006 7:59:22 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Let Me Get This Straight John Podhoretz The Corner There is every reason to believe that a member of the House of Representatives was using his physical office on Capitol Hill to hide evidence of massive bribe-taking — bribe-taking that has been caught on tape, by the way. That Congressman is a figure in the Democratic party. The Republican party has been reeling from bribery and corruption scandals of its own. So the Speaker of the House, the leader of Republicans in the House, actually complains to the president that the raid on the Democratic congressman's office is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. In so doing, he reinforces the image that Congress, which almost never polices itself, cares less about corruption than it does about its prerogatives. It also steps on the very important political story that might help diffuse the image of specifically Republican corruption. I don't know how to put this any other way, and I'm sorry if it sounds insulting, but: Whether you consider him the leader of an institution whose standing among the public is at historically low levels and in need of drastic moral renovation or a leading partisan official whose team is in pretty bad shape and could use a bit of a boost, Denny Hastert is a blithering idiot. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/24/2006 8:37:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Re: Getting This Straight Jonah Goldberg The Corner JPod - Point taken. Also, does anybody suspect that Nancy Pelosi would be righteously defending the House's constitutional prerogatives if the FBI had raided Duke Cunningham's or Bob Ney's offices? Just curious. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/25/2006 5:12:11 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Principle over politics by Tim Chapman Townhall.com May 25, 2006 Over the weekend FBI agents raided the Capitol Hill office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) in search of documents connecting him to a federal bribery investigation. When the search was over, agents left with some damning evidence, including nearly $100,000 in cash found in the Louisiana Democrat’s freezer. Republican partisans delighted in the delicious irony of yet another Democratic talking point falling flat on its face. Indeed, the culture of corruption charge that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi love to bandy about rang hollow as yet another of their own appeared to be going the way of Abramoff and Co. But the partisan popping of the champagne corks in GOP operative land was short lived, as former Republican revolutionary and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich threw a freezing cold bucket of ice water on the situation. On Tuesday the Hill newspaper reported that Gingrich fired off a missive to Capitol Hill Republicans condemning the raid as an unconstitutional breach of power. “What happened Saturday night ... is the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime,” Gingrich wrote. “As a former Speaker of the House, I am shaken by this abuse of power.” Soon thereafter, Congressional leadership followed suit. Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the raid. The tried and true Separation of Powers doctrine is at stake, and clearly congressional leaders are sympathetic to Gingrich’s sentiments. Hastert’s top lieutenant, John Boehner, even went so far as to suggest that the matter would not be settled until the Supreme Court stepped in with a ruling. In response to congressional leadership’s concerns, right-leaning pundits everywhere are crying foul. Charges of political ineptitude and tone deafness are filling the conservative blogosphere and column pages. John Podhoretz, a contributor to National Review Online, sums up the feelings of many conservatives writing on a National Review group blog, “The Republican party has been reeling from bribery and corruption scandals of its own. So the Speaker of the House, the leader of Republicans in the House, actually complains to the president that the raid on the Democratic congressman's office is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. In so doing, he reinforces the image that Congress, which almost never polices itself, cares less about corruption than it does about its prerogatives. It also steps on the very important political story that might help diffuse the image of specifically Republican corruption.” Podhoretz can’t help but conclude that, “Denny Hastert is a blithering idiot.” Well, politically speaking, maybe. But aren’t conservatives who are criticizing Hastert and others trying to have their cake and eat it too? A common complaint of conservatives lately is that the GOP has lost its ability to stand on principle, politics be damned. Why haven’t Republicans, on principle, objected to big spending government programs like the Medicare Prescription Drug Act or No Child Left Behind? Why can’t Republicans, on principle, say no to anonymous earmarking that greases the skids for poorly crafted legislation? Why have House Republicans been able to muster so few votes for a budget modeled after the revolutionary 1995 budget that passed the House with all but one vote? The answer is that the politics of the situation -- or so they think -- demands that they vote against the principled position. Now, Republican leadership is taking a principled position on the FBI Jefferson raid at the expense of the politics of the situation. Indeed, this position is scoring zero political points for Republicans while at the same time letting Democrats off the hook. Pundits are right to be baffled at the politics of the situation, especially given the GOP’s past track record of playing to the politically popular position. It is worth examining the position that GOP leadership has taken. In 219 years the Executive branch has never infringed on the Legislative branch in this manner. This week’s raid was a first. Now consider if the situation were reversed. Can you imagine what would have happened if House impeachment investigators had sent a team to President Clinton’s White House to search for subpoenaed documents? The FBI claims that it raided Jefferson’s office with extraordinary safeguards in place. But did it? The historical practice of allowing a representative of the House such as the general counsel to observe the search was not honored. Quite to the contrary, in fact. The general counsel was not allowed in the room at the time of the search and was instead given assurances that the FBI would police itself in regards to privileged and unprivileged documents. Police itself? Surely this was not what the Founders envisioned when they set up a system of Separation of Powers; a system designed to work off friction between the competing branches of government. To assume that one branch would police itself to the benefit of another branch is to assume that the Founders system is not needed. Critics of congressional leadership certainly have a point regarding the politics of the situation: This is messy, and it appears silly. But critics should concede that a principled argument is being made here. Those critics are free to critique that argument, but they should recognize that those legislators who are making it are not in any way motivated by politics … for once. This conservative would like to see Republicans stand for principle on a much broader range of issues. But hey, beggars can’t be choosers. Tim Chapman is the Director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and the host of Townhall.com's Capitol Report. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/25/2006 6:08:54 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi, Constitutional Experts Betsy's Page Speaker Hastert has issued a joint statement with Nancy Pelosi decrying the FBI search of Congressman Jefferson's office. <<< "The Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. >>> It's not quite clear what the Constitutional provision they think was violated. Jefferson wasn't speaking or appearing in Congress as part of his legislative duties. He wasn't on the way to Congress. What is the difference between searching his office and his home? Or searching a federal judge's office, as has been done before? Now the House Judiciary Committee is going to hold hearings on the search. <<< House officials were drafting a joint resolution frowning on the raid. And Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., announced a hearing next week titled, "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?" >>> Great. Nothing excites these guys so much as some indication that they aren't quite as special as they thought they were. Here are two law professors they can call to testify. Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh both don't see a problem with the search. betsyspage.blogspot.com washingtonpost.com orinkerr.com volokh.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/25/2006 6:18:07 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Post: Hastert, Boehner Have No Clue By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters The Washington Post provides an analysis of the Congressional privilege asserted by Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner which finds no grounds for their objections to the search warrant executed by the FBI earlier this week. In fact, as Charles Lane points out, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution cannot shield members from legitimate investigations into corruption: <<< "An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that" is not covered by the constitutional provision that shields Congress from executive and judicial branch interference, said Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who teaches at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. The precise materials sought in the raid were blacked out in a publicly released copy of the search warrant, but Jefferson (D-La.) said in a court filing yesterday that FBI agents took two boxes of documents and copied computer hard drives. Both the search warrant for Jefferson's office and the raid to execute it were unprecedented in the 219-year history of the Constitution. In that sense, they violated an interbranch understanding rooted in the separation of powers -- and, indeed, in the events of 1642, when King Charles I burst into Parliament and attempted to arrest five members of the House of Commons, triggering the English Civil War. But the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law. "It's really a matter of etiquette," said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "I don't see any constitutional principle here." >>> It increasingly appears that the only principle at stake in this debate is the silly pursuit of any and all privileges that any tradition might grant legislators. The assertions by Congressional leadership would set lawmakers above the laws they impose on the citizens of the nation and ensure that they remain safe from detection and accountability of corruption. That would guarantee an explosion of bribery and schemery on Capitol Hill, fueled by our tax dollars and protected by a ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution. If leaders of either party believe that the American electorate would stand for such an assertion of privilege, then they have overstayed their term on Capitol Hill and left rationality and common sense behind. They had better start understanding that subpoenas approved by judges apply to all citizens, and that when the respondent refuses to cooperate with a subpoena, law enforcement will apply it nonetheless. In this case, the assertion of privilege has not only been legally bankrupt, but more so a strain of political stupidity that simply boggles the mind. The Democrats have spent the last few months foolishly trying to paint Washington corruption as a strict GOP franchise. When Jefferson's bribery gets spectacular coverage, what does the Republican leadership do? Do they keep quiet and let the media report the case itself? No! They leap to falsely accuse the FBI of powermongering and the White House of violating the Constitution. Not only are both charges baseless, but now Hastert and his crew have made themselves the proponents of protecting corrupt lawmakers from justice. Instead of allowing Jefferson to become the new face of corruption, they have distracted everyone by making themselves the new faces of arrogance and ignorance. If the GOP loses the House in November, they should look back at this week and draw the appropriate conclusions. UPDATE: Of course, now they want Justice to return the evidence collected by a valid subpoena: <<< The constitutional clash pitting Congress against the executive branch escalated Wednesday as the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House demanded the immediate return of materials seized by federal agents when they searched the office of a House member who is under investigation in a corruption case. The demand, by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, underscored the degree of the anger generated among members of both parties on Capitol Hill by the search on Saturday night at the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, who has been accused of accepting bribes. "The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement. >>> The correct answers to the assertions in the latter paragraph are no, no, no, and the lack of such a search warrant over that time does not make search warrants illegal. At least we have bipartisan unity on stupidity and base arrogance, if that can be seen as an improvement. captainsquartersblog.com washingtonpost.com nytimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/26/2006 2:01:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Congress crying wolf on separation of powers flap by David Limbaugh Townhall.com May 26, 2006 For a long time, Democrats have been picking on President Bush -- "King George" -- for "consolidating executive authority" and usurping legislative authority, not to mention tons of other things. But he does himself no favors by ordering