I find it quite telling, but not unexpected, that the uberlefties here said not a word about Congressman William Jefferson, the arrogant scumbag who was recently busted for, among other things, taking bribes. I assume this is because, as fantomas apparently believes, Democratic congressmen NEVER do anything corrupt. Congressman Jefferson even laughed about the FBI watching him, and his laugh and comments were caught on tape!
What's just as disgusting and arrogant is his, along with Speaker Hastert's, complaint about the Feds raiding a congressional office. Sorry, Willie, but Members of Congress are not immune from searches, raids, or prosecution. Citing the speech & debate clauses of the Constitution won't fly, either, because that's not applicable here.
There is every reason to believe that Jefferson was using his physical office on Capitol Hill to hide evidence of massive bribe-taking--bribe--taking that has been caught on tape, by the way. That Congressman is a figure in the Democratic party. The Republican party has been reeling from bribery and corruption scandals of its own. So the Speaker of the House, the leader of Republicans in the House, actually complains to the president that the raid on the Democratic congressman's office is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers (it's not). In so doing, he reinforces the image that Congress, which almost never polices itself, cares less abou corruption than it does about its prerogatives. It also steps on the very important political story that might help diffuse the image of specifically Republican corruption. I don't know how to put this any other way, and I'm sorry if it sounds insulting, but: Whether you consider him the leader of an institution whose standing among the public is at historically low levels and in need of drastic moral renovation or a leading partisan official whose team is in pretty bad shape and could use a bit of a boost, Denny Hastert is a blithering idiot.
Full Version: Democratic Congressman busted for taking bribes
Well, gmg brought this up in another thread. Besides, I figure you would have posted this with glee three days ago. 
Nah, I waited a bit to see if any of you ultra-leftists would make a big deal of it in its own thread.
BTW, I am not gleeful when a Member of Congress does something corrupt. I'm pleased when an M.C. gets caught, of course. Unlike you sickos who relish the misery of those whom you politically oppose, I am more sickened by the fact that a public servant, an elected official--regardless of party--betrays his office and the public trust.
In Illinois it's commonplace. It has become the norm and not the exception. Congress doesn't seem far behind. frown
BTW, I am not gleeful when a Member of Congress does something corrupt. I'm pleased when an M.C. gets caught, of course. Unlike you sickos who relish the misery of those whom you politically oppose, I am more sickened by the fact that a public servant, an elected official--regardless of party--betrays his office and the public trust.
In Illinois it's commonplace. It has become the norm and not the exception. Congress doesn't seem far behind. frown
Illini fan, you know the über-righty self-proclaimed jurist who has a fixation with invoking my name would have to post on Jefferson. I may be wrong, but I don't think I was on the only one who slammed Jefferson on the very thread that GMG brought it up on. If Jefferson's guilty of the multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, like GOP Congressman Duke Cunningham. The last thing his constituents in New Orleans need is someone with his allegations hanging over him when they need the best possible advocate in Congress.
It does appear that Jefferson was a free agent in this, though. You have to wonder if the starter of this thread will also be starting a thread to deal with the following GOP Congresspeople who've been linked to various, interlinked financial scandals:
Roy Blunt? Ken Calvert? Tom DeLay? John Doolittle? Tom Feeney? Katherine Harris? Jerry Lewis? Gary Miller? Bob Ney? Dick Pombo? Charles Taylor?
What do you think? It'd require him to suck it up and actually address people associated with his beloved über-righties.
It does appear that Jefferson was a free agent in this, though. You have to wonder if the starter of this thread will also be starting a thread to deal with the following GOP Congresspeople who've been linked to various, interlinked financial scandals:
Roy Blunt? Ken Calvert? Tom DeLay? John Doolittle? Tom Feeney? Katherine Harris? Jerry Lewis? Gary Miller? Bob Ney? Dick Pombo? Charles Taylor?
What do you think? It'd require him to suck it up and actually address people associated with his beloved über-righties.
What I really think is discussing politics on here is worthless. Everyone pretty much poisons the well right out of the gate, stopping any productive conversation in its tracks. Furthermore, personal vendettas get in everyone's way and all debates denegrate into the same old insult matches. Honestly, my other message board is populated by high school and college students, and it's much easier to talk politics on there that remain on track than here.
QUOTE
Illini_fan:
What I really think is discussing politics on here is worthless. Everyone pretty much poisons the well right out of the gate, stopping any productive conversation in its tracks. Furthermore, personal vendettas get in everyone's way and all debates denegrate into the same old insult matches. Honestly, my other message board is populated by high school and college students, and it's much easier to talk politics on there that remain on track than here.
Ya think? What I really think is discussing politics on here is worthless. Everyone pretty much poisons the well right out of the gate, stopping any productive conversation in its tracks. Furthermore, personal vendettas get in everyone's way and all debates denegrate into the same old insult matches. Honestly, my other message board is populated by high school and college students, and it's much easier to talk politics on there that remain on track than here.
By far, the smartest thing ever said on any of these political threads!
[ May 24, 2006, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: shep71 ]
QUOTE
fantomas:
It does appear that Jefferson was a free agent in this, though. You have to wonder if the starter of this thread will also be starting a thread to deal with the following GOP Congresspeople who've been linked to various, interlinked financial scandals:
Roy Blunt? Ken Calvert? Tom DeLay? John Doolittle? Tom Feeney? Katherine Harris? Jerry Lewis? Gary Miller? Bob Ney? Dick Pombo? Charles Taylor?
