Deleted by user.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[John Wayne]

The problem is that Bush and his supporters want a centralized Government in the office of the President. This would allow him, and future presidents, to do what they want without Congressional aproval. Personally, I think they were 'testing the waters' with the spying program. If it is uncovered, view the reaction. This will help figure out the existing boundaries of power for the president, and will help him (and future presidents) erode this boundarie into nothing. And before anyone can say something about Bush being an idiot, let me assure you that an idiot does NOT get into Harvard/ Yale and stays there AND graduates if they are an idiot. It is, in my opinion, this belief of 'Bushs' idiocy' that cost the Dems dearly in 2000 and 2004. (but that is off topic so no answering!)

[Red Harvest]

This scares me. I'm glad the FBI is trying to root out corruption but the Congress trying to protect this guy reveals a lot. It's not about the constitution or their rights. They are trying to cover their asses.

Some prominent leaders are condemning his actions yet at the same time trying to get those documents sealed away forever. Now the President, I think with nothing to lose in poll numbers is trying to win points with congress.

Sounds to me like there's much more corruption in Washington then they'd have you believe.

You are scared for the wrong reason. I can sympathize with your concern, I had the same initial reaction as you, until I read why the House and on both sides of the aisle were so upset. This is a constitutional separation of power issue. It isn't a matter of protecting this guy (the Democrats are already asking him to step down--he's an embarrassment.) The problem is that a Federal agency under executive control has overstepped it's authority.

Think of it like this: The House or Senate conducts an investigation of someone in the Administration working in the White House, it then sends its own investigators into the White House and siezes documents from the Executive Branch as part of that investigation *without consent.* All hell would break loose! Right now such matters are handled in negotiations, and usually the White House (most notably this particular Administration) says "no" to VOLUNTARILY turning over documents, let alone someone coming in from outside and grabbing what they want.

Bush's initial call to freeze the records is a good start toward resolving the matter. It looks like the FBI clearly overstepped the bounds, but I don't necessarily believe Bush had anything to do with that directly.

The basic concern is that such acts could be used to intimidate, coerce, or otherwise interfere with members of another branch of govt. I suspect that if people learn what the real issue is, they will be very concerned. I won't defend the congressman at all and want to see him fully prosecuted, but this isn't about him, it is about the office.

[John Wayne]

*scowls* Damn the media for not mentioning this! Why do they never, EVER. go into detail about something important?

[JP226]

Bush's initial call to freeze the records is a good start toward resolving the matter. It looks like the FBI clearly overstepped the bounds

what do you mean they overstepped their bounds? Is mr jefferson, a servant, immune to the law against corruption and taking bribes?

[Aristophanes]

Who is responsible for hunting down and prosecuting criminal dealings in the House and Senate? Surely there must be oversite by some INDEPENDENT agency.

[Red Harvest]

what do you mean they overstepped their bounds? Is mr jefferson, a servant, immune to the law against corruption and taking bribes?

No, he is not. But this is not about him at all! I've not heard any in Congress defend HIM on this matter and that is not the basis of the complaint. Instead the concern is with the method that was used. This is a first, because it was in his *Congressional Office.* They had already searched his home, etc. where they had authority to do so. This is the equivalent of a Judge sending a bailiff into the Whitehouse to sieze documents because of suspected illegal acts by the Administration, or a House member sending an aide into the Whitehouse to sieze documents because of suspected illegal acts. If Executive Branch agencies are going to have such powers, then the other two Branches must be allowed equal powers...and you can bet that is not going to happen.

It is a constitutional crisis that has apparently not arisen before, as odd as that might sound. I'm not sure what the solution is. Most likely, some sort of request should have been passed through House leadership. This is a good one to sit back and munch on some popcorn. It is going to take awhile to sort out. Without a precedent to guide them, this is going to take awhile to resolve.

