Court rules FBI violated Constitution in Jefferson raid

[funkybutt]

Source: Times Picayune, New Orleans

WASHINGTON -- The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

snip

"The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive," and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged."

snip

Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid.

Read more: http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/08/court_rules_fbi_violated_const.html

[Demeter]

1. Very Innteresting!

[Kagemusha]

2. Well if the court has good reason to determine what's privileged

it can be my guest.

If there's stuff that isn't, the FBI should get it according to the warrant.

This is an implicit slap at the judge authorizing the warrant under which privileged material was obtained, too. Hey, so be it. At least they got a warrant at all.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Told you so! When DUers were reviling Jefferson, they were missing the big issue--

Executive trampling on Congress' Constitutional rights as an EQUAL branch of government. So, too, with the strongarming of Cynthia McKinney. Doesn't matter what you think of the Congress person, the important thing was--and is--the right of Congress members to be secure from ANY Executive interference. And this is true no matter what the Congress member is alleged to have done. This security for members of Congress is based on centuries of abuse by Kings/Executives, using trumped up charges to arrest and detain members of parliament, when the King/Executive didn't like what that member or the parliament was saying or doing. The Executive CANNOT raid Congressional offices and CANNOT arrest members of Congress or prevent them from entering Congress. Congress has SOLE control over its membership, once the voters have voted. The Executive can investigate members of Congress, within the confines of the Constitution, and it can even indict them. But it cannot remove them from office or from their duties as elected representatives of the people. Only Congress can do that, through impeachment proceedings.

I viewed both incidents--against Jefferson and McKinney--as Bushite CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS. It was early warning of Bushite behavior now--MORE contempt of Congress.

[qazplm]

4. baloney

the big issue was 90K dollars in a freezer.

Jefferson should resign, end of story.

[Judi Lynn]

5. The money was in his HOME. This decision concerns the papers which were in his OFFICE.

How did you not pick up on that?

[Hepburn]

6. Yeah, I have to agree on that statement....

...and I am NO supporter of what it appears that Jefferson has done.

If the $$$$$ was in his home freezer....what was the PC for raiding his office??? Ummmmmm....other than he has a "D" after his name.... :sarcasm:

[Igel]

8. The Constitution doesn't fully agree with you.

It says papers pertaining to legislation are privileged. But if I'm a senator and I keep all my records concerning bribes and contract killings in my office, am I to be able to say they are privileged because, well, the Constitution protects such papers when they're in my office? Presumably 'legislative' documents at home are also privileged; now, the problem is, if they search say, Steven's or Cunningham's home offices are they going to foul the entire investigation by looking at privileged papers? This judge probably thinks so.

So, do we just say that crimes have to be sheltered for the Greater Good?

Perhaps we don't like the way the court crafted the solution to the problem; personally, I found it rather clever. Have the courts authorize one team of agents to review the documents, a second to hold them for later review, and a third team doing the prosecution. But at least it's a solution, rather than just saying the Constitution protects legislative criminals because, well, we distrust * or because there's a history in England of kings meddling with their legislatures. It's giving a green light to corrupt politicians--leave nothing at home, say, in the freezer, unless you bury it in legislative documents; keep the incriminating documents in the office, because that's more sacrosanct than the holiest of mosques or churches, and by clutching the horns of the legislative altar you're protected from all guilt.

However, your argument is not just specious in places, it's subversive. "Legislative trampling on the Executive's Constitution rights as an EQUAL branch of government," is an equally true statement, given its presuppositions. If this is a basis for your next sentence, we have, "So, too, with the strongarming of Alberto Gonzalez. Doesn't matter what you think of the official, the important thing was--and is--the right of the Executive members to be secure from ANY legislative interference. And this is true no matter what the Executive member is alleged to have done." Now, you may wish to reconsider the idea of 'equal branches' as any sort of basis for your argument. I certainly did. But even after doing so, I found that the argument doesn't hold without a clause that reads "but we have to be so suspicious of the Executive branch, even Clinton's or JFK's, that we prefer to have corrupt senators and republicans." This I find harmful to the idea of democracy.

[toopers]

12. I think you are pretty much right . . .

I read in another article that the Judge ordered the "legislative" papers to be returned. Non-legislative papers may not be affected by this ruling. However, I think they are still going to make another ruling regarding those other papers.

[Psephos]

11. Do you feel the same way about Stevens?

If not, then it's not protection of the Constitution that's motivating you after all.

I do follow your point about historical abuse of parliamentarians. You lose me when you argue that there is no difference between law-enforcement functions and removal from office. Without law enforcement and investigation, Congress would have de facto immunity from the laws they're sworn to uphold. They already enjoy too many privileges and exemptions, and have not impressed me (or anyone else, according to the polls) with what they do with slimy things like earmarks and technical procedures.

As Lincoln said, if you wish to know a man's true character, give him power. Unfortunately, we've already seen what people like Jefferson and Stevens do when given power. Giving people like them freedom from law enforcement is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers.

No one in America is above the law. We must keep it that way.