Well, that didn't take you very long to pop in with the usual dodging-the-issue reply. Always retorting with the same, tired cliched responses I see: "...but...but...look what YOUR guy did...wah, wah, wah."It does appear that Jefferson was a free agent in this, though. You have to wonder if the starter of this thread will also be starting a thread to deal with the following GOP Congresspeople who've been linked to various, interlinked financial scandals:
Roy Blunt? Ken Calvert? Tom DeLay? John Doolittle? Tom Feeney? Katherine Harris? Jerry Lewis? Gary Miller? Bob Ney? Dick Pombo? Charles Taylor?
BTW, I need not start threads on the aforementioned people about whom you and your ilk have so extensively commented. Redundancy is not necessary in that regard.
All you closed-minded ideologues are alike anyway.
Gee, I feel like Raymond Burr smoking a cigarette in a darkened room in "Rear Window." wink
So let's focus on Hastert's and Frist's stupidly invoking some non-existent legislative privilege that makes their offices immune from search or seizure. They - and AG Gonzalez - compounded their error by noting that Jefferson had failed to turn over documents previously requested. Sorry, brethren at the Bar, that's irrelevant. There is no legislative privilege preventing search of Congressional offices just as there is no privilege preventing searches of their homes, and one needn't be delayed in discovery to obtain a warrant. MIB's right; speech and debate clause is inapplicable.
THIS is what really bugs me about the GOP - it's silly internal inconsistency and willingness to gratuitously sacrifice strict criminal standards for the sake of some misperceived freedom that doesn't exist in the first place. Sometimes these dumbfux should just shut the f$@k up! :mad:
So let's focus on Hastert's and Frist's stupidly invoking some non-existent legislative privilege that makes their offices immune from search or seizure. They - and AG Gonzalez - compounded their error by noting that Jefferson had failed to turn over documents previously requested. Sorry, brethren at the Bar, that's irrelevant. There is no legislative privilege preventing search of Congressional offices just as there is no privilege preventing searches of their homes, and one needn't be delayed in discovery to obtain a warrant. MIB's right; speech and debate clause is inapplicable.
THIS is what really bugs me about the GOP - it's silly internal inconsistency and willingness to gratuitously sacrifice strict criminal standards for the sake of some misperceived freedom that doesn't exist in the first place. Sometimes these dumbfux should just shut the f$@k up! :mad:
I'd have posted it, but I didn't think it was necessary since some uber-rightwinger began to hijack an unrelated thread by injecting this latest scandal to it. (Edited to add: looking back at the other thread, I see a fellow "uber-leftie" first mentioned Jefferson. I stand corrected.)
This "uber-leftie" will respond here similarly to how I did there: the Dems ought to push this guy out and cut him off at the knees. Abuse of the public trust is an inexcusable crime, regardless of party affiliation. This guy ought to get no mercy.
Satisfied?
[ May 24, 2006, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: aquaman ]
This "uber-leftie" will respond here similarly to how I did there: the Dems ought to push this guy out and cut him off at the knees. Abuse of the public trust is an inexcusable crime, regardless of party affiliation. This guy ought to get no mercy.
Satisfied?
[ May 24, 2006, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: aquaman ]
Meanwhile...
...Jefferson has refused to step down from the House Ways & Means Committee. Nancy Pelosi has written him a latter urging him to resign from the committee. In it, she cited Tom DeLay's committee resignation when he was accused of wrongdoing. Jefferson has rebuffed Pelosi's demands that he step down.
...Speaker Hastert has privately complained to President Bush about the Justice Department's searching of Jefferson's office. Wah, wah, wah, Hastert. Quit your belly-achin' and suck on a pacifier, will ya? Your arguments about the illegality of the searches and records confiscations are incorrect.
There seems to be some confusion among lawmakers on Capitol Hill (as well as some journalists) about whether the search of Rep. William Jefferson's office raises serious separation of powers issues. What is being overlooked in the argument is the extraordinary care the Justice Department has taken to address those issues.
First, it should be said that prosecutors seem to have Jefferson dead to rights. They have — and have had since late last summer — more than enough evidence to justify a search of his office. In the last months, they have apparently tried other, more standard, means to try to get Jefferson to comply with requests to turn over the evidence, to no avail. There is even, in the 95-page search warrant request, a section headlined GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON. It is followed by several redacted paragraphs in which prosecutors apparently describe their attempts to get Jefferson to turn over information.
And then there is this:
The government has exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner short of requesting this search warrant. A member of Congressman Jefferson's staff has indicated to law enforcement agents that records relevant to the investigation remain in Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, which the government has been unable to obtain to date. Left with no other method, the government is proceeding in this fashion.Then the warrant describes a set of extraordinary procedures involving not only prosecutors but also the Court, by which Congressional privileges will be respected:
To ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.
The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.The warrant application goes on to describe a similar method of dealing with electronic records. Given the careful methods outlined in the warrant application, and given the apparently unusual situation presented by the Jefferson case, it seems hard to deny that the Justice Department, working with the Court, has taken sufficient steps to respect congressional privileges.
