Congressional Leaders Complaining About Search Of Jefferson’s Office

  •  May 24, 2006

Hmm…

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill accused the FBI on Tuesday of overstepping constitutional boundaries designed to protect Congress when it raided a Democratic lawmaker’s office over the weekend.
The Justice Department’s bribery investigation of Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) has turned up $90,000 in his freezer and won guilty pleas from two associates, but Republicans and Democrats alike said investigators went too far when they ignored long-standing precedent and executed a search warrant on his office on Capitol Hill.
“I clearly have serious concerns about what happened and whether people at the Justice Department have looked at the Constitution lately,” said House Majority Leader John Boehner.
“I’ve got to believe that at the end of the day it’s going to end up across the street at the Supreme Court,” the Ohio Republican added.
The House’s No. 2 Democrat, Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, said it was another example of the Bush administration’s disregard for limits on its power.
“No member is above the law, but the institution has a right to protect itself against the executive department going into our offices,” Hoyer said.
He and others were careful to say the Justice Department should investigate wrongdoing by members of Congress.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m having a hard time believing that Rep. Jefferson is being treated unconstitutionally, or even unfairly, in this matter.
For one thing, Jefferson could easily have avoided having his office searched by simply cooperating with the on-going investigation into his dirty dealings. From the Justice Department’s request for a warrant to search Jefferson’s Congressional offices:

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array carrick

    RBB:

    Uh-oh. We are gonna need a second source on this. Or maybe just another FBI raid.

    Nonstory touted as news.

    Background: Abramoff mentioned a suspiciously timed letter written by Hastert opposing a particular casino. Hastert responds that he has systematically opposed certain types of casinos, including this one. All old news.

    Not surprisingly the Justice Department is following up on the timing of the letter, but as we say in science, correlation does not imply causality. The Justice Department categorically denies that Hastert himself is a target of any investigation. ABC backtracks latter with CYA weasel words:

    The investigation of Hastert’s relationship with Abramoff is in the early stages, according to these officials, and could eventually conclude that Abramoff’s information was unfounded.

    In other words, they’re making sure that Hastert’s story checks out before dropping any further investigation.

    Just another nonstory dressed to look like real news.

  • Bat One

    “…it is worth noting that the Justice Department is going through great pains – including keeping the Courts eminently involved in the process – to respect the law and Rep. Jefferson’s rights as a Congressman.”

    Rob,

    It isn’t just his “rights” as a Congressman. This ties in very nicely (if that’s the right word) with Representative Kennedy’s 2:45AM garbled assertion that he was on his way to a vote in the House of Representatives when he plowed into a barricade and almost ran down a cop. The argument is based on Article 1, Section 6, which reads,

    The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They 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.

    I have no doubt that, based on what has been thus far published and the publicly held knowledge of Lousiana politics, that Jefferson is guilty. But I will take any odds you care to name that the search of his congressional office will be grounds for appealing his conviction, and that appeal will wind up before the Supreme Court. Fact is, I don’t believe even Ginsburg would disallow the search.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    h9, it takes more than mere suspicion to have our homes searched, it takes probable cause: the officer must possess sufficient trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed.

    Apparently they had PC as they got a warrent, and they found the evidence and they didn’t dig through anyone else’s office.

  • Bat One

    Puzzle,

    While I understand your concern for the separation of powers argument, I think that argument, and your analogy here are both fatally flawed.

    While it may be irksome to our Congressional Pooh-Bahs of both parties, the Constitution rests the power to “see that the laws are faithfully executed” with the Executive branch. Clearly there is nothing in Article 1, Section 6 which would disallow the search that took place, complete with warrant and sufficient “probable cause” to satisfy a judge. Besides, it is hardly tenable that a member of the legislature that wrote the laws would be the one to determine what is and is not legally allowable under that law.

    As for your subpoena duces tecum example, I hardly see that it would be applicable… not least because the authority of the Capitol Police does not extend to the White House. Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi might either be just dumb enough to try something like that. Heaven knows neither was selected to their respective leadership positions based on cleverness and intellect. But it would make for a delightful, if pitifully futile bit of political theater.

  • carrick

    Puzzlefoot:

    It is interesting to note that this is the first time in history (according to the news) that the executive branch has ever done this.

