Regarding The FBI Raid On Captol Hill....Please Help Me Understand

[journalist3072]

Why are Republicans and Democrats alike expressing dismay that the FBI came to Capitol Hill to raid the Congressman's office?

I hear people like Newt Gingrich saying they didn't have a right to do it. Newt and some others are basically saying that b/c the FBI is in the Executive Branch, they over-stepped their bounds.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if the FBI has evidence of wrong-doing, no matter where it is, they have an obligation to investigate it, correct?

Are these Capitol Hill politicians just grand-standing b/c they are afraid what might happen if the FBI raided THEIR offices?

[ThomCat]

1. If the President had the right to investigate

the legislative branch that would give him power over them. In England I guess parlementarians were sometimes arrested on trumped up charges as a way of controlling whether they would vote on certain things. Having the president investigating congress is also an invitation to character assassination.

The FBI and everything that falls under the Department of Justice answer to the President. So, congress has it's own police force constituted under the legislative branch. Policing of congress comes under their jurisdiction.

[MichiganVote]

2. In a word, yes.

[Emit]

3. Maybe these links will help clarify it for you

I'm still trying to figure it out, too.

Discussion Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1266753


And:

Republicans Question Legality Of FBI Raid On Democrat
POSTED: 2:25 pm EDT May 23, 2006
UPDATED: 2:46 pm EDT May 23, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Republicans said Tuesday the Justice Department may have overstepped constitutional boundaries with what one of them called an "invasion" of a Democratic congressman's office.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said the unprecedented search of the offices of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., by FBI bribery investigators crossed the line.

The No. 2 Republican in the House, John Boehner, agreed. The Supreme Court will probably have to intervene, he said.

http://www.wtov9.com/politics/9261678/detail.html

Hastert: FBI 'took the wrong path' when searching lawmaker's office
Majority leader suggests that issue may go to the Supreme Court

Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Posted: 5:21 p.m. EDT (21:21 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that the FBI and the Justice Department "took the wrong path" when they searched a Democratic congressman's office this weekend as part of an anti-corruption probe.

"We understand that they want to support and pursue the process that the Justice Department is trying to pursue," Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, said. "But there's ways to do it, and my opinion is that they took the wrong path."

The FBI searched the Washington home and office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, and found $90,000 of allegedly ill-gotten funds in the freezer of his home, according to an affidavit. (Full story)

~snip~

Leaders from both both parties and both houses of Congress have expressed concern about the search.

On Monday, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Hastert said they were "very concerned" about the search, which was conducted under a warrant issued by a federal judge.

Hastert said the search was the first time a lawmaker's office had been searched in U.S. history.

"Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years," Hastert said on Monday.

House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday that "the congress will clearly speak to this issue of the justice department's invasion of the legislative branch. In what form I don't know."

"I've got to believe at the end of the day it's going to end up across the street, at the Supreme Court," Boehner said. "I don't see anything short of that."

While emphasizing that all lawmakers must obey the law and the rules of the House, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, on Tuesday echoed Hastert's concern that the Constitution's separation of powers had been violated.

"Our founders in their wisdom placed this separation of powers into our Constitution, not to put anyone above the law but to protect the American people of the abusive power of the executive branch," Pelosi said.

~snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/23/jefferson/

[Bluerthanblue]

4. I agree with your

wonderings.... but I think this coming on the heels of the NSA crap, it speaks of the 'in your face' attitude of this govt.
Why was this man 'targeted'? Because he's a Dem? Because he's black?

How come there weren't raids on others, like, DeLay- and countless others from all walks of life?
My 'intutiton' says, something stinks about wanting to use this man as the 'poster-boy' for bad politicians- especially since he's from Louisianna, kind of like cover your ass, "see how corrupt NOLA is?" kind of thing-...? But, I admit to not trusting anyone in power any longer.... and questioning everyones motives.....

Great nation eh?

[TahitiNut]

5. FBI = Executve Branch, Congress = Legislative.

Congress has the Sergeant-at-Arms and the mechanisms of Congress must be relied upon to keep order.

[izzie]

6. I think it goes back to the checks in the constitution

One part can not go after the other in just that way. I am not such how it works but the AG could send the FBI in to the courts and the WH if they could do such things. Right now it means that the WH can put their police any place they wish and that means also in the Courts if they felt like it. What if they said your belief was what was wrong? Or your skin color? Or you may have done wrong? It is sort of like when the King sent Parliament home because they did not do as he liked. Our 'founders' did not trust gov. power at all. Bush seems to be running his own country like we are his subjects.

