Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed

Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush stepped into the Justice Department's constitutional confrontation with Congress on Thursday and ordered that documents seized in an FBI raid on a lawmaker's office be sealed for 45 days. . . .


"Those who violate the law, including a member of Congress, should and will be held to account," the president said. "This investigation will go forward and justice will be served."

bobsmythhawk wrote:

Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush stepped into the Justice Department's constitutional confrontation with Congress on Thursday and ordered that documents seized in an FBI raid on a lawmaker's office be sealed for 45 days. . . .


"Those who violate the law, including a member of Congress, should and will be held to account," the president said. "This investigation will go forward and justice will be served."

Mr. President? Those who violate the law SHOULD and WILL be held to account? What about YOUR violations of FISA?

Debra_Law wrote:

bobsmythhawk wrote:

Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush stepped into the Justice Department's constitutional confrontation with Congress on Thursday and ordered that documents seized in an FBI raid on a lawmaker's office be sealed for 45 days. . . .


"Those who violate the law, including a member of Congress, should and will be held to account," the president said. "This investigation will go forward and justice will be served."

Mr. President? Those who violate the law SHOULD and WILL be held to account? What about YOUR violations of FISA?

I'd be grateful if you'd point to any post of yours in which you list and describe the violation(s) of FISA specifically. I am trying to learn about this. I no longer spend enough time here to really ready every post and a link to the specifics of the president's alleged violation would be helpful. Most of the posts I come across referring to this don't say anything specific except that Bush did it. Thanks.

Debra_Law wrote:

bobsmythhawk wrote:

Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush stepped into the Justice Department's constitutional confrontation with Congress on Thursday and ordered that documents seized in an FBI raid on a lawmaker's office be sealed for 45 days. . . .


"Those who violate the law, including a member of Congress, should and will be held to account," the president said. "This investigation will go forward and justice will be served."

Mr. President? Those who violate the law SHOULD and WILL be held to account? What about YOUR violations of FISA?

I'd be grateful if you'd point to any post of yours in which you list and describe the violation(s) of FISA specifically. I am trying to learn about this. I no longer spend enough time here to really ready every post and a link to the specifics of the president's alleged violation would be helpful. Most of the posts I come across referring to this don't say anything specific except that Bush did it. Thanks.

CAN WE STAY ON ONE F*CKING TOPIC PLEASE?!?!

"Those who violate the law -- including a member of Congress -- should and will be held to account," the president said.

CAN WE STAY ON ONE F*CKING TOPIC PLEASE?!?!

Quote:

"Those who violate the law -- including a member of Congress -- should and will be held to account," the president said.

Does that include Bush.

Jefferson was given a subpeona to hand over the documents and he failed to do so in a timely manner. He has been caught on film taking a cash bribe. Case closed.

He will have his day in court like any other criminal.

May 22, 2006
Legislature v. Executive = Judicial Decision

With the recent FBI search of the legislative office of William J. Jefferson (D. La.) and now the Washington Post reporting here in an article titled "FBI Says Jefferson Was Filmed Taking Cash," several more (see prior post here) questions arise:

If this had been via a grand jury subpoena there would be no disclosure of the details of the items secured or the testimony received. By selecting to proceed with a search, probable cause is necessary and therefore the filing of an affidavit for the search warrant. It is this affidavit that is being used by the newspapers to talk about the congressman allegedly being filmed receiving cash. Does the selection of a search warrant as opposed to a subpoena give the government an edge in being able to display their case to the media?

If the government had proceeded via a grand jury then it would be subject to 6(e) secrecy. "Rule 6(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sets forth the general secrecy requirements of federal grand jury proceedings. It provides that the grand jurors, grand jury personnel, government attorneys, and personnel assisting government attorneys may not disclose 'a matter occurring before the grand jury.'" Podgor & Israel, White Collar Crime in a Nutshell 2d 246 (1993). Yet, here in the press we see that what the "FBI Says" is being disclosed.

Do we have an abuse of prosecutorial discretion when the government selects to proceed with a search as opposed to the grand jury process that would have been secret and would have precluded the FBI from making public statements, even when the statements may be through the filing of their documents?

The fact that the government decided to search, thus precluding the legislative member the opportunity to go into court and contest the matter (he would have been able to file a motion to quash the subpoena), infringe on the separation of powers? Should the executive (FBI and DOJ) have the right to search the offices of a member of Congress?

Separation of powers is an important principle to make certain that each branch of the government can function independently of another, and without being in fear of another branch. The "Speech and Debate" clause explicitly protects some activities of members of Congress. (For an excellent article on the contours of the Speech and Debate Clause see Robert J. Reinstein & Harvey J. Silverglate, Legislative Privilege and the Separation of Powers, 86 Harvard Law Review 1113 (1973)) Has the government crossed the line in searching the "office" of a member of Congress? Or is this scenario different because it involves possible personal activities that maybe outside the job function of a member of Congress? But if we allow searches like this, will the executive next be wiretapping the offices of members of congress? And who will be making the decision as to when this is proper or not?

Many of these questions did not arise when the home of the congressman was searched, as the line between personal and job-related activities is clearer. But with the entry into his office - the line between separation of the executive and legislative becomes blurred. On the other hand, the possibility of items being placed in the legislative office to avoid review is bothersome. So it all comes down to whether a search is ever appropriate when it is a legislative office.