    You need to frame “this” more carefully. For example I’ll be surprised if it turns out to be the case that no congressman’s office has ever been searched before, just searched without prior permission from the Congressman.

    Further, I really liked The Bat1′s comment:

    However, If you disagree with the search of the Congressman’s office, for whatever reasons, your argument is with the judge who authorized that search and issued the warrant, not the prosecutor in charge of the ivestigation or the FBI who carried out the search.

    Without a search warrant, no search would ever have taken place. Hence the issue is more complicated.

    It’s a case of Executive Power granted to them by the courts.

    In any case, I’ve still to see a compelling arguing for exactly which section of the Constitution this search violated? As I pointed out, Congressional immunity is extremely limited. Had the judge not issued the warrant, it would seem to me that he would have substantially increased that power.

  • TwoHotel9

    PF, elected members of our government should be held to a higher standard, not sheilded from investigation. The only question I see here is”What are these lawyers hiding?”. This investigation was initiated by a Dem appointed Federal Prosecutor. Study Louisianna politics, then look at this.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I’m very concerned that Republican Congressman are sticking up for this creep. Makes you wonder if there’s any honest congressmen out there.

    Plus it makes you wonder about the brains of the congressman sticking up for a crook. Do they think anyone’s going to stick up for a sleezy congressman. (Was that overly excessive redundent?)

  • WETBACK

    Maybe it was DeepThroat on another mission.

  • robert108

    P: No thanks. I concede that you didn’t use those exact words, but the weight of your writings indicates your sympathy with both public employees and union employees. Since the real stronghold of unionism in this country is the various public employee unions, I connected the dots, so to speak. If I’m in error here, I apologize.
    BTW, I’m not a “rightie”. That would be someone who supports either military or religious dictatorship. I favor individual independence, limited govt and free enterprise economics, which are founding principles of this country.

  • Bat One

    Puzzle,

    For starters, the difference between the case against Representative Cunningham and this one against Jefferson starts with the fact that Cunningham was convinced by prosecutors to plead guilty given the evidence gathered by those prosecutors against him..

    Jefferson, although he is reportedly caught on both audio and video tape accepting the money, in marked bills, and although those same marked bills were found in his house, still maintains his innocence. There is also the testimony and evidence gathered from co-conspirators, and it appears that the documentary evidence gathered during the search of his office relates to other criminal actions on Jefferson’s part beyond the scope of the $100,000 sting op.

    The fact that prosecutors have evidence of one crime, overwhelmingly convincing evidence, does not mean that evidence of other crimes should be ignored merely because that evidence of those crimes rests in a congressional office.

  • http://charlesstricklin.com/ Charles Stricklin

    So I guess that representatives must face ethics charges and be removed from office before they can be arrested?!

    Tell me that’s not setting the stage for abuse!

  • Puzzlfeet

    I hope they hang him from the highest yardarm. However, there is a serious separation of powers issue here, that is the only reason the Rs and Ds are expressing concern. I don’t believe they are sticking up for this crook but they do have to protect the constitutional separation of powers.

    Let’s look at this way, let’s say that the Dems come into power and decide to issue subpoena duces tecum for the Veep’s papers on the energy meetings he had a few years ago. Do they have the right to use the Capitol police to search the Veeps offices for those papers. No, we would say that the Veep has executive privilege because of the separate branches of the government.

    I think we have to be very careful here. Again, I hope this guy is thrown in jail and the keys are lost if he is found guilty. He has embarassed the offices of the congress and he should resign now.

  • TwoHotel9

    Makes me wonder what they are hiding.

  • http://peatbog.net/ Sphagnum

    As Bat One pointed out, they are afforded the priveledge of exemption from some minor laws, but what Mr. Jefferson is accused of is certainly in the Felony catagory, isn’t it? So what would they be complaining about?

  • Carrick

    there is a serious separation of powers issue here, that is the only reason the Rs and Ds are expressing concern. I don’t believe they are sticking up for this crook but they do have to protect the constitutional separation of powers.

    I don’t agree that this is the reason they are sticking together. From their perspective this is an us (Article I) against them (Article II and Article III) issue. The “us” always protect our power, and try and maximize our boundary with the “them”.

    What’s to prevent the legislative branch doing the same thing to the Executive Branch?

