Bipartisan Cover-up Underway

[zeb1094]

BIPARTISAN COVER-UP UNDERWAY

This William Jefferson thing has the whole Congress spooked. The Feds raided this guy's office (Democrat of Louisiana, by the way) and videotaped an informant handing him $100,000 cash in a leather briefcase. They found $90,000 of the cash in Jefferson's freezer. The other $10K? Who knows. Maybe he hit the strip clubs. Maybe he tithes on bribes.

So what's the big deal? Apparently, there's something going on. Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement yesterday. It demanded that "the Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized." I guess the FBI is supposed to give notice before they go poking around in a Congressional office. They need time to shred, you know.

Excuse me, but isn't the idea here that all people in this country are subject to the law? Where is it written that a member of congress can be free of search warrants in their offices? And what is Dennis Hastert doing hitching his wagon to a corrupt Congressman's wagon...one who was found with a large cash bribe in his freezer? There's' more to this than meets the eye. But I do have just one question: if the feds have to return the papers, will Jefferson have to return the $100,000? I'm just askin.'

 

[Pure]

it sure sounds like

a bi partisan coverup to me, zeb!

i grant that legislators have to be free do their jobs-- i.e., solicit opinions from people (receive letters), research issues (collect data), and in the legislature, ask questions and even occasionally make controversial or insulting remarks.

We don't want the FBI tapping Congressmen's phones because they are expected to vote against the White House wishes. IN carrying out their jobs members of parliament or legislators need to be free of legal hassles, like being trailed by police, being 'set up' and arrested when they become embarrassing to the executive, etc.

but unless someone shows me that there was some 'plot' against the congressman to 'frame' him, plant money, and then raid his office, i think he has no justified complaint. WHY? in a word, he was not doing his job when the FBI looked at him.

PS--as to his 'papers'. same thing. if they are simply letters from constituents and his research on issues, these should be protected.
IF THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE the papers contain, say, checks from people bribing him, and letters discussing how people want him to vote in exchange for money, then there is no protection.

A judge must not issue a warrant to inspect or grab papers unless there is probable cause--some *good reason* to think there is evidence of illegal activity, in them. NO fishing expeditions or 'punitive' searches --ie., because of a vote that displeases the executive.

 

[S-Des]

Well . . .

I'm glad they caught this dirtbag. They've got him on tape accepting the bribe and caught him hiding the money. I hope they send him to a real jail where he can find out exactly what he's been doing to the taxpayers (from the other end).

However, this is a touchy area. The current administration is definitely under the impression that the ends justifies the means. That's great when you agree with them, but the first time it affects you or someone you know, it will be different. They could have caught this guy through the proper channels, but our Attorney General (who has a history of not worrying too much about the boring rules in the constitution) wanted a big, high-profile bust to show he was doing something. This (like holding people without trial, monitoring phone conversations, getting our library records, etc...) has the potential to lead to scary places.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but you know what the President says, "Fool me once . . . shame on . . . fool me . . . well . . . we won't get fooled again." The man's a poet. I'm sorry, how can I doubt brilliance like that. Please ignore this post.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'm glad they caught this dirtbag. They've got him on tape accepting the bribe and caught him hiding the money. I hope they send him to a real jail where he can find out exactly what he's been doing to the taxpayers (from the other end).

However, this is a touchy area. The current administration is definitely under the impression that the ends justifies the means. That's great when you agree with them, but the first time it affects you or someone you know, it will be different. They could have caught this guy through the proper channels, but our Attorney General (who has a history of not worrying too much about the boring rules in the constitution) wanted a big, high-profile bust to show he was doing something. This (like holding people without trial, monitoring phone conversations, getting our library records, etc...) has the potential to lead to scary places.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but you know what the President says, "Fool me once . . . shame on . . . fool me . . . well . . . we won't get fooled again." The man's a poet. I'm sorry, how can I doubt brilliance like that. Please ignore this post.

The FBI had a search warrant - what are these other 'proper channels' of which you speak that would have been more proper than the FBI doing its job, search warrant and all?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm going to assume the legislators in question are trying to establish that they, too, enjoy a measure of executive priveledge. I don't agree, but that's the only argument I can see that has any measure of legitimacy. If taking bribes on tape dosen't constitute probably cause, then I can't see anything that would.

 

[Guest]

From CNN : Breaking News

President Bush orders all material seized by the FBI from a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office sealed for 45 days.

3:31 PM Eastern Time US

 

[zeb1094]

There you go...our wonderful Imperial Government in action...again.