that documents seized from Representative William Jefferson's office be sealed for 45 days. Jefferson is the subject of a federal investigation into whether he accepted a bribe from two people -- who have already entered guilty pleas -- to promote a high-tech business venture. Authorities say they have a videotape of Jefferson receiving a $100,000 bribe and that they found $90,000 in cash in a freezer at his Washington D.C. apartment. Last Saturday night, the FBI, with a duly executed search warrant in hand, entered and searched Jefferson's Capitol Hill office and seized a number of his documents. Members of both parties of Congress expressed outrage at what they claim is an egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The FBI, of course, is part of the executive branch. The congressmen's objection is that for an agency of the executive branch to raid the office of a member of the legislative branch, constitutes a dangerous executive encroachment on the legislature. They say this is the first search of a congressman's Capitol office in the more than two centuries since the first Congress convened. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a nearly unprecedented joint statement condemning the FBI raid and demanding that the FBI return the documents. With all due respect, these claims are preposterous, and I don't believe President Bush should have intervened, even if just to provide a cooling-off period. There are principles worth vindicating here, and compromise for the sake of short-term harmony can sometimes damage those principles. While congressmen can loftily assert that the separation of powers principle is at play here, I disagree. To argue that the separation of powers doctrine grants immunity from official search and seizure to members of the legislative branch is a slap in the face to another lofty and indispensable concept: the rule of law. The Constitution establishes a government of laws, not men; and no men, including government officials, are above the law. While legislators are bellyaching about the excessive authority of the executive branch, they are, in essence, arguing for excessive authority and privilege for members of their branch. We have no kings. We have no royalty among legislators. If they are suspected of violating the law, the executive branch has an obligation to investigate and to employ its full powers in doing so -- including that of reasonable searches of their offices and seizures of their relevant effects. The separation of powers doctrine delineates governmental functions and distributes them among three branches. But these branches do not have coequal power over all functions -- such as law enforcement, which is the prerogative of the executive branch. It pits the branches against each other through a checks and balances scheme designed to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful at the expense of our liberties. To argue that individual congressmen are not subject to search and seizure by agencies of the executive branch because that would give the executive branch undue power is preposterous. Who else is supposed to conduct such searches? The judiciary, by the way, was involved here, as well, in approving the warrant. Are law enforcement authorities supposed to give advance warning to suspected criminal congressmen to allow them to cover their tracks? This is too ridiculous for words. When congressmen speciously invoke the separation of powers doctrine to shield their own members from law enforcement, they do damage to the doctrine by diluting and misapplying it. And through their arrogance in attempting to elevate themselves above the reach of law, they make a mockery of the lofty principles they purport to serve. The separation of powers does not create a firewall between the branches. They interact all the time. Remember the Supreme Court ordering President Nixon to turn over the tapes? And Congress, if it so chooses, can restrict the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts. To suggest that every time one branch takes action that affects another branch violates the separation of powers principle is an insult to that principle. These congressmen need to remember that they are the representatives of the people, not our privileged masters. It is disappointing that, in this case, otherwise good men are sending a contrary message. David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com. He is also the author of Persecution and Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department. Copyright © 2006 Creators townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/30/2006 5:01:19 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Frist: Congress Not Above The Law By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters Showing more political acumen than his House counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist waited a few days before publicly commenting on the raid on Rep. William Jefferson's offices. Frist put that time to good use, and instead of accusing the executive branch of assuming dictatorial powers for simply executing a judicially-approved search warrant, he acknowledged that members of Congress have no privilege that allows them to ignore court orders or that turn Capitol Hill into a sanctuary for wayward politicians: <<< After a week of bipartisan outrage over an FBI raid on a congressman's office, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist weighed in yesterday, saying that he was "okay" with the search and saw no constitutional problems with it. "No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Frist said of the search of the office of William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who has been accused of bribery. Frist (R-Tenn.) said on "Fox News Sunday" that he had studied the provision in the Constitution regarding the separation of powers, and consulted with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. He concluded that the FBI acted appropriately when it used a warrant to search the office of a sitting lawmaker for the first time in history. "I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said. "I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced." >>> Frist did what Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi apparently could not: he waited to get all of the relevant information before leaping in front of the first available microphone. What has been most frustrating in this issue is the way Hastert played into the media' favorite Washington trope -- how the Bush administration has supposedly eroded the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. As soon as the news of the raid hit the wires, Hastert pulled that meme out of his back pocket, knowing he would garner the sympathy of the media in his complaint. Never mind that the subpoena had judicial approval, and never mind that Jefferson and the House counsel had ignored it for over eight months -- a luxury none of us would have been allowed. Unfortunately, Hastert and James Sensenbrenner have yet to understand the concept of applying the law equally to all citizens. Sensenbrenner appeared on "Meet The Press" yesterday to still beat the dead horse of protecting Congress from executive coercion. Neither of these men have yet said a single word about Jefferson's months-long defiance of law enforcement or their own chamber's failure to cooperate with the FBI. Neither of them realize how arrogant and elitist their supposedly principled stands appear to the voters, either. Instead of defending Congress, they all appear to be trashing the President in order to protect a crook -- of the other party. Perhaps their constituents can get them to realize the error of their ways. captainsquartersblog.com washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/30/2006 6:34:39 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

