Search of Rep. Jefferson unconstitutional? [Archive]

Loopydude

05-23-2006, 01:10 PM

Rep. William Jefferson (LA) has allegedly been nailed for accepting bribes to facilitate a business venture in Africa, an allegation I don't see much cause to doubt at this point. Yet, to my astonisment, there appears to be some discontent (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300169.html), (mostly voiced by House Democrats), over the search and seizure of incriminating evidence (90 grand wrapped in foil in a freezer, no less) by the FBI.

The counter-allegation appears to be that having the FBI search a Congressional office breaks a long-standing precedent, and threatens the independence of the Legislative Branch. The Executive could use the appearance of a legitimate investigation, say, as a strategy in a partisan vendetta, to spy on or otherwise thwart and threaten political adversaries.

Maybe. In this case, however, it looks like they caught a dirty politician red-handed, and are attempting to be scrupulous in limiting their search only to evidence relevant to the case, using independent investigators to sort the seized materials. Sure, there's no guarantee of perfect success in that effort, but I think it's a reasonable compromise, given the apparently flagrant nature of the offense. Am I missing something here? Am I wrong to be more troubled over a Congress, deservedly under seige for widespread allegations of curruption, hiding behind potentially partisan and specious Constitutional arguments, rather than the Separation-of-Powers issues raised in those arguments? Seems to me, if Congress can't police itself, the FBI is an appropriate entity to get the bad guys. It needn't be a slippery slope to witch-hunts and more power grabbing by the Executive.

Please, discuss.

Hamlet

05-23-2006, 01:32 PM

Loopydude

05-23-2006, 01:40 PM

I guess, having looked around, my suspicion it was more Dems. than anyone complaining about this was unfounded, and I should have paid more attention to my original cite. The concern over abuses appears to be fairly bipartisan.

Fir na tine

05-23-2006, 02:01 PM

Sounds like some of our representatives follow the belief, "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

Cheesesteak

05-23-2006, 02:41 PM

My view is... by the book. You think the Congresscritter is up to no good? You investigate and prosecute by the book. All warrants with dotted i's and crossed t's. Treated with the utmost respect and courtesy, but fully investigated and prosecuted.

If a search warrant is enough for the cops to search my underwear drawer, it's good enough for the FBI to search the offices my tax dollars pay to maintain.

Polycarp

05-23-2006, 02:53 PM

Congressmen (and Senators) are exempt from arrest for petty violations while Congress is in session. They 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.

This does not, however, give them some carte blanche to engage in whatever scandalous behavior they wish -- note the exceptions -- but rather to prevent the sort of behavior where some unscrupulous partisan person, let's call him Carl Roam, might contact local law enforcement and gently hint that it would be convenient if the local Congressman of the opposing party were arrested and held on suspicion of some offense, use your imagination here, Sheriff. The FF were no dummies when it came to crooked political practice!

Beyond that, as a citizen Jefferson is entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But from the look of the story it appears that both these provisions were scrupulously adhered to.

Face it, anything's unconstitutional in someone's opinion. But I think Hamlet nailed it, and I'm simply expanding on his comments with the constitutional text.

rjung

05-23-2006, 03:12 PM

If folks like Newt Gingrick and Dennis Hastert are complaining about the search, I'm inclined to believe it's a good thing.

As Cheesesteak says, do it by the book.

Loopydude

05-23-2006, 03:54 PM

Well, thanks, everyone, because I was boggled. As Hamlet and Polycarp rightly point out, there doesn't appear to be anything unconstitutional about searching the office of a Legislator when law enforcement can show probable cause for suspecting felonious activity. It certainly appears Rep. Jefferson is being investigated for felony bribery. What are Wamp, Hastert, Boehner, Pelosi, et al. so worried about? I just don't see the

From another cite (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0524/p01s02-uspo.html):

"Like ABSCAM, the Jefferson case does seem to be an egregious case of corruption. Congress's best response would probably be to police itself more effectively, rather than claim the executive is violating 'balance of power,' " says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University.

I heartily agree. Sure, this is perhaps (I say "perhaps" because ABSCAM appears to be somewhat relevant) an unprecedented move on the part of Federal investigators, but maybe it's a tradition of ignoring Legislative malfeasance we need to worry about, not some assault on cherished Constitutional principles.

Loopydude

05-23-2006, 03:56 PM

Gah! "I just don't see the legal basis for objection.

silenus

05-23-2006, 03:58 PM

Gah! "I just don't see the legal basis for objection.

I don't think there is one. A "customary" basis maybe, but not a legal one. A Congresscritter's office is not the Floor...they have no special rights or expectation of rights there.