The claim that there is a separation-of-powers problem here is frivolous. The congressmen and others making it are conducting themselves abysmally. At a time when Americans' regard for congress is at an all-time low, why would anyone want to get behind such low-life criminality?
The Constitution defines the immunity of members of Congress in the speech and debate clause (Art. I, 6), providing that members "shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." (Italics mine.)
That's it. They can be investigated and prosecuted just like anyone else, with two exceptions: (a) they presumptively may not be placed under arrest during a session of congress — although arrest is perfectly proper if a felony (or treason or breach of the peace) is involved; and (
the evidence used to prosecute them cannot include anything contained in a speech or debate during a session. So the privilege against arrest is limited, and the privilege against being investigated is non-existent (anyone out there remember Abscam?).
The executive branch has apparently made use of an extraordinary Chinese Wall procedure here, having agents unrelated to the investigation conduct the search of Jefferson's office "to ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege[.]"
That is kit-gloves overkill in the extreme. The speech and debate privilege means statments and materials from speeches or debates when congress is in session cannot be used as evidence in court against a member of congress. It does not mean that such statements and materials cannot properly be seen or heard by the investigators, or that if they are seen or heard the investigation is somehow tainted.
...Jefferson has refused to step down from the House Ways & Means Committee. Nancy Pelosi has written him a latter urging him to resign from the committee. In it, she cited Tom DeLay's committee resignation when he was accused of wrongdoing. Jefferson has rebuffed Pelosi's demands that he step down.
...Speaker Hastert has privately complained to President Bush about the Justice Department's searching of Jefferson's office. Wah, wah, wah, Hastert. Quit your belly-achin' and suck on a pacifier, will ya? Your arguments about the illegality of the searches and records confiscations are incorrect.
There seems to be some confusion among lawmakers on Capitol Hill (as well as some journalists) about whether the search of Rep. William Jefferson's office raises serious separation of powers issues. What is being overlooked in the argument is the extraordinary care the Justice Department has taken to address those issues.
First, it should be said that prosecutors seem to have Jefferson dead to rights. They have — and have had since late last summer — more than enough evidence to justify a search of his office. In the last months, they have apparently tried other, more standard, means to try to get Jefferson to comply with requests to turn over the evidence, to no avail. There is even, in the 95-page search warrant request, a section headlined GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON. It is followed by several redacted paragraphs in which prosecutors apparently describe their attempts to get Jefferson to turn over information.
And then there is this:
QUOTE
The government has exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner short of requesting this search warrant. A member of Congressman Jefferson's staff has indicated to law enforcement agents that records relevant to the investigation remain in Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, which the government has been unable to obtain to date. Left with no other method, the government is proceeding in this fashion.
QUOTE
To ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.
The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.
The claim that there is a separation-of-powers problem here is frivolous. The congressmen and others making it are conducting themselves abysmally. At a time when Americans' regard for congress is at an all-time low, why would anyone want to get behind such low-life criminality?
The Constitution defines the immunity of members of Congress in the speech and debate clause (Art. I, 6), providing that members "shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." (Italics mine.)
That's it. They can be investigated and prosecuted just like anyone else, with two exceptions: (a) they presumptively may not be placed under arrest during a session of congress — although arrest is perfectly proper if a felony (or treason or breach of the peace) is involved; and (
the evidence used to prosecute them cannot include anything contained in a speech or debate during a session. So the privilege against arrest is limited, and the privilege against being investigated is non-existent (anyone out there remember Abscam?).The executive branch has apparently made use of an extraordinary Chinese Wall procedure here, having agents unrelated to the investigation conduct the search of Jefferson's office "to ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege[.]"
That is kit-gloves overkill in the extreme. The speech and debate privilege means statments and materials from speeches or debates when congress is in session cannot be used as evidence in court against a member of congress. It does not mean that such statements and materials cannot properly be seen or heard by the investigators, or that if they are seen or heard the investigation is somehow tainted.
Oh, brother!
The House Judiciary Committee has just announced a rare recess hearing, set for next Tuesday, entitled, "RECKLESS JUSTICE: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"
Arrogant ass****s all.
The House Judiciary Committee has just announced a rare recess hearing, set for next Tuesday, entitled, "RECKLESS JUSTICE: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"
Arrogant ass****s all.
Good explication of the relevant law, MIB. ABC News broke a story last night linking Hastert to Abramoff, so now his reasons for opposing the DOJ become clear. I agree: they're not immune and, as I've said before, wherever crimes are found, prosecute them to the full extent of the law.
[ May 25, 2006, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
[ May 25, 2006, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
And the Justice Dept. has emphatically denied that Hastert is the subject of any investigation while ABC News stands by their story (though they admit they have no "proof" per se). So whom to believe? With Congress's track record and the media's reputation, that's a difficult question to answer.
Personally, of all the congressmen mentioned in that mess, Hastert to me seems the least likely to be involved. Of course, that could be completely incorrect. Time will tell.
Personally, of all the congressmen mentioned in that mess, Hastert to me seems the least likely to be involved. Of course, that could be completely incorrect. Time will tell.
You are all misreading the ABC story. They did not say that Hastert is under investigation. They said something along the lines that he is entangled in the Abramoff issue. That could have many different meanings, like that he has information about the scandal, that he might be able to provide some background context, etc. Hastert and the Justice Department have steadfastly denied that he is under investigation, which is NOT what ABC reported.
