This "raid" is so very, very much like the Watergate break-in...

[kentuck]

This is very, very serious. At first, I never thought so. But, as more information is coming out about the "break-in" by the FBI to the office of Congressman Jefferson, this really does seem like Watergate all over again. We're looking at John Mitchell, the Atty-General doing the dirty work of Richard M. Nixon.

[texasleo]

1. It will serve to keep his name in the news for weeks and weeks

"Democratic congressman"..."Democratic congressman"
Rove at his best.

[raccoon]

2. Unfortunately, we have a Republican admin and a Republican

controlled Congress this time.

[MissWaverly]

3. it's one thing to go after the freezer with the "cold" cash

it's quite another thing to take his hard drive.

[malaise]

4. Correct

this is damn serious, although it is easy to be pissed off with them for allowing Bush to violate citizens rights with the Patriot Act. This is another major constitutional crisis. The Rethug Congress, and more than a few Dems, created this mess by deferring to Bush on all matters. Still I support this hearing.

Edit - gr.

[Squeech]

5. Exactly

I think it was blogger Mark A.R. Kleiman that pointed out that this means Abu Gonzales has a copy of every Democratic strategy memo e-mailed to Jefferson as a member of the Democratic caucus.

Of course, that presupposes that the congressional Democrats have a strategy, which doesn't seem to fit the observed results...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Not at all

It was a legally executed search warrant. There's a lot of outrage over this because the Congress likes to hold itself above the law, as we know, but there really isn't any compelling argument that the Speech and Debate Clause would hold this sort of search and seizure unlawful.

This is not at all like the illegal break-in at the Watergate. Not at all.

[northzax]

7. shh, stop bringing up that constitution again

you damn lawyers, always thinking logically.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Rats.

This is why I'm living in a bunker, waiting for President Fuckface to come after me.

I might soon be the only one who remembers the Constitution.

That's why I'm scratching a copy of it on the walls of this bunker.

In French, just to piss them off when they can't figure it out.

[mrcheerful]

8. Theres one question that no ones asking, if the FBI has Jefferson

dead to right on his bribe taking why bother searching his office? I'm not saying either way whats going on, but with the current people in power so willing to abuse power I'm not so trusting of their motives on anything.

[kentuck]

10. Exactly. A search warrant is specific.

Would not include every paper and every email, I would not think. What do you think, Old Leftie Lawyer?

[mrcheerful]

Proclaim exec privilege and change search warrents after finding what you

want fits in with those currently in power. Legal probably not, but then neither is wiretaps.

[kentuck]

16. Further...

I just heard someone say that the search warrant was limitless. It was not specific. If the Democrats wish to pursue this further, they may have to wait until they are in the majority. :shrug:

[Hamlette]

12. I'm with old leftie on this

can you honestly say if they had executed this warrant against a hated GOP house member trying to prove a case of bribery you'd be up in arms? Of course not.

Perfectlly legal and necessary to avoid a "he said/she said" situation in court.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. Keep in mind

that Jefferson's attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for nine months. Now, that's hardly unusual, to resist a subpoena, but I have to admit that nine months sounds (to me) a bit excessive, and, given that they found the cash, had the wired snitches, there were sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the warranted search of his office, I don't care where it is or what his job is.

I am fucked up beyond all belief: I am defending the actions of the FBI.

All I've ever done in my life is harass them, sue them, insult them, run from them, or piss them off, and now I'm defending them.

Against a Democrat.

I believe this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

[rwork]

11. They did'nt raid

Cunningham's office. This was Democratic pay-back. They so needed a Democrat scandal.They so want this to bi-partison.

[northzax]

13. Cunningham plead out

they didn't need to raid his office, the evidence was in his home, and then he rolled over and gave up Wilkes.

[tritsofme]

14. I don't remember Nixon's thugs having a warrant to break into Watergate

I reject completely the notion that Congressmen can use their offices as some sort of "safehouse" that is beyond reach from legitimate law enforcement operations.

