Hastert demands FBI return documents

[wicket]

LINK

The FBI's raid on a Democrat's office rippled through Capitol Hill Wednesday, with Republicans demanding that the bureau surrender documents and other items its agents seized under what lawmakers said were unconstitutional circumstances.

"I think those materials ought to be returned," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, adding that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) for the sake of the Constitution."

A day earlier, the Illinois Republican complained personally to
President Bush about the Saturday night raid of Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record)'s legislative office, saying it violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Other House officials have predicted that the case would bring all three branches together at the Supreme Court for a constitutional showdown.

The raid also has united Democrats and Republicans in a rare, election-year accord. But while they stand together in opposition to an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders are acting on different political agendas.

[movonne]

1. It would be funny if they started raiding repugs offices...but the

fbi is run by repugs..

[Supersedeas]

30. apparently for now there are limits to executive authority..but precedent

is a strong laxative

[ixion]

2. ah, okay... so 'sneak and peek' and warrantless searches are okay

for us common folk, but when it comes to the "elected" oligarchy, it's unconstitutional.

Got that? :crazy:

[jayfish]

15. That's Because Constituents Aren’t...

considered a coequal branch of government. Which, now that I think of it, may be a huge gap in our Constitution and "Democratic" system.

Jay

[RebelDawg]

20. Exactly!

you know these congress folks are above the law. I'm still waiting for Hastert to show me where in the constitution that the FBI can't raid a Congressional office.

Just remember folks...they can raid our homes and offices. But not a Congressman's office.

The FBI needs to do a lot more of this. Maybe they should start with Hastert.

[rodeodance]

3. umm.. Why is Jefferson's case 'delicate' and not Mollohan's??

.House Democrats reacted particularly quickly, in keeping with their election-year pledge to campaign against what they call a Republican "culture of corruption."

Officials said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had discussed Jefferson's situation with several fellow senior lawmakers and there was a consensus that he should step aside, preferably voluntarily, at least until his legal situation was clarified. It was not clear whether she or an emissary approached Jefferson. The officials who described the developments did so on condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of the situation.

Pelosi moved aggressively recently when questions were raised about financial dealings of Rep. Alan Mollohan (news, bio, voting record). The West Virginian quickly announced that he was voluntarily stepping aside as the senior Democrat on the ethics committee.

[Kagemusha]

17. Because Mollohan was wrongly accused and stepped down only..

because it created the appearance of impropriety and he wanted to set a good example.

Jefferson, OTOH, is fighting tooth and nail.

And, in case you were not aware of this, he is black.

That is why this is "delicate".

[grytpype]

4. They finally find a corrput Dem and THE REPUGS TAKE HIS SIDE!!!!

And where were they when Bush was seizing dictatorial powers? They were fine with that, but search a crooked Congressman's office and the Repugs flip out! Hahahahahaha!

[babylonsister]

5. That's because the repugs know they're next! nt

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

16. Yep...

... and Frist was one of the first to cry "foul".

[formercia]

11. Birds of a feather...n/t

[wakeme2008]

6. What are the Repugs afraid of the FBI finding in their offices

:shrug:

[wicket]

7. Jimmy Hoffa?

j/k

[wakeme2008]

13. wicket

wicket :spank: :D

[wicket]

25. LOL

Seriously though, Hastert and the other Repubs must be quaking in their boots over the thoughts of this happening to them when they are out of power.

[Rose Siding]

8. This is why Hastert's right

The actions of federal police agencies can influence politics. The natural effect of that is an influence on policy. That's not how the govt is set up to work.

He's a pig for not restricting executive power before now in a dozen different ways, and it's very unfortunate that this case involves such a guilty looking Democrat. I'm also suspicious of his motives. But that's why he's right.

[leesa]

24. They are just looking for a way to protect themselves from investigation

Are we going to fall for it again?

[toopers]

28. Except that the law applies to everyone, except the UN.

If you think politicians are corrupt now, just wait they give themselves power above the law. The constitution protects the right to privacy. That is why the police had to get a search warrant for the raid. There was separation and oversight. If the police cannot search a persons political office after receiving a search warrant, then this country is done!

[sduncang]

9. Very interesting...

This could be tricky...We've got, apparently, a crooked Congressman and the evidence to convict is seized in his congressional office by the FBI, on the instructions of the Justice Department, a part of the Executive Branch. Does the opposite apply?? Can Congress instruct the FBI to "raid" and search the White House?? Actually, I agree with Hastert - this a separation of powers issue.

[RebelDawg]

21. Why is it not also

a checks and balances issue? These fools in Washington think they are above the law. They shouldn't be. My guess is most of them are on the take and this is what all of the fuss is about.

[Bridget Burke]

22. The "All politicians are crooked" meme has been bleated out...

By at least one News Chick. (Or, should I say "chirped"?)

Investigation of Republican corruption in the news. So--let's make an example of one crooked Democrat! Sounds as though there was plenty of evidence already. Why not indict him?

No, this dramatic FBI raid is a better news story. And it excuses Republican crimes--to the weak minded, at least.

[RebelDawg]

27. I didn't mean to insinuate ALL

just most.

[nolabels]

35. They are just finding out who blinks first

They can couch whatever they want however it was, many will still know them for what most of them all are, EFFING CROOKS.

This has just about everything to do with dog-eat-dog and just about nothing to do with anything Constitutional.
The bleacher seats should have a good view when the hair-ball cat fight finally breaks out. :popcorn:

[Demeter]

10. Hell Must Have Thawed Out

To get Hastert off his butt to worry about upholding the Constitution. Maybe he could do progressive strengthening exercises, like what therapists do for stroke victims, until he regains a full Constitution!

Full play on words intended.