Renob

05-23-2006, 04:45 PM

There are indeed some serious separation of powers issues here. The Executive Branch has no authority over Congress. If it were, there is the possibility that an executive could use his police power to intimidate Congress. Similarly, Congress has no power over Presidential personnel (as opposed to Cabinet members that are approved by the Senate). Each branch has privileges that the other may not infringe upon because of concerns of intimidation. Those privileges are a good thing and should be respected.

The concern Congress has with that is not that the FBI is investigating a Congressman, but that the FBI is invading legislative offices. In this case, I'm sure it's probably done for a good reason, but that's not always the case. What if, during the House Waco hearings, the FBI needed to raid the House Judiciary Committee's offices because of a so-called "corruption" investigation? Far fetched, sure, but not out of the question.

Capitol Hill has its own police force and that has jurisdiction over House and Senate offices. The FBI should have probably found a way to ask them to do this.

SteveG1

05-23-2006, 04:48 PM

From what I've read, Jefferson looks guilty as hell. Appareantly there is/was probable cause, and there was a legitimate search warrant.

If anything, it would SEEM to suggest that no one is above the law (a good thing), and no one has carte blanche to use their rank or office as a way to do criminal things (also a good thing).
It would be idiotic for Democrats to rally round Jefferson, just because of party loyalty. Let him twist in the wind.

Loopydude

05-23-2006, 04:59 PM

There are indeed some serious separation of powers issues here. The Executive Branch has no authority over Congress.

Is this an "authority" issue, though? Sure, branches can't order members of other branches around, or harass them with petty investigations, but Congress can impeach a President, after all. The FBI can investigate lawbreaking, and the Judiciary can see to it crimes are punished, no matter who is breaking them.

Enginerd

05-23-2006, 06:17 PM

I don't think it's a separation of powers issue. The executive didn't attempt to exercise any authority of its own over Congress. They suspected that a violation of federal law had been committed by one particular legislator. They collected evidence of this violation and presented that evidence to the judiciary, which found it compelling enough to issue a warrant. All these steps were carried out in accordance with both federal law and the Constitution.

The feds go through the same procedure whenever they want to (legally) search anyone's office. It's not an authority issue at all. It's a "you mean the laws apply to me too?!" issue.

DoctorJ

05-23-2006, 06:27 PM

There may be separation of powers issues here; I can certainly see a corrupt administration using the FBI as a weapon against unfriendly Congressmen.

But the Democrats should have let this go, because even if they do have a legit beef, speaking up about it now just amounts to defending Jefferson. He's obviously guilty, and since the Democrats are going to be running against the GOP culture of corruption this fall, the smart move would have been to unanimously and unambiguously condemn Jefferson's actions and demand his resignation. Failing to do so just gives their opponents tu quoque material.

saoirse

05-23-2006, 08:43 PM

I wonder why the FBI didn't ask the Capitol Police to execute the search, though. It is their jurisdiction. And it seems that the Capitol is not the FBIs jurisdiction. It is true that Congress can impeach a President, but that was how the Founders wanted it. Congress was supposed to be somewhat more powerful than the President. Unless the FBI believe the Capitol Police are too crooked or too incompetent to execute the search, I would rather they defer to them.

Loopydude

05-24-2006, 07:56 AM

I wonder why the FBI didn't ask the Capitol Police to execute the search, though.

Hard to say, but perhaps they were afraid the time it would take, or red tape, etc. might allow Jefferson an opportunity to stash the evidence where the FBI couldn't find it. Then again, Congressmen seem to feel their offices are sacrosanct, so perhaps Jefferson would have felt no hurry to move the cash out of the freezer.

Anyhoo, this really has created quite a stir. Hastert's complained directly to the President (cite (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301739.html)). Meanwhile Justice insists perhaps they wouldn't have broken precedent if Jefferson had not ignored subpoena nine months before.

Maybe I was too incredulous about the Constitutional issues here. Then again, seems like a Legislator could easily hide behind technicalities and use a Congressional office as a criminal haven should this investigation not stand.

David Simmons

05-24-2006, 08:18 AM

If Jefferson thinks the search was improper he can move to exclude the evidence obtained from it. That way, there would be an independent determination as to whether or not the executive and the judiciary acted properly.

From what I've read, the warrant was properly issued and there isn't anything wrong with what the FBI did.

The objection that the executive could use this method to harrass members of Congress is unfounded unless there is pretty widespread collusion between the executive and judiciary. The executive can always use its police powers in an unjustified manner unless there is a check by one or both of the other brances. That's why checks were built into the Constitution. In this aspect of things, members of Congress are on a par with the rest of us except for the special cases of being on the Floor or on the way to a session or committee meeting.

Evil One

05-24-2006, 10:15 AM

As another poster has suggested, I don't think Jefferson can expect much help or support from Democrats. He single-handedly destroyed one of thier main political weapons for the 2006 election season.

