Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/10/D8IPBOL80.html

By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.

In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

"Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.

Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during an 18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office.

At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech and debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

"No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."

The raid on Jefferson's office angered members of Congress, some of whom threatened to retaliate by tinkering with the FBI and Justice Department budgets.

President Bush stepped in and ordered the solicitor general to take custody of the seized materials so Congress and the Justice Department could work out procedures to deal with similar situations in the future.

The president's 45-day "cooling off period" ended Sunday with no compromise worked out but with assurances from the Justice Department that it would not seek to regain custody of the materials until Hogan ruled on Jefferson's request.

Because Hogan signed the search warrant authorizing the search, Jefferson's legal team was not surprised by his ruling upholding it.

"While a Congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must also follow the law," said Jefferson's lawyer, Robert Trout. "We appreciate the consideration the judge accorded our motion for the return of the seized property, but we respectfully disagree with his conclusion, and we intend to appeal the ruling."

Hogan said a search warrant seeking material is very different than a subpoena seeking testimony.

"Jefferson may never be questioned regarding his legitimate legislative activities, is immune from civil or criminal liability for those activities, and no privileged material may ever be used against him in court," the judge wrote.

Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegedly using his position to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment and services offered by iGate, a Louisville-based firm, that sought contracts with Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations.

In return for his help, Jefferson allegedly demanded stock and cash payments. Jefferson has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.
 
No Shi'ite it was legal. We all knew it was legal from the get-go, despite the good Congressman's little race club's closing rank.

Much as I question most of what the alphabet soup agencies do, I think that busting corrupt politicians in the act of taking bribes is doing exactly what the Good Lord intended for the FBI to do.

Let's hope for a conviction.
 
I guess I never understood what aspect of this could be illegal.

Of course Congress as a body is able to debate and possibly pass into law an unconstitutional law. But when that law is struck down there can be no legal procedings against the body Congress. This is obviously the correct way to deal with the body Congress.

But being an individual within the body Congress does not exempt any person from criminal proceedings. We know how that works, person caught and placed in custody as an individual.

Now this would probably be a totally different story if there had been a Congressional meeting is his office at the time or if the entire Body had been in the office. That probably would have violated Constitutional protections.

QUOTE:
"Jefferson may never be questioned regarding his legitimate legislative activities, is immune from civil or criminal liability for those activities, and no privileged material may ever be used against him in court," the judge wrote.

The above statement is what I was looking at: During official legislative activities he is not an individual but a member of a somewhat sovereign body.

DCH

Not a constitutional lawyer, so I could be WAY off.
 
Note that, if they want, they can GIVE themselves the immunity they're claiming. They just wanted to pretend that they already had it, so they wouldn't have to take the heat for passing such a wildly unpopular law.
 
I found their protests hilarious, and sad. It's one law for me, another for thee.
That's nothing new, either. The Congress has exempted itself from any number of onerous laws they enact to harrass private enterprises.
 
The key is the term "legitimate legislative activities." That means he can't be arrested, or have his offices searched, because of legislation he wrote, or voted on, or for things he says during debate.

Taking bribes is not legitimate legislative activity by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Note that, if they want, they can GIVE themselves the immunity they're claiming.

Maybe until the Supreme Court says otherwise. They can only be protected further by constitutional amendment.
 
Maybe until the Supreme Court says otherwise. They can only be protected further by constitutional amendment.

As people tend to note when it applies to gun rights, neither the FBI nor the actions it takes are required or even explicitly authorized by the Constitution. Instead, the FBI is a purely legislatively created entity. As such, it's jurisdiction and actions can be limited by further legislation. Congress can easily pass a law prohibiting the FBI from investigating allegations involving Congress members, let alone coming into Congressional offices.
 
Congress can easily pass a law prohibiting the FBI from investigating allegations involving Congress members, let alone coming into Congressional offices.

But not without political consequences, especially in light of the widespread cynicism regarding Congress in general.
 
Why would Congress (the same Congress that routinely votes itself pay raises during depressions/recessions) worry about the political consequences? I'd say more than half the country has been led to believe that the raid was unconstitutional, a violation of the separation of powers. The truth is irrelevant to them. Of those that do know the truth, a certain percentage just accept it as normal, another percentage don't think anything can be done, and a tiny percentage will get angrier about Congress and vote . . . the same way they would have.

Besides, how many people will ever really know about the change to the FBI's jurisdiction? It's not like it will affect the results of American Idol.
 
In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

Maybe a few more lockdowns after reports of shots fired in the parking garage?

"Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.

How about a Democrat president who issues warrants on Republicans
who might be holding classified documents? That will be ok in the future
with everyone here given the responses so far.

"No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."

Dang --I bet Nixon is rolling over in his grave right now saying "If only I had
gotten a search warrant first!" :banghead: How about a President
Hillary who gets some "privileged material" incidental to a search warrant
on Republican offices --she has shown *her* timeliness in returning
documents in the past. ;)

I can imagine the future President Hillary rubbing her palms together and
saying in Monty Burns fashion "Excellent." Hillary looks longingly over at
Sarah Brady and says "It's time for Congress to tell Mr and Mrs America to
turn in their guns."

