Redstate

should get on this right now and let Nelson be on the defensive.

Frankly this is the time for a REpublican rank and file revolt.

Hastert must be cowed back on this.

No One gets to obstruct legit FBI warrants.

Seriously, when Leon told me about this I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  What was this guy thinking?  If the Republicans are smart they'll have him peeing in a cup, putting him in rehab like a Kennedy and blaming it on the booze IMMEDIATELY.

Yet another Republican with death wish.

They literally don't get it.

You better make that a 5+5 or even a 5+5+5.

to be nice to me!

so many of them in power has gone to their heads? Do they think themselves invincible? Smarmy idiots!  Seriously, I have to wonder what this man's thinking was and when I have to think this hard it means that he wasn't in his right mind.

Broke ranks with the leadership on this issue, yet?

A Republican is finally standing up for something and it turns out it is to obstruct the investigation of a Democrat with $ 90,000 in slush funds stuffed in his freezer.  

Paid?  No way, we'll all gladly get mad with you about this for free, heh.

Speaker Hastert never was able to inspire anybody, but if he's going to be THIS brain-dead, then he's going to lose everybody.

This is a personal opinion from guy who once worked for a state legislative branch....but....

Have you, my right-wing, partisan friends, taken leave of your tricameral senses?

This is a huge precedent, the slipperiest of the slippery slopes. Oh, sure, the FBI investigators may be good guys today, and Jefferson is probably guilty -- until proven, thanks -- but we cannot, simply cannot, have an executive branch agency poring through our legislative branch papers, rumaging through desks, seizing computers, whatever "seizing" means.

Today's investigatory excess will be wielded against Republicans once some feckless Democrat takes office in 2017. You know, Chelsea.

If Jefferson is a problem, vote him out. It is the People's Body. November, 2006. Or January, 2007, when the House reorganizes.

P.S. Meanwhile, I see that the FBI ratches up its investigations in lovely Portland.

If the FBI is rummaging through legislative materials to intimidate opponents of the executive, that's one thing. What happened here was completely different. The argument you are making would prevent the FBI from investigating, say, a murder committed in a Congressional office, or drug dealing in the same. It doesn't wash.

..."but we cannot, simply cannot, have an executive branch agency poring through our legislative branch papers, rumaging through desks, seizing computers, whatever "seizing" means."

Is a very strange assessment of the situation and not at all what took place!

The branches are meant to have oversight of each other.  Note that this wasn't an arrest; it was merely an executed search warrant.  If the Justice Department can't go after criminal members of Congress, within the bounds of the Constitution, who can?

Of course we can't let law enforcement take what they want, when they want it.  That's why for this warrant to happen, it took the joint agreement of the other two branches, the executive and the judiciary, for this investigative tactic to press on against a member of the legislative branch.

Compare with the Congress, which claims to be able to subpoena the executive without any judicial oversight.

I don't see a problem here.

and whether this is strictly constitutional or not (I think it is and Volokh and Reynolds appear to agree), it reeks to high heaven. I'm starting to want 100% turnover myself. What on earth is in the water in D.C.??

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/fbiraidhrg52406.pdf

I know I'm on the unpopular side of this issue and I agree with most of the commenters on Redstate 89.6 percent of the time.

But imagine this search turned against Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, Americans.

Jeez, I'm censoring myself. Redstate is wrong on this issue.

You're ignoring the rather inconvenient fact that they found the cash in Jefferson's freezer nine months ago. They've been fighting since then to get these documents through non-intrusive means, to no avail. Your concern is legitimate, but this case does not fall underneath it. Not even close.

Give Bill Clinton the same authority. And see what happens.

Vote Jefferson out. That is the low-cost, small-government solution to expansive, intrusive, even well-intentioned federal government.

This is an issue of whether a Congressional office can be used to hide evidence of a felony, when the FBI has a valid search warrant.

Honestly - if someone turns up dead in a Congressional office, and House counsel refuses to let the FBI in to investigate, are you cool with that? Despite the clear and unambiguous Constitutional language to the contrary?

Seriously?  Just because the guy is in office doesn't mean he is allowed to get away with doing illegal stuff.  Should I be allowed to refuse a search warrant?  What happens to me when I do?  I don't "get voted out of office."  My booty lands in jail where it belongs.  So should his.

The executive branch went to the judicial branch and presented its evidence.  The judicial branch agreed and authorized a search warrant.  In searching, the FBI had a separate team present to make sure nothing connected to Congressman Jefferson's legislative duties.

This is not King Charles to Parliament and it is not Caesar and the Praetorians taking on a Senator.

And there is zero constitutional protection in this issue.  The Speech and Debate clause applies to the person of the Congressman, not the property.

