I have to admit that while I’ve been watching the Rep. William Jefferson bribery probe with interest, I don’t feel smart enough on the legal issues surrounding the Justice Department’s late night raid on his offices to sensibly comment. My general sense is that Jefferson, who was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar to the videotaped tune of $100,000 was using the privileges of his office to cover up the evidence of his crimes. And to the untutored eye at least, it looks as though the representative of the executive branch, in the form of the Justice Department and FBI, did all that they could do by bringing the judiciary into play in a move against the third co-equal branch of federal government. So while it feels to me anyway as though they lined their ducks up carefully, it’s also quite clear that members of Congress – currently enjoying one of the electorates’ cyclical bouts of “throw ‘em all to the curb” sentiments – feel quite differently about the issue.
Turns out they’re not the only ones – From today’s WaPo:
The Justice Department signaled to the White House this week that the nation’s top three law enforcement officials would resign or face firing rather than return documents seized from a Democratic congressman’s office in a bribery investigation, according to administration sources familiar with the discussions.
The possibility of resignations by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was communicated to the White House by several Justice officials in tense negotiations over the fate of the materials taken from Rep. William J. Jefferson’s office, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Which, wow.
When the president ordered the seized documents sealed for 45 days, I suspected a straddle. Now it looks like he was scramming the reactor of state before it could meltdown. And of course, if the Justice Department succeeds against congressional claims of prerogative, the timing of those potentially incriminating documents coming back into public scrutiny will certainly be questioned by those who are keen to “question the timing” of pretty much everything. We will, after all, be that much closer to the election cycle.
Interesting times.
Good comments, but the issue of “co-equal” would then present a wonderfully intersting new view. Each branch has it’s functions, for which, as each of the people involved are plain old citizens, are subject to the decisions coming from each other branch.
Co-equal would imply a member of the legislative unit was not subject to the laws they made, as arbitrated by the branches responsible for enforcement and subsequent legal review and proceedings. Certainly the discussion on “above the law (or below)” would be a real roller coaster ride to watch.
There are not three little governments, which then each get a vote on each issue. There are three parts that make the whole, each with their rule sets we have to live by (Thank you, IRS!).
I think, as I heard, after 8 months of the FBI trying to get to the issue via discussions with the House counsel, and not getting anywhere in solving a crime, this may well have been a very temperate method of solving the problem.
Just remember, a few short months ago, Duke fell from grace with the electorate, and he, when confronted legally, resigned. Due to his acknowledgements, he is already serving his time. Mr Jefferson, OTOH, is going to drag this out and scream “VICTIM!”.
Think of this paraphrase from your favorite movie: “That was the best bribe taking I’ve ever seen, right up until you got caught!”
Breaking the law is breaking the law….I hope the Justice Department stands its ground, for it sounds like the head of the nation’s law enforcement is kinda queasy.
One of those catch-22 things Curt, from the representative’s point of view I mean. They’re not explicitly arguing that they’re above the law, so much as that you and your executive pals aren’t the ones who get to enforce it upon them. Trampling upon their co-equality, etc.
“scramming the reactor of state”? You’ve been spending too much time around the guys with glowing smiles.
I agree with Curt. The fundamental principle is not co-equal branched of government, it’s seperation of powers, each branch is given a seperate set of powers so that no one branch of the government can exercise tyrrany. If Congress can’t be investigated and charged for any crimes comitted a vital safeguard in our system is breached.
It might be useful to read the take of a constitutional-law professor, like Akhil Amar. Slate online recently published an article on the issue by Prof. Amar:
http://www.slate.com/id/2142462/
It’s long, and I have no idea how to insert a clickable link here. Apologies to all for my deficiencies in that regard.
In short, it doesn’t look good for the “But I’m immune!” contingent.
Hey! It’s automagic.
I *love* good computers. (But not the other kind.)
Having written a couple hundred search warrants, I can assure y’all that no federal judge would authorize a search of congressional offices unless the leagl authority for doing so was ironclad.
The “house leaders” again missed the opportunity to take the high road on this issue, which as you are well aware, comes on the heels of the Cunningham case. Why didn’t their remarks include a pledge to maintain the honor and integrity of the House of Representatives; instead of acting like cockroaches suddenly exposed to light?
BTW, what is it with the Louisiana delegation? If they’re not stealing, they’re slapping Capital Police Officers. Can’t blame this stuff on FEMA or Katrina!
When the race/victim card is in play the result is less than equal justice. The times? Institional errosion. Add one more stone to the backpack….
Of course, the backdrop to all of this is the 2006 election with the Dems (visualize talking Puppet-head Pelosi) hoping to capitalize on the “crooked pols of the majority”. Tit-for-tat (Duke-Jefferson) neutralizes that issue. Personally, I ain’t ready to burn down the house (no pun intended) to rid it of a few rats, in order to hand over control to a whole bunch of ‘em. Moi, Partisan? Maybe. Pragmatic self preservation? Yeah verily.
Bomber- as crooked and unnaturally seedy the Lousianna delegation may be, Rep. Cynthia “The Glare” McKinney is a “unique” Georgia product.
B2
Bomber Guy is right
Having requested about 100 Search Warrants you have to show to the judge that you have reasonable cause before he will issue such thing. Note that I said *prove*. Real life ain’t CSI.
But the basic political blackmail thats coming from this, and the demand for “checks and balances” is BS. If I have a waarant, and I’m coming to your house, there is no checks and balances to keep me out of your save for the Jude rescinding the Search Warrant.
This “immunity” thing needs to be squashed and fast, or $10 bucks says we’re going to see someone try to pass a bill to enforce it and then they *will* be immune
Lex, you’re right as to the rationale being used.
I’m going to have to do a little blogging about how the Brown V Texas case will maybe save Mr. Jefferson (and all others) from being charged…oops…Brown did it in the privacy of his bedroom…:)
Bomber Guy is wrong.
I am sure that there was probable cause out the wazoo, and that the affadavit was signed in blue ink and that the judge had a lawyer explaining why they needed it, but, he did not care if there was legal authority. I’d bet money his focus was on being neutral and detached.
As for ?
Bomber Guy is wrong.
I am sure that there was probable cause out the wazoo, and that the affadavit was signed in blue ink and that the judge had a lawyer explaining why they needed it, but, he did not care if there was legal authority. I’d bet money his focus was on being neutral and detached.
As for “scramming the reactor of state,”
best
phrase
ever.