    Small matter of presidential immunity. They would have to first impeach him for a criminal act, then convict him of that crime, wand then remove him from office. Congress’s immunity (as I understand this issue) is much more limited.

    The President’s immunity is not over-arching, as bizarrely it does not extend to his personal life (Clinton v Jones). It comes down to the President is immune, except by impeachment, for any action he takes that falls under “official conduct”. If you were to lure a young woman to your hotel room and rape her, if I understand it correctly, you would not have immunity from that act, nor from any civil consequences of that action.

    Congress Critters, in general, are considered to be immune only when they are in session, or going or coming from a legislative session.

    This is a dicey issue, I agree, but I think it is reasonable to expect that their offices could be searched, as long as the FBI was in compliance with any warrants issued by the Judicial Branch.

    Anyway, this is my take.

  • Puzzlfeet

    2h9, I agree that our elected officials should be held to a higher standard. I also don’t have a problem that this guy is being investigated. I do believe that there is a separation of powers issue here when the Executive Branch enters the legislative branch. What is to prevent the legislative branch from doing the same thing to the Executive Branch? Can you imagine a search warrant being served on the Oval Office?

    And no Charles, he could be arrested on what they had on him already. They had the money, the tape and I’m sure a lot more. As I said, What’s to prevent the legislative branch doing the same thing to the Executive Branch?

    I’m really not sure that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.

  • Puzzlfeet

    Carrick,it is indeed a very dicey issue. It is interesting to note that this is the first time in history (according to the news) that the executive branch has ever done this. One has to ask the question (if I were to be partisan here) how this case is different from Rep. Randy Cunningham’s case. It would be interesting to know why a search and seizure of Jeffersons office was so necessary and a search not done in Cunningham’s case.

    Again, as reported this issue will eventually involve all three branches of government.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    If I were an evil Rovian or Machiavellian (same thing?) I would suggest that the Bush administration cherishes Rep. Jefferson’s gift to the Republican Party, in that it debunks the ‘culture of corruption’ myth.

    What better way to keep him in the news, and blow up the story bigtime by doing a controversial investigation of him that has Democrats scrambling to defend the guy?

    I say – conspiracy!

  • TwoHotel9

    From everything I have read on this, the FBI jumped through more than the usual hoops before proceeding with this. Want to bet they would not have gone this extra mile for any of us?

  • Bat One

    Puzzle,

    I understand the point you are trying to make here regarding spearation of powers. And as you said, that clearly has nothing to do with Jefferson’s guilt or innocence.

    However, If you disagree with the search of the Congressman’s office, for whatever reasons, your argument is with the judge who authorized that search and issued the warrant, not the prosecutor in charge of the ivestigation or the FBI who carried out the search.

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    This type person disgraces our Nation and the People’s House, and many have no respect, no conscience and live only for themselves.

  • puzzlefeet

    Ken, the dems are not defending this guy, name one please. Check out Sen. Reid’s comments.

    Again, my point here, Carrick and BatOne is not the guilt or innocence of the parties, but the process. If the executive branch can do this ( again the first time ever done), then why can’t the legislative branch using its powers to investigate to search the office of the VP and Prez to get the documents it seeks in its investigations into the energy meetings?

    Notwithstanding the immunity of the Prez, it is the information gathering process that is at question here and the ability of the Executive Branch to enter the Legislative Branch without notice.

    Again, I am not arguing that a crime or other crimes have not been committed or that there may or not be evidence in Jefferson’s office.

  • Steve L.

    I understand the argument about this being a separation of powers issue, but I disagree about that. If that were truly an absolute, then any Congressman could break any law inside his/her own office and be free from prosecution because there could be no investigation. The most that could happen would be a removal from office through the mechanisms in place within the judicial branch. A Congressman should not be able to use his/her position to block prosecution for actual crimes.

    The person who used the analogy of seizing records of the Vice President and the Energy Commission was off-base. There is no comparison between the two. In that situation, Congress would be violating the separation because they are attempting to interfere with the operation of another branch of government. They would be fishing for evidence as it were. In the case of Jefferson, the FBI obtained a warrant from a judge to go into that office. They had to provide the judge with probable cause that evience of a crime was located in that office and provide a somewaht specific list of items they are searching for. Short of that, the judge cannot and should not issue a warrant.