Should the legislative member have the opportunity to appear in court and move to quash prior to the government entering the premises with a search warrant? If this is the case, then prosecutors would have to use subpoenas instead of searches. Maybe that is the best route to protect the line between the legislature and executive. Why was that not done here? Was there a legitimate fear here that warranted a search? Stay tuned....

Most likely to see what other legislation he has sponsored and who else might have bribed him.

Freeduck,
1) there is most likely more evidence to collect.
2) They should be held equally accountable.
3) Probably. But the Justice department also has procedures. Better to do this and avoid the shredder though.

Against the FBI power grab

by Mark Kleiman
Category: Corruption in Washington

It's very important to learn from your opponents. One thing I've learned from Karl Rove and his buddies is that if people don't believe what you're saying, you should say it often, until you've worn them down. (I believe that's called "message discipline.") So let me repeat my argument that the Jefferson raid was bad karma, and see if I can sharpen it up this time.

1. It's very important for crooked Congressmen and Senators to be expelled and go to prison. More is better.

2. The Constitution gives them no immunity from prosecution, nor are their offices Constitutionally exempt from search.

3. The FBI has a long history of abusing its powers for its own organizational ends and to serve the political purposes of its Directors. (Does the name "J. Edgar Hoover" ring a bell?)

4. In terms of its personnel, the FBI is and will almost certainly remain strongly conservative (both culturally and politically) and Republican.

5. It's easy to get a search warrant. It's an ex parte motion, and judge-shopping is allowed. A warrant application doesn't even require a prosecutor's signature.

6. It's especially easy to get a search warrant in a "national security" case, such as a leak investigation.

7. A search is a very reliable reputation-ruiner.

8. Allowing the FBI to search Congressional offices whenever it can persuade a judge to sign a warrant therefore gives the FBI too much abusable power.

9. The FBI just demonstrated why it shouldn't be trusted with that power. The day after Dennis Hastert complained about the raid on William Jefferson's office, "senior U.S. law enforcement officials" told ABC News that Hastert was under criminal investigation in connection with the Abramoff scandal. The Justice Department has now denied that; I'm agnostic. The DoJ release may be accuratge under a weaselly definition of "under investigation." (Hastert may be in the investigators' sights while still a "person of interest" rather than a "subject" or a "target.") But the leak almost certainly came from the Bureau, and the only way to read it is as punishment of Hastert and deterrence for others.

10. The alternative to allowing the Bureau to search Congressional offices is a set of strong Congressional rules mandating prompt compliance with subpoenas, unless the Member under subpoena gets a floor vote supporting his or her resistance.

11. The alternative to having long criminal investigations of sitting Members is to give the Ethics Committees powers and investigative staffs that will allow them to do their own fact-finding, and change both the rules so that expulsion motions can be brought to the floor by the vote of either party. That won't do any good unless the Democrats break the "ethics truce" and start to go after Republican corruption. Once a Member has been expelled, the criminal process can take its own course and its own time. Of course a Member whose actions might have violated criminal law has the right not to testify in an ethics hearing, but his or her colleagues have the right to make the natural inference from that silence. Explusion doesn't, and shouldn't, require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

So I fully agree that Hastert and Pelosi look silly, or worse, in criticizing the FBI for doing the job they and their colleagues have refused to do, and indeed have helped to obstruct. But the right solution is not to applaud the Bureau for its power grab, but to insist that the Congress start to do the right thing. If the current leadership won't do so, the Democrats, at least, ought to find themselves new leadership, pronto.

Berman for Minority Leader, anyone? I bet he'd have another title after January 2.

Update: Just to clarify:

There are two different claims that might be made here:

1. "In some imaginary world, Congress might do the right thing, so the FBI ought to act as if it already had and refrain from raiding Congressmen's offices even when the Congressmen are resisting subpoenas."

2. "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 princple 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."

I'm arguing for #2. Several commenters, both here and on Political Animal, are arguing against #1, by saying that it would be wrong to exempt Congressmen from criminal investigation. It's not clear that we actually disagree.

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

Why Did Bush Seal the Documents from the Jefferson Raid?


JB


Ostensibly Bush was worried that three of his advisors, including Attorney General Gonzales, would resign. But this is a White House known for its stringent demands of (and enforcement of) loyalty. The President might also have been worried that the House would demand that Gonzales resign, but calls for Bush cabinet officials to resign have hardly deterred this White House before (think Donald Rumsfeld).

A third, far more interesting reason-- also alluded to in Marty's previous post-- appears at the very end of this Washington Post story about the raid on Congressman Jefferson's office:


"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

The one thing that this Administration fears more than anything is oversight.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

bobsmythhawk wrote:

Bush orders FBI-Congress documents sealed
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush stepped into the Justice Department's constitutional confrontation with Congress on Thursday and ordered that documents seized in an FBI raid on a lawmaker's office be sealed for 45 days. . . .


"Those who violate the law, including a member of Congress, should and will be held to account," the president said. "This investigation will go forward and justice will be served."

Mr. President? Those who violate the law SHOULD and WILL be held to account? What about YOUR violations of FISA?

I'd be grateful if you'd point to any post of yours in which you list and describe the violation(s) of FISA specifically. I am trying to learn about this. I no longer spend enough time here to really ready every post and a link to the specifics of the president's alleged violation would be helpful. Most of the posts I come across referring to this don't say anything specific except that Bush did it. Thanks.

Are you now pretending that you were completely absent from our extensive discussion on this very subject in the thread entitled, America... Spying on Americans?

Inasmuch as that entire thread is in the archives--go read it. I'm not going to recreate it for you here.