John Mace

05-24-2006, 11:00 AM

There are indeed some serious separation of powers issues here.
But "separation of powers" in and of itself isn't in the constitution. The specific clause that people seem to be citing is the "speech or debate" clause of Article 1 section 6 (emphasis added):

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They 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.
But it's beyond me how this can be applied as a blanket protection of a Congressional office. Is there any jurisprudence regarding that clause that we should know about?

Loopydude

05-24-2006, 11:09 AM

Damned if I know.

Loopydude

05-24-2006, 11:20 AM

As another poster has suggested, I don't think Jefferson can expect much help or support from Democrats. He single-handedly destroyed one of thier main political weapons for the 2006 election season.

Pretty much. Worse, Dems and Pubs alike must appear to defend Jefferson, however obliquely, in objection to the raid. An unnuanced interpretation of the message is "what goes on here stays here".

I can only guess the bipartisan objection reflects nervousness on the part of all Congressional members that their cherished precedent somehow remain inviolate, esp. in a political climate where public esteem of Congressional ethics is about as low as its ever been. If that gate is crashed, there's likely to be little voter objection to this sort of thing happening again and agian, if deemed necessary by Justice. Perceptions or accusations of partisan slant would likely follow this rare instance of bipartisan solidarity, in that event.

Voyager

05-24-2006, 11:36 AM

I think you're all missing the reason for the concern (and the Times article I read had the Republicans out in front on this - this is bipartisan.) They see this as a continuation of the Executive Branch running roughshod over the Legislative branch. We have them ignoring laws they don't like for reasons of national security, we have them expanding the notion of executive privilege. They're not very good on consulting with Congress on many things. Now they invade an office. Yeah, this one was justified, but what about the next time? Congressmen have confidential documents also - I'm not sure they trust the FBI to preserve them. I think the leaders of Congress wanted to be informed before this happened.

Say the police had a search warrant for the content of someone's desk on a matter that did not directly involve the company. Sure they could barge in, but wouldn't it often be better to inform the management of a company important in the town, and get cooperation?

Add to this that Bush's poll numbers means Republicans want to distance themselves from him, and this is a great opportunity.

Enginerd

05-24-2006, 12:13 PM

Add to this that Bush's poll numbers means Republicans want to distance themselves from him, and this is a great opportunity.
It's a horrible opportunity, because Congress is pretty clearly in the wrong on this one. There are any number of issues on which the administration has wrongly treated Congress like a red-headed stepchild. If the legislature had stood up during any one of them, they might have garnered public support from it and forced Bush to pay more attention to Congress.

By choosing this issue, they're making it seem like they're only going to stand up to the administration when it's their own priveleges at risk. They look like the corrupt ones on this one, and it's going to bite them in the ass. The public might think Bush is inept and in over his head, but for the most part they believe he's honest (I don't know how anyone can think this, but it still seems to be a majority view). They'll side with an honest bumbling president over a bunch of sharp, conniving Congressman every time.

ralph124c

05-24-2006, 12:27 PM

I don't see the three stooges (Sharpton, Jackson, frrakan) rising up to defend this Jefferson. So i suspect we are in for a bit of enetertainment this fall.

John Mace

05-24-2006, 02:41 PM

I think you're all missing the reason for the concern (and the Times article I read had the Republicans out in front on this - this is bipartisan.) They see this as a continuation of the Executive Branch running roughshod over the Legislative branch. We have them ignoring laws they don't like for reasons of national security, we have them expanding the notion of executive privilege. They're not very good on consulting with Congress on many things. Now they invade an office. Yeah, this one was justified, but what about the next time? Congressmen have confidential documents also - I'm not sure they trust the FBI to preserve them. I think the leaders of Congress wanted to be informed before this happened.
But the point we're trying to figure out is what law is being ingored in this case? I don't see one. And, hell, I'd like to be informed in advance of a police search, too, so I can hide the 5 lbs of cocaine I keep under my bed. Or do only Congressmen get that extra little warning? I say screw them. I can respect that we don't want them detained under the conditions outlined in the constitution, but if they're doing something illegal, and their office is being used as part of that illegal act, then tough shit for them.

bup

05-24-2006, 03:06 PM

A couple of things:

The part of the constitution Polycarp and John Mace posted - isn't accepting a bribe a felony? So there would no no protection from that.

If the FBI cannot be the police over the congress, who can we trust to police them? DC polices? I don't think the capitol police is a good answer - they're too much in the pocket of congress. Of course, by similar argument I worry who polices the White House...

saoirse

05-24-2006, 03:15 PM

And, hell, I'd like to be informed in advance of a police search, too, so I can hide the 5 lbs of cocaine I keep under my bed. Or do only Congressmen get that extra little warning? I say screw them.