What you should be worried about from a prosecutorial standpoint is that if the siezure is unconstitutional, then no evidence gleaned from it would be admissable in court. The FBI could probably nail the guy without it from what I've heard so far, but is it worth taking that risk--or risk tainting the rest of the investigation? I don't want the guy to walk on a technicality. Do you?

[Big War Bird]

Hastert and Pelosi are making much ado about nothing.

1. It is mind boogling that that the two of them are trying to interpret a clause in the Constitution that protects Congressmen from arrest while in session or traveling to or from said session to mean that their public offices on Federal land is beyond the reach of law enforcement. This is utter BS. Congressmen are not above the law when they are caught committing felonies like Rep. Jefferson has been and his office is not a legal black hole.

2. If one wants to continue this argument just on philosophical grounds, then this not simply the executive brach versus the legislature. This is the Executive and the Judicial teaming up against the legislature. The FBI (executive branch) collected evidence and presented probable cause to a federal judge (judicial) who agreed that their was suficient evidence of a crime to warrent a seach of the Congressmens' office. Now that same judge had to be nominated by the President (executive) and voted on by the Senate (legislative). So it seems to me that system of checks and balances are working just fine.

[IamthePope]

Now the President, I think with nothing to lose in poll numbers is trying to win points with congress.

I guess if you're pre-disposed to dislike Bush, even the stuff you approve of must seem like he only does it for personal gain. Can nothing he does be in the interest of the nation?

[danzig]

Funny how congress gets up in arms about constitutional rights being stepped on when its THEIR rights, I understand their point but the outrage on this cant help but make me laugh. Where were they during DMCA? Patriot act? Oh but when it touches them its this is unacceptable and its even funnier by the fact I think its clear the guy is guilty, I mean they have video tape of him unloading boxes of money from an FBI informer/agent or whatever. Of course right after this ABC News reported Hastert himself is under investigation despite the DoJ saying he ISNT under investigation they are sticking by their story! So bottom line of the story is we have two whining congress big shots Pelosi and Hastert whining and a news agency that is standing by a story that appears to be false. You know maybe should just get rid of this entire congress thing....its such a waste

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Erik]

If the FBI isn't allowed to seize those documents, who is?
Can congress start it's own criminal investigation against Jefferson?

[danzig]

If the FBI isn't allowed to seize those documents, who is?
Can congress start it's own criminal investigation against Jefferson?

They are able to, this is just congress playing games with the rules. The FBI had proper search warrents and everything was done 'legal'. They are whining because DoJ is part of federal branch so they see this them stepping on the legislative branch. There are a number of special circumstances that make it different then say an average citizen, such as they cant sieze privilaged material. A "filter" team is suppose to decide what is privilaged material and what isnt in these siezures. Also there is the Speech and Debate clause:

"The Senators and Representatives . . . 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."

Which doesnt really apply here since what Jeffersons is being investigated for IS a felony but seen atleast 2 mentions of it in newspaper articles.

[Red Harvest]

This Administration has made the nation hypersensitive to abuse of constitutional authority issues. That is a large part of this, whether or not he had any direct knowledge of the action. However, I'll point out again that this particular type of search has apparently never happened before. There have been crooked congressmen before and this has not happened, so how have such matters been resolved in the past. There is a valid jurisdictional question because of the separation of powers. It looks like something SCOTUS will need to rule on.

I think this opens a real can of worms, since reciprocal search powers could be required by Congress investigating illegal practices by Administration officials. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[JP226]

I think this opens a real can of worms, since reciprocal search powers could be required by Congress investigating illegal practices by Administration officials. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

and that's not the job of the congress. They legislate, the exec enforces and scotus interprets. This was perfectly legal, jefferson is not above the law, he is a citizen of the US, just like you or I and if we break it, we have to face consequences. This is like saying the FBI has no right to arrest you or I no mater what we do. BTW the constitution only holds the exec back from arresting if legislative memebrs are on their way to vote. And if i'm not mistaken, the niceties, something you and I don't get, were already afforded to jefferson an he declined, sow hat else is there to do?