# Search of Rep. Jefferson unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933 "2006-05-23T18:10:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/41 "2006-05-25T01:16:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/42 "2006-05-25T01:35:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/43 "2006-05-25T02:07:32Z")
**election day is still a ways off…** > [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/44 "2006-05-25T02:18:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/45 "2006-05-25T02:27:31Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/46 "2006-05-25T16:53:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/47 "2006-05-25T17:14:35Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/48 "2006-05-25T21:05:34Z")
> [@KSO](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/49 "2006-05-25T21:14:26Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/50 "2006-05-25T22:10:43Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/51 "2006-05-26T03:18:43Z")
“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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/52 "2006-05-26T13:39:51Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/53 "2006-05-26T14:18:36Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > 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 . . . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/54 "2006-05-26T15:01:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/55 "2006-05-26T15:16:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/56 "2006-05-26T15:17:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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? > [@DrDeth](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/57 "2006-05-26T15:22:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/58 "2006-05-26T15:23:40Z")
**BG** beat me to it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/59 "2006-05-26T15:27:22Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933/60 "2006-05-26T15:31:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-of-rep-jefferson-unconstitutional/357933.md?page=4)