Was the FBI justified in raiding Jefferson?

[MikeNY]

The guy had 90,000 dollars of illegal money hidden in his freezer, and all I'm seeing are the Republicans AND Democrats in the Senate complaining about abuse of power...

What the hell?

Am I the only one that thinks busting this guy was a good thing? I mean, if the FBI isn't allowed to investigate crime, what is its purpose? Why do Senate Republicans and Democrats think they're above the law?

What a disgrace! Unless they can prove that this action was politically motivated, I don't see any reason to be against this action. The truth is they're probably all scared because they all have dirt of their own on them.

Lets see what its going to take for them to get these documents back... If they're raising hell because of what they found in Jefferson's residence then there is something bigger going on here.

[Semblance]

1. Read

You seriously need to read about the construction of the US Govt. as laid out by the Constitution. Google "separation of powers".

[melm00se]

30. I would tend to disagree

for a search warrant to be executed, it must be signed off by a judge after being shown probable cause.

While there are blocks in place to prevent one branch from overrunning another, in this case both the executive and judicial concurred that a warrant and search were justified so there is no conflict here.

[Hosnon]

31. I agree. Separation does not mean the three branches are immune from each

other...there are the bridges we call "checks and balances."

Congressmen can commit crimes just as readily as any of us Constitutionally.

[corbett]

56. Gonzales Is Among The Worst Attorneys General EVER But

he was correct in this call. There was ample probable cause and Lewinskigate proved that sitting elected officials are not out of reach of the Justice Department. I hate to see a Democrat go down but as far as the search goes, too bad for him!

[rucky]

44. How about the part about equal protection?

which also covers equal enforcement of the law.

[spanone]

2. It is about the balance of powers. It's a constitutional question.

[MikeNY]

10. Yes but seems like theyd rather have Jefferson not even be caught.

Truth be told I understand this argument completely. Yet we are left to wonder what they would like to do with Jefferson. Had the FBI not conducted this raid or investigated this man, or even published their findings, their would have been no knowledge to the public that laws have potentially been violated.

Does this not expose a flaw here within our government, that elected representatives, are de facto above the law in this instance? White collar crime within the government itself is a bigger threat to democracy then an organized crime ring operating on the streets.

I see where you are going when you say it is a Constitutional matter, but truth be told it looks like Congresional leaders are running scared. I see no evidence to suggest this raid was politically motivated to go after a politician.

It seems they had dug up some dirt on this man and his crime spree had to be stopped. How far this investigation goes and what led them to Jefferson has not been widely publicized, but I have no doubt in my mind this is the tip of the iceburg.

Corruption and gross negligence in the Congress and government in general is exactly why we have an 800B budget deficit and are stuck in Iraq right now...

What can be done within the Constitutional framework to find high level crime taking place within the halls of Congress?

[Virginia Dare]

3. Republicans and Democrats are raising hell...

because realistically they know that eventually there will be a shift in power, perhaps sooner rather than later. The genie has been let out of the bottle, and it's very hard to get him back in.

Yes, you are correct, they all have their own dirt, and everyone is working real hard to cover their asses....

I think if Jefferson committed those crimes, then busting him is a good thing, but in the scheme of things, he's small potatoes. There are much bigger fish out there to be fried.

[BOSSHOG]

7. And the bigger fish (gop)

don't want a precedent. I have a wacky hunch that if Jefferson is guilty, that could have been proven without the FBI raiding his office but thanks to george bush's administration the bed for his fellow members of the criminal political party of America has now been made. I'd rather the dems terminated their protesting of this action.

[ThomCat]

4. Busting him might have been a good thing,

But violating separation of powers to do it isn't.

What was the FBI doing investigation a member of congress to begin with? Why wasn't it turned over to the Capital police? How is it that with all this republican corruption they've only found a Democrat? What other Democrats are they investigating, and why?