[Gregorian]

7. I seem to remember the term "sovereign".

It's about time this came out. We were all discussing how this was a violation of the sovereign privacy of the halls of Congress.

That may be inaccurately stated. But I am concurring that this did not go over our heads here.

Once again, it takes a year or two, and a court case. Why, I don't know. It's stated right there in the law. They cannot rifle through the Congressmen's offices.

Slowly, we're climbing out of his mess.

[funkybutt]

9. I imagine the bulk of the Feds case is in the Evidence from the Office

90K marked bribe money in your freezer seems pretty clear cut to me, but aparently it's not.
:shrug:

[Speaker]

10. Heh heh heh heh heh heh

Jefferson is a scumbag, but I love the fact that Duuuuhhhbya got dinged with "executive privelege" for a congressman.

Suck it 'Pubs!

[Peace Patriot]

13. In reply to some of the comments: The Executive CANNOT raid Congress!

You are misunderstanding this bar against Executive interference with Congress members as a PRIVILEGE. It is NOT a privilege. It is a RIGHT. And it is fundamental to the "balance of powers." If you want to deny that right to Congress, fine--CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!

Find some other way to immunize Congress against interference!

Charges against Congress members can be trumped up, just as they can be trumped up against ordinary citizens. The difference--and why Congress members have SPECIAL protection--is that they are ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE to comprise an EQUAL branch of government to balance AGAINST presidential tyranny. The Executive has more motive to trump up charges against them than against anyone else, because they control the Executive's budget and the laws and oversight.

This is such an important principle! If a Congress member is corrupt, or is ALLEGED by the Executive branch to be corrupt, it is up to the voters to judge that Congress member, or, if the situation is grave, it is up to Congress to impeach and remove him/her, and require an election to replace him/her. A Congress member can continue to serve even after conviction of a crime, IF THE VOTERS SAY SO (and if Congress doesn't override them). This is a critical protection against false charges and kangaroo courts against the Legislators by the Executive branch. The Executive CANNOT lay a finger on members of Congress. If they get thrown out by the voters, or impeached and removed, THEN they can go to jail. Not before.

Yes, it can lead to abuse by Congress members. Too bad. Potential abuse by individual Congress members is not nearly as serious a danger as Presidential tyranny. Elections and impeachment are the remedy. Party discipline can also act as a check (--pressure by party leaders for corrupt members to resign, or as a preventative). But election and impeachment are the only remedies provided by the CONSTITUTION.

And, for that matter, why do people trust ANYTHING that a Bush/Cheney-controlled FBI alleges, especially against a Democratic Congressman? And what about the Karl Rove-controlled Dept. of Justice? And do you think Jefferson has a chance in hell against the corporate news monopolies? Do you remember what they did to Howard Dean? To Dan Rather? To Kevin Shelley (SoS of Calif., who sued Diebold and demanded to see their source code six months before the '04 election)? If a fascist Executive is working hand in glove with a fascist propaganda machine, they can create ILLUSIONS (for instance, that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.).

We CANNOT trust anything we read, see or hear from the corporate news monopolies, nor from the Bush Junta, nor, half the time, from our own party leaders. Even the prosecution of Republicans can have dark motives that we know nothing about. These people were likely being blackmail-controlled. That's my guess. They were recruited because they are dirty, and then permitted to run rampant, and of course spied on all the time (along with everybody else with any power) to control their votes. So, have they been investigated/prosecuted because some guys in the FBI are particularly courageous and upright, or for some other reason? Maybe to keep them quiet, under wraps, fearful of long sentences? We just don't know. This regime is like the mafia. Some things are coming to light, but it is mostly impenetrable. We don't know who all they're blackmailing or what-all they're doing, or why.

As gratifying as it is to see Republicans going down for their rampant corruption, be wary! Although there is evidence that the Bush Junta tried to stop the Cunningham prosecution from spreading to Rep. Jerry Lewis (by firing prosecutor Carol Lam), there could also be other motives. For instance, there has been a long time plot by Grover Norquist & cabal to utterly degrade government in every way (to "drown it in the bathtub")--to de-fund it, to discredit it, to destroy it--to destroy federal regulatory power over corporations, and to especially demean and curtail the PEOPLES' branch, Congress. Could they have let the Cunningham's and the Delay's and the Abramoff's and the Stevens' rum rampant, and now they're sacrificing their own toward this purpose? This rampant corruption does make government seem like a farce.

Be wary, is all I'm saying. Consider the sources of your news. Consider what vile tricks have been played on the public before. And consider who's in charge!

As for Jefferson, didn't he claim that the FBI GAVE him that money, as part of a planned sting against bribes by African diplomats or something? Were they setting Jefferson up? WE DON'T KNOW. And we are fools to rely on Bush/Cheney-controlled law enforcement and toady media to tell us the truth. We must remain skeptical.

[Sgent]

14. This is correct

the proper way for the FBI to handle this was to take their evidence to the House Speaker (or ethics committee) and then have the Sargent At Arms sort through the files and deliver the relevant ones to the FBI assuming congress found probable cause.

An executive agency cannot interfere with the