Actually it was "notify the leaders." I'm pretty sure Dennis Hastert isn't going to protect a corrupt Democrat. And I also don't think any Democrat would either, simply because the privelege is more important than the individual, no matter what party they are. I don't think having to get a warrant is too much of a check on the President's power, since the judge who issues the warrant could veyr well owe his position to the President.

Least Original User Name Ever

05-24-2006, 04:00 PM

Is there some degree of diplomatid immunity that Senators see to think they have?

Both sides of the aisle seem to be pissed because the agents went into his personal office. I'm with Cheesesteak. If they can come into my house, looking for one thing and find another and try me for the greater of the two crimes, then they can do the same to this representative.

The Democrats should (haven't heard if they have yet) leave him to rot and rid themselves of curropt individuals like this fool. If they wish to reclaim a moral high ground, they must denounce him.

Enginerd

05-24-2006, 04:06 PM

The Democrats should (haven't heard if they have yet) leave him to rot and rid themselves of curropt individuals like this fool. If they wish to reclaim a moral high ground, they must denounce him.
Pelosi asked him to resign from the Ways and Means committee today, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052400350.html) (free registration required, but they've never spammed me). He declined to do so.

Voyager

05-24-2006, 04:16 PM

But the point we're trying to figure out is what law is being ingored in this case? I don't see one. And, hell, I'd like to be informed in advance of a police search, too, so I can hide the 5 lbs of cocaine I keep under my bed. Or do only Congressmen get that extra little warning? I say screw them. I can respect that we don't want them detained under the conditions outlined in the constitution, but if they're doing something illegal, and their office is being used as part of that illegal act, then tough shit for them.
I'm not disagreeing that what the FBI did was legal. I'm with the consensus here. The reaction of the House leadership is not due to a matter of law, but a matter of respect. Cops should treat bums, bank presidents, pimps and members of Congress exactly the same - but I rather suspect they don't. What happened could have been the result of cluelessness or of a big screw you to the legislative branch.

Now, if you say they are being hypocrites for caring more about a legal search of their offices than the other things that are happening, I'm right with you.

Least Original User Name Ever

05-24-2006, 04:56 PM

Pelosi asked him to resign from the Ways and Means committee today, according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052400350.html) (free registration required, but they've never spammed me). He declined to do so.

I did hear that, but so far, I've heard of only Pelosi. I'm saying that Howard Dean should start the train out of Jefferson City.

BrainGlutton

05-24-2006, 05:41 PM

Similarly, Congress has no power over Presidential personnel (as opposed to Cabinet members that are approved by the Senate).

Whaddaya mean? Congress has the authority to subpoena the WH Chief of Staff or even the president. Show me where the Constitution says otherwise.

David Simmons

05-24-2006, 06:32 PM

I think you're all missing the reason for the concern (and the Times article I read had the Republicans out in front on this - this is bipartisan.) They see this as a continuation of the Executive Branch running roughshod over the Legislative branch. We have them ignoring laws they don't like for reasons of national security, we have them expanding the notion of executive privilege. They're not very good on consulting with Congress on many things. Now they invade an office. Yeah, this one was justified, but what about the next time? Congressmen have confidential documents also - I'm not sure they trust the FBI to preserve them. I think the leaders of Congress wanted to be informed before this happened.There's no doubt it's a difficult and sensitive area however the connivance of the judicial branch would be needed for this to become an issue because of repeated such searches.

The Congress has chosen the wrong case to start "standing up the the executive." They don't have to prove anything. The Constitution always gives Congress the last word if they have brains enough to speak it.

John Mace

05-24-2006, 06:37 PM

They don't have to prove anything. The Constitution always gives Congress the last word if they have brains enough to speak it.
Can you explain this? How, specifically, does the Constitution give Congress the last word, and what is "the last word" anyway? (I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly don't know what you mean.)

Voyager

05-24-2006, 07:23 PM

There's no doubt it's a difficult and sensitive area however the connivance of the judicial branch would be needed for this to become an issue because of repeated such searches.

The Congress has chosen the wrong case to start "standing up the the executive." They don't have to prove anything. The Constitution always gives Congress the last word if they have brains enough to speak it.
I assume you mean the power of the purse? (A much easier last word than impeachment.)

John Mace

05-24-2006, 07:37 PM

I assume you mean the power of the purse? (A much easier last word than impeachment.)
That's too blunt an instrument. Imagine the backlash if Congress were to cut funding to the FBI. Then the terrorists would really win!

BobLibDem

05-24-2006, 07:39 PM

As another poster has suggested, I don't think Jefferson can expect much help or support from Democrats. He single-handedly destroyed one of thier main political weapons for the 2006 election season.

