Well, ok, if I have to. Damn, all this homework.

Ok, read it. Not sure I agree, since it seems to basically say "Congress should do the right thing."

We all know how well that's been going lately...

What are you doing up so late, Kevin? Get to sleep!

So this is why you're thinking these days is so cloudy

Fuh me uh the buh.

First Bush went for the middle class, but the congress and the journalists wasn't underclass, so they said nothing.

Then he went for the anti-iraq-war protestors, but the congress and the journalists weren't anti-iraq-war, so they said nothing.

Then he went for the unions ... so they said nothing

Then he went for the scientists ... so they said nothing

Then he went for the women ... so they said nothing

Then he went for the journalists and the congress, and the rest of us said FUCK YOU JOURNALISTS AND CONGRESS. I HOPE YOU FUCKING GET TOSSED INTO GITMO AND POUNDED IN YOUR ASS!

Ah, the poetry of outrage.

I believe Congressmen/womyn should be allowed to run criminal enterprises out of their offices.

That's the only way to stop the Bushitler McHalliburton forces...

We must let W.J.Clinton hide money in tin foil inside his refrigerator or the Republic will fall!

Joey: I'm on the west coast, but the blog is on east coast time. It's only 11:00 pm here here at Drum Central.

Hey Joey,

Its only 10:30 PM. What's the problem?

As for the Constitutional issues of the FBI ibvestigating a Congressman: isn't this the (rough) equivalent of the Senate holding Watergate hearings, issuing subpoenas to the White House, and the Supreme Court ruling 9 -0 that Nixon had to comply? I mean, it is branch of government #1 investigating branch #2, with branch #3 (the Judiciary) refereeing.

Yeah, there's ample room for abuse, but there's no viable alternative, and sometimes, its gotta happen (eg Watergate, and here).

Unless there were a special prosecutor law. *That* would never be abused, would it?

和弦铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 下载手机铃声 三星手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 铃声下载免费 搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 三星铃声 免费铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 下载铃声 mp3手机铃声 三星铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦特效铃声下载 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑铃声 免费手机铃声 免费铃声免费铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 手机mmf铃声下载mp3手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声免费铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声

You're a tiresome dweeb, Urkel.

Sorry about that BB.

Should I *not* think Congressmen/womyn should be allowed to run criminal enterprises out or their offices.

/head spinning/

No, Urkel, your crap about Bush McHitlerwhatever and Clinton is nauseatingly tiresome and forced. It's not funny, nor original.

Why don't you start grunting about Ted "Drunk" Kennedy while you're at it? Or Michael "Fat" Moore?

Or just be a self-parody. Have at it.

"It strikes me that the FBI is the agency best qualified to conduct criminal investigations of national figures, and there are probably some narrowly targeted restrictions that could be placed on their ability to request search warrants if there are serious concerns that they might abuse it for purposes of political retribution.

Wikipedia has a current write up of Jefferson's sleazoid career.

What surprised me was that the incident in which he was filmed receiving a $100,000 bribe occurred on July 30, 2005. The FBI raid that recovered $90,000 occured on Aug 3, 2005.

And this man STILL is still a Congressman?

On the other hand, if the FBI is just a goon squad anymore, raiding Jefferson's offices could be an intimidation tactic. I don't quite understand why now, why they needed more evidence nine months later.

Got it.
He's a Democrat so it's okay.

Now I see. What's that>

You say Republicans want the right to hide their criminal endeavors inside their congressional offices?

Oh!

Well let's not grant them that supra-Constitutional right... M'Kay?

They all belong in The Hague.

This all sounds nice if you live in a fantasy world, but the idea that Congress would really police itself that closely is just that -- a fantasy world.

If we follow Mark to the letter, and take on trust that Congress really would police itself, what's to stop a Congressman from running a call girl ring or a drug ring? After all, we know that many Congressmen broke Prohibition.

Sort of bizarre to talk about the ease of getting a search warrant considering the videotape the FBI claims to have. I'd be offended if they didn't search his office.

What I wonder is how many other congressmen have been the subjects of attempted bribery stings. With just one coming to light, it sure looks like a Republican PR operation to offset Abramoff, Delay, Cunningham, Libby, . . . . It seems like the latter become obvious to political bloggers before investigations even started.