All this controversy is about is Denny-boy being scared that him or one of his buddies is next.

[deaniac21]

15. What is wrong with a little cold, hard cash? If the congressman

wants to freeze his assets, that's ok by me, too.

[Sgent]

17. Under what circumstances

is the FBI forcing open a congressman's office at will and reading every paper and item on computer hard drives not a restriction on debate in the House?

I don't have a problem with the warrant -- I have a problem with the FBI executing it. If the Sergeant-At-Arms or the Capital Hill Police had executed the warrant, then their would have been no violation.

[theboss]

18. So a search warrant = a burglary?

You have to go pretty far through the looking glass to get to that.

[kentuck]

19. It was not a "legal" search warrant?

Or is that not possible ?

[Mugu]

23. They convinced a Federal judge that a warrant was needed and legal.

N/T

[aikoaiko]

31. unless someone lied to get the warrant, then its probably good.

in your original post you referred to new information -- what new info?

[Sgent]

21. President Bush

has the entire hard drive of Rep Jefferson in its possession -- including Democratic Caucus documents, strategy documents, etc.

I see this as a significant breach of congressional privlidge.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. There's no "privilege" for Congressman,

except as enumerated in the Speech and Debate Clause.

This one doesn't fall under that, I believe.

[johnaries]

20. Although they could only "legally" seize docs related to

the investigation, how do we know those were the only documents they took? Using the pretense of searching his office for the bribery they could have taken or photographed Dem campaign strategies or other information that could be used politically without the knowledge of the public or the Judiciary.

I watched an interview sunday with my own Rep Jim Cooper, and he made an excellent point. The Congress should be monitored by an Outside Party or organization to keep members honest. However, the Outside Party should NOT be under the control of the Executive Branch who could easily abuse the powerfor political purpose.

[theboss]

22. This is, of course, assuming that we have strategies

I agree that this is a situation in which there is a lot of opportunities for policizing the FBI.

But I fundamentally disagree with the fact that the executive should have no ability to police the legislative branch. The Constitution wants tension in the relationship between the two.

To me, this is almost like saying that some outside agency should review laws for constitutionality, but not the Supreme Court.

The executive branch is the enforcement wing of the government. If it does not enforce the law, who does?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. But the President gets to claim executive privilege...

If congress wants to subpoena documents and he doesn't want to give them out. Shouldn't the legislative branch have a means of keeping their documents from the executive branch if the executive branch has a means of keeping theirs from the legislative branch?

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Honestly, I care about this but not right now

There is a very legitimate separation of powers question at stake here and a very interesting one at that. That said, the elections are far more important at least in the short run. If Jefferson's defense is only based on a constitutional question then he needs to resign. He may have a perfectly legitimate argument in a court of law and if he does, I hope that the case is thrown out because the evidence was illegally obtained.

But, he has no standing in a court of public opinion where the only word that matters is "bribe" and so far Jefferson is in no position to make a good case that he did not take bribes.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. I agree, absolutely, with all that you wrote -

this is just another herring we're being thrown, and people are going for it. Sort of like hiking it up to RED ALERT, and sending us out to buy duct tape and bottled water.

But, additionally, I'm really pissed at the Congressional Black Caucus taking up for Jefferson - who should step down from his assignments immediately - and making this racial, when all it is is about a crooked Congressman. Race has nothing to do with it.

Boy, when Democrats go bad, they're as vile as Republicans.

[applegrove]

26. Jefferson refused to hand over the stuff the government wanted for

months. Relax. Keeping this in the news with "whispers" of "break-in" is just a political hack job.

If the man is guilty - a trial or plea will tell us this. You have to still believe in the criminal justice system. Look at the GOP people who have been found guilty.

[BOHICA06]

30. This isn't a hill I want to die on .....

...with a properly executed search warrant they could climb up inside Denny's ample anal pore and go searching!

This took two branches .... i.e. it was checked and balanced.