UNHAPPY WITH HASTERT Byron York The Corner The word on Capitol Hill this morning is House Republicans are increasingly irritated with Speaker Denny Hastert over his stand in the William Jefferson corruption case. First, they think Hastert is wrong on the law — that the Constitution does not, in fact, give members of Congress a right to use their offices to hide evidence of felonies. Second, they're mad about Hastert's handling of the politics. "We had a chance to even the score on the ethics thing," says one GOP aide, mindful of months of Democratic "culture of corruption" attacks. "There's no way we're going to win it, but we could have fought it to a draw." Now, that chance is gone, thanks to Hastert. "Members are ticked off," says the aide. "There's $90,000 in William Jefferson's freezer, and that's not the story." corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/31/2006 6:16:09 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The House's Trust in Jefferson Andy McCarthy The Corner The only way the House could rationally assert that it is in possession of all the documents responsive to the subpoenas would be if the House itself, aware of what was in the subpoena, had conducted a thorough search of Jefferson’s office. Undoubtedly, that never happened. Short of such a search, any assertion by the House that it has all the documents has to depend on Jefferson himself: i.e., Jefferson says he has given the House all the appropriate documents and the House has decided to take Jefferson’s word for it. There are reasons beyond just the obvious one Kate mentions (about the 90K in marked bills) to doubt Jefferson on that score. The Justice Department today filed a memorandum of law in opposing Jefferson’s demand that the property seized from his office be returned to him. Included with the memo was an affidavit from an FBI agent who was present in Jefferson’s home when it was searched on August 3, 2005 (i.e., the search in which the 90K was recovered). The agent explains that, even while the search was being conducted, Jefferson tried to conceal documents from the FBI. Specifically, at the start of the search, Jefferson was seated at a table in the kitchen. The agent saw him looking at several pieces of paper laid on the table. Jefferson then asked the agents if he could take a look at a 19-page subpoena that had been served on him earlier in the day. The FBI agreed and brought him a copy of the subpoena. According to the agent, Jefferson (when he obviously thought no one was looking), put the subpoena on top of some of the documents he had been looking at earlier, and then placed the whole stack under his elbow. Subsequently, once Jefferson saw that the agents were finished searching the living room area, including a blue bag that was in the living room, Jefferson asked if he could move to the living room from the kitchen. When the FBI said OK, Jefferson proceeded to take the stack with him and stash it in the blue bag. The agent who was observing all this then confronted him. According to the agent, Jefferson insisted that the only thing he had placed in the bag was the subpoena. The agent then demanded that the bag be emptied. Jefferson finally complied, careful to place the subpoena on top. But sure enough, under the subpoena, the agent found the documents Jefferson had been looking at while he was sitting at the kitchen table. They had been fax’d to Jefferson that very day by a man named B.K. Son. The agent pointed out to Jefferson (as if he needed reminding!) that the search warrant being executed specifically called for all communications between Jefferson and Mr. B. K. Son. The fax’d documents were thus seized from Jefferson and preserved as evidence. Given that Jefferson evidently tried to hide documents from the FBI right under the FBI’s nose even as the FBI was in the process of executing a search warrant that demanded those very documents, it’s hard to understand why the House or anyone else would take comfort in any representation from him that all documents responsive to subpoenas have been accounted for and produced. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	5/31/2006 8:39:00 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Questions for the House Beyond the crazy talk. By Andrew C. McCarthy National Review Online Admirers of the House Republicans can only sit in stunned amazement watching what is an increasingly disastrous spectacle over the FBI’s execution of a search warrant on the congressional office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D., La.). This now includes not only an overwrought hearing convened Tuesday by House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R., Wi.), but ominous bombast at that hearing from Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Ca.), who thought it appropriate to remind everyone that the Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach the attorney general. This is crazy talk. But it does bring up a salient point: The House also has the power to impeach Rep. Jefferson. Issa evidently thought it was worth broaching the I-word in connection with an attorney general who, after being stonewalled for ten months on lawful grand-jury subpoenas (which Congress has long known about), finally went to a federal judge to seek court authorization for a search—only after the Justice department designed an elaborate screening procedure in deference to speech-and-debate concerns. For that we should talk about impeachment … but not for Jefferson? Well, let’s look at the record on that one. The videotaped $100,000 bribery happened in July 2005—fully ten months ago. Of that cash, $90,000 was seized from Jefferson's freezer on August 3, 2005. (And as my Corner post last night noted, the Justice department revealed on Tuesday that there is evidence Jefferson tried to obstruct that search). On the same day, August 3, 2005, the Justice Department served a grand-jury subpoena on Jefferson. It is reasonable to infer, since Justice got the search warrant for the residence at the same time, that Justice appreciated the significant difference between searching a congressman’s home and searching his congressional office—even though, in truth, a legitimate speech-and-debate claim could apply to either equally. Plainly, out of deference to