Good point PTate. I'm offended they didn't search his office 9 months ago.

I love it. They put literally the entire country under surveillance and bitch like brats when the feds come calling (with an actual warrant, no less).

Let them eat cake indeed.

By the way, did you know that the Mandarin character for MP3 is MP3?

Fascinating.

My objection is not to the Jefferson raid, which was perfectly justified. It's to the precedent the Jefferson raid will set unless Congress cleans up its own act.

And my suspicions about the FBI's sharp elbows don't depend crucially on history. The leak from "U.S. law enforcement officials" (read: the FBI) about Hastert being under criminal investigation, coming the day after Hastert criticized the Bureau, looks to me like revenge against Hastert and a warning to the rest of the Congress: "Mess with us and we'll hurt you."

Well Mark I defended you on the Cox affair, but I'm disagreeing with you here. If that's what it takes to get Congress of its ass and try to exercise some muscle in the dying days of the republic then good for them. It's gotten to that point now really. Ideally they'd police themselves but as Yglesias says, that's not going to happen as long as Hastert and Boehner are in charge.

Actually what I wonder is if the Hastert thing is true or not. We'll see. Denials all around today.

Hastert being under criminal investigation, coming the day after Hastert criticized the Bureau, looks to me like revenge against Hastert and a warning to the rest of the Congress: "Mess with us and we'll hurt you."

Posted by: Mark Kleiman on May 26, 2006 at 4:43 AM | PERMALINK

So what if Dem and Repug politico's inform on one another - the result is a better informed public.

In the Malaysian example, the best way corruption is revealed is when rival UMNO factions pass info on each other onto the Opposition for a question in Parliment ...which is a matter of public record.

Absent an ethics committee aggressively going after corruption in both parties, I don't know how Congress can effectively oppose the Executive's efforts to enforce the law against members of Congress. This Executive power grab is the direct and natural, if unintended, result of Newt Gingrich's misguided but intentional effort to replace institutional identity with party loyalty.

Before the Ginrich revolution members of both parties were encouraged to work together to craft and promote legislation out of their assigned committees. In the process members got to know each other. They developed institutional loyalties that often transcended party loyalty. More centrist, and often better, legislation was crafted. Corruption, while possible, was discouraged.

I have heard that the current organizational scheme not only cuts Democrats completely out of the legislative process, it pretty much cuts backbench Republicans out of the process as well. In fact, given the overwelming power of the leadership, it greatly reduces the power of committee chairs. Three of the natural results of the Gingrich reorganization have been a reduction in the technical expertise of individual congressmen (why work hard to learn a topic if your committee membership is meaningless anyway), the transcendant influence of lobbyists in the drafting process (the individual congressmen don't know much about the legislation passing through their committees) and the unprecidented increase in the use of earmarks (which are encouraged to allow otherwise disenfranchised rank and file members some way to carry pelts home to their local districts.) In addition the concentration of power in the leadership has lead to leadership and legislation that is far to the right of the American people as a whole. One wonders if the Democrats win if the leadership and legislation are going to trend far to the left of the population. We won't know until November.

All of these Gingrich changes (and some other things) have lead directly to the vile and evil top down system of "legalized" bribery we see today and to the willingness of the leadership of both parties to turn a blind eye to individual corruption, since the most egregious corruption is going to be found at the top where the lobbyists naturally focus their "legalized" bribes. Notice that the Speaker is not being accused of taking illegal bribes. It is rumored that he has been accused of selling specific legislation for campaign contributions--which he has used to solidify his power.

If Hastart and the rest want to effectively push back the Executive's grab they will take steps to restore the Congress as an institution. I am not sure the current Republican leadership is willing to do that, because the most important and effective steps will result in their losing individual concentrated power. It might turn out that a revolt among backbenchers will be necessary to save Congress.

Here's a question to which I do not know the answer.

If the Democrats retake the House and Senate, does this raid set a precedent that an unscrupulous Bush administration could use to harass Congressional critics? I am sure we can all see the scenario where a raid is conducted to seek proof that someone is leaking "classified" information that embarasses the President.

(Follow ups: How resistent is the current FBI to White House political whims? What government agency would be charged with carrying out a raid in the above scenario?)

I think if we want to catch Whitey Bulger then we need to search some FBI offices.