[Jim__]

5. Busting Jefferson is not the problem.

The FBI had all the evidence they needed without searching his Congressional office. The executive branch searching the offices of the legislative branch is a very serious problem. If his Congressional office needed to be searched, it could have been searched by the capitol police and they coudl have turned over to the FBI anything the FBI needed.

[Lerkfish]

6. IF they were, they would have been MORE justified to raid Delay, Frist and

Cunningham. yet they did not.

[Kagemusha]

16. Put bluntly: why? The evidence against Jefferson is stronger.

The DeLay case had to be pieced together from outside evidence like e-mails. They didn't go into DeLay's office to generate evidence to begin a case; they made a case on the outside and worked themselves closer and closer. The Ney case is similarly based on outside evidence. Cunningham had people flip on him providing testimony that led to raids on his ill-gotten properties.

Jefferson, on the other hand, was caught red-handed on tape taking a 100k bribe, and 90k of the bribe money was found in his freezer (think of it as "frozen assets"). We don't know what the hell the FBI was after - and believe me, I very much would like to know - but we have a case where evidence of wrongdoing that has no legitimate relation to the official duties of a congressman was extremely blatant, direct, 100% verifiable. (Assuming what we know of the FBI tapes is wholly correct, obviously.) Whatever the FBI was after, the Justice Department had very strong evidence that something was not kosher before approaching a judge. A judge would never consider authorizing even a subpoena let alone a search warrant if it was not the very opposite of a fishing expedition, but a narrowly focused search for something very specific.

We don't know what that specific thing is or if its value was worth the constitutional issues. However, I argue here that there is enough doubt in the air that we would be mistaken to assume that the raid was unconstitutional interference in a legislator's legitimate, official business that we should wait to find out what actually happened and why.

And I have no idea whatsoever why Frist would have been raided. Was that a typo and you meant Ney, or something?

[Lerkfish]

55. securities fraud for Frist? it worked for Martha Stewart.

i"m just saying the enforcement seems partisan.

[enid602]

8. searches

Look at it this way. You probably would not have to look too far to find evidence of wrongdoing in the Executive Branch. I can't imagine any senators sending FBI agents to any Execitive Branch office and turning it upside down. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing it, but that's not the point.


PS: I read somewhere that allegations made against Jefferson were over two years old; such a dramatic search was probably not necessary. Kind of like the US attacking Iraq in response to Saddam's gassing of Kurds and Shi'ites 20 years before. Same pattern.

[Kagemusha]

9. In other words, bribery really IS part of official duties. (Who knew?)

I've mentioned it elsewhere but no one seems to give one iota about the fact that this was the exercise of a warrant, meaning that a judge, a member of the 3rd branch of government, signed off on this action. We don't know why, though we do know who (the judge from the Judith Miller case where she spent time in jail for contempt of court).

The condescending "Go read the Constitution!" comments get old fast, I find.

OTOH, how this looks to people in the real world... well, the whining from the politicians isn't impressing many people, I'll put it that way.

Edit: To not waste bandwidth, I'll say this in my own existing post: everyone saying that we know it was an illegal power grab by the Executive branch is basing that on what is publicly known, which doesn't include what was seized or what was in the warrant. They're just assuming. I really, really hate assuming things about the law. Those piling on saying there is no explanation as to why this happened other than blatant abuse of power are ignoring that there has not been any explanation, period. When we get one, then we can judge whether this was correct or incorrect based on the merits rather than simple assumption and distrust.

[RufusEarl]

11. All the responses have been spot on,

i'll just add this. The FBI supposedly have all this evidence on this guy already, enough to arrest him. Why don't they just do that? well the answer to that question is the genie that has already been addressed, this is a flat out power grab by the executive branch.

As stated above do a google search of separation of power, a little research is in order here.

Peace!

[mazzarro]

12. Please do explain

Why did the FBI not raid the congressional office of either Randy 'Duke' Cunningham or Tom DeLay?