[underpants]

12. Since when does the Constitution still apply there Dennis?

piece of :grr:

[newspeak]

14. this incident is rather disturbing

since I believe the FBI and CIA are probably being purged of non-partisan or "questioning" honest agents. Remember the hacking of democratic politicians' computers, the breaking-in of Democratic headquarters around the country? There is so much corruption going on now, especially neo-con corruption, that this smells. If he is guilty, then by rights he should be prosecuted--but it seems that since this administration controls everything, including judicial, they can pick and choose who they prosecute--excluding themselves. It seems they create the problem so that they can administer the solution, like the dangling chads in Florida, now we have unauditable machines. Make a big stink over this incident, so that other corrupted politicians, like neo-cons, are exempt. It will be interesting to watch how this develops--I already know their MO.

[michaelwb]

18. agreed it's disturbing

Here's the thing that I think people are missing.

It's not the search of the office that gets me (as long as there was a warrant.) It's the FBI's search of the office.

The FBI is in the chain of command to the President. (Plus keep in mind the reports of how they've been trying to appoint & replace agents in the FBI and Justice department based on politics.) And that's what is disturbing to me.

Having a law enforcement/military force answering to the President raiding the office of legislators isn't exactly something that has worked well to protect freedom historically. If fact it's something you usually associate with dictators.

Yeah, yeah. It's different in the US...but is it? We have Pres authorizing illegal spying on citizens, trying to use the military for law enforcement, arresting people without evidence, shipping them elsewhere for torture, ignoring laws that don't suit him, etc.

Seems like a pattern to me.

Now if there was a warrant, and the DC police or Capitol police(who are not part of the Executive Branch chain of command) had done the search and the investigation handled by an independent (of the Executive Branch) prosecutor's office, I'd probably feel a little differently.

You don't want the precedent of agents reporting to the President being able to raid members of congress or the Judicial branch's offices directly.

[zbdent]

19. What's Rush Limbaugh saying

about the unconstitutional search of "the crooked Democrat"? Would be interesting to hear . . .

[leesa]

23. I think the Repugs are setting up to make Congressional records off

limits for any type of investigation and they are using a Democrat to make it appear that their concerns are not partisan.

[hatrack]

26. Well, if you didn't do anything wrong, you've nothing to fear, right?

Right, Dennis "Let Me Kiss The Ass Of The 'Unitary Executive' A Little Bit More" Hastert?

Have fun, Representative Asshat.

Oh, and by the way - you don't "demand" anything of this White House - they "demand" that you do this, that or the other - got it, Dennis?

[wicket]

29. kick

:kick:

[Morphus100]

31. Is anyone pissed at Pelosi for this?

I know she asked Jefferson to resign today but that somehow makes up for what she's saying about this seperation of powers BS? Look, if there's corruption in congress the executive branch should try to stop it. Also, and this is the kicker, the congress should be investigating corruption in the executive branch! Checks and balances people. Executive keeps tabs on Congress and Vice Versa.

I know Jefferson is a democrat, but Hasert def. wants to shun this type of search because he's got something to hide. Pelosi should be hamering him not agreeing with him. House members are putting their own asses before the public good, in a bi-partisan fashion that screws Americans out of effective non-corrupt government. Maybe she's shocked and willing to go along with Repulbicans protecting her endangered party member, and maybe she wants cover or something, but the Repugs are not defending Jefferson out of a sense of morals, it's self preservation. Seriously, why the hell would the Republicans deliberately give writhing democrats a by when we all know they love nothing more than kicking us when we're down. It's because they feel the FBI snooping around their offices is against their best interests, for reasons we can all use our imagination to elaborate on.

Personally, I think if Congress is so willing to let the NSA spy on every aspect of our lives, from our money, to our e-mail, to our phones, but then they fake righteous indignation when someone goes through their personal stuff without their permission? If they're all about tapping everyday americans maybe they should get tapped as well. I really have no sympathy for any congressman, repug or democrat, who gets search by the feds. Welcome to our world. Now maybe you'll stop tapping us? Not likely. Watch how many hypocritical repugs say NSA tapping should continue, for the national good, but their privacy must never be encroached upon. If we could tap congressmen and find out all the corrupt stuff they're doing, that would be good for the nation, so why must be endure tapping while congress gets total privacy?

Any democrat supporting this unholy Hassert/Pelosi alliance is missing the point and weakening democrats nationally before this crucial election.

~Morph

[wicket]

32. kick

:kick:

[toopers]

33. There isn't an honest politician on either side of the aisle . . .

If this doesn't piss off everyone at DU, then nothing should. Our politicians are a disgrace.

[Seedersandleechers]

34. I can name a few honest politicians

Gore
Edwards
Kerry
Dean
Finegold

Just to name a few...

[newspeak]

36. I don't know if this sets a precedent in Congress

I don't believe any president before this one has invaded the offices of Congress. To search his home is one thing, but his office, shows a breach between separating the branches of government. Another words, it's like the executive branch saying "I have power over Congress and I will do what I damned well do." How far did Congress get in attempting to expose the energy meeting or obtain certain documents after 9/11 from the executive branch? Can Congress invade the executive branch and search through * papers? This smells of a power play against Congress--with an executive branch that is basically saying will do what we damn well please!!!! Remember, Congress represents us, we the people (or at least they're supposed to give the appearance that their representing us). The executive branch, it seems, is further diminishing their power and authority by this blatant unprecedented move. We're looking at a power play which could slide this country into a dictatorship with all of the players in position. expunging those who are not loyal to the executive branch in the FBI and the CIA, Hayden now set up at the CIA, Rumsfield and his little neo-con cohorts--at the highest level of the executive branch are all loyalists with, I believe, disregard for conscience or morality. Jefferson may be guilty and with a warrant, searching his house was the lawful thing to do, but invading his office was taboo!!!!!