Thats what I heard also, aqua.
Breaking News across CNN.com: Bush has ordered that all items seized in the raid be sealed for 45 days.
I think this has really scared some politicians...
I think this has really scared some politicians...
I hope the GOP leadership in Congress is finally starting to realize that the Imperial President is the creation of their own rubberstamping ways since 2001.
QUOTE
MIB:
Meanwhile...
...Jefferson has refused to step down from the House Ways & Means Committee. Nancy Pelosi has written him a latter urging him to resign from the committee. In it, she cited Tom DeLay's committee resignation when he was accused of wrongdoing. Jefferson has rebuffed Pelosi's demands that he step down.
...Speaker Hastert has privately complained to President Bush about the Justice Department's searching of Jefferson's office. Wah, wah, wah, Hastert. Quit your belly-achin' and suck on a pacifier, will ya? Your arguments about the illegality of the searches and records confiscations are incorrect.
There seems to be some confusion among lawmakers on Capitol Hill (as well as some journalists) about whether the search of Rep. William Jefferson's office raises serious separation of powers issues. What is being overlooked in the argument is the extraordinary care the Justice Department has taken to address those issues.
First, it should be said that prosecutors seem to have Jefferson dead to rights. They have — and have had since late last summer — more than enough evidence to justify a search of his office. In the last months, they have apparently tried other, more standard, means to try to get Jefferson to comply with requests to turn over the evidence, to no avail. There is even, in the 95-page search warrant request, a section headlined GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON. It is followed by several redacted paragraphs in which prosecutors apparently describe their attempts to get Jefferson to turn over information.
And then there is this:
The government has exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner short of requesting this search warrant. A member of Congressman Jefferson's staff has indicated to law enforcement agents that records relevant to the investigation remain in Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, which the government has been unable to obtain to date. Left with no other method, the government is proceeding in this fashion.Then the warrant describes a set of extraordinary procedures involving not only prosecutors but also the Court, by which Congressional privileges will be respected:
To ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.
The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.The warrant application goes on to describe a similar method of dealing with electronic records. Given the careful methods outlined in the warrant application, and given the apparently unusual situation presented by the Jefferson case, it seems hard to deny that the Justice Department, working with the Court, has taken sufficient steps to respect congressional privileges.
The claim that there is a separation-of-powers problem here is frivolous. The congressmen and others making it are conducting themselves abysmally. At a time when Americans' regard for congress is at an all-time low, why would anyone want to get behind such low-life criminality?
The Constitution defines the immunity of members of Congress in the speech and debate clause (Art. I, 6), providing that members \"shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.\" (Italics mine.)
That's it. They can be investigated and prosecuted just like anyone else, with two exceptions: (a) they presumptively may not be placed under arrest during a session of congress — although arrest is perfectly proper if a felony (or treason or breach of the peace) is involved; and ( the evidence used to prosecute them cannot include anything contained in a speech or debate during a session. So the privilege against arrest is limited, and the privilege against being investigated is non-existent (anyone out there remember Abscam?).
The executive branch has apparently made use of an extraordinary Chinese Wall procedure here, having agents unrelated to the investigation conduct the search of Jefferson's office \"to ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege[.]\"
That is kit-gloves overkill in the extreme. The speech and debate privilege means statments and materials from speeches or debates when congress is in session cannot be used as evidence in court against a member of congress. It does not mean that such statements and materials cannot properly be seen or heard by the investigators, or that if they are seen or heard the investigation is somehow tainted.
Slightly off topic, but of interest to all of Outsports...I have no interest in rehashing the plagiarism issue of a few months ago, but could I make a humble plea to folks to refrain from lifting entire or large portions of articles from other sources. At the very least, please give appropriate due credit. My beef here--and I've made this point before--is that there are a ton of intellectual property issues (copyright, fair use exceptions, etc...) at play here, and I'd hate to see Outsports get sued because a certain poster takes the words of Andy McCarthy that are the property of the National Review. In a pretty famous case in IP law circles, the LA Times successfully sued the Free Republic for republishing articles on its website without permission. So please don't be selfish and put Outsports in the same position, since there's no need to resort to desperate word theft to argue a point.Meanwhile...
...Jefferson has refused to step down from the House Ways & Means Committee. Nancy Pelosi has written him a latter urging him to resign from the committee. In it, she cited Tom DeLay's committee resignation when he was accused of wrongdoing. Jefferson has rebuffed Pelosi's demands that he step down.
...Speaker Hastert has privately complained to President Bush about the Justice Department's searching of Jefferson's office. Wah, wah, wah, Hastert. Quit your belly-achin' and suck on a pacifier, will ya? Your arguments about the illegality of the searches and records confiscations are incorrect.
There seems to be some confusion among lawmakers on Capitol Hill (as well as some journalists) about whether the search of Rep. William Jefferson's office raises serious separation of powers issues. What is being overlooked in the argument is the extraordinary care the Justice Department has taken to address those issues.
First, it should be said that prosecutors seem to have Jefferson dead to rights. They have — and have had since late last summer — more than enough evidence to justify a search of his office. In the last months, they have apparently tried other, more standard, means to try to get Jefferson to comply with requests to turn over the evidence, to no avail. There is even, in the 95-page search warrant request, a section headlined GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON. It is followed by several redacted paragraphs in which prosecutors apparently describe their attempts to get Jefferson to turn over information.