I am not a fan of William Jefferson since he is one of the Democratic lackeys that will do anything for the favor of those in power - selling out his party and his constituent, But I think this FBI burst seem to me to be both political and racist.
Also the principle of separation of powers is in jeopardy if the executive branch is allowed to do such things. I believe that the separation of powers is much more important in this case. If there is a need to search congressional offices during investigations, then a proper procedure to do that should be established, if one does not exist,that respects the separation of power principle.

[yellowcanine]

13. It wasn't raiding his house they are questioning. It was raiding his

House office. There are legitimate constitutional separation of powers questions that the raid raises. Apparently this has never happened before - ever. Usually if the FBI wants documents from a congressional office they will subpeona them. The need to investigate corruption and the need to protect the separation of powers must be balanced. If we go down the road to where it becomes common place for the FBI to raid congressional offices it will be all too easy for a president to order a raid on a congressional office for political purposes under the guise of investigating corruption. It is no small matter - which is why nearly everyone in the legislative branch - Democrats and Republicans - Representatives and Senators - are all screaming foul. There are rules to be followed, even when investigating corruption. That is something this administration needs to understand. Also it is notable that they chose to raid a Democrat's office first when there are at least three Republicans under investigation for corruption - DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham.

[LA lady]

14. Talk Left

Jeralyn Merritt (one of ours) disagrees:

Over the weekend, the FBI searched the Congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson, and Republicans in the House are crying "foul" and "separation of powers." See House Leaders Question F.B.I. Search on NYTimes.com today.

As readers of this website and FourthAmendment.com have undoubtedly noticed, I tend to lean toward the citizen on Fourth Amendment claims. I also read the cases everyday, and I know the trends and what the courts can do and not do with particular facts. I am also a Fourth Amendment realist seeking to balance individual privacy and government need.

In Rep. Jefferson's case, however, "separation of powers" just won't cut it if the affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in his office. The same would apply to the President, the Vice President, their staffs, and the judiciary: If there is probable cause linking the place to be searched with an alleged crime, the search has the imprimatur of the law, is presumptively valid under the Fourth Amendment, and that is all that will be required to defeat a separation of powers claim. His private papers concerning his thoughts and votes are not off limits to a search warrant if the allegation in the affidavit is that the vote was paid for. That is bribery of a Member of Congress, and no Congressman is immune from that. Ask former Rep. Duke Cunningham.

Remember the Republican House members clamoring for Clinton's Impeachment saying that "we are a government of laws, not of men," and "no man is above the law"? Now they are singing a different tune because it is one of their own?

Let me use a Republican refrain to the NSA spying critics: "If you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?"
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014928.html

[yellowcanine]

21. It is not hard to get a probable cause warrent. It is also not clear that

they attempted to get the papers they needed the way this is usually done - with a subpeona. If they know what they are looking for (which they should - otherwise they don't have probable cause) a subpeona is a highly effective way to get something from a congressional office. I am not buying. Corruption investigations are important but not as important as separation of powers. You will excuse me if I disagree with Ms. Merritt, even if she is "one of ours".

Also the adage "If you don't have anything to hide....." is a recipe for a police state. Sometimes it is the principle that matters.

On edit: As Spazito notes below, if the FBI really thought they had to raid the office to preserve evidence they could have asked the Capital Police to do it and avoided the separation of powers conflict.

[Kagemusha]

24. That's TalkLeft using that adage. I won't touch it.

It is also not clear why they went for the warrant. Until it is, I would hope (I presume in vain) that people don't leap off a cliff on this.

The point is that the executive branch cannot infringe on the legislative branch on its own authority, emphasis on "its own". It infringed on the legislative branch on a judge's authority in this case, regardless of who authorized the process of obtaining a warrant within the executive branch.

It's a big difference in legality.

(Edit: Should've realized TalkLeft was being quoted on the adage. My foul.)

[yellowcanine]

37. Involving a judge doesn't trump separation of powers. It is fixed in the

Constitution. Warrants are easy to get from certain judges and the FBI will use the easiest one. The difficulty will come when they try to use any of the evidence seized in the raid. It is almost certain they are going to have a hard time using that evidence - it will probably go to the SCOTUS where I believe the FBI will lose. Why didn't the FBI go to the Capital Police and ask them to get whatever they were looking for?