Congress, Justice proceeded by subpoena as to evidentiary items in Jefferson’s office in hopes that it would be unnecessary to take the more provocative step of seeking a judicial search warrant. Other subpoenas apparently followed in the late summer of 2005, to both Jefferson and his chief of staff. Speaker Hastert, according to a memorandum filed by the Justice department on Tuesday, was notified about the subpoenas by Jefferson on September 15, 2005, and again on November 18, 2005. The Justice department has been trying to get production on those subpoenas ever since—to no avail. Meanwhile, in January 2006—five months ago—Brent Pfeffer, once a congressional aide of Jefferson’s, publicly pled guilty in federal court to bribing and conspiring to bribe Jefferson. While this does not seem to have stirred Congress, a federal judge just last week thought it was sufficiently serious to merit a sentence of eight years in federal prison. And just a few weeks ago, in early May, Vernon Jackson, the president and CEO of the company at the heart of the bribery scheme, pled guilty to paying Jefferson $400,000 in bribes. He has yet to be sentenced (and, like Pfeffer, is said to be cooperating in the investigation). Notwithstanding all of this, for month after month, as Jefferson day-after-day participated in the business of the American people, there is no indication that Congress itself ever did anything—anything—to address this blight. With its public reputation for institutional integrity at stake, the same guys now talking about impeaching the attorney general or hauling him and the FBI director up to the Hill to answer tough questions did absolutely nothing about the blatant evidence of radioactive corruption in their midst. Part of the idea behind giving Congress speech-and-debate protection from the executive branch and the courts is the notion—perhaps now a quaint notion—that Congress will be motivated, literally, to keep its own house in order. So what has congressional leadership done lo these ten months—while all the searches and subpoenas and guilty pleas ensued—to deal with Jefferson? The leaders have had a lot to say about separation of powers since the office search. But separation of powers is about being trusted to keep your own side of the street clean. What have they done about that? And if the lame answer to that question is that their hands are tied because Jefferson hasn’t been convicted of anything yet and is therefore presumed innocent, why on earth are the leaders attacking the only people in this equation who are actually trying to do something about a public embarrassment that disgraces their institution? — Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. article.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	6/1/2006 8:53:00 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

What’s Really Going On In the William Jefferson Fight It’s been the House versus the Justice Department all along. By Byron York National Review Online For most members of the public, the showdown between the House of Representatives and the Justice Department over the corruption investigation of Rep. William Jefferson began on May 21, when word got out that the FBI was searching Jefferson’s office in the Rayburn House Office Building. But the struggle actually began last August, when prosecutors first searched Jefferson’s homes in Louisiana and Washington and subpoenaed documents from his office. And it appears that the House of Representatives—not just Jefferson personally, but the House as an institution—has been resisting the Justice Department since virtually the beginning. There is a little-known provision in House rules that requires both members and staff to notify the House if they receive a subpoena. This is done by a letter to the Speaker which is read in open session and then placed in the Congressional Record. On September 15, Jefferson wrote the following letter to Speaker Denny Hastert: <<< This is to notify you formally, pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that I have been served with a grand jury subpoena for documents issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. I will make the determinations required by Rule VIII. >>> Jefferson’s letter was the standard form for such notifications; it is not all that unusual for House members or staff to receive subpoenas, and the usual procedure is to write a letter like Jefferson’s, which left open the question of whether the congressman would comply with the subpoena. But some of Jefferson’s aides also received subpoenas, and their letters to the House were a little more revealing. Some of the subpoenas were for testimony, and the letters say that, after consulting with the House Counsel, the aides would comply with the subpoena. But other subpoenas were for documents, and—again after consulting with the House Counsel—the Jefferson aides refused to comply. On November 18, 2005, for example, Jefferson’s then-chief of staff, Nicole Venable, wrote this letter to the House: <<< This is to notify you formally, pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that I have been served with a grand jury subpoena for documents issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I have determined that compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the precedents and privileges of the House. >>> Among its other duties, the House Office of General Counsel represents the staff of the House of Representatives. Its purpose is not to be the lawyer for any individual but to represent the interests of the House as an institution; House rules specify that “legal assistance and representation shall be provided without regard to political affiliation.” Venable’s letter, along with those from other Jefferson staffers, indicates that the House Counsel took the position that neither Jefferson nor his staff should be required to turn over the subpoenaed documents to the Justice Department. And that suggests that the months-long resistance in the corruption case, which most outside observers have attributed to Jefferson’s individual intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence against him, was in fact backed by the House of Representatives itself. Also, as NRO’s Kate O’Beirne first reported, the House Counsel’s office has copies of the subpoenaed documents, which it is keeping in the Counsel’s offices. Given that Jefferson’s staff consulted with the Counsel, and that the Counsel represents staff in such disputes, it is likely that the copies were made as part of the process of that legal representation. And it also suggests that this affair has been a standoff involving the House versus the Justice Department, as opposed to Rep. Jefferson versus the Justice Department, from the beginning. One of the issues at the core of the dispute appears to be the demands for electronic records in the Justice Department’s subpoena. It is one thing to demand specific paper documents, and the subpoena has a long (but redacted) list of particular items to be seized. But it is another thing to take the entire hard drive from