William Jefferson - Constitutional Crisis?

[chequita guevara]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If the Executive can raid them homes and offices of Administration officials, it should be able to go after a sitting Congressman or judge if there's suffiient evidence for a warrant.

Anyway, as I understand it, it's not that a Congressman can't be arrested while Congress is in session, but that he cannot be arrested while physically in Congress or on his way to or from Congress. That is to keep the Administration from arresting Congressman temporarily to keep them from voting on a particular bill.

[Winston]

Way to miss my point. I was talking about the deafening silence in the OT that preceded this thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If the Executive can raid them homes and offices of Administration officials, it should be able to go after a sitting Congressman or judge if there's suffiient evidence for a warrant.

Members of the administration are members of the same branch of government, the Executive.

[chequita guevara]

I know, I used different words so as not to be redundent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
Way to miss my point. I was talking about the deafening silence in the OT that preceded this thread.

I would have, but I don't get on much during the week no more.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I know, I used different words so as not to be redundent.

So why make a comparison at all? Things BETWEEN branches of government work differently than things WITHIN branches of government.

[DinoDoc]

GePap: The main question I have is are Congressmen above the law as you seem to be implying with the "some are more equal than others" schtick? There was enough evidence to get the warrant. The search itself was legally conducted and I've seen no convincing arguement stating otherwise. Why would you give someone time to destroy evidence to satisfy a nonsensical desire to jump through unnecessary hoops?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
GePap: The main question I have is are Congressmen above the law as you seem to be implying with the "some are more equal than others" schtick? There was enough evidence to get the warrant. The search itself was legally conducted and I've seen no convincing arguement stating otherwise. Why would you give someone time to destroy evidence to satisfy a nonsensical desire to jump through unnecessary hoops?

Hilley did.

[Ned]

Actually, this issue pits Congress against both the Executive and the Judicial branches, as the warrant was issued by a court.

Imran, if you read this thread, couldn't Jefferson move to quash the warrant or suppress the evidence siezed on constitutional grounds? That seems to me to be the proper procedure.

Instead, appealing to president Bush (throught the House leadership) to intervene is chicken****. Ditto president Bush for intervening to protect corruption. He is wrong. The matter should be decided by the courts.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
I understand that the Attorney General and the FBI Director will resign if they are forced to return the materials siezed from the criminal's House office.

"WASHINGTON, May 26 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday."

NY Times, May 27, 2006.

Whether they were serious or not is a different matter. Noticed, they didn't make any direct statement to the President on this matter...so I doubt that is was a threat, more like an expression of extreme political frustation.

couldn't Jefferson move to quash the warrant or suppress the evidence siezed on constitutional grounds? That seems to me to be the proper procedure.

It would be the proper procedure if there was any merit to athe rgument. However, while the Constitution does protect members of Congress for arguments made on the floor, it doesn't protect them from criminal prosecution for taking bribes.

There's a old legal maxim: When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. --That's what's going on here.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
GePap: The main question I have is are Congressmen above the law as you seem to be implying with the "some are more equal than others" schtick? There was enough evidence to get the warrant. The search itself was legally conducted and I've seen no convincing arguement stating otherwise. Why would you give someone time to destroy evidence to satisfy a nonsensical desire to jump through unnecessary hoops?

The arguement would be that the evidence could have been presented to Congressional leaders, who could then themselves take internal steps to have it removed, or give their go ahead for a search anyways.

I have no problem with searching offices for evidence, but its the inequity of the current system (president offices sacrosant, Congressional offices open game) that does not work for me. I think DanS's observation that in over 225 years of the republic this had never been done does show that this is something new for the executive to be doing.

[DinoDoc]

IIRC, there was no similar outcry when a federal judge's office was searched in the early 90's. Nor was there any real outcry when warrants were served on members homes, including Jefferson's. Any distinction that would treat searches of offices as being somehow different seems to be at least IMO baseless in law and politically dangerous as it would stink of Congressional leaders acting to protect thier own from valid investigations.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
IIRC, there was no similar outcry when a federal judge's office was searched in the early 90's. Nor was there any real outcry when warrants were served on members homes, including Jefferson's. Any distinction that would treat searches of offices as being somehow different seems to be at least IMO baseless in law and politically dangerous as it would stink of Congressional leaders acting to protect thier own from valid investigations.

A member's home is not protected. Its their official offices that Congress argues are. As for a difference being baseless, members of Congress are again not like you or me, they do get treated differently by the law.

As for there being a stink about Congressional leaders blocking investigations, well, that is what elections every two years are for.