Yeah, right. One Democratic miscreant creates instant amnesia regarding the gross corruption and incompetence of the Republican party.

Malodorous

05-24-2006, 07:54 PM

Personally, I think the administration should declare a "War on Corruption" and claim the power to hold congress critters in indeffinate detention without a trial as unlawful combatants. If Hastert and Pelosi are subject to a little waterboarding along the way, I wouldn't be too upset. After all, we're protecting America.

In short, after letting the executive branch run roughshod over the legislature for 6 years, Congress has picked a fairly stupid place to make a stand.

David Simmons

05-24-2006, 08:14 PM

Can you explain this? How, specifically, does the Constitution give Congress the last word, and what is "the last word" anyway? (I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly don't know what you mean.)Well, if Congress feels that the President is not faithfully enforcing the laws or otherwise violating the oath they can impeach and convict him or her. Strictly speaking, the President serves at the pleasure of Congress although it isn't presented that way and the only check on Congress vs. the President is the electorate. If the President vetoes a bill, Congress can override the veto and the President has no recourse. Comgress can refulse to fund the President's programs. The President has no power to raise money and can only spend money appropriated by Congress. Congress can put any restrictions is sees fit on how the Presidents spends the money that it appropriates. And so on.

I believe that Constitutionally, the President's function is to execute the laws passed by Congress and to be Commander in Chief. The present President has grabbed onto the latter as "all power to the executive in time of war" and Congress has acquiesed and I think that will come back to haunt you. Probably not me because I'm 83 but you and others, I believe, are going to look back on this period as disastrous to civil liberties.

David Simmons

05-24-2006, 08:16 PM

In spite of all the forgoing, I'm not at all worried about the search of the Jefferson's office with was apparently done in strict conformance to the constitutional requirements for such a search.

Least Original User Name Ever

05-24-2006, 08:35 PM

Completely unrelated to anything in this discussion, but...

When I first came into this board and into this forum in particular, I remmeber seeing posts by John Mace and David Simmons back to back, always quoting each other in their posts. Some things never change, eh?

Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

ExTank

05-24-2006, 09:07 PM

election day is still a ways off...

Yeah, right. One Democratic miscreant creates instant amnesia regarding the gross corruption and incompetence of the Republican party.

Just IMO, but I'm not too sure that the public-at-large is keeping score WRT "who's more corrupt;" other than the fact that the Repubs. have held Congress for, what, 12 years now?

If Jefferson's alleged misdeeds have any impact on the public consciousness, it'll probably be more of a matter of "most recent incident;" what's the most fresh in the public memory. See post title.

For this conservative (NOT "neo"conservative), I won't think any less than I already do about the Dems. over this issue. :p

KSO

05-24-2006, 09:18 PM

The House Judiciary Committee is going to have hearings starting next week on "RECKLESS JUSTICE: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

Unfortunately, this isn't a joke. Time to throw all the scoundrels out.

Here (http://judiciary.house.gov/) is the link to the committee website--the press release is a pdf.

BrainGlutton

05-24-2006, 09:27 PM

Just IMO, but I'm not too sure that the public-at-large is keeping score WRT "who's more corrupt;" other than the fact that the Repubs. have held Congress for, what, 12 years now?

If Jefferson's alleged misdeeds have any impact on the public consciousness, it'll probably be more of a matter of "most recent incident;" what's the most fresh in the public memory.

Which might be the reason why Dems are (generally) lining up against Jefferson while Pubs are (generally) screaming about separation of powers and Congressional immunity.

Voyager

05-25-2006, 11:53 AM

That's too blunt an instrument. Imagine the backlash if Congress were to cut funding to the FBI. Then the terrorists would really win!
They could cut funding for the wiretapping division (that would hurt!) or some other pet project. They could write in provisions forbidding transfer of budget. They should have done it already if they weren't such pussies.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-25-2006, 12:14 PM

The Dem's message was gonna be, "Look at all the Republican corruption! Time to throw the bums out!"

The Pubs would respond, "Oh yeah? Well, um, Abramoff gave a little money to a couple of Dems as well!" Not a very effective comeback.

Now they'll respond, "Dude, your guy had a hundred thousand smackers in his freezer, and you're calling us corrupt?!" That's a much more effective comeback.

I've only voted in four presidential elections, but I don't remember any of them being decided on subtleties or on complex understandings of the issues. They're decided on soundbites, rhetoric, moods, and intangibles. This has just changed all of those.

What we can hope for, I think, is that this will increas the anti-incumbent mood, paving the way for some folks to take office under the rubric of reform. Here's my naive hope that the reformers will actually do some reform.