So legislators should be able to run graft rackets from their offices, maybe even keep records of their crimes, without ever having to worry that law enforcement could get a warrant to search them? How are we going to clean up the culture of corruption if it's shielded by an impregnable wall of privilege?

Bad as Congress is right now, anyone who trusts the FBI with the general power to investigate them can expect much greater problems. Even if they have every justification to go after Jefferson, the next raid is just as likely to be as justified as the Ken Starr investigation.

Does anyone really trust another J. Edgar Hoover? I sure don't. And I don't see what the reliable checks and balances on FBI investigations are.

At the extreme end, there is a really good reason why America does not have a unified police force, just as there were very good reasons for the Nazis to establish one. The Geheimstaatzpolizei or Gestapo was simply the FBI on steriods. Any step in that direction is extremely dangerous, as the very existence of the Bush 43 administration proves. Anyone wonder why the DEA was created instead of just giving that function to the FBI? Too much power for one agency.

If Bush 43 and Cheney don't make you properly paraniod, you are probably insufficiently aware to survive much longer in a political environment.

FBI power grab?

This is just a continuation of the Bush power grab and a very dangerous trend for the U.S.

The whole corrupt politicians issue just plays into Bush's hands as he can intimidate Congress even more with the threat of investigations or worse.

And the worse can be a lot worse given the erosion of rights of all citizens.

SO WHO IS KARL GONNA CALL NEXT TIME HE FINDS [[COUGH]] A 'BUG' IN HIS OFFICE?

The FBI, CIA, DHS, or the Prison Warden?

jerry at 1:52 has just sent coffee through my nose. Ow!

In the Malaysian example, the best way corruption is revealed is when rival UMNO factions pass info on each other onto the Opposition for a question in Parliment ...which is a matter of public record.
Posted by: McA

The noise that this particular troll-bot adds!
It never ceases to amaze me!

Yes, it is problematic for the FBI to search a member of Congress office. It is even more problematic to provide allow a member to have an office where no law applies.

The normal approach for gaining investigatory information from sitting members of Congress is via subpoena. Jeffereson ignored said subpoenas for nine months. Is Jefferson above the law?

For that matter, when can a member's office be searched? Can the police have a video of a member committing a murder, where he/she keeps the body in a freezer in his office, and be free of recovery of the body? That doesn't seem reasonable.

What is the threshold for search then? Hard evidence of the commission of a felony (like a video tape and supporting cash in a freezer), followed by complete refusal to cooperate for nine months with the legal process which has been the accepted procedure to resolve type of issue? It seems to be an abundance of caution on the part of the FBI.

America, Mark Twain once said, is a nation without a distinct criminal class "with the possible exception of Congress."

I agree with i dunno. This isn't an FBI power grab. I was going to make a silly Star Wars allusion to Darth Cheney but realized that this is very serious stuff. We have a weakened Executive actively promoting executive power at the expense of the legislative. The sad thing is, given the nature of the legislature's lack of commitment to "ethics" and rooting out corruption, the executive is probably going to win.

Yes, it worries me. Anthony at 6:14 has a point.

We keep forgetting "we the people," perhaps because we so love to be forgotten, because we're so unwilling to take responsibility for our representatives. But in the end, an ethical, democratic government is up to us. Maybe it's time to stop stamping our little feet on the ground and bawling? Otherwise we give the FBI and the rest of the executive way too much power.

"In a world in which the Congress does not do the right thing, the FBI can't be prevented from grabbing excessive power. That makes it essential that the Democrats break the ethics truce and fight for the principle that Congress both requires its members to comply with investigative procedures and boots out its own crooks without waiting for the Justice Department to raid their offices."

Kleiman is right. I'd just go on to argue that it's about time we change the federal investigative agency which has always been culturally rightwing, secretive, arrogant, and more than a little out of control.

Meanwhile - how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands, of man-hours which could be spent in some even marginally productive manner are being poured down the 'Big Hoffa Dig'?

Why? Why? Why?

I'm telling ya'll that D.C. needs Prozac by the tanker truckload.

Can we simply declare the whole shebang 'unfit to govern by reason of collective insanity'?

The FBI needs a budget cut. Not that I disagree with snooping on the crooks, but they just need a budget cut. So does the CIA.