Those that think themselves above the law raise your hand.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I'm going to assume the legislators in question are trying to establish that they, too, enjoy a measure of executive priveledge. I don't agree, but that's the only argument I can see that has any measure of legitimacy. If taking bribes on tape dosen't constitute probably cause, then I can't see anything that would.

I think you're close, Colly.

The legislative branch doesn't claim executive priviledge, but priviledge from certain aspects of investigations by the executive branch of government. The FBI reports to the AG who is an appointee of the President. Those of us who are of a certain age remember when the AG was the President's kid brother and some of the abuses of Presidential power that went on during the Nixon administration.

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to see possible problems if an enforcement agency within the executive department has a free-hand to investigate the legislative branch which is responsible for making laws.

There are procedures by which the Congress can be (is) investigated. The recent case of former Congressman Randy Cunningham (Cal-R) is a good example. The heartburn in the William Jefferson (La-D) case is that the FBI didn't play by the agreed upon rules for such investigations when they raided the office of, and took files away from, a sitting US Congressman.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[kendo1]

I'm definitely cracking up.

I read that as 'Baptism Cover-up Underway'

 

[Pure]

upon reflection, i agree with Rumple.

when there's an admin that makes its own laws and ignores ones it doesn't like, one has to worry about what the AG's boys might do to a Congressperson, esp one that makes them unhappy.

a parallel is the Nixon use of the IRS against his enemies.

so even if W. Jefferson is guilty, one has to insure no corners were cut and that no fresh 'rights' are being arrogated by Bush, Gonzales, et al. one protocol i would imagine existing is that the FBI coordinate its efforts with--or at least notify, beforehand-- a bipartisan congressional oversight committee.

one wants also to know if entrapment is selective. i'm all for offering guy bags of money and seeing what happens--BUT they should NOT just be the guys likely to vote against the Pres's latest favored piece of legislation.

 

[Huckleman2000]

upon reflection, i agree with Rumple.

when there's an admin that makes its own laws and ignores ones it doesn't like, one has to worry about what the AG's boys might do to a Congressperson, esp one that makes them unhappy.

a parallel is the Nixon use of the IRS against his enemies.

so even if W. Jefferson is guilty, one has to insure no corners were cut and that no fresh 'rights' are being arrogated by Bush, Gonzales, et al. one protocol i would imagine existing is that the FBI coordinate its efforts with--or at least notify, beforehand-- a bipartisan congressional oversight committee.

one wants also to know if entrapment is selective. i'm all for offering guy bags of money and seeing what happens--BUT they should NOT just be the guys likely to vote against the Pres's latest favored piece of legislation.

Good points. I am of really mixed feelings on this.

This operation had to have been approved at very high levels. Moreover, there have been no FBI raids on Delay's office, Ney's office, Cunningham's office, Doolittle's office, Lewis' office, and on and on... And those are investigations, indictments, and guilty pleas in 'real' circumstances, not sting operations.

I have no problem holding Legislators to the same laws as everyone else, and I think W. Jefferson should resign, but there is a stench in this that I can't help suspecting comes from the Justice Dept.

 

[S-Des]

That was my point

I think you're close, Colly.

The legislative branch doesn't claim executive priviledge, but priviledge from certain aspects of investigations by the executive branch of government. The FBI reports to the AG who is an appointee of the President. Those of us who are of a certain age remember when the AG was the President's kid brother and some of the abuses of Presidential power that went on during the Nixon administration.

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to see possible problems if an enforcement agency within the executive department has a free-hand to investigate the legislative branch which is responsible for making laws.

There are procedures by which the Congress can be (is) investigated. The recent case of former Congressman Randy Cunningham (Cal-R) is a good example. The heartburn in the William Jefferson (La-D) case is that the FBI didn't play by the agreed upon rules for such investigations when they raided the office of, and took files away from, a sitting US Congressman.

Rumple Foreskin

As I said in my post, I hope the dirty scumbag goes to jail. However, in my mind, the end doesn't justify the means. If the AG violated protocol in instructing the FBI to investigate a congressman (something I'm willing to bet wouldn't happen to any Republican congressman), it's wrong. I'm glad they caught him, but it's a very short leap from what they did to this guy to somebody being threatened with the FBI crawling up their ass for the next three months if they vote against the president's new legislation.

