As someone once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You made a ridiculous statement that most Congressmen have something to hide. If you are going to assert this, then please provide proof. It’s not simply enough to say that you think it and that settles it. If you think most are dishonest, then please give us the basis for that assumption. If not, then accept that your statement is completely without foundation.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on that? I mean, claiming “executive privilege” didn’t do Nixon much good.
Actually, yes.
That’s why I deliberately changed the word “All” to “Most” in my post.
It’s right there in post #2.
-Joe
I think the argument is that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are supposed to be co-equal. If this (or Hillary’s or Jeb or McCain’s) administration can use police power to search congressional offices and seize congressional records, it puts a huge source of intimidation and power on the side of the Executive Branch.
Imagine if a Nancy Pelosi Appointee (or the Senate Armed Services Committee) could decide to search the Oval Office and seize records. They can subpoena or request specific records They cannot, however. send some guys over to ransack and search and seize.
It is not just Hasert From HERE--------------
*In this case, both Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are speaking with one voice, challenging the administration’s action.
Demonstrating how rankled House members are, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday. The subject: “Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?”
And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told The New York Times he was concerned enough about the raid to seek a legal opinion.*
It hasn’t, and it’s not likely to any time soon. In any case, there’s a big difference between the power to subpoena and the power to physically search without permission.
Consider this scenario. FBI head J. Edgar Rove has been collecting files on people, and some Congressmen feel, has been abusing authority. An investigation is about to begin. Rove, with a warrant from a tame judge, claims this Congressman is a terrorist spy or somesuch, and raids his offices, at least seeing what the guy has and maybe finding something incriminating.
That isn’t what happened in this case, but without a precedent of advanced notification, it could happen. To oppose notification, the DoJ would have to assert that the leadership of Congress is as crooked as the suspected Member.
This, and the Administration refusing to turn over information that might indicate they did something wrong at the same time as raiding the office of a Congressman to show that he did something wrong.
On the bright side, Gonzalez seems to be fostering a new spirit of cooperation across party lines. 
Gonzalez will say it is to prevent terrorism and therefore no previous laws apply.
Wow! You really don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you? 
In a Congresscritter’s files? :dubious:
Cogent argument. I think that’s just what was offered up by some sensible person on Hardball tonight (Friday).
Thanks, acsenray.
Thanks back at ya.