Mark Kleiman wrote: My objection is not to the Jefferson raid, but to the precedent it will set unless the Congress cleans up its own act.

Is that a coherent statement?

I'm doubting it.

People should listen to what Kleiman is actually saying.

We're talking about President Bush here. The question "What if these powers end up in the wrong hands?" isn't about some hypothetical future.

Bush has an aggressive policy of weakening the judicial and legislative branches vs. the unitary executive, and this kind of thing gives him a big opening.

Both Bush and his deadend supporters want to discredit both Congress and the media. Just now Raw Story reports that the FBI is investigating the NSA leaks and wants to talk to a number of congressmen.

Raw Story

It's amusing to see Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training, demonstrate one of the classic psychologic defense mechanisms in his arguments: projection. This reminds us that the people most often attracted to this profession are the ones most in need of its services.

Everything changed after 9/11. Congress should not be complaining about the FBI.

I'm not fully convinced myself. It strikes me that the FBI is the agency best qualified to conduct criminal investigations of national figures, and there are probably some narrowly targeted restrictions that could be placed on their ability to request search warrants if there are serious concerns that they might abuse it for purposes of political retribution.

I know. How about, to prevent searches for being used for political retribution -- either against other branches of government, other levels of government (e.g., state governments), or private citizens -- we make it so that the executive branch can't issue warrants on its own, but is instead required to get the certification of an officer of, say, the judicial branch that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be located in the place to be searched.

And to make sure the requirement can't be weaselled out of, we should write that requirement into the Constitution, rather than making it a statutory limit.

Why is it so many people these days seem to think the solution to problems is to abandon mutual checks and balances and instead make the political branches entirely -- at least as far as formal process goes -- unaccountable to each other, to the judiciary, and functionally (through unchecked power to keep secrets) to the people, as well?

Eliminating such accountability within the framework of government encourages -- at the extreme compels -- any efforts to establish accountability to occur outside the formal system, with no formal controls, which tends to lead to violent escalation.

We're talking about President Bush here. The question "What if these powers end up in the wrong hands?" isn't about some hypothetical future.

Congress has all the power it needs to control an out-of-line executive -- if the power of the purse fails, there is the power of impeachment.

If Congress chooses can't be arsed to do it's keep the executive branch accountable, it doesn't get to use the possibility that the executive might therefore abuse its power against them as an excuse to get out of its own accountability to the criminal law.

It is really that simple.

My objection is not to the Jefferson raid, which was perfectly justified. It's to the precedent the Jefferson raid will set unless Congress cleans up its own act.

What, the precedent that if Congress doesn't clean up its own act and its members keep engaging in criminal activity, they'll be held accountable?

Why do you object to that?

I'm glad Jefferson got nailed, because I hate crooked Democrats just as much as crooked Republicans (maybe I even hate them more, since crooked Dems sabotage my attempts to take the moral high ground over the current administration).

However, something about the FBI busting into Congressional offices any time they feel like it has me a little queasy. This is the sort of tactic I could see a future President (or Hoover-esque Attorney General) using against their political enemies, and regardless of which party the victims belong to, that's something we ought not allow.

Got it. He's a Democrat so it's okay.

No, he's a pig and I hope he rots in prison.

My objection is to your mind-numbing, unoriginal antics - like, for example - "Err, he's a Democrat, so it's OK." If you're going to be contrary, could you at least expend a modicum of effort towards originality? Is that too much to ask?

If they haven't done anything wrong, what would they have to fear from FBI agents or the NSA monitoring their phone calls?

If this is a case of constitution separation then why did Hastert go to his prez for relief and not the courts?

Hastert has said that this will probably end up before the Supreme Court, but in the meantime the executive branch still confiscated a truckload of legislative documents from a Congressman's office, probably 99% of which have nothing to do with the crime under investigation and therefore might be constitutionally protected from executive branch review by Article I, section 6.

Hastert's position is that the executive branch should not be reading those until the Supreme Court sorts out whether the executive branch can seize legislative documents in the first place.

I see where Kleiman's coming from, but asking the Ethics Committee to investigate congressional misconduct is like asking Rush Limbaugh to investigate a pharmaceutical robbery. I'd rather trust the powers that be at the FBI to be judicious in exercising its powers, than count on Congress to police itself.

