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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (168029)	5/30/2006 1:38:47 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793797

As I said before, let him raised the constitutional issue in a motion to suppress. That, of course, is JMO.

To: Ilaine who wrote (168029)	5/30/2006 2:07:53 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793797

If the answer is so clear, why has Bush sequestered the evidence for 45 days while the matter is hashed out? Politics, of course. He was getting heat from GOP Congressman as well as internally, from the DOJ, and they are at odds. I don't know how the issue will be resolved, but I suspect that the old Nixon case on executive privilege will play a big part. My personal opinion is that there has to be a "crime" exception found to any privilege from law enforcement searches. We cannnot immunize Congressmen's offices from searches if they are using them for criminal purposes or if they contain evidence of their crimes. I remember no such argument being made when the now-departed Louisiana federal judge, Robert F. Collins, had his chambers searched. Of course, he had a wad of marked cash in his credenza. None in his freezer that I recall. The case against Jefferson seems to be quite strong. The DOJ might very well be gilding the lily, not to mention giving him a peripheral issue to rant and rave about and distract attention from his problems.