[Kagemusha]

40. I'm waiting to find out why the FBI didn't use the Capitol Police too.

AG Gonzales seems to think he had a compelling reason. Judge Hogan (sp - it's the one from the Judy Miller contempt case) must have agreed that there was a compelling reason, unless he's just um, ignorant of the constitutional issues involved, which is a horrible thing to say about a judge and I will assume no such thing.

But, I disagree strongly with you about a judge not trumping separation of powers, because separation of powers, in the first place, is not an absolutist concept. Separation of powers is inseparable from mutual oversight. (Albeit, unitary executive/ plenary power theory tries to completely undo this balance and I oppose that concept quite vehemently as a result.) Congress can impeach the President. The President can investigate via the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. The courts can authorize warrants on congressmen and members of the executive branch (in the latter case, think of the #3 man at the CIA having his home and his work office at the CIA raided, albeit with the full cooperation of the CIA's investigative branch). The branches are separate, but they are not wholly independent islands, none of which can take any legal action that affects the others. That's why they're called "branches" in the first place.

Now obviously even the courts can't legally authorize unconstitutional raids. In this case, the raid would be unconstitutional if it interferes with the legitimate duties of a sitting Congressman. Ergo, the only way a judge can issue a legal warrant is if he is convinced (by what should be one hell of a good argument, given the nature of this matter) that the raid would NOT interfere with the legitimate duties of Congressman Jefferson.

Beyond this, there are only two possibilities: the judge was correct, or the judge was mistaken. If he's mistaken, this'll get ugly, but it's not just the executive branch that'll get slapped down, but the judge himself (which is why I keep mentioning him as if he exists!). It's ridiculous to think the judge doesn't think he has a very, very good reason to authorize this. Sadly, we don't know didley about what that reason is.

However, if he does have reason to believe that whatever documents the FBI wanted are NOT related to legitimate duties, but to criminality, then, as unlikely as it may be, the raid would then be, by the seat of its pants, legal and constitutional.

...And if it's not the judge might eat an impeachment trial. So the reason had better be good...

[karlrschneider]

32. From that post

"His private papers concerning his thoughts and votes are not off limits to a search warrant if the allegation in the affidavit is that the vote was paid for."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which seems like begging the question: an attempt to find evidence to support the warrant to find evidence that the warrant is needed.

My gut feeling is that Jefferson is dirty but I'm not comfortable with the way the 'investigation' has turned. And the GOPers are justifiably worried about such a precedent since they have plenty of skeletons in their OWN offices.

[Spazito]

15. There is a legal process for being able to search a congressperson's

office which maintained the separation of powers and that was by way of the Capital police, I believe. Here is a great post that explains clearly why it was wrong:

originalpckelly (912 posts) Tue May-23-06 01:24 PM
Original message
Why the Illegal FBI search of Rep. Jefferson's office is so bad:
While Congressman William Jefferson is probably guilty of bribery, the investigation of his crimes represents another assault on our American principles. This principle is so fundamental to the operation of our country, but the only people defending it are the Representatives and Senators that a vast majority of Americans despise. Quite simply, what occurred on Sunday May 21, 2006, was a profound violation of the separation of powers. The FBI derives its authority from the Executive Branch. The United States Capitol Police derives its authority from the Legislative Branch. The proper way for the FBI to obtain the needed evidence would have been to request the United States Capitol Police to search the office of Representative Jefferson.

While many people might easily allow this unprecedented action to go unnoticed, the truth is that this is grave. Our Senators and Representatives need to be able to have a security in their offices. At the time our nation declared its independence, such shenanigans degraded the ability of the Houses of Commons and Lords to govern independently of King George III. While they were arrested in transit to Parliament in order to prevent them from voting, this is similar in its implications. What if Senators and Representatives come up with a compromise in secret the President can't know about because s/he would never sign it, but they also secretly manage to get a veto-proof majority? The President could order the FBI to search the offices of the legislators to find the compromise.