The timing of the Hastert investigation claim is more than a little suspicious.

uhm except that it's unconsitutional when in violation of the "speech and debate" clause and obviously partisan when the GOP is reeking with criminals and NONE of their offices have been searched.

However, something about the FBI busting into Congressional offices any time they feel like it has me a little queasy.

If judges are abusing their powers and issuing search warrants not for probable cause but only because the executive agent seeking the warrant "feels like it", well, Congress has unvreviewable, absolute means to deal with that problem, just as it has the means to deal with an out of control executive.

There is no need to say "FBI can't search Congress"; there is a need for Congress to do its job and oversee the executive and judiciary, and deal with specific abuses of Constitutional authority.

uhm except that it's unconsitutional when in violation of the "speech and debate" clause

So? Where is anything at issue here even remotely within the province of the "speech and debate" clause?

Make no mistake: the real reason why Congress is so concerned about the raid on Jefferson's office is that many of them know that corruption within Congress is rampant. If the FBI and the Justice Department can start getting serious about investigating corruption in Congress, many of their colleagues (and possibly they themselves) could be next. Is it any accident, do you think, that instead of trumpeting corruption by a Democratic Congressman, Speaker Hastert - who himself is rumored to be under investigation in the Abramoff affair - is objecting loudly to the search of Jefferson's office?

Cmdicely, I'm not as confident as you about Congressional powers to resist the executive anymore. Especially not this Congress. And if Congress rolls over, then a precedent has been set weakening future Congresses. And sure, Congress will have been equally to blame, but there's no comfort there.

To me this isn't "The FBI vs Congress" as much as "The President vs. Congress" or "Bush vs. Congress." I've been assuming that the promoters of the unitary Presidency have been scheming to turn the Congressional scandals to their own advantage, and that both the Jefferson raid and the questioning of Congressmen about the NSA are part of the scheme.

With a minor deletion of a few words and a borrowing from a 1951 movie:

There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this, when they made laws to govern themselves, and hired policemen to enforce them. We, of the other planets, have long accepted this principle. We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets, and for the complete elimination of aggression. The test of any such higher authority, is, of course, the police force that supports it. For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power over us ... this power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is, we live in peace; without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war. Free to pursue more profitable enterprises. Now, we do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we do have a system, and it works.

This is called looking for an institutional fix to the problem of having elected bad leaders.

***

cmdicely, did you drop a few words from your 10:35 post?

cmdicely, did you drop a few words from your 10:35 post?

extra "chooses", dropped "job", at the obvious (I hope) places.

I have no problem with the FBI raiding Congressmen's offices, as long as they restrict their raids to Democrats like Jefferson and leave the Republicans alone so that they can focus all their attention on the task of defending the country from liberalism and Islamofascism.

Again, the balance of powers requires that each branch have the ability to investigate the others. That's what provides oversight and insight to how each branch might be conducting itself. However, as has been pointed out, the Framers made the Congress the strongest branch and only they have a clause that prevents the other branches from questioning them about their decision-making process within a sitting Congress. That's shows you who does have the most power.

The fact that the King's Men have decided that they can move into the Congress quickly and without providing the Congressional Leaders without notice means that they really do not respect the Peoples House whatsoever. As this has begun to dawn on the leadership of said House, criminal or otherwise, the anger has risen.

Now, one would think, as a courtesy, that the Administration would give some leadtime to doing such an act...you know, kind of like the Congress has given indefinite, vague timeline for investigating the malfeasance, wasting of public funds, questions of competence, and other questionable actions and inactions by Busholini and his mob.

Of course, the whole thing provides a cover to the issues of Enron, Iraq and the military atrocities that have been occurring there, the complete incompetence of most of the King's Men...routine reporting it would seem that goes largely ignored by the goofs in the Congress.

Again though, we'd all rather have a corrupt Congress than an unchecked Executive. The Republic has had corrupt Congresses before...and has maintained democratic institutions. We have never had a "unitary Executive" and not had civil strife, a revolution even.

The FBI ought to serve a warrant to search the Vice President's office for evidence in the Plame affair. I doubt the WH would condone it.

To address Kleinman point by point:
1) Agreed

2) Agreed

3) True and if you exempt Congress from this possibility you lessen the chances that they will address it when it occurs.