    I am convinced that the Supreme Court (and any lower court for that matter) would see it that way.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    The notion that the FBI should have deferred to the Capital Police is silly. Those officers answer to the Speaker of the House. What would happen if the Speaker declined to honor the warrant and order the Capital Police not to allow the search?

    If I’m not mistaken Congress has given the FBI and not the Capitol Police the responsibility to investigate public corruption.

  • Bat One

    “I do not however believe that this is a partisan political attack by the Bush administration. It is, though, an action by the executive branch of the government.”

    Puzzle,

    On behalf of all of us who DO support this President and his policies, Thank You.

    While it is always preferrable to focus on areas of agreement (at least for most of us…), it is still refreshing to be able to disagree with someone who is not only not blatantly and deliberately disagreeable, but who is capable of acknowledging that not everything that is bothersome is the fault of President Bush, the US Marines, the GOP, American males, Christians, etc., etc., ad nauseum, and not every utterance need be laced with self-serving invective.

    Your concerns about the “separation of powers” are shared by Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. No doubt the issue will be fast-tracked through the courts and ultimately decided by the Supremes, although I have a hard time imagining that the judge who issed the subpoena is likely to be overruled at any level. Mr. Gore’s infamous “no controlling legal authority” dicta ain’t likely to offer much protection to Jefferson… or to Senator Rockefeller if it comoes to that.

  • puzzlefeet

    Bat One, Agreed, it is with the process, not the FBI. It is indeed a much larger issue. As I said, it is a separation of powers issue.

    Chief, I don’t disagree with you, but that’s not my point.

  • puzzlefeet

    Again, Robert 108, that’s not the point I am trying to make, if the guy’s guilty (and the evidence looks strong), they he should face the stiffest penalty for violating the trust of the people.

    But again, that’s not my point, it is a separation of powers issue, even folks in government I vehemently disagree with (Frist and Hastert) get it on this issue. There is a separation of powers, it is constitutional.

    robert108, I never said it was a fishing expedition, but the can of worms this opens up for all the branches of government is one that I don’t think we want opened.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Puzzle,

    I guess I should have said, scrambling to defend him over the issue of the constitutionality of this search.

    Not defending his alleged corruption.

  • robert108

    Let’s not forget that the guy was dirty, and he got caught with the bribe money in his freezer. It wasn’t a fishing expedition.

  • Bat One

    I wonder if there isn’t perhaps more to this than the rather obvious criminal prosecution of a corrupt Louisina Democrat. After all, they’ve got the guy making promises on tape, taking the money on tape, and then sandbagging the cash, the very same cash serial number matched. They’ve also got other evidence, including confessions by Jefferson’s alleged con-conspirators. So why the search?

    Perhaps it is just part of the same prosecution. Or perhaps its part of something else. For example,

    West Virginia Democrat Senator John D. “Jay” Rockefeller is reported to be an “unofficial person of interest” in the criminal investigation of the leak of Top Secret/Codeword NSA materials. He is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Is it possible that DoJ prosecutors are considering a search of Rockefeller’s Senate office in connection with the criminal investigation into those leaks? Could this be a form of strategic dry run for just such a warrant and FBI search?

    I know this is speculative. But the more you think about it… After all, they’ve got Jefferson no matter what was found in the search of his House office. (That search incidentally took 15 hours according to NYT!)

  • Puzzlfeet

    No 2h9, that’s not what I’m saying, though I know that’s what you’d like me to say.

  • TwoHotel9

    Members of Congress are subject to the law. To stand before the people of this country and claim special priviledge should set us all off. Every one of these members of Congress who are screeching about this should be run through the mill, poloygraph, full chemical debrief, complete surrveilence regime of all family members and business associates. The Justice Dept would go through any one of us like shit through a goose on the least suspicion of even one crime of the list William Jefferson has committed, and yes, I said committed. The man has been involved in graft and corruption with high ranking members of the government of Nigeria. Not just the current one, the last one too. In the state of Louisianna he is a running joke. His name is a metaphor for corruption. He is every bit as corrupt as the Landrieus. The fact that anyone can defend this piece of crap is simply amazing. PF, I have read your points about seperation, this does not qualify. This is not the Bush Admin. going after a political opponent, this is an ongoing investigation by the international crimes unit of the FBI. That aside, I wonder what,exactly, would be found if a thorough search of all Congress memeber’s offices was carried out. They are our property. Law enforcement agencies can search your or my offices and homes on nothing more than suspicion of a crime. Exactly what makes them qualified for preferential treatment? The fact they are lawyers with things to hide?