Daniel

Nars Glinley

05-25-2006, 04:05 PM

The House Judiciary Committee is going to have hearings starting next week on "RECKLESS JUSTICE: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"
I, for one, am glad to see that our Congresscritters are going into this investigation with an open mind and no preconceived ideas as to the inappropriateness of the Constitution trampling.

Loopydude

05-25-2006, 04:14 PM

Bush has ordered the documents sealed (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/25/some_lawmakers_wary_of_fight_over_fbi_raid/) for 45 days.

Guess it's about time to destroy whatever hasn't been seized...

Least Original User Name Ever

05-25-2006, 05:10 PM

What was Jefferson in charge of? Why would Bush want these documents sealed?

I've heard somewhere, I believe it was on a flash animation, that said that Bush has had an obscene amount of documents classified and that it costs money per page to classify documents.

Also, what is the difference between "sealed" and "classified"? Is it what's contained in the documents?

Loopydude

05-25-2006, 10:18 PM

"Sealed" means nobody gets to look at them. Classified means you and I don't get to look at them. He's just allowing for some time to negotiate. Importantly, the documents can't be tampered with or destroyed in the mean time.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-26-2006, 08:39 AM

Hard to say, but perhaps they were afraid the time it would take, or red tape, etc. might allow Jefferson an opportunity to stash the evidence where the FBI couldn't find it. Then again, Congressmen seem to feel their offices are sacrosanct, so perhaps Jefferson would have felt no hurry to move the cash out of the freezer.nd.
Small clarification: the cash was in a freezer in his apartment, not in his office. AFAIK, they've not told us anything of what was found in his office.

Daniel

BrainGlutton

05-26-2006, 09:18 AM

Importantly, the documents can't be tampered with or destroyed in the mean time.

That is, so far as anybody outside the Admin will ever know . . .

DrDeth

05-26-2006, 10:01 AM

Well, two points need to be made- no evidence was found at the Office. The evidence they needed was found at his home- so why did the Office need to be searched? Doesn't seem like it did.

Congressmen- especially those of the Opposition party- keep stuff at their office that the other party should not be able to read. Simply "excluding it from evidence" doesn't stop that. Nor does "sealing it" if it's already been read.

Those are the reasons why the warrant was improper- the search was unnessesary and allowed the opposition party to look at stuff they had no business looking at.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-26-2006, 10:16 AM

Well, two points need to be made- no evidence was found at the Office. The evidence they needed was found at his home- so why did the Office need to be searched? Doesn't seem like it did.
What do you mean, no evidence was found at the office? What's under seal, then?

And even if they didn't find any at the office, you don't need precognitive knowledge of what you'll find in order to get a warrant: you just need to have reasonable suspicion that there's evidence of a crime at a certain place. Surely they had reason to suspect that there'd be evidence of corruption in his office, yes?

Congressmen- especially those of the Opposition party- keep stuff at their office that the other party should not be able to read. Simply "excluding it from evidence" doesn't stop that. Nor does "sealing it" if it's already been read.
They've set up teams to filter it. If stuff gets out, then prosecute the leakers.

But why should congressfolks have stuff that the other side can't read? They're our employees; why should they be able to keep nonclassified information secret from us?

Daniel

BrainGlutton

05-26-2006, 10:17 AM

Well, two points need to be made- no evidence was found at the Office. The evidence they needed was found at his home- so why did the Office need to be searched? Doesn't seem like it did.

Well, the agents didn't know that until they conducted the search, did they? How could they?

Congressmen- especially those of the Opposition party- keep stuff at their office that the other party should not be able to read. Simply "excluding it from evidence" doesn't stop that. Nor does "sealing it" if it's already been read.

:dubious: You could apply that to business records too. Anything an executive keeps in his office is probably something he wouldn't want his competitors to see. That doesn't render those records immune from search, or from entry into the public record, or from publication in the newspapers. Why should Congresscritters' files be any different?

Loopydude

05-26-2006, 10:22 AM

How do we know evidence relevant to the case was not in the office? The whole reason the extra layer of oversight was added to the evidence gathering to sift the documents was to allow Justice access to material relevant to the warrant, whilst returning irrelevant material that Justice presumably would have never have been able to examine. That they were granted a warrant indicates they were able to show cause to believe Jefferson was also using his office whilst engaging in criminal activity.

Loopydude

05-26-2006, 10:23 AM

BG beat me to it.

DrDeth

05-26-2006, 10:27 AM

Loopydude

05-26-2006, 10:31 AM

Well, once you search the home and find the freaken evidence you were looking for, why the fuck do you need to search the office?

Does anyone have a cite that shows that any of the material evidence (liek the cash in the freezer) was found at the Office?

How could we possible show that? It's sealed, fer chrissakes.