a computer, which will inevitably contain more information than just that listed by the subpoena. Defenders of the House position argue that the Justice Department clearly knew ahead of time that it would be seizing documents that were irrelevant to the Jefferson corruption investigation, and that those documents would be covered by the House’s speech-and-debate privilege. Why else would the Justice Department have devised the process by which a “filter team” would examine the documents and determine which ones were relevant to the investigation? Given that, House officials did not believe it was appropriate for the executive branch to take upon itself the task of determining just how far the House’s speech-and-debate privilege did—and did not—extend. That job, House leaders felt, was the exclusive responsibility of the House itself. That position helps explain why the subpoena fight has been a House versus Justice Department—not a Jefferson versus Justice Department—fight from the beginning. — Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time. article.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	6/1/2006 9:05:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Given the last five years of strident complaints about the supposedly imperial presidency, I'm just wondering what, say, Senator Reid or Rep. Pelosi thinks about a branch of government that decides to define its own powers regardless of what the courts say. Byron's Insights on the Jefferson Controversy Andy McCarthy The Corner Some very interesting things flow from Byron's eye-opening report this morning about the tension between Congress and the Justice Department in the Jefferson case — tension that apparently long predates the search of Jefferson's office. Most intersting is Congress's determination to define UNILATERALLY the scope of its protection under the speech-or-debate clause. It has always been the case that each branch of government has an independent obligation to interpret the Constitution. But Congress's interpretation here is noteworthy for at least two reasons. 1- What has Congress's beef been about President Bush's NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program (which most Democrats and the media disingenuously call the "Domestic Spying Program")? It is this: How dare the president unilaterally — and against the weight of Congress's seemingly contrary FISA statute — interpret the extent of his authority under Article II? According to prominent members of Congress, the president had an obligation to come to the legislature and work out a mutually acceptable means of carrying out the commander-in-chief's power to penetrate enemy communications in wartime. Now it seems, however, that when it comes to Congress's own powers, Congress claims the right to stake out its territory, regardless of the impact on the executive power to enforce the criminal law. 2- At least when the president made his claim, it was consistent with the rulings of the courts. It has long been the law that the president has "delicate, plenary and exclusive power ... as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations," and every court to consider the matter — even after FISA — has held that the president retains inherent authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to protect the nation from foreign threats. In stark contrast, the Supreme Court clearly held in United States v. Brewster (1972) that the speech-or-debate clause does not "make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility." See also Gravel v. United States (1972) (the speech-or-debate clause "does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases") (emphasis added). Given the last five years of strident complaints about the supposedly imperial presidency, I'm just wondering what, say, Senator Reid or Rep. Pelosi thinks about a branch of government that decides to define its own powers regardless of what the courts say. corner.nationalreview.com article.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	6/2/2006 4:16:47 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Congress finds its backbone - in the freezer by Jonah Goldberg Townhall.com Jun 2, 2006 I may be the only person in Washington who finds the constitutional Gotterdammerung over the FBI's raid of a congressman's office ... well, endearing. Quaint even. Rep. William J. Jefferson appears to be that one-in-a-million rarity, like a buffalo nickel or a four-leaf clover: a corrupt Louisiana politician. Gasp away, but it's true. The New Orleans Democrat was caught on video allegedly taking a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant (and allegedly demanding further bribes), and a subsequent search revealed $90,000 in his freezer. That's a lot of crawdads. The wily Jefferson reportedly tried to hide incriminating documents in a blue bag while the FBI was searching his house. This may have tipped off the feds that they couldn't expect Jefferson to stick to the high-minded decorum they've come to expect of other Louisiana Democrats, from Huey Long to Edwin Edwards. It also shows that Jefferson may have strayed far from the Democratic mainstream. After all, Sandy Berger taught us that proper procedure for concealing documents is to shove them into your pants. Informed by a Jefferson aide that more relevant documents were being stored in the lawmaker's Capitol Hill office, the FBI got a warrant from a respected federal judge. It's true, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose thumbless grasp of political reality is approaching mythic proportions, never thought to work out an arrangement whereby the feds need not raid the office on a Saturday night. But the FBI was fairly scrupulous in its lengthy warrant application about how it would seek only evidence in the criminal case and no documents relating to Jefferson's official duties. But that wasn't enough to forestall the much-ballyhooed "constitutional showdown." The core of the controversy is that nothing like this has happened before. The Constitution and political tradition have kept Congress largely immune from physical invasions conducted by the other two branches of government. The "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution bars interfering with legislators in their official duties - though it's hard to find any language in there that might allow a congressman suspected of corruption to swing from the rotunda like Quasimodo shouting, "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!" Lacking precedent, Washington is lurching into doing the right thing: referring to the Constitution and the founders' intent to figure out what to do. That's a nice change of pace. Even more refreshing, Congress is suddenly acting like a real co-equal branch of government. In recent years, it has mostly been a subservient wife to the White House, one who finds solace in a shopaholic's credit card spree. The Jefferson episode represents a real turning point. The doormat syndrome is over. Congress is going to stand up for itself. Isn't that heartwarming? Sure, some might quibble that