The Political Ramifications of the FBI Search of Congressional Office

[BluffTHIS!]

In this story in the NYT, it is reported that AG Gonzalez, a Deputy AG, and the FBI Director were all prepared to resign had the White House ordered them to relinquish the evidence seized in Rep. Jefferson's office. Then a compromise of a 45 day period in which the evidence is sealed was ordered.

Although many Republican leaders are objecting to this case involving a Democrat, supposedly as the article says as a proxy for future investigations into repubs, the Democrats apparently are also not happy with the search since they don't seem to be raising their voice to the contrary from what I have read.

An excerpt from the article:

Senior lawmakers in the House and Senate said their intent was not to prohibit searches of Congressional offices if there was a legitimate reason. But they said the Jefferson case powerfully illustrated how Congress and the administration had no set guidelines for how such a search should be done, what notice was required and how law enforcement and House authorities would interact.


Obviously there is a potential constitutional issue in that the executive branch should not be able to intimidate and harass legislators through its investigatory powers. But there is a proper check on that potential for abuse, in the form of a judge being needed to authorize a search, whose actions themselves are subject to higher judicial review. However, there is no way any "procedures", especially ones involving advance notice, should be implemented. Obviously because of the potential constitutional concerns, greater care should be taken so that the probable cause basis of a proposed search is not borderline.

But legislators should not have any kind of immunity or ability to impede legitimate investigations into corruption. In fact if they had anything like that, then there would be little incentive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. So the bottom line IMO, is that there are no "procedures" needed since the justice system already provides that, and members of both parties and the White House have no legitimate reason to seek same, especially when in the case is question, the congressman does not exactly seem to be a role model of ethics.

[Howard Beale]

From an article on CNN.com



The two administration officials told CNN that inside the White House Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington took the view that the FBI had crossed a constitutional line. Addington, usually a strong proponent of presidential power, asserted that in this case the FBI went too far and violated the separation of powers.

One official said Vice President Dick Cheney met with Bush on the issue and "at a minimum" made the case that the critics of the raid had points that needed to be considered.

"I can't say for certain the 'veep' agreed with David (Addington), but I know he relayed those concerns as legitimate," according to the source knowledgeable about the talks.

IMO, if David Addington thinks that the FBI over-reached then there must be something to it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
From an article on CNN.com



The two administration officials told CNN that inside the White House Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington took the view that the FBI had crossed a constitutional line. Addington, usually a strong proponent of presidential power, asserted that in this case the FBI went too far and violated the separation of powers.

One official said Vice President Dick Cheney met with Bush on the issue and "at a minimum" made the case that the critics of the raid had points that needed to be considered.

"I can't say for certain the 'veep' agreed with David (Addington), but I know he relayed those concerns as legitimate," according to the source knowledgeable about the talks.

IMO, if David Addington thinks that the FBI over-reached then there must be something to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say he's right..what are the CRIMINAL ramifications of that kind of "Separation of Power" argument? You either need some law enforcement agency that does have the ability to search a congressmans office, or evidence of a crime is undiscoverable if they just stash it in their office.

On balance, since the burden of proof is on the prosecution side, you cant totally tie their hands on investigation, imo.

Also imo Jefferson's handling of it is an embarassment to the Dems, and they tread a fine line if they defend someone with damning evidence agains them and at the same time press flimsy nonsense like they are with Tom Delay. Credibility on ethics is going to be a huge issue in Novembber, and they are stretching it right now.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Can someone fill me in on what this dude did?

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone fill me in on what this dude did?

[/ QUOTE ]

He took bribes.

[Copernicus]

He was being watched by the FBI accepting somethin like $100 k bribe, and 90k was found in the freezer of his office. But....there are two sides to every story, he says.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if David Addington thinks that the FBI over-reached then there must be something to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's right, this is a bad precedent, and it says something that in over 200 years, a search like this has never been conducted before, and there certainly have been plenty of corruption cases in those 200 years.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if David Addington thinks that the FBI over-reached then there must be something to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's right, this is a bad precedent, and it says something that in over 200 years, a search like this has never been conducted before, and there certainly have been plenty of corruption cases in those 200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not many, if any where the perp is quite this stupid. Being an elected or appointed official in any branch of government shouldnt give you virtual immunity from a succesful prosecution.

From whats been reported its pretty clear that an 83 page application for the warrant wasnt "Boderline probable cause".

[bdk3clash]

My favorite part of this story is that Jefferson refused to comment at a press conference when asked if he had accepted a bribe. Throw the bum out!

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]
He was being watched by the FBI accepting somethin like $100 k bribe, and 90k was found in the freezer of his office. But....there are two sides to every story, he says.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 90K was found in his freezer at home. It's neither here nor there, but critics of the raid also point out that prosecutors have plenty of evidence from the 90K to support conviction, so why the office raid?

I'm not endorsing this argument.