Any time the government tries to take more power, we should all look at it very carefully. Even well meaning people do really stupid things in the name of "what's right". I could site about a million examples, but I think we've all seen many of them. I'm not anti-Republican (or have any political affiliation for that matter). I just believe in the old axiom that when somebody says, "trust me", it's usually right before they try to screw you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think you're close, Colly.

The legislative branch doesn't claim executive priviledge, but priviledge from certain aspects of investigations by the executive branch of government. The FBI reports to the AG who is an appointee of the President. Those of us who are of a certain age remember when the AG was the President's kid brother and some of the abuses of Presidential power that went on during the Nixon administration.

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to see possible problems if an enforcement agency within the executive department has a free-hand to investigate the legislative branch which is responsible for making laws.

There are procedures by which the Congress can be (is) investigated. The recent case of former Congressman Randy Cunningham (Cal-R) is a good example. The heartburn in the William Jefferson (La-D) case is that the FBI didn't play by the agreed upon rules for such investigations when they raided the office of, and took files away from, a sitting US Congressman.

Rumple Foreskin

Members of Congress are not above the law and this guy's office is not a confessional. He was videotaped accepting a bribe, which is great probable cause and the court, part of the judicial branch, issued a search warrant on that basis. I don't see any abuse of power here.

In the past, the FBI has done some shady things and that must not be allowed to happen again, but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited from doing their job just because a member of Congress thinks he is above the law.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As I said in my post, I hope the dirty scumbag goes to jail. However, in my mind, the end doesn't justify the means. If the AG violated protocol in instructing the FBI to investigate a congressman (something I'm willing to bet wouldn't happen to any Republican congressman), it's wrong. I'm glad they caught him, but it's a very short leap from what they did to this guy to somebody being threatened with the FBI crawling up their ass for the next three months if they vote against the president's new legislation.

Any time the government tries to take more power, we should all look at it very carefully. Even well meaning people do really stupid things in the name of "what's right". I could site about a million examples, but I think we've all seen many of them. I'm not anti-Republican (or have any political affiliation for that matter). I just believe in the old axiom that when somebody says, "trust me", it's usually right before they try to screw you.

I would like to point out that Randy Cunningham is a Republican.

Nobody is trying to take more power. The FBI is investigating a suspected federal crime, which is their job. That's what they are supposed to do. There is the potential for abuse but that doesn't mean the FBI should ignore criminals in congress.

I hope you are not implying that the guy who took the bribe was a "well meaning person".

 

[thebullet]

Boxlicker excepted, the general consensus here is that apparently the FBI and the Justice Dept went outside normal channels to get to Jefferson.

No one would argue that Jefferson should get a pass for his alleged transgressions. But this administration has shown total disdain for the Constitution and for the balance of power between the legislative, judiciary and executive branches.

Everyone by now is aware of the way the administration has been making its own laws by quietly listing exceptions to the laws passed by Congress, thereby establishing without fanfare which part of a law the government will inforce, which part they won't; and essentially adding new legislation to laws AFTER congressional approval. In this way, the executive branch has seriously ursurped the power of the legislative branch.

Now with the Jefferson case, the administration is again trying to gain the upper hand over the legislature. There are long established methods of dealing with an alleged wrong-doer like Jefferson. But this administration chose to ignore those methods in order to exert its control over congress.

The result has been the shit storm that even has the president backing down for a change.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Boxlicker excepted, the general consensus here is that apparently the FBI and the Justice Dept went outside normal channels to get to Jefferson.

No one would argue that Jefferson should get a pass for his alleged transgressions. But this administration has shown total disdain for the Constitution and for the balance of power between the legislative, judiciary and executive branches.

Everyone by now is aware of the way the administration has been making its own laws by quietly listing exceptions to the laws passed by Congress, thereby establishing without fanfare which part of a law the government will inforce, which part they won't; and essentially adding new legislation to laws AFTER congressional approval. In this way, the executive branch has seriously ursurped the power of the legislative branch.

Now with the Jefferson case, the administration is again trying to gain the upper hand over the legislature. There are long established methods of dealing with an alleged wrong-doer like Jefferson. But this administration chose to ignore those methods in order to exert its control over congress.

The result has been the shit storm that even has the president backing down for a change.

Members of Congress are not exempt from the law and accepting a bribe is a violation of the law. I am aware that the administration is full of crooks, but that does not mean the FBI should ignore violations of the law by politicians.

What do you mean by "outside normal channels"? The FBI showed probable cause to a local judge, who issued a search warrant, as the judge would have done for anybody. If those are not normal channels, then what are?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I tend to agree with Box. Whatever else is going on, the man showed himself to be a crook.