the House might have asserted itself over some loftier causes - say, wiretapping. But if protecting alleged shakedown artists is what it takes for Congress to restore its self-esteem, who are we to judge? What makes this episode so Capra-esque is the monumental political stupidity of congressional Republicans. Constitutional arguments aside, this kerfuffle represents an astounding example of political self-immolation nominally on principle. (I say nominally because I suspect House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is more miffed about CIA chief Porter Goss getting sacked than he is about Jefferson getting ransacked.) The House GOP is under a cloud of corruption thanks to the Jack Abramoff and Randy "Duke" Cunningham cases. This cloud could cost the Republicans their majority come November. But if a high-ranking Democrat is caught stashing $90K next to his Mrs. Paul's frozen fish sticks, the Republicans could change the subject from GOP corruption to Democratic corruption; instead, they opted to go with curtain No. 2 and change the subject to GOP arrogance and stupidity. The congressional GOP - which won Congress by promising the laws of the land would apply to Congress - decided to seize Jefferson's cream pie and throw it in the White House's face. Ironically, this scenario is only possible because the same party controls the House and the White House. If House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi were in charge, she might make the same case in good faith that this was a constitutional outrage. But nobody would take it seriously on account of how self-serving it would sound. This would surely get the founders smiling. They were no great fans of political parties. But they did hope that the House and Senate would be jealous guardians of the people's rights as a coequal branch of government. I don't believe anything that precious is at stake here. But it's just so touching to see politicians acting as if they do. Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	6/7/2006 7:34:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

If the FBI can prove that Jefferson cast votes or introduced legislation intending on bolstering his personal business relationship with the Nigerians, the Democrats have a huge scandal on their hands. More On Jefferson's Corruption By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters As the voters in CA-50 put the corruption of Randy Cunningham behind them, the voters of William Jefferson's district got more information on his sellout. The New York Times reports that the FBI has acquired documentary evidence of bribery regarding Jefferson's efforts on behalf of a foreign power, albeit in a strange reversal: <<< The Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the Maryland home of the vice president of Nigeria last summer in search of bribe money that the bureau believed had been paid to him by Representative William Jefferson, according to documents released on Tuesday. The documents included an affidavit signed by an F.B.I. agent who said that the Nigerian vice president, Atiku Abubakar, now a candidate for president of that oil-rich West African nation, asked for at least half of the profits of a technology company controlled by Mr. Jefferson that was seeking to do business in Nigeria. About the same time last year, the documents said, Mr. Jefferson told colleagues of his plans to bribe Nigerian officials, including Mr. Abubakar, in exchange for their help in winning business in Nigeria, and that Mr. Abubakar would be paid as much as $500,000 in cash. The F.B.I. affidavit, which was dated Aug. 2, and other documents were made public over the objections of Mr. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who is the target of a wide-ranging corruption investigation. He has denied wrongdoing and has said the information in the court papers would unfairly damage his reputation. In the affidavit, an F.B.I. agent, Edward S. Cooper, said cellphone records suggested that Mr. Jefferson visited a home owned by Mr. Abubakar and his wife in Potomac, Md., an affluent suburb of Washington, around midnight last July 31 with the intention of delivering money to the Nigerian leader while he was on a visit to the United States. The next day, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson told a confidential informant that he had delivered "African art" — which the agent described as code for a cash payment — and that Mr. Abubakar "was very pleased." >>> The value of art lies in the eyes of its beholder -- well, at least that's usually the case. Jefferson apparently has a different idea of art, perhaps one could say a more modern view of it. Seriously, this opens an entirely new dimension to the case against Jefferson. Using his seat to influence and be influenced by foreign powers borders on treason in a strict legal sense. If the FBI can prove that Jefferson cast votes or introduced legislation intending on bolstering his personal business relationship with the Nigerians, the Democrats have a huge scandal on their hands. The Times writes that this documentation suggests Jefferson was "aggressive seeking to lobby officials in Nigeria and other West African nations", a mastery of understatement. This stands in a completely different category of corruption altogether. The Democrats had better start cutting ties to Jefferson soon or risk having their biggest electoral strategy rendered null and void. captainsquartersblog.com nytimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	7/11/2006 3:06:35 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Judge: Jefferson Raid Completely Legal By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters The FBI raid on William Jefferson's Congressional offices did not violate the law, a federal judge has ruled, and denied an effort by Congress to force the FBI to return materials that they had subpoenaed earlier. Judge Thomas Hogan rejected arguments that such efforts constituted an offense against the balance of power and accused Congress of trying to turn Capitol Hill into a "sanctuary": <<< Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office. In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials. Jefferson's theory of legislative privilege "would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime," the judge said. Hogan acknowledged the "unprecedented" nature of the case but said "a Member of Congress is generally bound to the operation of the criminal laws as are ordinary persons." >>> Bravp, Judge Hogan! Western concepts of law and privilege have continuously evolved to make lawmakers more accountable for their actions, not less, and Hogan has added to almost a millenium of jurisprudence on this point. The efforts by Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi to claim a legislative privilege against subpoenas and (especially) search warrants had no basis in law or political thought from the beginning. Now they both can have this harsh judgment sit on their records as public servants who thought somehow that they had a waiver from subpoenas and search