  • realitybasedbob

    Try him fairly and if he is found guilty, fry him.

    Did I miss it, or were the offices of Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, David Safavian, Irving Libby raided by the FBI too?

  • Puzzlfeet

    Geesh, th9, just when we were having an honest to goodness pretty good discussion you go and spoil it. I think I have been pretty non-partisan on this thread tonight. As I said, I hope the guy hangs if he is guilty and he has embarrassed the office he holds in trust for the people of his district. He should step down.

    What didn’t you get from my earlier posts? Please feel free to reread. I think I was pretty clear in my reasoning but it is equally clear, that you don’t let that get in your way.

    You ask this question: who are you worried about being busted if this kind of thing goes forward?” I’m not worried about anyone being busted, if a congressman has done something illegal and abused his or her office then they should be charged. I think my argument is being echoed throughout the Senate and House, a question that needs to be answered.

    But leave it to you to turn the thread into an invective. And just when I was getting used to Princess Jelical. Too bad.

  • Puzzlfeet

    th9, it takes more than mere suspicion to have our homes searched, it takes probable cause: the officer must possess sufficient trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed.

    And this is the Bush Administration as it is the Executive Branch of the Government. I do not however believe that this is a partisan political attack by the Bush administration. It is, though, an action by the executive branch of the government.

  • realitybasedbob

    Uh-oh. We are gonna need a second source on this. Or maybe just another FBI raid.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html

  • TwoHotel9

    PF, the FBI can bend you over a table and nail you in the kister on anything they feel like, after the fact you can get a lawyer and fight it. Does not change the fact you got screwed, your home and business trashed, your reputation dragged through the mud. Mr. Jefferson does not fall into that category. It has been an open secret for at least 15 years that he is dirty as hell, and that he has repeatedly gamed the system. My question for you is,”who are you worried about being busted if this kind of thing goes forward?”, you seem awfully determined to stop investigation of members of Congress. Or is it just Dems you want to protect?

  • Puzzlfeet

    BatOne, I don’t disagree, all that I am saying is that this is an interesting separation of powers issue and that one branch of the government is no more powerful than the other.

    R108 wrote, “P: It’s clear that you regard public employees, especially Dem legislators, as a privileged class. Nothing could be more revealing of leftiethink.”

    R108, quite frankly you can bite me. I didn’t say that and you can’t even imply it from my writings on this subject. That’s not what I said and it’s certainly not what I meant but along with 2h9 you have already decided to imply what it is you want from my writings so have at it. It is equally clear that you (rightie) are as revealing of your closemindedness.

  • Puzzlfeet

    Carrick, “the first time in congressional history” was reported by the various news stories.

    This issue involves all three branches of government and they will work it out one way or the other.

    You’re right that: “It’s a case of Executive Power granted to them by the courts” to search another equal and separate branch of the government. Again, I think it is a very interesting legal argument for separation of powers and constitutional legality wonks.

    Oh,and Robert, the standard is still the same whether it is a home or business.

    I found this interesting comment on another site about the separation of powers: ”

    This principle is so fundamental to the operation of our country, but the only people defending it are the Representatives and Senators that a vast majority of Americans despise. Quite simply, what occurred on Sunday May 21, 2006, was a profound violation of the separation of powers. The FBI derives its authority from the Executive Branch. The United States Capitol Police derives its authority from the Legislative Branch. The proper way for the FBI to obtain the needed evidence would have been to request the United States Capitol Police to search the office of Representative Jefferson.”

    I think that’s an interesting comment.

  • Puzzlfeet

    Th9, you are lying now, I never said it was an “abuse of power.” Find that in any of my responses. Also find anywhere in my writing where I said the investigation should be stopped. Since you are obtuse, I will say it again, I think it is a separation of powers issues as do people on both sides of the aisle. To say that I am defending an “obvious criminal” is also saying that Denny Hastert, John Boehner and company are also defending the criminal. What a crock. Once again, th9, you show yourself to be the misleader/”mischaraterizer” that you are.