One would hope that the President and the Congress wouldn't be so adversarial, but it can and has happened before. People may be tricked into believing their actions are necessary, such as people at the FBI were during the late '60s and early '70s when they intercepted the phone calls of individuals providing vital information to reporters investigating Watergate. Representatives aren't angels, but President's aren't either.

I think most Americans can agree Rep. Jefferson should be punished to the fullest extent of the law if he committed a crime, but we cannot allow these profound abuses of power to pass. We need to remember that the Roman Senate had its downfall at the hands of a people who thought it was corrupt and self-interested, when those people allowed Julius Gaius Caesar to become an absolute dictator. 535 corrupt and self-interested legislators may be bad, but 1 corrupt and self-interested President will be no better.

Link to the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1266753

[Kagemusha]

19. If the FBI had no legit reason to do this itself, I'll strongly condemn it

But, I feel like I just don't know that yet. I can't believe that a judge would sign a warrant in ignorance of the process described above re: capitol police. So I really would like to know why it was done.

However, I'm with Jeralyn - we would be hasty to assume that there is no reason, ever, to justify this.

And for that matter, if anyone reading these threads wonder why I keep mentioning judges, it's this: it is absurd to the point of complete ridiculousness to presume that royal harassment of members of the House of Commons or House of Lords was committed with the written authorization and approval of a magistrate. When the possibility of the President ordering the FBI to search the offices of legislators is raised, this is assumed to involve the head of the Executive branch giving orders to a component thereof, and no more; no judge, no warrant.

Therefore, there is absolutely no comparison between these genuinely dictatorial practices and the exercise of a warrant obtained under the 4th amendment, issued by a judge on the basis of probable cause based on evidence by oath and affirmation. That is a world of difference apart from Executive branch tyranny. Now, if Congress wants to whine about Judicial branch tyranny, fine. But here on DU, the debate continues as if the warrant and the judge signing it simply did not exist. That is wrong and deceiving.

[Spazito]

25. I think the outstanding question is, imo....

given there is, in place, a process to legally search a congressperson's office while maintaining the separation of powers, why was that process not used and, instead, the FBI went in. I haven't read an explanation as to why it was done in the manner it was although I may have simply missed it. If no adequate explanation has been given to date, why not?

The simple fact that both parties are up in arms, especially the republicans, given that Congress, to this point, has been actively supporting the blurring of the separation of powers does give me pause as to why they are speaking up on this issue.

[Kagemusha]

26. There has not been an adequate explanation to date, no.

As for why not, I plead ignorance about the exact reporting requirements in a case like this where a judge has authorized the serving of a warrant. It's a judicial process, not just some executive branch exclusive show (like, say, the NSA spying). In other words, the Attorney General likely can't just mouth off about the issue without approval from the judge.

I wholeheartedly agree that Congress and the public deserve an explanation in the swiftest possible time. But there's a lot of willful ignorance out there - and I blame Congress for promoting this - that a judge has ANYTHING to do with this at all. Well, a judge IS involved. Wish I knew the gritty details of how that changes things but, Rep. Jefferson deserves a fair trial and if the judge is not prepared to have information blurted out that might damage his defense, that is one possible reason why AG Gonzales is constrained in this matter. Like I said, wish I knew the exact situation. Wish you knew, wish everyone on DU knew; it'd make this issue a hell of a lot easier to understand.

[Spazito]

28. No disagreement from me in anything you have posted above

I can only hope an adequate explanation is forthcoming and I believe one could be made while excluding the legal details that could jeopardize, in any way, Mr. Jefferson's right to a fair trial.

[init6]

43. There is a legal process for being able to search a congressperson's

Yes, it's called a fucked Search warrant. He is Guilty as Hell. I can’t believe people are event attempting to defend him. Congress is not above the law.