warrants. Hogan added some choice words for those seeking to carve out such an immunity for themselves: "The power to determine the scope of one's own privilege is not available to any other person, including members of the co-equal branches of government: federal judges ... or the President of the United States," the judge said. That's gonna leave a mark. So what now? The materials seized by the FBI had been held in limbo by a presidential order until either the DoJ and Congress could reach an accommodation, or Hogan ruled on the lawsuit. Now that Hogan has shot it down and in such vivid terms, Congress could appeal -- but that does not mean that the President needs to extend his order keeping the material from investigators. The White House should now allow acccess to the confiscated records to the FBI so that they can perform their jobs and so that the investigation of Jefferson can proceed apace. Will Congress appeal Hogan's decision? I would doubt it under normal conditions, but then again, I still find it difficult to believe that they were dumb enough to go in front of a federal judge and argue that the body which issues all sorts of subpoenas to officials in the executive branch every session should somehow have an immunity to subpoenas and search warrants duly sworn out and approved by -- federal judges! Hastert, Pelosi, James Sensenbrenner, and all of the rest who vented their outrage at having to comply with federal warrants probably will not learn either the legal or political lessons that Hogan's decision communicates. And if they're that stupid, then God bless, them, let's hear what the 4th District Court Of Appeals has to say about it. UPDATE: The opinion has even more tough language for Congress. Page 23 of the opinion: If there is any threat to the separation of powers here, it is not from the execution of a search warrant by one co-equal branch of government upon another, after the independent approval of the third separate, and co-equal branch. Rather, the principle of the separation of powers is threatened by the position that the Legislative Branch enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable power to invoke an absolute privilege, thus making it immune from the ordinary criminal process of a validly issued search warrant. This theory would allow Members of Congress to frustrate investigations into non-legislative criminal activities for which the Speech or Debate Clause clearly provides no protection from prosecution. That's going to leave a mark, too. UPDATE: The judge emphasized the search warrant over the subpoena, and I adjusted my point above to emphasize that -- but let's not forget it all started with the subpoena that Jefferson ignored. captainsquartersblog.com news.yahoo.com dcd.uscourts.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (20108)	7/24/2006 5:55:40 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Not Learning To Quit While Behind By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters Dennis Hastert still hasn't learned when to quit. The House speaker told Fox News Sunday that he may appeal an order by a federal judge that allows the FBI to begin a review of records seized through a search warrant from Rep. William Jefferson's office: <<< House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Sunday he may challenge a judge's order allowing FBI agents to examine documents seized at a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office in a bribery probe. Hastert said he believed Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was "in big trouble" and that the House would not be joining in support of Jefferson himself. But he said the House separately might seek to make clear its position that the Justice Department cannot randomly and wantonly search lawmakers' offices. "The gentleman from Louisiana is in big trouble, as far as I'm concerned. And we're not trying to protect him," said Hastert, R-Ill. "But there has to be a procedure for the Justice Department to come in and start just searching any congressman's office," he said. "We may take a fine line depending on how the negotiations are. There is a constitutional division there that we have to protect." >>> Who is Hastert trying to kid? The "constitutional division" doesn't exist. The FBI attempted to subpoena the records from Jefferson, which would have eliminated the need to conduct the search. Jefferson and the House counsel decided to defy the subpoena. After nine months of fruitless negotiation, the FBI requested and received a search warrant from a federal judge to seize the records instead. The records seized do not relate to legislative work but to financial records in a bribery investigation. The judge in question ruled that the FBI's execution of the search warrant violated no law and certainly did not damage the Constitution. Judge Thomas Hogan wrote that Hastert and Jefferson sought to turn Capitol Hill into a "sanctuary" for criminal activity. Apparently Hastert still doesn't comprehend the rather clear language in Hogan's ruling: If there is any threat to the separation of powers here, it is not from the execution of a search warrant by one co-equal branch of government upon another, after the independent approval of the third separate, and co-equal branch. Rather, the principle of the separation of powers is threatened by the position that the Legislative Branch enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable power to invoke an absolute privilege, thus making it immune from the ordinary criminal process of a validly issued search warrant. This theory would allow Members of Congress to frustrate investigations into non-legislative criminal activities for which the Speech or Debate Clause clearly provides no protection from prosecution. Why does Hastert remain so determined to fight this through the federal appellate courts? Does he really believe that a federal judge on any level will rule that the FBI does not have the right to execute a search warrant on a Congressional office -- when that warrant has the approval of a federal judge? Does Hastert expect the judiciary to suddenly declare its entire branch subservient to Congress? If Hastert wins, a federal court would have to rule that federal judges have no authority to approve search warrants except through "procedures" that Congress would define for itself, making Capitol Hill the only place where a duly executed legal order has no weight. Balderdash -- and dangerous balderdash at that. Will someone please explain to Dennis Hastert that the only privilege granted to Congress is that contained within the Constitution, which in this case does not apply, and outside of that they get no special relief from the same laws that apply to the rest of us? And do it soon, because Hastert has become an embarrassment in his zeal to create a haven for bribe-takers on Capitol Hill. Otherwise, Republicans in Congress should begin to consider some special "procedures" that will remove him as Speaker in the next session, if not sooner. captainsquartersblog.com news.yahoo.com captainsquartersblog.com