    R108, I for the life of me can’t see where my support of unions has anything to do with this issue. Your connecting of the dots is quite tenous to say the least. You are in error, and I accept your apology. I take it back that you are a rightie.

  • TwoHotel9

    That all being said, why are you determined to stop Dept. of Justice from investigating and prosecuting members of Congress? Why are they so special?

  • Bat One

    Puzzle,

    I can’t say that I agree with your assessment that this is a profound idspute involving “separation of powers.”

    But for the sake of argument, let’s try this. Let us assume that information (not from NSA) indicates that an illegal, multi-state kiddie porn operation is being run out of the office of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To whom would the US Attorney rightly go to get a search warrant? The DC District court judge? Chief Justice Roberts? No one at all?

    And who should then execute that warrant? The FBI? The Capital Police? Perhaps the Clerk of the Court?

    The notion that the FBI should have deferred to the Capital Police is silly. Those officers answer to the Speaker of the House. What would happen if the Speaker declined to honor the warrant and order the Capital Police not to allow the search?

    The FBI is our nation’s national law enforcement agency. And while analogies to the legal sanctity of private homes and private business are colorful and heart-warming, they are also tenuous at best. If I am legally obliged to open my home or business to an FBI agent with a valid search warrant, how much more obliged are those who work in public offices, in public agencies and institutions, on public lands?

    The idea that public employees are somehow immune from valid criminal investigation because they are paid by the taxpayers is appalling.

  • Bat One

    “…one branch of the government is no more powerful than the other.”

    Puzzle,

    Not quite. Each within its own sphere is way more powerful than the others. Your assertion above is a rather common, and often convenient, mistake.

    The reason I regard the question of separation of powers as a non-issue is because the third branch, the judiciary, was intimately and properly involved, and within its respective area, determining probable cause and issuing the warrant, that judge IS the law. Not AG Gonzalez, not the President, not FBI Director Mueller, and certainly not Dennis Hastert or Nancy Pelosi.

  • robert108

    P: Here’s your mistake: “… it takes more than mere suspicion to have our homes searched…”

    No one’s home was searched here, unless you consider who owns his office: That would be us, the people. He was using our property to cover up his crimes, apparently, and so I’m OK with my property being searched if it’s to catch some scumbag politician taking bribes and misusing what we have entrusted to him.

  • robert108

    P: Good going! This is what I call civilized discourse. See my previous post about the separation of powers issue.

  • Puzzlfeet

    th9, it is absolutely pointless to answer any of your questions, you mislead and you mischaracterize anything that I write. There is no such thing as “civil discourse” with you.

  • TwoHotel9

    PF, you are the one who keeps saying this is an abuse of power. Not us. Why are you defending obvious criminals? Why are you being obtuse on your motivation in calling for stopping investigation into a Dem, when in just the last 20 days you called for the same kind of investigation into Repub. members of Congress? Easy question, why will you not answer it?

  • Bat One

    Whistler,

    Exactly! Besides, it was the FBI’s agents who were authorized by that search warrant, the one signed by a federal judge, to conduct the search of Jefferson’s congressional offices.

    For the FBI to turn that task over to any other agency would have been abrogation of the FBI’s legal responsibility and an unacceptable break in the prosecution’s legal chain of evidence as well.

  • TwoHotel9

    Either members of Congress are held to the same legal standard as real citizens are, or not. Which is it?

  • TwoHotel9

    PF, was this investigation focused towards a Repub. you would be screaming for blood. Why are you defending this scumbag, and his politician, lawyerfuck piazanos? Because he is a Dem.

  • TwoHotel9

    So you agree that members of Congress have no special standing before the law?

  • robert108

    Exactly. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, and the Executive Branch, with the permission of the Judicial Branch, enforces those laws. That is what happened in this case.

  • robert108

    P: It’s clear that you regard public employees, especially Dem legislators, as a privileged class. Nothing could be more revealing of leftiethink.

  • TwoHotel9

    And yes! My mind is closed! Anyone opposed to this investigation is as guilty as Jefferson.

  • TwoHotel9

    So, your point is that members of Congress are above the law? They are not to be held to the same legal standard as regular citizens? They can do as they please, where they please , and how they please. And we can do nothing to rein them in.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development