I see Streiff is now knocking Hastert based on, what? An anonymous ABC source? Anonymous?

You know, anonymous? Without citation? From a left-wing media source?

C'mon. The MSM works against us. And we should cite their miserable unattributed sources in arguing against our guys?

But I'll tell you why we're so quick to believe this, whereas we're most skeptical in other places - this is literally the only explanation that makes sense for this bizarre behavior. Hastert sticks his neck out for NOTHING. He's notorious for it. All of a sudden, he's over the moon about a legally executed search of a corrupt Democrat's office? I've been getting emails and comments from people all day to the effect of, "I'm starting to wonder if Hastert has something to hide."

I haven't seen a response to the "Bill Clinton" argument. Which is to say, please, please, do not let us slide down this slope. Which is to say, some year in the future we will have a corrupt Executive, who will abuse what we now apologize for.

Let Louisiana's voters vote Jefferson out, or not. It's just one of 435 seats. But let us not grant an expansionist, corrupt Executive Branch the same authority we relish applying to our political opponents.

But perhaps it's a matters of principle?

You've yet to point to the first abuse of power that would lead us to believe that your slippery slope exists. You've yet to prove that this is an expansion of power whatsoever. This is a law enforcement agency executing a valid seach warrant, against a person without Constitutional immunity. Period.

Watch me construct a similar "slippery slope": If you let the DEA act on search warrants, then 20 years in the future, some corrupt DEA head will be ordering the DEA to bust in all our houses for no good reason.

It makes no sense.

No, I'm afraid that voting out Jefferson is not the solution here.  He needs to be tried, and if convicted, tossed into jail.  No longer being in Congress is not sufficient punishment for the taking of bribes; the appropriate punishment is lengthy jail that.  By showing that bribery and felonies will not be tolerated, even if perpetuated by Congresscritters, we send a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated, thus stemming and creating a deterrence no matter how small, to keep others from doing the same.

That is the small government solution as it prevents more corrupt behavior from being perpetuated in the future.  If, after taking $100k and who know what else, the only punishment you recieve is no longer being in office, rather than jail time, there is no reason to not accept bribes.

That, in all these years, this is the first principle Hastert has ever had. If he were this concerned about spending, or earmarks, or immigration, we wouldn't be in the mess we're currently in.

Gosh, attributing a statement to someone else. I'm really embarrassed. My apologies to you, Streiff and Leon, both.

..."stuffed in his freezer", if you know what I mean.

I mean, he doth protest too much.  It can't be all about his offended sense of institutional entitlement.  And the stupidity of coccooned cluelessness would explain alot, but not this much.

--furious

...all over it.  Rovemort's using his keep-digging mind-ray machine to egg on Hastert, Alberto Gonzales is sending him taunting IMs ("U sck".  "Nxt spbna = u". "Prpr 2b srchd haha".).  Josh Bolten unscrewed Denny's gavel so the next time he bangs it it flies off into the Well.

Denny's outlived his usefulness, so W wants a new Speaker.

Well, makes as much sense as anything else.

--furious

..."dead-girl/live-boy" Edwards.  LA's voters re-elected Mary "Meltdown" Landrieu.  LA's voters perpetuated the corrupt Morial machine in New Orleans, and just re-installedthe incompetent "Schoolbus" Nagin machine.

You'll die poor and heartbroken betting on the good sense of LA voters.

--furious

has brought us to an awkward position, not unlike the Supreme Court's Roe decision.

I believe that in an ideal world, Hastert is correct: the executive ought not be searching congessional offices for evidence in criminal cases. The impetous toward the corrupt use of that power by the Executive branch is too strong to tolerate.

Yet this is counterbalanced by the responsibility of the House to investigate and discipline its members with respect to upholding the law and ethics of the House. On this count the House has clearly abdicated its true duty and replaced it with a throroughly politicized process which only guaranteess no one will ever trust them. And this is also not to be tolerated.

In the case of the Supreme Court, a corrupt decision on Roe means that we now must find a way to correct it, and no matter what we do, it will upset the balance of power between the courts and the other branches of government. Similarly, the failure of the House to take its duties seriously now will require that we interfere with the balance of power between it and the other two branches.

Having said that, given the history of law enforcement encroachment on what had previously been protected privileges in government, I believe the FBI search will be upheld as constitutional.

But I don't like any of the options here, and I really don't think any congressman should be signing the statement printed above. The focus must return to the corrupt congressman, not the FBI, and not support for a position that distorts the balance of power between the House and the Executive branch. It is also worth noting that thus far, the only branch of government whose power has not been decreased is the courts, yet we can clearly see the danger they pose to our liberty through unbound fiats decreed from the bench.