And then there is this:
QUOTE
The government has exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner short of requesting this search warrant. A member of Congressman Jefferson's staff has indicated to law enforcement agents that records relevant to the investigation remain in Congressman Jefferson's Capitol Hill office, which the government has been unable to obtain to date. Left with no other method, the government is proceeding in this fashion.
QUOTE
To ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.
The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.
The claim that there is a separation-of-powers problem here is frivolous. The congressmen and others making it are conducting themselves abysmally. At a time when Americans' regard for congress is at an all-time low, why would anyone want to get behind such low-life criminality?
The Constitution defines the immunity of members of Congress in the speech and debate clause (Art. I, 6), providing that members \"shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.\" (Italics mine.)
That's it. They can be investigated and prosecuted just like anyone else, with two exceptions: (a) they presumptively may not be placed under arrest during a session of congress — although arrest is perfectly proper if a felony (or treason or breach of the peace) is involved; and (
the evidence used to prosecute them cannot include anything contained in a speech or debate during a session. So the privilege against arrest is limited, and the privilege against being investigated is non-existent (anyone out there remember Abscam?).The executive branch has apparently made use of an extraordinary Chinese Wall procedure here, having agents unrelated to the investigation conduct the search of Jefferson's office \"to ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege[.]\"
That is kit-gloves overkill in the extreme. The speech and debate privilege means statments and materials from speeches or debates when congress is in session cannot be used as evidence in court against a member of congress. It does not mean that such statements and materials cannot properly be seen or heard by the investigators, or that if they are seen or heard the investigation is somehow tainted.
Edited to note that first half of the above text should also be credited to Byron York as well.
[ May 25, 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
Not to quibble, Aguaman, but neither MIB's nor my post on this matter said or implied anything about Hastert being "under investigation." My "linked" can be read to mean your "entangled." If there's any "misreading" of the ABC story going on, neither of us is doing it.
If true, the 45-day sealing of docs is, however, troubling, and if nothing else, reflects the internal inconsistencies in this Congress and Administration, which could be the GOP's undoing.
If true, the 45-day sealing of docs is, however, troubling, and if nothing else, reflects the internal inconsistencies in this Congress and Administration, which could be the GOP's undoing.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
...which could be the GOP's undoing.
Indeed; and it would serve them right.
...which could be the GOP's undoing.
QUOTE
Bush:
The Department of Justice's search was part of an important investigation of alleged public corruption. At the same time, the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives believe the search violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the speech and debate clause of the Constitution.
Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries. Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out.
What the hell is this idiot talking about? What dilemma? There's no frickin' dilemma here. None. Just an arrogant ignorance of and contemptible disregard for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. :mad: The Department of Justice's search was part of an important investigation of alleged public corruption. At the same time, the bipartisan leadership of the House of Representatives believe the search violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the speech and debate clause of the Constitution.
Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries. Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out.
I've prided myself on voting for Dems and Republicans across the board, but until and unless the congressional GOP acquiesces here, I can and will never again vote for any federal GOPer. I cannot stomach such blatant arrogance and Constitutional usurpation.
[ May 25, 2006, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Usually when there's a story with a legal angle like this one, the reportage contains at least a synopsis of the arguments and precedents on either side. Here, though, the absence of both is conspicuous. What part about citizens expecting their elected representatives to be above reproach don't these idiots understand?
It is just so sad, gmg, so sad. To be honest with you, it breaks my heart that such people hold elected office. I know that sounds stupid, but that's the truth. I'm sure I sound foolish, perhaps taking this too seriously, but I can't help it.
I look upon those who are elected to office as guardians of a public trust, elected to safeguard the very foundation upon which this nation was founded, and elected to also honor those who founded this nation. Each congressman, senator, and president in some way represents those who came before them, including those who gave birth to our nation, those with ideals apparently not shared or exemplified today.
Because of this, I do not care one bit to which political party an elected official belongs. I have no respect whatsoever for those who disgrace their office through illegal means or by somehow believing they are above those whom they govern. Such people have forfeited their right to hold such office.
Sadly, many of them still get re-elected, because there aren't enough Americans who care enough to fire them. This doesn't make me some special, noble saint, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I just look at our Constitution as a very sacred thing, something that must be followed, must be respected, must be honored always in all ways. None of the people elected under it--none--should ever hold office if they cannot remain subservient to it.
Too many casually dismiss this, and it is this that both sickens and distresses me.
I look upon those who are elected to office as guardians of a public trust, elected to safeguard the very foundation upon which this nation was founded, and elected to also honor those who founded this nation. Each congressman, senator, and president in some way represents those who came before them, including those who gave birth to our nation, those with ideals apparently not shared or exemplified today.
Because of this, I do not care one bit to which political party an elected official belongs. I have no respect whatsoever for those who disgrace their office through illegal means or by somehow believing they are above those whom they govern. Such people have forfeited their right to hold such office.
Sadly, many of them still get re-elected, because there aren't enough Americans who care enough to fire them. This doesn't make me some special, noble saint, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I just look at our Constitution as a very sacred thing, something that must be followed, must be respected, must be honored always in all ways. None of the people elected under it--none--should ever hold office if they cannot remain subservient to it.