4) Law enforcement in general, is strongly conservative. What is the point?

5) Yes it is easy to get a warrant. This is the balance that we have chosen as Americans. It is important that the Congress obey the laws and live by the same rules as all citizens.

6) I would hope so.

7) Yes it is. My neighbors would not look kindly on me or the rest of my family if my house was searched.

8) I would argue that allowing the FBI et al. to search my house any time they can get a warrant gives them too much opportunity abuse power. As far as the rest of you and your houses and offices, not so much.

9) Maybe it is retaliation maybe it isn't. It is the kind of thing that is done by law enforcement some times. I think it should be discouraged. It is more likely to be addressed if Congress lives by the same laws that we do.

10) This would make the possibility of enforcement being politically motivated worse.

11) Yeah have the ethics committee take care of it. Look how well that is working. Again having a committee that is under control of Congress raised to the main enforcer of laws on Congressional members does not make sense.

If anything I believe that this raid will move Congress toward self policing. As was stated above in various posts, if we allow Congress to live by different rules (I mean even more different than they already do), we will be creating a class of privileged royalty. This was one of the things that founding father were emphatically against.

Kleiman is on target here.

I find it ALMOST humorous that the first thing in I don't know how long, that the Speaker and the leader of the Minority party can agree on is that the actions of Congress should be above and outside the purview of law enforcement.

If Congress believes that a judge is authorizing warrants without care to the concept of probable cause, then Congress should impeach the judge. If Congress believes that the Executive Branch is obtaining warrants under false pretenses, then Congress should impeach the President. Of course, this would have required the impeachment of a Florida magistrate and President Clinton (for a second time) in regards to the manner in which Elian Gonzalez was returned to Cuba....

The Volokh Conspiracy also has good discussions. Whatever else you do, read sources that quote the Constitution and the case law.

Bush may have struck a good compromise: FBI and representatives of the Congress will review all papers, and those not directly related to felonious activity will be kept confidential. That is what a judge would have ruled at trial (I think), but this way no one in the administration will be in a position to see and possibly leak any of the work related to Jefferson's Congressional duties.

Cmdicely, I'm not as confident as you about Congressional powers to resist the executive anymore. Especially not this Congress.

The problem with this Congress is one of will, not power. And they may lack that, but if they do, they shouldn't go crying that the executive is taking full advantage of their lack of will.

They should grow a spine.

And if Congress rolls over, then a precedent has been set weakening future Congresses.

As long as the impeachment power is in the Constitution, a future Congress can reverse the "precedent" set by the spinelessness of the present Congress by doing its job and actually checking executive abuses.

And sure, Congress will have been equally to blame, but there's no comfort there.

Well, its not really an issue of blame. Its an issue of whether the Congress should itself get to be entirely unaccountable because it lets the President be entirely unaccountable, but fears that the President might abuse his unaccountable status by searching and embarrassing Congress.

And the answer to that has to be "No". If Congress is concerned about Presidential abuse of the legitimate authority and responsibility to enforce the criminal law, it has to do its part to hold the President accountable. Its that simple.

To me this isn't "The FBI vs Congress" as much as "The President vs. Congress" or "Bush vs. Congress." I've been assuming that the promoters of the unitary Presidency have been scheming to turn the Congressional scandals to their own advantage, and that both the Jefferson raid and the questioning of Congressmen about the NSA are part of the scheme.

Maybe, maybe not (though its seems that the Jefferson raid was conducted on proper grounds). The Congress is accountable to the criminal law, with very narrow limitations that don't appear to be violated here. The President is accountable to the Congress. The solution to Congress not doing their job in regard to the latter is not to prohibit the President doing his job in regard to the former.

Oh, look! All over the news media, the face of "corruption in congress" is a Democrat. A black one at that. From Louisiana.

The FBI doesn't work for us...it works for the President/Executive. Every branch of government has law enforcement officers that can be deputized to conduct a physical search. The federal courts have marshalls. The congress has its hill police. Can you imagine if a Democrat-held House and Senate issued a warrant and sent the hill police for the search and seizure of Oval Office documents? Or, imagine the Ninth Curcuit sent US Marshalls to rope off the Director of the CIA or FBI's office. All hell would break loose. That is why doesn't happen...subpoenas are issued instead.