[newyawker99]

48. Hi init6!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Kagemusha]

51. A bit blunt, but I definitely agree.

The more I read people talking about this outside the echo chamber, the more I'm certain. I've said it before, Congress itself has argued that bribery is not official business. Anything else is creating a legal exemption for congressman to accept bribes for votes. I'm not saying Congress can't do that, but it sure as hell has not done so to this date in American history.

Though I'm to the point I'm actually leaping to defend the executive branch because they bothered to get a warrant, like that should be surprising, even shocking to us.

[Spazito]

54. No one is defending him, the posts are about the FBI doing

the search which is outside the established legal process for searching congresspersons' offices.

"The FBI derives its authority from the Executive Branch. The United States Capitol Police derives its authority from the Legislative Branch. The proper way for the FBI to obtain the needed evidence would have been to request the United States Capitol Police to search the office of Representative Jefferson."

[Kagemusha]

57. Note that the Judicial Branch doesn't have its own cops too.

The executive branch was never intended to have the authority to conduct these searches without a judge saying it's ok. Frankly, I sorta doubt the capitol police have the authority to approve searches on their own either. Just call it a hunch.

The question is if there was a legitimate reason for a judge to authorize the FBI to do this. I'd like to know. Everyone would.

I don't see any reason to concur with your statement "no one is defending him". What would you rather I say, "everyone is instead attacking everyone investigating him for bribery"? Last I checked, attacking cops and prosecutors and their political bosses after someone under investigation for a serious crime is considered defending him from his enemies, by attacking them.

[Spazito]

59. I have seen no posts defending him against the allegations

and to question the unprecedented move by having the FBI do the search is, in no way, equivalent to defending the Congressman, imo. They are separate issues.

[PATRICK]

17. A precedent, a climate of fear, a demo, a Dem

Who ordered and OK'd the raid. What consultation came from the top. If Gonzales, did he take his orders from higher up? With the current national and Hill climate turning- you bet he did. Will anyone seek evidence or proof of this. You bet they won't. They'd have to go after all the secrecy of the WH and this is a clear sign of "if we go, you go first".

As usual there is no line of reasoning, no curiosity, no suspicion and even in their secret conversations- which don't exist anymore- I bet the Pollyanna millionaires in Congress cannot conceive of such natural behavior.

The FBI needs a green light. Obviously this would have to go up the chain to Gonzales- eventually. Gonzales would have to clear this with the WH. This is all one GIANT good cop bad cop routine to re-establish control by the WH. Think what you damn please, it says, but fear and follow. It also speaks of the utter determination to finish their agenda, namely the Iran action upcoming. Picking a Democrat was absolutely necessary and is also absolutely typical of the multi-leveled schemes we have seen mainly deriving from Cheney.

What is Congress going to do? Steam and futility. And then all the benefits expected from the demonstration. To concentrate on each outrage as if we are the stunned and grieving survivors of the actual drama, the incident, is to yet again to fall the hapless victims to the planned exploitation, the foreseeable, the inevitable, the eternal larger agenda of the regime. Our personal myopic lawfulness and humanity needs to turn our childish eyes from all those detective novels and TV shows and follow the more important trail back to the perps in DC.

Right now these things happen without a clue or question. They take and keep whatever they want, everyone else boils in their manipulative hell.

[Kagemusha]

23. I'll say it again... don't pretend the judge-signed warrant didn't exist

Your 3rd paragraph makes a lot of hay about who gave the FBI a green light within the executive branch as if authorization from AG Gonzales/ President Bush is all the FBI sought and all the FBI needed. No mention of the warrant; no mention of the judge. My other posts get into that further but... the FBI got a green light from a judge. It happened. That is reality. It's part of the story. It doesn't deserve being shoved into the memory hole.