Too many casually dismiss this, and it is this that both sickens and distresses me.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
Not to quibble, Aguaman, but neither MIB's nor my post on this matter said or implied anything about Hastert being \"under investigation.\" My \"linked\" can be read to mean your \"entangled.\" If there's any \"misreading\" of the ABC story going on, neither of us is doing it...
I didn't directly say that you did, and I now realize that I was responding here to something I saw on another board (where the GOPers were, again, playing the "evil-media-has-an-agenda-and-is-once-again-lying-to-the-public" card).Not to quibble, Aguaman, but neither MIB's nor my post on this matter said or implied anything about Hastert being \"under investigation.\" My \"linked\" can be read to mean your \"entangled.\" If there's any \"misreading\" of the ABC story going on, neither of us is doing it...
However, one of MIB's posts did seem to set up a he-said/she-said type struggle around the issue of Hastert's being under investigation, so even if I did (falsely) imply this about you, I believe it is a fair assumption based on MIB's post that he had misread the article.
Here's the MIB language I'm referring to: "And the Justice Dept. has emphatically denied that Hastert is the subject of any investigation while ABC News stands by their story (though they admit they have no "proof" per se)."
[ May 26, 2006, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aquaman ]
"Ti creo," MIB. frown
Not making excuses for anybody here (this guy should be drawn and quartered), but thought I'd throw this out, since it's slightly related...
Quick backstory for those not in the know. "Payola" is an term in the radio industry in which record labels pay money (or other items of value) to a radio station in exchange for airplay for their artists. It was a big deal back in the late 50s/early 60s, and is once more grabbing some headlines as various radio stations and companies are being investigated.
I host a radio show in which I play unsigned bands from around the area. Many bands have asked me for info on "the business", and I'm more than happy to provide them with said information. In addition, I've struck up friendship with a few of them. And because of this, the "payola" thing has come up time and again.
* I often have bands send me T-shirts. I read the payola laws about fifty times to make sure that this was acceptable, and it appears to be. (I think because a T-shirt ends up being more "billboard" for the band than "torso warmer" for me.) Still, I wonder.
* Two bands sent me things to thank me for playing them on the radio. One sent a gift basket, one sent a Starbucks gift card. I'm sure these bands meant well, but I had to send them back, at my own cost.
* Often a band will invite me out for lunch or drinks to discuss "the business". When they do, they always try to pick up the check, and I always insist on paying my share. Again, I think they're trying to be nice (I can't honestly imagine they think I "owe" them airplay because they paid for my caesar salad), but it's really difficult to get them to agree to let me pay for my share.
* It gets weirder when it's a band I've become friends with. We invited one band over for dinner once, so the next time we went out, they insisted on picking up the tab. Was that OK, since it was more like "payback"? Or do I still need to pay for my share?
Even at this lowest level, it can get awfully complicated.
LXN
Quick backstory for those not in the know. "Payola" is an term in the radio industry in which record labels pay money (or other items of value) to a radio station in exchange for airplay for their artists. It was a big deal back in the late 50s/early 60s, and is once more grabbing some headlines as various radio stations and companies are being investigated.
I host a radio show in which I play unsigned bands from around the area. Many bands have asked me for info on "the business", and I'm more than happy to provide them with said information. In addition, I've struck up friendship with a few of them. And because of this, the "payola" thing has come up time and again.
* I often have bands send me T-shirts. I read the payola laws about fifty times to make sure that this was acceptable, and it appears to be. (I think because a T-shirt ends up being more "billboard" for the band than "torso warmer" for me.) Still, I wonder.
* Two bands sent me things to thank me for playing them on the radio. One sent a gift basket, one sent a Starbucks gift card. I'm sure these bands meant well, but I had to send them back, at my own cost.
* Often a band will invite me out for lunch or drinks to discuss "the business". When they do, they always try to pick up the check, and I always insist on paying my share. Again, I think they're trying to be nice (I can't honestly imagine they think I "owe" them airplay because they paid for my caesar salad), but it's really difficult to get them to agree to let me pay for my share.
* It gets weirder when it's a band I've become friends with. We invited one band over for dinner once, so the next time we went out, they insisted on picking up the tab. Was that OK, since it was more like "payback"? Or do I still need to pay for my share?
Even at this lowest level, it can get awfully complicated.
LXN
According to news reports, the Justice Department signaled to the White House this week that the nation's top three law enforcement officials would resign or face firing rather than return documents seized from a Democratic congressman's office in a bribery investigation, according to administration sources familiar with the discussions.
The possibility of resignations by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was communicated to the White House by several Justice officials in tense negotiations over the fate of the materials taken from Rep. William J. Jefferson's office, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Regarding the media's calling this a showdown between the executive and legislative branches: it's not. It's a showdown of the executive and judicial branches on one side and the legislative on the other (really only one half of the legislative branch, though I'm sure the Senate would get its panties in a bunch too if something similar happened on their side of the capitol). The FBI had a warrant. That means the judicial branch has taken a side. If we are going to get deep into the weeds on constitutional issues and niceties--as the House wants to do--it seems to me that the court's approval of the warrant can't simply be dismissed.