Sarah, a bit fearful, replies "What if we have some hold-outs in Congress who
are still loyal to the Consitution and the American people?"

Hillary, recalling the precendent set during the previous administration, snorts
back "We'll just have to serve a search warrant on Congress and detain
those members who are not loyal to the Two Party Hydra."

Sarah, even more fearful, stammers out "Are you saying we're going to
use guns on Congress to get America's guns?"

Hillary looking perturbed snaps back "What's your point?!"


Serving a warrant on Congress --Russian style:

Kaboom:
http://members.surfbest.net/mikehammer/whitehouse.gif

"Nothing to see here --move along":
http://members.surfbest.net/mikehammer/ostankino.jpg

Executive Suppression of Parliament can be successful:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1054826,00.html

Boohahaha:evil:

Of course, this won't happen here. No one is going to show up with MP5s
to "change" the minds of your congressman --just a bag of cash. Much
less messy and everyone is happy :cool:
 
Besides, how many people will ever really know about the change to the FBI's jurisdiction? - buzz_knox

The press determines what the issues are. I really doubt they would leave it alone, especially if passed by a "conservative" majority.

If Jefferson hadn't been black, this would not be particularly controversial...just another crook.

The reason incumbents are in so much trouble in the upcoming election is because people are tired of the Congressional status quo. They don't need to make themselves appear even more arrogant.
 
TBL said:
How about a Democrat president who issues warrants on Republicans who might be holding classified documents? That will be ok in the future with everyone here given the responses so far.

Well other than being a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS, it is just like the scenario here. If you only want to deal in absolutist rules (FBI can never search members of Congress/FBI can always search members of Congress) then you will have bad government regardless of which rule you choose.

The key is to try and keep somewhat adequate people in a position where you can ask them to exercise discretion and judgement so that they know the difference between the FBI raiding a Congressman's office looking for evidence of bribery and the FBI raiding a Congressman's office looking for classified documents that the Congressman is presumably allowed to have.

Government has to have some latitude for discretion and judgement or it doesn't work - you start getting stupid policies like "zero tolerance" policies that throw kids out of school for playing "Cowboys and Indians" during recess. Why do those policies exist? Because people elected others to a position of power in school government but didn't trust them enough to exercise any judgement - and now they reap the results. There are two keys to trusting government's judgement. One is giving them enough discretion to do their jobs; but not more than they need. The second is to actually be a good citizen and actually hold them accountable for their actions.

Distrust of government is a good thing; but like everything else in life, it works best when taken in moderation.
 
How about a Democrat president who issues warrants on Republicans
who might be holding classified documents? That will be ok in the future
with everyone here given the responses so far.

Well, much as I don't think that today's Democrats can be trusted with national security, and I don't think that today's Republicans can be trusted with the Bill of Rights, I'd say that said Democrat President is DOING HIS JOB. That ought to be happening a bit more often.

But in this case, a Congresscritter was videotaped taking a bribe, and his fridge was full of cash. This has NOTHING to do with anything classified. Apples and oranges.
 
How about a Democrat president who issues warrants on Republicans
who might be holding classified documents? That will be ok in the future
with everyone here given the responses so far.

Classified documents in the hands of a congressman that are being witheld from the president? Sounds like a good enough reason for an FBI raid all by itself.
 
Armed Bear hit the nail on the head. Jefferson wasn't just some congressman the FBI got a "random" tip about. They already had strong evidence (irrefutable IMO) that he was taking bribes. They got a warrant and searched his house, and, holy crap, more evidence - to the tune of several thousand dollars in cash in the fridge/freezer; not to mention all the other documents they seized. IIRC the FBI subpeoned the documents they wanted out of his congressional office and then got a warrant after Jefferson refused to turn over the docs. Either way, the warrant was definitely legit when you look at the context of its issue. I'm also tired of minority politicians hiding behind the race card. Jefferson has pulled it, Cynthia McKinney pulled it, and they use it as a cheap excuse for doing wrong - I'm sick of it.
 
ugaarguy said:
I'm also tired of minority politicians hiding behind the race card. Jefferson has pulled it, Cynthia McKinney pulled it, and they use it as a cheap excuse for doing wrong - I'm sick of it.

+1

Absolutely right...

Jefferson is still in office and still being a crook while the case against him is being prepared; McKinney got off on her crime of assualting a Capitol Hill policeman... both are using their minority status as a protective mechanism; a protection only minorities are able to use.
 
Armed Bear hit the nail on the head. Jefferson wasn't just some congressman the FBI got a "random" tip about. They already had strong evidence (irrefutable IMO) that he was taking bribes.

I agree, however I happen to think that high-level public employees should actually require *less* of a burdon of proof before a search. There is a certain implied consent that should come with a position of authority in the government. Its their bed, who better to lay in it?
 
How about a Democrat president who issues warrants on Republicans
who might be holding classified documents? That will be ok in the future
with everyone here given the responses so far.
A little off of what started this topic. It is not Classified Documents they were looking for.

It was for evidence of bribery, which is a felony, that they had a legal search warrent for.

I am sure the members of the House and Senate has clearance for Classified Documents.

Bribery is not considered an "official function" of the office holder, even if 90% of the American People believe they do accept them.

At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech and debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.
This does not protect against bribery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top