[PATRICK]

27. Is the story expanding or shrinking?

NO one questions the process. What judge decides this is not a big deal or a precedent and that a money scam is the deal breaker instead of higher crimes and even treason? Real concern would have them probing deep into the whos involved. A lot of the Justice department does operate independently still, which is why we have Fitzgerald and GOP lawmakers going to jail. The cynic might say they want to clear the decks while reining in the ambitious GOP successors to the Bush regime and get to pardon or promise to pardon the whole slimy crew.

It could be, as with so many other "oddities" etc. that this is all another fantastic coincidence and that the FBI, enabled by the WH and the Patriot Act was just naturally going to move in this direction at some time- as would the Intel people and telecoms in watching us all in every phone call and e-mail. The devil is in the details and the devil is still wearing the tattered cloak of invisibility. You can concentrate on the judge and warrant, but how independent a decision is this form the political battles going on in DC with political cronies in charge of everything? Questions.

[Kagemusha]

35. Uh, "no one questions the process?" Politely disagreeing there.

Seems to me that since we have no idea what the warrant authorized a search for, the entirety of this issue, from start to finish, has been nothing more than questioning the process, as well as condemning it, lambasting it, cutting it into mincemeat, baking it and feeding it to the dogs. Not that the Justice Department was wrong in this case, but that it would be equally wrong in ALL cases to search like this, for ANY reason, and that a judge's signing off is absolutely 100% irrelevant.

Certainly one can make that argument. 90% of the people responding to this thread have done just that.

My dissent is based on not coming anywhere close to comprehending how this federal judge would sign off on a search that was utterly unprecedented since independence and which would face severe constitutional questions if the judge was not damn sure of what was being asked of him and what the FBI would do with his explicit authorization. Unless you're going to sit there and tell me that the judge had to have been some stooge beholden to the President - and hey, if he is, I'd like to know - then this is not purely an issue of what you're portraying, some politically motivated witch hunt that is under the sole effective control of the President. If you want to argue that this judge is THAT corrupt that he would go along with such a scheme, make your case.

[PATRICK]

41. Besides asking exactly

who the judge and the agents were and who else was cognizant of the operation, which details I can't pretend to know or even guess at, we have observed in the past certain things.

First, how the FBI polices corruption CAN strike like lightning and in different places. The Patriot Act can be the great enabler of many non-terrorist investigations. The climate is certainly ripe for the FBI, and possibly natural to "balance" all the recent GOP stings with a hard slapdown on the one Democrat. The WH may be preoccupied and perfectly satisfied or incompetent enough to keep hands off the whupping of Congress. I shudder to start another MIHOP or LIHOP theory on this, but if the facts would lead to some chain of responsibility and permission beyond simply obtaining the warrant and conducting the investigation it certainly would follow patterns know or suspected among all the other scandals. Maybe the WH plate is too full and the actions on auto-pilot are things they can handle.

I am a little confused about the judge, no matter how routine or clear cut the criminal case might be. He doesn't have to be a crony for this to happen. The FBI doesn't have to be overplaying necessarily since they have been expanding their activities to fit the criminal scope of DC lately. The WH might even be clueless and Gonzales on vacation. But it would be natural to want to pursue the issue to find out exactly. But that again is just us on the outside. Is there even a name and history on the judge and whether there was the typical warrant? Curious and ignorant in equal doses, here on DU.

[Kagemusha]

42. I heard it was Judge Hogan from the Judy Miller contempt case.

Given his competent and decent conduct in that case I find it hard to believe that he will turn out to the biggest fool to sit on the federal bench in the entirety of American history. Which is what signing off to a raid on a congressman's office without being satisfied you have all the facts would entail.

[PATRICK]

52. Thankk you. And then

if it was Hogan, how narrow was the warrant given that they took a lot of papers besides the cash? A lot in Congress have surrendered the precedent in drawing the line at that, which is a little too late, too chicken and ineffectual?

[Kagemusha]

53. The office search was about documents I think.

The cash was at his home, I thought. Not his office.

So the issue is then, what documents and why? Supposedly Congress is demanding the documents back. Supposedly care was taken only the relevant documents were taken. We're all waiting for answers. Hopefully we'll get some.