[democrat_patriot]

7. Republicans are doing it - TO KEEP THE STORY ALIVE.

No other reason. Now everyone will remember the corrupt Democrat.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Yes!

The FBI raid was done simply to give this story legs.

[kentuck]

17. Yep...

I think you are right.

[Ready4Change]

8. Because even the Republicans see it as what it is.

It is a WH intimidation tactic. The "I" word is getting too much play around DC. It was looking more and more like a possibility. This is the WH's way of saying "I'll take you and your dirty laundry down first."

Last time this warning was sent, it was anthrax to (mostly) Democrats. This time it was a targeted raid, again against a Democrat. But the message is to the entire legislative branch. Gingrich recognizes this and is baring his teeth. Dems should back him up on this issue.

BTW, wonder what information justified this raid? Couldn't possibly be recent phone tapping "anti-terrorism" measures, could it?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

10. naaa the president wouldn't do that, how shocking to suggest eavesdropping

where do you think we live ready4, the USSR?

[originalpckelly]

11. No one in America is above the law, but...

in this particular case, Senators and Congressmen are kept in check and protected by the Capitol Police. Unlike the US Marshals whom protect the courts, the Executive has little to no control over the Capitol Police. The FBI should have requested the Capitol Police to search the office for evidence. My little blurb about this explains why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1266753

The reason Congress should have a separate police force is the same reason reporters sources can't be outed, or that President's can't have their administration's advice open to the public: it reduces the ability of people to be open and work. It is basically a form of bullying, and while these protections can be abused by less-than-honest Congressman, it protects you, I and all Americans. The President shouldn't be able to send his own investigators in to search the offices of Congressmen because the ability can be abused. Say for instance, the President wants to know about the evidence the Congress has on him during an impeachment trial, he cannot do that, and it would have a "chilling effect" upon the proceedings.

If the Congress wanted to secretly pass a law that prevented the President from torturing someone, and they figured out a way for them to actually make him stop torturing people, he could find out about by sending the FBI in.

I doubt if this happened in the case of Rep. Jefferson, but s/he could use this precedent to get a court to authorize a search of the offices under the guise of a corruption investigation. How hard is it to plant $100,000 in someone's house? Not hard for the FBI, and that is what the President could trick them into doing.

This all sounds like crazy talk, but these kind of things have happened before, and they are partly the reason we are not the "British States of America." King George the Third used to lock up members of the British Parliament to keep the from voting on bills, this is in fact why Congressman cannot be stopped on the way to a vote, and that it was specifically placed in the Constitution.

While the Constitution does not specifically mention the issue in concern, one can look at the original intent of that clause and understand that the Congress, while not above the law, must be granted some special privileges to ensure they can do their job. The vast majority of Americans can be arrested on the way to work, but Congressmen can't because of what happened in Britain.

I know it sounds pretty awful, but it has to be.

You just have to ask yourself this one question:
Would the President let the FBI search the White House or Camp David? (I can't remember any cases where this has happened, and if you can think of any please tell me.)

[bklyncowgirl]

12. Hey Senator Frist, what's in YOUR freezer?

How many of these guys would survive a surprise visit from the FBI. What would we find, for example tucked away in Bill Frist's tupperware?

[originalpckelly]

13. Oh I don't think I want to know...

he was a heart surgeon. I don't want to know if he has been experimenting with severed human body parts to try create a whole person. I didn't start that rumor, you definitely did not hear that from me. :yoiks:

[bklyncowgirl]

16. Not to mention the dead cats. nt

[jarab]

14. Well, the Bureau has always been under the

Executive - in all admins.
Unless there's a specific law which exempts the type search made, I fail to see the hoopla.
I also am short of sympathy for crooked pols, and I suspect our own is one of those.
Just how would one investigate a congressperson if that particular information as in this particular search was needed ? - and we don't know whether it was or was not necessary in order to lock up a case against the congressman.
We'd be singing a different song if the search was made against the other party, I suspect.
I don't know how else or who else would have secured this "evidence", except as done.
Abuse is quite possible anytime the Bureau is involved, but the mechanics of the law must be operational in all cases and at all times. I'm sure we can recite numerous past cases in which Executive influence could have come into play - in R and D administrations.
If the Bureau was in either of the other branches the same questions would arise in similar instances. Perhaps a solution is to be had, but it's easier to critique than to find solutions, imo.
A new law might be needed to address a future situation like this. And, we know how those FISA-like laws work, don't we?
A one vote majority in the house would be sufficient, all else failing.
...O...

[Beelzebud]

15. Honor among thieves. Criminals help each other out.