And what investigation stops after finding some evidence, if the investigators think more can be obtained elsewhere? They got a warrant because they were highly suspicious of something and the Judge must have agreed they demonstrated cause. What more justification is needed to conduct a search? Why the heck would they just stop at the home?

DanBlather

05-26-2006, 10:42 AM

Well, once you search the home and find the freaken evidence you were looking for, why the fuck do you need to search the office?

Does anyone have a cite that shows that any of the material evidence (liek the cash in the freezer) was found at the Office?The cash was found in a freezer at his home. The search of the office was to look for evidence that he used his influence inappropriately in return for the bribe.

IMHO, the issue here is whether the Executive branch can unilateraly search the offices of the Legislative branch. Let's say for example, that in the future there is a constitutional crisis of some sort and the president uses the FBI to search the offices of a congressman and uncovers documents relating to congresses strategy to challenge the administartion.

I think this is a rare case where congress is acting without partisanship. The Dems are not backing Jefferson and are desperate for him to resign. The Pubs are asking the hard constitutional questions even though the subject of the search was a Dem.

I don't know whether the search violates separation of powers or not, and until the Supreme Court rules on a case like this no one else does either.

saoirse

05-26-2006, 11:27 AM

Well, the agents didn't know that until they conducted the search, did they? How could they?

:dubious: You could apply that to business records too. Anything an executive keeps in his office is probably something he wouldn't want his competitors to see. That doesn't render those records immune from search, or from entry into the public record, or from publication in the newspapers. Why should Congresscritters' files be any different?

Yes, but the people actually doing the searching wouldn't ultimately be answerable to the competitor's CEO.

DrDeth

05-26-2006, 11:46 AM

How could we possible show that? It's sealed, fer chrissakes.

They sealed it AFTER they had already announced some of what they found at other search sites. In other words, if they had found anything obvious, like a freezer full of cash, it would have been announced to the Public before the evidence was sealed. :rolleyes:

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-26-2006, 12:11 PM

They sealed it AFTER they had already announced some of what they found at other search sites. In other words, if they had found anything obvious, like a freezer full of cash, it would have been announced to the Public before the evidence was sealed. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: back atcha. Yeah, the cold cash was obvious, but just because evidence isn't obvious doesn't mean it's not good evidence. Somewhere in what they seized there may be faxes from people confirming Jefferson's vote, or letters to lobbyists asking for more payouts, or bank records showing where other bribes were deposited. Those aren't obvious at first: you gotta, y'know, look for them.

Daniel

KSO

05-26-2006, 12:29 PM

IMHO, the issue here is whether the Executive branch can unilateraly search the offices of the Legislative branch. Let's say for example, that in the future there is a constitutional crisis of some sort and the president uses the FBI to search the offices of a congressman and uncovers documents relating to congresses strategy to challenge the administartion.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The hypothetical you posit is without question barred by the Speech and Debate clause because the search would relate to Congress' lawmaking activities. Here, the search was related to a Congressman's allegedly criminal activities. Further, the search was pursuant to properly authorized search warrant so it wasn't a "unilateral" search by the Executive branch.

Jefferson's office was searched because:

1. He's on videotape accepting a $100,000 bribe.
2. $90,000 in cash was found hidden in his home.
3. One of his staffers told investigators there were documents relevant to the investigation in Jefferson's office.
4. Jefferson refused to respond to a grand jury subpoena.
5. The FBI already had sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime had been committed and probable cause that additional evidence was in Jefferson's office.

On top of all of that, the individuals who searched the office are not part of the team investigating Jefferson, precisely because of concerns about politically sensitive and/or irrelevant information. Then, the materials were reviewed by a so-called "filter team" to further limit disclosure of information. All of this is being provided to Jefferson's lawyers to ameliorate any concerns over improperly seized materials and/or irrelevant or otherwise sensitive information. This is why no details were released even before the sealing directive.

As far as I'm concerned, Congress is completely full of shit on this. Their position amounts to nothing more than a claim that they can commit ANY crime and hide the evidence in their offices. The search had nothing to do with Jefferson's lawmaking activities, just his allegedly criminal activities.

BrainGlutton

05-26-2006, 12:35 PM

4. Jefferson refused to respond to a grand jury subpoena.

Did he (or his lawyers) offer any legal grounds to refuse?

The search had nothing to do with Jefferson's lawmaking activities, just his allegedly criminal activities.

Impossible to disentangle the two when a congressman is accused of selling his vote.

Loopydude

05-26-2006, 02:31 PM

Interesting twist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052502102.html) in this affair.

I'm not sure if we should connect the dots as Hastert would, but it's fascinating to watch the Republican House Speaker turn on the Executive over this ostensible Constitutional turf war, under the circumstances. Quite the political onion to unpeel...