Professor Robert F. Turner of the University of Virginia Law School had this excellent comment in a recent WSJ op ed:
It is increasingly rare to find a spirit of bipartisanship in Congress these days. So a display of the spirit would have been a good thing to see — especially in a time of war — but for the fact that the issue now uniting Republican and Democratic leaders is an outrageous assertion that members of Congress are above the law, and that the Constitution immunizes legislators who betray their public trust in return for bribes from investigation by the executive branch.
In light of the attitudes held by so many of our legislators, it is no wonder three times as many Americans disapprove of Congress's job-performance as approve, according to last week's Gallup Poll. Those are Congress's lowest numbers since the Democrats were last in power a dozen years ago.
According to Gallup, 83% of Americans view congressional corruption as a serious problem. There is an election coming up in five months, and legislators who wish to survive it might wish to step back and permit the FBI to do its job.
[ May 30, 2006, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]
The possibility of resignations by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was communicated to the White House by several Justice officials in tense negotiations over the fate of the materials taken from Rep. William J. Jefferson's office, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Regarding the media's calling this a showdown between the executive and legislative branches: it's not. It's a showdown of the executive and judicial branches on one side and the legislative on the other (really only one half of the legislative branch, though I'm sure the Senate would get its panties in a bunch too if something similar happened on their side of the capitol). The FBI had a warrant. That means the judicial branch has taken a side. If we are going to get deep into the weeds on constitutional issues and niceties--as the House wants to do--it seems to me that the court's approval of the warrant can't simply be dismissed.
Professor Robert F. Turner of the University of Virginia Law School had this excellent comment in a recent WSJ op ed:
QUOTE
It is increasingly rare to find a spirit of bipartisanship in Congress these days. So a display of the spirit would have been a good thing to see — especially in a time of war — but for the fact that the issue now uniting Republican and Democratic leaders is an outrageous assertion that members of Congress are above the law, and that the Constitution immunizes legislators who betray their public trust in return for bribes from investigation by the executive branch.
In light of the attitudes held by so many of our legislators, it is no wonder three times as many Americans disapprove of Congress's job-performance as approve, according to last week's Gallup Poll. Those are Congress's lowest numbers since the Democrats were last in power a dozen years ago.
According to Gallup, 83% of Americans view congressional corruption as a serious problem. There is an election coming up in five months, and legislators who wish to survive it might wish to step back and permit the FBI to do its job.
[ May 30, 2006, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]
QUOTE
Regarding the media's calling this a showdown between the executive and legislative branches: it's not. It's a showdown of the executive and judicial branches on one side and the legislative on the other
"Showdown" doesn't appear to be a legal term so I will assume it is colloquial. Having said that, I don't see how it could be a "showdown" until the highest authority in each branch has at least stated an opinion. The Senate as you noted has not been vocal, nor has the Supreme Court spoken.
Did anyone catch any news coverage of the "special emergency hearings" in the House yesterday? Boy, what a bunch of arrogant idiots Hastert and his cronies are!
There's no doubt it would have been better politics if the Justice Department had given the House leadership a heads-up about the search of Jefferson's office. But in the department's 95-page search warrant request, investigators do address a number of issues that House Republicans have raised. Unfortunately, some of that material is blacked out. For example, the court-approved warrant request includes a section headlined (caps original) GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, followed by several redacted paragraphs in which the Justice Department presumably details those efforts. Then, at the end of the warrant, there is an eight-page list specifying each item to be taken from Jefferson's office. That list, too, is redacted.
Then the warrant describes a set of procedures for dealing with the documents while taking into account Congressional privileges:
To ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.
The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege…or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.A similar procedure was laid out for electronic records. Clearly the Justice Department thinks it is on solid legal ground in this case. And Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution specifically exempts cases of "treason, felony and breach of the peace" from the otherwise blanket protection given to senators and representatives in the course of their duties. Is there some circumstance that protects Jefferson in this case?
Finally, this whole thing started when Jefferson, knowing that the FBI had deeply incriminating evidence in its bribery investigation, simply refused a subpoena for evidence from his office. A standoff had gone on for nine months, and there was no indication that Jefferson would ever cooperate. So the Justice Department took action. Should they have told some House leaders ahead of time? Maybe so. That would have been good politics. But beyond that, Hastert doesn't have a very strong case to make. If he thinks otherwise, then he ought to be voted out of office, along with every other Republican and Democrat--there are several in both parties--who shares such an arrogant opinion.
There's no doubt it would have been better politics if the Justice Department had given the House leadership a heads-up about the search of Jefferson's office. But in the department's 95-page search warrant request, investigators do address a number of issues that House Republicans have raised. Unfortunately, some of that material is blacked out. For example, the court-approved warrant request includes a section headlined (caps original) GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO EXHAUST ALL LESSER INTRUSIVE APPROACHES TO OBTAINING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS LOCATED IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, followed by several redacted paragraphs in which the Justice Department presumably details those efforts. Then, at the end of the warrant, there is an eight-page list specifying each item to be taken from Jefferson's office. That list, too, is redacted.
Then the warrant describes a set of procedures for dealing with the documents while taking into account Congressional privileges:
QUOTE
To ensure the prosecution team does not inadvertently review any potentially politically sensitive, non-responsive items in the office, or information that may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the physical search of the office will be conducted by special agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have had no substantive role in the investigation.