I don't see that the priveledge given to Legislators covers them if they are taking bribes to peddle their influence as he obviously was. The fact that he is shown on tape acepting the bribe and that the cash was found in his possession, Seriously damages any high moral tone that can be taken.

I don't know what rules the DOJ operates under when it comes to high profile politicos. Certainly, there must be some in place, to prevent politically motivated investigations that amount to little more than intimidation. On the other hand, the rules should't give politicos carte blanche to commit crimes and apparently, the expectation on the part of senators and reps is that they have precisely such protection.

If there is a fine line there, it would seem in this case, the man's criminality blurs it. It's a whole diferent story if he refuses the bribe or if he accepts it and calls the authorities as soon as the briber leaves his office. Once he takes the money and stashes it in his home, he's a crook. At that point, argueing that he should not have been under investigation or that he should not be prosecuted, becomes an argument that he IS above the law.

I think the bottom line is this. If the DOJ was acting outside the rules, then they chose the right man to do it against. i don't think the average person is going to be too sympathetic to arguments that his position protects him from investigation, when he is so obviously in neeed of being investigated. If proper proceedure for investigating anyone else, were used, I just don't believe most people will buy the idea that he isn't subject to the same rules they are, just because he is a Senator/rep/Govenor etc.

It does seem that the argument here is that Senators/reps/whathaveyou enjoy a measure of immunity for their actions that the average citizen does not. Whatever deeper considerations are at play, that's going to be a hard sale to John. Q. Public I think.

 

[S-Des]

Let's try this again

I would like to point out that Randy Cunningham is a Republican.

Nobody is trying to take more power. The FBI is investigating a suspected federal crime, which is their job. That's what they are supposed to do. There is the potential for abuse but that doesn't mean the FBI should ignore criminals in congress.

I hope you are not implying that the guy who took the bribe was a "well meaning person".

I'm going to give it one more shot, then I give up. When I called the congressman a dirt bag and said he should be anally raped in prison for screwing over the American people, I thought I was being clear that I didn't think he was a "Well meaning person". I'm not sure why that didn't come across, but that's exactly how I feel.

The FBI did nothing wrong. My problem is that they were directed to do it by the AG (who did not direct them to investigate Randy Cunningham, they caught that one on their own). There are specific protocols that authorities use to investigate congressmen, senators, and people in the White House. That's why you saw Denny Hastert on TV saying that how they went about it was wrong. Nobody on either side of the aisle complained when they took down Cunningham.

If you don't see a problem with how they did it, it's your right to believe it and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. Please don't mischaracterize my argument by saying I'm backing a treasonous prick who took bribes to screw over Americans and the Constitution. I can disagree with how it went down, but still be happy to see his ass carted off to jail.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I tend to agree with Box. Whatever else is going on, the man showed himself to be a crook.

I don't see that the priveledge given to Legislators covers them if they are taking bribes to peddle their influence as he obviously was. The fact that he is shown on tape acepting the bribe and that the cash was found in his possession, Seriously damages any high moral tone that can be taken.

I don't know what rules the DOJ operates under when it comes to high profile politicos. Certainly, there must be some in place, to prevent politically motivated investigations that amount to little more than intimidation. On the other hand, the rules should't give politicos carte blanche to commit crimes and apparently, the expectation on the part of senators and reps is that they have precisely such protection.

If there is a fine line there, it would seem in this case, the man's criminality blurs it. It's a whole diferent story if he refuses the bribe or if he accepts it and calls the authorities as soon as the briber leaves his office. Once he takes the money and stashes it in his home, he's a crook. At that point, argueing that he should not have been under investigation or that he should not be prosecuted, becomes an argument that he IS above the law.

I think the bottom line is this. If the DOJ was acting outside the rules, then they chose the right man to do it against. i don't think the average person is going to be too sympathetic to arguments that his position protects him from investigation, when he is so obviously in neeed of being investigated. If proper proceedure for investigating anyone else, were used, I just don't believe most people will buy the idea that he isn't subject to the same rules they are, just because he is a Senator/rep/Govenor etc.

It does seem that the argument here is that Senators/reps/whathaveyou enjoy a measure of immunity for their actions that the average citizen does not. Whatever deeper considerations are at play, that's going to be a hard sale to John. Q. Public I think.

