The Jefferson diversion.

[Ravy]

To me, it is perfectly clear that the FBI had the right to search William Jefferson's office. I know some disagree, and I can also accept that. My reading of the Constitution particularly exempts felonies from the speech and debate clause.

However, I think the indignation by the Republicans in Congress is designed, not as a method to keep this issue in the news (as some have suggested) but to keep us from asking an important question:

Why?

Well, I guess not just "Why", but also its close cousin "Why not?"

Why not Delay? Why not Cunningham? Why not Ney? Why not the myriad of Republicans implicated in the Abramoff bribery scandal?

The Republicans heralded this clause that prevented a civil suit of a congressman who while driving drunk, killed a motorcyclist in South Dakota... yet vilified Cynthia McKinney for allegedly slapping a police officer who was trying to detain her from her congressional work.

The FBI seems to have an airtight case against William Jefferson. They allegedly had it before getting the search warrant to look for additional evidence of corruption in his office, and on his computer. Good for them!

But why just the Democrat?

I believe that to be the question they fear most.

[BOSSHOG]

1. And another motivating force the gop

Precedent! Hastert and his fellow band of criminals are thinking, my god, democrats will soon be in charge because we are dumbfucks who the religiously insane no longer love and support and believe. And now the dems have a precedent to investigate us. Oh the horrors. But denny, how bout that old "conservative" gospel song - "If you have nothing to hide!"

[Ravy]

2. Could be contributing, but a democratically controlled congress ..

has the power of enforcing its ethics.

2006 will not change the executive branch or judicial branch, so this is rather far-ahead thinking for the GOP, since it only has a chance of affecting things after 2008.

I really think the point is, why is the Republican executive branch only searching the offices of a Democrat who hasn't yet been charged, when there are felony charges against some Republicans, and even felony convictions of Republicans.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. The debate and speech clause was created for a reason.

Your view of the separation of powers is dangerous and dead wrong. The checks and balances provided by the debate and speech clause is VITAL to our Democracy. The clause was not created as a frivolous addition to the Constitution.

[Ravy]

4. I didn't say it was frivolous. I said it exempted felonies.

You speak of checks and balances, what is the check on congressional corruption????

I believe this is it (the power of the executive to enforce laws, with the oversight of the judiciary.

I think your view is dangerous, as it eliminates this check. If the founding fathers had wanted to allow treason and felonies to take place in congressional offices, then why did they exempt them????