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.
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.
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:
He’s on videotape accepting a $100,000 bribe.
$90,000 in cash was found hidden in his home.
One of his staffers told investigators there were documents relevant to the investigation in Jefferson’s office.
Jefferson refused to respond to a grand jury subpoena.
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.
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…
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