The non-case agents will remove from the office those paper records determined to be responsive [to a detailed list of things to be search for included at the end of the warrant request]…Other than as required to determine responsiveness, the non-case agents will not disclose to anyone any politically sensitive and non-responsive items inadvertently seen by the non-case agents during the course of the search of the office and will attest in writing to their compliance with this procedure.
Before giving any paper records seized from the office to the prosecution team, the non-case agents will deliver the seized paper records to the designated Filter Team….Prior to their appointment, the Filter Team will have had no role or connection to the investigation in this matter and their subsequent roles in the investigation will be confined to their duties and responsibilities in connection with these special procedures.
The Filter Team will review the paper records seized from the office to validate that they are responsive…Any paper records seized from the office that are determined by the Filter Team to be unresponsive…will be promptly returned to the office…
Paper records validated by the Filter Team as responsive…will undergo a second level of review by the Filter Team. The Filter Team will review the responsive records to determine if they may fall within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege…or any other pertinent privilege…
For those paper records determined by the Filter Team as potentially within the purview of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege, or any other pertinent privilege, the Filter Team shall provide a log of those potentially privileged paper records to counsel for Congressman Jefferson. The log shall identify the record by date, recipient, sender and subject matter….The Filter Team shall not provide the log or copies of the potentially privileged paper records to the prosecution team, unless otherwise ordered by the Court…
The Filter Team shall then request the District Court to review the potentially privileged paper records in order for the Court to name a final determination whether they contain privileged information, unless counsel for Congressman Jefferson consents to the production to the prosecution team of certain of the potentially privileged paper records.
Finally, this whole thing started when Jefferson, knowing that the FBI had deeply incriminating evidence in its bribery investigation, simply refused a subpoena for evidence from his office. A standoff had gone on for nine months, and there was no indication that Jefferson would ever cooperate. So the Justice Department took action. Should they have told some House leaders ahead of time? Maybe so. That would have been good politics. But beyond that, Hastert doesn't have a very strong case to make. If he thinks otherwise, then he ought to be voted out of office, along with every other Republican and Democrat--there are several in both parties--who shares such an arrogant opinion.
Perhaps the House General Counsel ought to learn how to spell the Attorney General's name. Here is a letter sent by the House G.C. to the A.G.:
The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzalez
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear General Gonzalez:
Last Thursday, the Speaker and the Democratic Leader of the House authorized the House Office of General Counsel to begin discussions with the Department of Justice in order to establish procedures and protocols that would allow you, consistent with the Constitution, to execute a search warrant on House offices.
It is the duty of the Department of Justice to aggressively investigate and prosecute public corruption. No one is above the law. It is vital to the well-being of our Nation that corruption, wherever it is found, be eliminated.
It is also vital to the well-being of our Nation that all branches of government safeguard the Constitutional system of checks and balances that were designed by the Founders to protect the American people from the potential for abuse of power by a single branch. That is why the Speaker and the Democratic Leader have instructed us to develop a set of procedures that are consistent with the Separation of Powers principle and the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, while also assuring that congressional offices are not used to shield anyone from legitimate investigations of criminal wrongdoing. The House Office of the General Counsel believes that we can do this.
We know that you and the Department of Justice share the values outlined above, and we hope that you will agree with us that it is possible to develop jointly a set of procedures and protocols that will pass Constitutional muster.
We very much look forward to working with you and your colleagues on this important matter. I hope that we might begin our discussions as early as next week. In order to prepare for this meeting, we have been developing proposals for you to obtain the evidence you need in a manner consistent with the Constitution. If your lawyers are ready for a meeting next week, please contact me at your earliest opportunity so that we may move forward with this process as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Geraldine R. Gennet
General CounselIn a manner consistent with the Constitution? Uh, dear Ms. G.C., the search WAS "consistent with the Constitution."
QUOTE
The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzalez
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear General Gonzalez:
Last Thursday, the Speaker and the Democratic Leader of the House authorized the House Office of General Counsel to begin discussions with the Department of Justice in order to establish procedures and protocols that would allow you, consistent with the Constitution, to execute a search warrant on House offices.
It is the duty of the Department of Justice to aggressively investigate and prosecute public corruption. No one is above the law. It is vital to the well-being of our Nation that corruption, wherever it is found, be eliminated.
It is also vital to the well-being of our Nation that all branches of government safeguard the Constitutional system of checks and balances that were designed by the Founders to protect the American people from the potential for abuse of power by a single branch. That is why the Speaker and the Democratic Leader have instructed us to develop a set of procedures that are consistent with the Separation of Powers principle and the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, while also assuring that congressional offices are not used to shield anyone from legitimate investigations of criminal wrongdoing. The House Office of the General Counsel believes that we can do this.
We know that you and the Department of Justice share the values outlined above, and we hope that you will agree with us that it is possible to develop jointly a set of procedures and protocols that will pass Constitutional muster.
We very much look forward to working with you and your colleagues on this important matter. I hope that we might begin our discussions as early as next week. In order to prepare for this meeting, we have been developing proposals for you to obtain the evidence you need in a manner consistent with the Constitution. If your lawyers are ready for a meeting next week, please contact me at your earliest opportunity so that we may move forward with this process as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Geraldine R. Gennet
General Counsel
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.