By the way, the FBI has been investigating wrong doing by a number of republican congressmen. Did the FBI secure and search Tom DeLay's office? Cunningham's office? Ney's office? Doolittle office? How is it, do you suppose, they determined to treat Clinton differently?

It's incredibly selective law enforcement to single out Clinton for a sting operation and an office search, but as far as I can tell it is constitutional and legal.

Jefferson . . . ITYS caught me sleeping.

Cmdicely: "Well, its not really an issue of blame."

You talk as though it is. Once you succeed in putting the ball in Congress's court, you seem to think that your job is done.

With this President and this Congress, I think that alarmism is reasonable. Bush will do everything he can to discredit and marginalize Congress (in the service of the unitary Presidency), both institutionally and in public opinion. The impeachment power will still formally be there I suppose, and it will still be formally possible to roll back the changes, I suppose, but we have no assurance that this will actually happen (especially given the fact that Congress has been publically discredited). In the context of everything else, and given the individual who is President, I think that we have to think that way. It seems like one more step in the road to autocracy.

You talk as though it is.

No, I don't.

Once you succeed in putting the ball in Congress's court, you seem to think that your job is done.

If it seems that way to you, your perception is flawed.

With this President and this Congress, I think that alarmism is reasonable.

Alarm may or may not be reasonable; alarmism, by definition, is not. But if you don't think I'm alarmed by this Congress and this President, you aren't paying much attention.

I refuse, however, to allow this Congress' refusal to hold the President accountable to the law to be rewarded by accepting their demand that this justifies their demand that they, too, be unaccountable to the law.

Bush will do everything he can to discredit and marginalize Congress (in the service of the unitary Presidency), both institutionally and in public opinion.

That may or may not be the case; whether or not it is, it doesn't justify the Congress demand to be exempt from accountability before the law.

Really, what both sides of this seem to represent is "Republican-led institutions want to be unaccountable". That each uses the actions of the other to advance these demands as if they were genuinely opposed is clever, but should not distract from the issue.

The impeachment power will still formally be there I suppose, and it will still be formally possible to roll back the changes, I suppose, but we have no assurance that this will actually happen (especially given the fact that Congress has been publically discredited).

And if we give in to Congress' demand to be exempt from search -- make the Congress a law free zone where criminality is safe and evidence of criminality is free from inspection -- what then? The criminal law will still be there, I suppose, but we will have guaranteed absolutely that there can be no enforcement. It won't be a question of executive will, as we will have established that the executive lacks the power.

No, indeed, the system of checks and balances and accountability needs to be maintained, not abandoned because Congress might be do scared to do their part, and therefore let the President get away with doing more than his part against them.

And then the people must do their job, and hold the President and the Congress accountable. If the Congress isn't willing to stand up to an out-of-control executive, they must be taken to task themselves, not tolerated, and certainly not granted exemption from accountability because of their own cowardice.

In the context of everything else, and given the individual who is President, I think that we have to think that way. It seems like one more step in the road to autocracy.

No, giving in to Congress' demand to be unaccountable merely because they lack the will to hold the President accountable would be one more step on the road to autocracy.

Even if the executive has acted wrongly in this specific case -- and I see no concrete reason to assume he has, just speculation based on his character and the party of the accused -- the remedy is not to hold the Congress generally immune to search warrants.

That may or may not be the case; whether or not it is, it doesn't justify the Congress demand to be exempt from accountability before the law.

Hastert made a stupid mistake by speaking too soon. Today he said that he merely wants to ensure that the search is constitutionally sound. If he had reviewed the whole case, read the evidence and the warrant, and waited two full days before saying that, there would be no crisis. Now we need citizen activity to ensure that the temporarily sealed files are in fact sensibly reviewed.

Politically, there is something to be said for defending the rights of a member of the other party, as Hastert did. This is so especially where, as noted above, the FBI has avoided any such action against the Republican suspects (presumably, there is insufficient evidence that they used their offices feloniously to get a warrant.) A quick rapid support of the FBI, as demanded by the Red Staters, would look like partisan thuggery.

This is a good opportunity to write to congressfolk to make sure they know what we all expect them to do in this case. They'll be "taking the pulse of the people" all summer long.