BrainGlutton

05-26-2006, 05:31 PM

David Simmons

05-26-2006, 11:16 PM

Did he (or his lawyers) offer any legal grounds to refuse?

Impossible to disentangle the two when a congressman is accused of selling his vote.As was pointed out on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, attorney's offices are sometimes searched under like conditions. Much attorney-client confidential information is taken in the search. A special master is then appointed by the court to take posession of the material and he or she goes through it, removing everything that is not germane to what the search warrent authorised.

BrainGlutton

05-26-2006, 11:18 PM

As was pointed out on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, attorney's offices are sometimes searched under like conditions. Much attorney-client confidential information is taken in the search. A special master is then appointed by the court to take posession of the material and he or she goes through it, removing everything that is not germane to what the search warrent authorised.

But what in Jefferson's office might have been protected by attorney-client privilege?! He is not his own lawyer . . . and if he were, the privilege would not apply!

Spavined Gelding

05-27-2006, 07:43 AM

In the back of every Congressman’s mind there has to be the image of the Lord Protector appearing at the door of Parliament backed by a platoon of Lobsterbacks and announcing: “You have sat here too long. Begone.”

The search of Representative Jefferson’s home and office certainly falls far short of that, but the idea that a government agency in the President’s chain of command can rummage through the legislative precincts has got to give lots of people pause. You can be sure that the English Civil War and the Commonwealth were very much on the Founders’ minds when they put together the parts of the Constitution that regulate the relationship between the President and Congress.

If Congress does indeed have its knickers in a bunch over this and if Congress has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, why can’t Congress put together a veto proof majority for a bill that would restrict the search warrant process? For instance, there could be a requirement that, in addition to a probable cause showing, the warrant application be indorsed by the chair of the concerned House’s judiciary committee. That would make the warrant ineffective but it looks as if Congress has the power to do it.

Reports in this morning’s WaPo say that the President was about to order every thing returned but was dissuaded from that course by threats of resignation in the D of J and the FBI. You would think that the guys in charge of this operation would have realized how politically sensitive it was and would have done something to grease the skids. Apparently they did not but rather just went straight ahead as if they were busting some meth lab in a trailer court.

The lesson? You don’t screw with the powerful even when the powerful deserve to be screwed with.

BrainGlutton

05-27-2006, 08:22 AM

For instance, there could be a requirement that, in addition to a probable cause showing, the warrant application be indorsed by the chair of the concerned House’s judiciary committee. That would make the warrant ineffective . . .

Not entirely . . . it would be politically risky for the committee chair to refuse the indorsement, or to give a heads-up to the Congresscritter to be searched. Nothing would prevent the FBI from disclosing the whole business to the press afterwards.

David Simmons

05-27-2006, 08:24 AM

But what in Jefferson's office might have been protected by attorney-client privilege?! He is not his own lawyer . . . and if he were, the privilege would not apply!Analogy, analogy. Pelosi, Hastert, et al are claiming Congressionaol privilege. For example, Jefferson might just be undertaking a probe of one facet or another of some FBI opeation, or of some other executive department, and he doesn't want the that investigation known about yet.

KSO

05-27-2006, 08:55 AM

Apparently they did not but rather just went straight ahead as if they were busting some meth lab in a trailer court.

No, they didn't. Here's a blog linking to newstories on what ordinary citizens are subjected to when their homes are raided, which is a far cry from what happened here: Link (http://www.theagitator.com/archives/cat_paramilitary_police_raids.php)

BrainGlutton--to answer your questions--I don't know what objections, if any, were raised by Jefferson's attorneys in response to the subpoena, and I have no idea if any sort of proper objection was/is pending before the court. Anybody have experience with grand jury subpoenas? Certainly, if a proper objection had been made, and was pending, it's a strike against the FBI.

I should have said "legitimate lawmaking activities." I don't agree that accepting bribes is a legitimate legislative activity that should be protected by the Speech and Debate clause.

BrainGlutton

05-27-2006, 10:08 AM

I should have said "legitimate lawmaking activities." I don't agree that accepting bribes is a legitimate legislative activity that should be protected by the Speech and Debate clause.

But, that's the point. The FBI does not know whether a given activity of a suspect legislator is legitimate (and covered by the Speech and Debate clause) or not, until they investigate.

David Simmons

05-27-2006, 11:01 AM

But, that's the point. The FBI does not know whether a given activity of a suspect legislator is legitimate (and covered by the Speech and Debate clause) or not, until they investigate.And that is one reason why, in such cases, some prescreening (of the material that is siezed) by the equivalent of a special master is needed. That prevents the disclosure to the executive department that material that the member wants concealed from it. Other than the evidence relating to the purported crime being investigated of course.