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 (20162)	5/24/2006 4:15:56 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I Just Don't Get It Betsy's Page The claims that lawmakers, particularly Republicans, are making in protest of the search of Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, just don't make sense to me. They are claiming that the Executive Branch has impinged on their separate powers by searching Jefferson's office. Dennis Hastert, suddenly a Constitutional expert, calls the search unconstitutional. As Jlauck points out over at Bayou View points out, the provisions protecting Congressmen from prosecution refers to what they do in pursuit of their Constitutional duties. <<< In question for legislators is Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, in part, ""for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place." The clause was written so that legislators would not prosecuted for their political views. Later, the courts, especially in Kilbourn v. Thompson 103 U.S. (13 Otto) 168, 26 L. Ed. 377 (1880), have included within that immunity a Congressman's "legislative acts," a broadly-construed concept that has been the subject of much discussion over the years. The Founders didn't want legislators prosecuted for passing a given law. >>> But Jefferson's case doesn't involve any activities that are part of his legislative duties, except as he is suspecting of misusing his legislative position to obtain bribes. If we were to accept the position that Hastert and Gingrich are arguing, we would establish Capitol Hill as an "alley, alley home free" spot. Crooked Congressmen would then know that all they need to do is hide all incriminating information up in their offices and sit back preaching separation of powers. So, following this logic, it would be acceptable for the local police to search the offices in search of evidence because there is no separation of powers between the local police and Congress. It is only the FBI, as part of the Executive Branch, that would be barred from investigating a crime. They're not denying that the FBI has the responsibility to investigate the crime and the power to search a Congressman's home even though he might do some work at home. So, it is only Capitol Hill that they want to create as some sort of Forbidden Zone for federal law enforcement officers. And then how are Justice Department officials supposed to prosecute people like Randy "Duke" Cunningham or William Jefferson? Why is the investigation, arrest, and prosecution by an Executive Branch agency fine and dandy, just not the search to obtain the evidence? This makes no logical sense. It is offensive to the American people to think that these offices should be off limits to law enforcement. I thought that one of the foundational principles behind the Contract with America was that Congressmen should have to obey the same laws that they pass as the citizens of the country. These Congressmen need to realize that they are not above the law, even while sitting in their offices. betsyspage.blogspot.com washingtonpost.com bayouview.jlauck.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20162)	5/24/2006 4:22:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Don't Forget that it is William Jefferson's Own Fault Betsy's Page Byron York has looked at the affadavit that the Justice Department submitted when it asked a federal judge for the warrant to search Jefferson's office. In it they include a list of all the prior efforts that they had made to get the documents they sought. They explain why they think that a search of his office would be fruitful. The government has exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner short of requesting this search warrant. A member of Congressman Jefferson's staff has indicated to law enforcement agents that records relevant to the investigation remain in Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, which the government has been unable to obtain to date. Left with no other method, the government is proceeding in this fashion. Sounds like they have a source who is talking in Jefferson's own office. What do you want to bet that he deliberately hid documents in his office thinking that he would be able to rely on the Justice Department respecting his taxpayer-funded sanctuary? They then took extraordinary efforts to set up a special filter team to make sure that they only extracted papers that had to do with their case. Have all these legislators bloviating about their special privileges to be exempt from an FBI search even read this affidavit? Just as Nixon did not have executive privilege to protect his taped conversations discussing a coverup and Clinton did not have a privilege to protect discussions with aides to cover up an illicit affair, Congressman Jefferson does not have a legislative privilege to protect his activities to accept bribes. There is no constitutional privilege for anyone in any of the three branches to protect them from authorities investigating criminal actions. When the respect for Congress is at a depressingly low point, could Congressmen have found any surer way to lower it even further? betsyspage.blogspot.com corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (20162)	5/24/2006 7:31:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Re: Jefferson Getting Fair Treatment Andy McCarthy The Corner My only slight departure from Byron's assessment is the observation that Jefferson is not just getting fair treatment; he is getting extraordinary treatment. Suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous, and the claim that there is a separation-of-powers problem here is frivolous. The congressmen and others making it are conducting themselves abysmally. At a time when Americans' regard for congress is at an all-time low, why would anyone want to get behind such low-life criminality? The Constitution defines the immunity of members of Congress in the speech and debate clause (Art. I, 6), providing that members "shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." (Italics mine.) That's it. They can be investigated and prosecuted just like anyone else, with two exceptions: (a) they presumptively may not be placed under arrest during a session of congress — although arrest is perfectly proper if a felony (or treason or breach of the peace) is involved; and (b) the evidence used to prosecute them cannot include anything contained in a speech or debate during a session. So the privilege against arrest is limited, and the privilege against being investigated is non-existent (anyone out there remember Abscam?). As Byron relates, the executive branch has apparently made use of an extraordinary Chinese Wall procedure here, having agents unrelated to the investigation conduct the search of Jefferson's office "to ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege[.]" That is kit-gloves overkill in the extreme. The speech and debate privilege means statments and materials from speeches or debates when congress is in session cannot be used as evidence in court against a member of congress. It does not mean that such statements and materials cannot properly be seen or heard by the investigators, or that if they are seen or heard the investigation is somehow tainted. Most speech and debate in congress is public — the whole idea of the constitutional protection is to make certain that, since speech will be seen and heard, members will not shy away from saying what they honestly think out of fear of prosecution. There is no such thing as a "politically sensitive" items privilege. Congressmen, moreover, have no more right to privacy in items that are beyond the scope of a search warrant than you and I do. There was no need to go these absurd lengths for Jefferson. Yes, there is something offensive about this episode. But it is not the investigation. It is the audacity of public servants to claim a license to betray their public trust with impunity. corner.nationalreview.com