CM, I'm not actually saying that Jefferson's office shouldn't have been searched. I'm saying that we're fucked either way. Most people here seem to be venting about evil Congressmen. I'm just speculating about what use Bush will make of this. I expect the worst. There's no reason not to.

"That may or may not be the case" is a lame response to a serious statement. Your optimism about impeachment is imbecile, as is your refusal even to acknowledge the side of the problem I'm talking about. As this plays out in the next few months, perhaps you will find reason to change your mind.

The one problem we should all be worried about is creating a criminal justice organization for oversight of the political class. In US history it is whipered J. Edgar Hoover had enough information to basically blackmail almost every federal politician and bureaucrat. He probably had plenty of dirt on most local leaders, too. The Bolsheviks made a terrible decision to put Stalin in a position of oversight, ostensibly to keep him out of the way from the heavy lifting the policy makers were planning on doing. That decision ended very badly for almost everyone, if we disregard Hitler. Political police are very dangerous to societies, but Congress has itself to blame for not taking care of its own business, like it ought.

And if we give in to Congress' demand to be exempt from search -- make the Congress a law free zone where criminality is safe and evidence of criminality is free from inspection -- what then?

I would expect a lot more Congressional trips to Afghanistan. To bring home the high grade herioin. The discreet charm of the bourgeoisie can be counted upon to do the most profitable thing.

cmdicely,

You are setting up a strawman. No one has suggested that Congress is setting itself up as a law-free zone or that Congressmen should be exempt from criminal prosecution. No one.

However, in the search for evidence of bribery, executive agents reviewed *every* document in the Congressmen's office, including ones which the executive is constitutionally prohibited from reviewing under the "Speech and Debate" clause.

The constitutional way of doing this search would have been to have agents of the legislative branch make up the seizure and filter teams so that the executive did not review constitutionally protected materials during the course of the search.

Sorry, the Constitution clearly states that the Criminal of Congress are NOT "safe" from the long arm of the law simply because they're Congress Criminals. The Constitution clearly states that they are liable, just like everyone else, to arrest (and all the acoutrements that go with it) for felonies, treason, etc. Jefferson not only is accused of a goddamned FELONY, he ignored/blew off subpoenas for, what, a year or two? This is supposed to be OK because Congressional Offices are magic places where the law doesn't apply? Bull-fuckin-shit.

Hastert's panties are in a knot ONLY because he is a criminal too and now he sees that the po-leece get to go after him too...and that his office is NOT a safe haven for hiding bribes, dead bodies, pictures of naked young boys, etc. Yup, the law applies to him and all the other GOPers. Nothing in the Constitution says they get a pass on the law if they hold up, or stash evidence, in their offices.

Nothing to see here. Besides, none of those fucks have given a damn about the Constitution for 6 years. They don't give a damn about it now either. They ONLY give a damn about their butts and how they are going to be butt-raped in federal prison when they're rightfully nailed.

The FBI search pursuant to a warrant that was carefully drawn (apparently -- see SCOTUSBlog) in respect to congressional privileges -- was not the best choice, obviously.

But, Congress cannot do nothing to self-police itself (or anything worthy of note), and cry foul too strongly here. Between doing nothing, and trusting the FBI with a search warrant, what are we to do? After all, the bipartisan opposition also led to further safeguards.

If Congress had a serious ethics self-policing mechanism, including respecting wrongdoing of this nature (including expulsion or perhaps agreeing a a vote re to open things to a search if the member refuses -- as here -- a subpoena even with clear evidence shown), yes.

Until then, the Congress has to submit to FBI searches in cases such as this one. One that MK surely doesn't show was arbitrary, even if the FBI response to Hasbert selective complaints of legislative privilege violations was wrong.

Name a branch of the government that has NOT abused their power for political retribution. What is needed is proper oversight . . . . . oh yeah. Sorry. Go on about your business.

I thought the Founders wanted Congress members to be exempt from the possibility of being removed, or detained, from their legislative duties by an executive that had ulterior motives. Therefore members of the national congress are given certain privileges while Congress is in session.

There are remedies. James Traflicant of Ohio was expelled by the HoR, then put on trial and is now in prison.

What, you don't see sleight-of-hand right in front of your nose ? The executive has seized papers relevant to legislation/or crime that is due control by law enforcement/courts.