Can we just call for a pox on all their houses?

by the person who was fixin my dinner and sharing my pillow, I would put it on real thick. You need to get that boy's priorities in order. BTW, I  rate your post a 5, no meal, no pillow. :-)

The Revolution?

Grab your gun. Go out into the street.

Are you the only one out in the street with your gun?

Go back inside. It's not time for The Revolution yet.

That saying used to make me laugh. It doesn't, anymore.

"If they haven't done anything wrong, they've got nothing to fear."

My take: If they don't want their rights stomped on, maybe they should pass a law protecting citizens from intrusive law enforcement.

Rove, after all, is all-knowing, all-seeing, and everywhere at once. He hates Hastert because the Speaker opposes amnesty. He won't kill children for Halliburton. Yes, I just read this over at the DU.

And you know what? It makes about as much sense as anything else.

God knows what will crawl out from the rocks in the next few months.

This is my breaking point.  Those who have seen many of my diary entries and comments of late know that I have been a strong proponent of the "staying home in November is counter-productive" school of thought.

But this is it for me.  If the Republican Party is going to sit by and let its leaders (in the persons of Hastert, Boehner, and Frist) make ludicrous and unsupported constitutional claims in order to protect someone against whom charges of bribery seem more likely true than not, then they deserve to be sent to the wilderness.  They should be made to sit in the corner wearing the "DUNCE" cap, until they learn that the represent THE PEOPLE and not their own power.

Now is the time - while the legislation that will come out of a Democrat Congress will be a wholesale disaster, I feel confident that President Bush will be empowered to veto the inevitable excesses.  The libs will surely not have a veto-proof majority.  So at worst, nothing will get done for the next 2 years.  That seems better than letting this travesty go on.

A quick look at the witness list for Sensenbrenner's hearing on this shows that it's really nothing more than an attempt to create an echo chamber of "unconstitutional, unconstitutional, unconstitutional."

You've got a former member of the House, a lawyer who served as Deputy General Counsel when the Democrats were in charge, a law professor (odds are he's a lib), and Bruce Fein, who has some relatively conservative credentials (Heritage, AEI, Justicec Department under Nixon/Ford).

I wonder what there "objective" individuals will have to say about the events of this weekend.  Hmmmm........

Watch the "witnesses" to pop up on each and every weekend political gabfest to denounce Bush's fascism and poor management of the Rangers. This will be followed by four weeks of Hardball, of course.

On tape, on the take.  They've got this guy.  Bad.

This is not a constitutional crisis.  I would expect the Supreme Court offices to be fair game in the like situation.

Suppose at the height of the impeachment hearings, Bill Clinton had decided to send in the FBI on some trumpted up charge to search the offices of one of the more vocal GOP congressmen pushing for Impeachment.  What would have happened?

It's simple.  Every Congressman from both sides of the aisle on either end of the Capitol would have come down him like a ton of bricks.  The fireworks would have rivaled the BiCentennial Celebrations.  Clinton would have been through.

If you doubt it, just look at what is happening with this case.  Here we have clear evidence of wrong-doing.  We have a legally obtained and issued warrant.  The result?  The Executive branch is getting hammered by everybody.

That is the reason this hasn't been attempted in over 200 years.  No President in their right mind would attempt such a raid unless they had every single one of their ducks in a row.  If they made just one mistake, they would be toast.

I have to give President Bush credit for insisting on seeing the law is enforced, no matter what the political consequences.  (Now if he would only do the same with illegal immigration.)

If Clinton had taken said action, after the target Republican had been caught on video accepting bribes, and after a subpena for information had been  ignored for 9 months, then I would STILL hope Republicans had enough sense to not be this arrogant

That was my first impulse when I read about this story.

I think it's distinctly possible that a few of the Representatives are raising a fuss to cover something up and prevent searches in their own offices.

But I also don't think everyone against the search has something to hide.  Maybe some are just standing in rank with fellow Congressmen, or are supporting their leaders (go go gadget blind loyalty, even when it's misplaced), maybe some of them (unbelievably) might think that the search was illegal...though I cannot fathom how they'd come to that conclusion.  That's a pretty out-there position, but even loons can get elected to Congress.

In fact, if said GOP Congressman had acted that way, I would hope Clinton would have proceeded as Bush has.

If your scenario would have happened during the Clinton administration, Repbulicans would have denounced it, Democrats and the MSM would have supported it, and it would now be accepted as lawful practice. Neither Clinton nor most of the rest of Democrats serving in Congress are above shredding the Constitution for partisan gain. Whether or not an innocent Republican would have survive such an incident is an open question; a dirty one would certainly have gotten the boot.

...especially if perpetuated by Congresscritters.