Colly, that is what concerns me about it - They have the guy on tape, they found the money stashed in his freezer. That sounds to me like a pretty tight case. Maybe even tighter than Cunningham's. But they never raided Cunningham's office, or anyone else's for that matter. Remember ABSCAM? No office raids. So why did they choose this one?

That's what smells fishy to me in this. I don't have a good argument about it, I can't disagree with it... it just has an odor about it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, that is what concerns me about it - They have the guy on tape, they found the money stashed in his freezer. That sounds to me like a pretty tight case. Maybe even tighter than Cunningham's. But they never raided Cunningham's office, or anyone else's for that matter. Remember ABSCAM? No office raids. So why did they choose this one?

That's what smells fishy to me in this. I don't have a good argument about it, I can't disagree with it... it just has an odor about it.

Judgeing from the reaction, I tend to wonder if this guy wasn't the point man for a group of corrupt senators/reps. Maybe that missing 10K had already been sent as "tribute" to uncle paulie?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Judgeing from the reaction, I tend to wonder if this guy wasn't the point man for a group of corrupt senators/reps. Maybe that missing 10K had already been sent as "tribute" to uncle paulie?

Hehe.
"Come over for dinna' next Tuesday. Don't bring nothin' - I've got something in my freezer I can thaw out. I know a guy what gives me some choice cuts. y'Know what I'm talkin' about?"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hehe.
"Come over for dinna' next Tuesday. Don't bring nothin' - I've got something in my freezer I can thaw out. I know a guy what gives me some choice cuts. y'Know what I'm talkin' about?"

Zactly

 

[Boxlicker101]

When the Republicans became the majority party in Congress, one of the promises they made was what they called "A Conract with America" and one of the first points on it was to the effect that members of Congress should be covered by the same laws that other Americans were. Up until then, they had exempted themselves quite often. A little while ago, I heard on a news program that this case was the first time that a congressman's office was searched like that, and I was very surprised to hear that.

I was quite dismayed, also. I can't understand why the office of a suspect in a criminal case should be sancrosanct. The law was followed, with a search warrant first being obtained, and the FBI had probable cause to do so. I don't know of any other class of person whose office would be exempt, although there would be certain areas of the offices of some persons, such as clergy or lawyers where priveleged communications might be kept. These areas would be exempted from search, generally speaking, although exceptions might be made even there. In any event, I can't imagine why a congressman's office should be excluded. Personally, I don't think it should be, assuming the proper procedure is followed.

 

[Huckleman2000]

When the Republicans became the majority party in Congress, one of the promises they made was what they called "A Conract with America" and one of the first points on it was to the effect that members of Congress should be covered by the same laws that other Americans were. Up until then, they had exempted themselves quite often. A little while ago, I heard on a news program that this case was the first time that a congressman's office was searched like that, and I was very surprised to hear that.

I was quite dismayed, also. I can't understand why the office of a suspect in a criminal case should be sancrosanct. The law was followed, with a search warrant first being obtained, and the FBI had probable cause to do so. I don't know of any other class of person whose office would be exempt, although there would be certain areas of the offices of some persons, such as clergy or lawyers where priveleged communications might be kept. These areas would be exempted from search, generally speaking, although exceptions might be made even there. In any event, I can't imagine why a congressman's office should be excluded. Personally, I don't think it should be, assuming the proper procedure is followed.

I think that Legislators should have some protection or oversight from some of the investigative functions of the Executive branch. IIRC, under Nixon and probably before, IRS audits were somewhat less than random.

So, I can't imagine that this was a totally baseless warrant. But if I were a Republican legislator who wasn't planning on toeing the President's line between now and November, I can see where I'd take this as a shot across the bow.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think that Legislators should have some protection or oversight from some of the investigative functions of the Executive branch. IIRC, under Nixon and probably before, IRS audits were somewhat less than random.

So, I can't imagine that this was a totally baseless warrant. But if I were a Republican legislator who wasn't planning on toeing the President's line between now and November, I can see where I'd take this as a shot across the bow.

This wasn't just the Executive Branch, you know. There was a warrant and it was issued by part of the Judicial Branch, and there was probable cause.

I don't know what kind of additional "protection" Congress members should have. They certainly shouldn't be immune from investigation and I don't see any reason why congressional offices should be inviolate either. As for other members of Congress, as long as they are not caught doing anything illegal they have nothing to fear, at least no more than anybody else has.

The Legislative Branch investigates the Executive Branch too, by the way. You may have heard of Watergate and Monica Lewchinski and Scooter Libby, to mention a few well known examples.