As opposed to some blanket congressman bribe shield exemption.

[pnwmom]

18. And when has the FBI ever raided a Republican's office?

Any administration could use the FBI to attack the other party. That's why we have a separation of powers doctrine -- to prevent that sort of thing. The Congress is supposed to police itself, and they already had lots of evidence on Williams.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. it is supposedly a 'first' in the 219 years of history-

funny how it's an African American, Democrat from Louisanna-

Kanye West had a point when he said * hates black people- No bigger fish to fry than this man from La?

ehah-

[diamondsndust]

20. They aren't justified in raiding ANYONE until they raid...

Dumbya, Cheney & Dumsfeld. Just my opinion, but if they want to start a precendent, why not start from the top?? Unless they started from the bottom to guage reaction and set precedence before going to the top.....

[leftofthedial]

22. Executive Branch (Justice Department--FBI) has no jurisdiction

in the Legislative Branch

This is another reach by the monarchist repukes in the bush gang

[Hosnon]

36. What do you mean by that? No jurisdiction? If the legislature breaks

a law, the executive can enforce it.

[Kagemusha]

39. Not alone. It takes judicial authorization to search premises.

But hey, they got it.

As I said above, now if someone wants argue the judge is corrupt or, a fool, say, then so be it, but you are mistaken, the executive branch cannot enforce the law alone. Maybe you meant to say that but, it's a big deal in terms of the constitution in this matter so I'm raising it for the record. Have a nice day...

[Hosnon]

46. Well it doesn't always take judicial authorization to conduct a search of

a location. There are applicable judicially created exceptions. But your point is received.

My point was that simply because he is a member of the legislative branch does not mean that he is immune from the executive branch (which must work through the judiciary).

[leftofthedial]

45. not in this way.

this is how one stages (or in this case, enforces) a coup.

[Hosnon]

47. I'm not quite getting where you are coming from. If there was a

warrant (was there?) or exception then I have absolutely no problem with this...and neither does the Constitution.

[leftofthedial]

49. jurisdiction and appropriateness of the raid, search and seizure

are exactly what are in question

[Bluerthanblue]

29. why not? this government doesn't follow any rules- and

this is just more in your face evidence of that-

The fact that the republicans are in a tizzy over it, bothers me more though-

They actually believe they can control this monster we call the bush administration-

for a nation of 'laws' we sure don't have any respect for them- regardless of the political party involved-

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[Horse with no Name]

34. Just in case anyone was wondering who was actually being spied on

My guess is that this would be one.
While what this man was doing was wrong...certainly the way they obtained their intelligence was just as wrong, if not more so.
If we have gotten to the point that the only way that we can catch criminals is to trample their civil rights and shred the Constitution, then there really isn't much need to have a House of Representatives or a Senate. They can all go home. They aren't needed anymore.

[Bluerthanblue]

38. Word! eom-

[Bamboose]

50. IMHO

busting anyone corrupt is a good idea.

So I'm with you.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. This will require a Supreme Court ruling

There are two legitimate sides to this argument.

[lynne]

60. A judge issued the search warrant -

- so at least one person felt there was justified reason for it. Given the tape and the "cold cash" (pun intended), I don't think it was a stretch of the judge's imagination.

[Kagemusha]

61. I still love calling them "frozen assets".

And I hope we all soon discover the judge's reasoning so this debate can be settled on the merits.

[Kagemusha]

62. Salon's Conason says the FBI *had* sent subpoenas.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/05/26/jefferson/

"...Cooperation with law enforcement is a good measure of fitness for public service, which Jefferson has failed by resisting federal subpoenas for his records. That happens to be why the FBI finally conducted its constitutionally questionable raid on his House office last weekend."

I sure as hell didn't know that when this thread was hot. Thought I'd mention it for the record because of all the people saying that there was a constitutionally kosher method for doing this and the FBI didn't follow it.

If as Conason claims, the FBI tried to follow it and was thwarted, that is some serious business.