« Gunfire In Capitol Complex | Main | President Bush to Sign Bill Banning Protests At Soldier Funerals »
May 27, 2006
The William Jefferson Bribery Case: Hastert Endorses Corruption
I would never have dreamed in a million years that I would find myself agreeing with Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, he of the boyfriend prostitution scandal a decade or so ago, but what he said in regards to the FBI's search of Congressman William Jefferson's office made a hell of a lot of sense:
"It [the speech and debate clause in the Constitution] ought to be construed narrowly," said Barney Frank. "It should not in any way be interpreted as meaning that we, as members of Congress, have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen. So, I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think, what they did, they ought to be able to do in any case where they can get a warrant from a judge."
He went on to mouth a bunch of garbage about private citizens and warrantless wiretapping in an obvious slam on the Bush Administration. But the basic point as stated above is correct: There is no way in hell that William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, should be able to cry "speech and debate clause" when the FBI has a properly obtained warrant to search his offices based on reasonable suspicion that he may be crooked -- to wit, the esteemed Representative Jefferson caught on tape accepting bribes and $90,000 in cash wrapped in little packages in Tupperware in his freezer.
The idea that House Speaker Denny Hastert and others on the Republican side of the aisle would be more concerned about the removal of documents from an apparently crooked congressman's office than the fact that the guy is provably corrupt is outrageous. It makes me wonder exactly what it is THESE guys have to hide. After all, if everything they are doing is above-board why in God's name would they be concerned about the fact that what Jefferson is doing isn’t and that he has been caught at it.
Here is the joint statement issued by Hastert and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:
Washington, D.C. - Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued the following statement regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation's search of a Congressional office:
"No person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation.
"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years. These constitutional principles were not designed by the Founding Fathers to place anyone above the law. Rather, they were designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power, and those principles deserve to be vigorously defended.
"Accordingly, the Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized. Once that is done, Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights.
"In addition, the Justice Department must immediately cease any further review of the documents it unconstitutionally seized, ensure that those who have reviewed the documents do not divulge their contents to the investigators, and move in Court to vitiate the search warrant.”
First of all, this entire statement reads like something out of Through the Looking-Glass with Alice -- it is the exact opposite of what the reality of this situation is. It is a shameless attempt to get Americans to believe that a lie is the truth.
The first clue to Hastert that this statement is misleading and fraudulent is that he finds himself issuing it jointly with Pelosi. Whenever you, as Speaker of the House, find yourself agreeing with a shameless leftist partisan hag who specializes in misleading the American people in general and her California constituency in particular, you need to think twice about what you are doing because there is something seriously wrong.
It takes a truly corrupt radical leftist mentality to go public with the lie that the FBI acted unconstitutionally in this case. The FBI got a warrant from a judge after Jefferson's repeated refusal to produce documents the FBI requested in the course of the investigation into the bribery allegations against him. Taking $90,000 in cash in bribes and stashing it in your freezer has no more to do with "speech and debate" than an apparently drunken Kennedy smashing is car into barriers in front of the Capitol.
It is usually the Democrats who lie and twist the facts to obfuscate the truth in the matter. Apparently this propensity to tell bald-faced lies is an airborne phenomenon spread by close contact with the weasels and liars on the Democratic side of the aisle and Hastert has gotten a full-blown case of it.
It's time to find another name for what these folks do on Capitol Hill because to say that they are "representatives" of the American people is a stretch. Perhaps we should just call them what they are: Corrupt bastards who are completely out of touch with the folks they purport to "represent".
Posted by Steve at May 27, 2006 12:08 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Yes, but.
The problem here is that if they seized records relating to legislative acts, they are in fact in violation of the Speech and Debate clause of Article I of the Constitution as it has been interpreted since the document was written.
Unfortunately, in order to prove bribery, one would assume they will have to have documents and notes relating to legislation. Under the separation of powers, however, they're going to have to do it without the Congressman's personal notes and papers. Hopefully, they can connect the dots with the simple facts of the votes taken that are public record.
But, essentially, Hastert and Pelosi are right in their interpretation of the S&D clause. If the Supreme Court wants to rule otherwise, that's where this question is going to have to end up.
Sorry, but the law's the law. Even if the Justice Department says otherwise.
"The idea that House Speaker Denny Hastert and others on the Republican side of the aisle would be more concerned about the removal of documents from an apparently crooked congressman's office than the fact that the guy is provably corrupt is outrageous"
But this is not what they are concerned about. What they are concerned about is the integrity of Article I (which is the one that applies to them and their power) and the usurpation of power by the Executive Branch. As much as I can't stand Pelosi, I'd have to take her side on this one even if she didn't have Hastert on her team. The fact that they are acting together, to give the statement the weight of a joint position, just shows you it's a very serious Constitutional question--and if you think they're not deeply concerned about the slippage of Congressional power, you haven't been paying attention since 2000.
Posted by Kerry
at May 29, 2006 05:24 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.


