Right to be wary of White House probes of Capitol Hill

Republican members of Congress have been awfully tolerant of the Bush administration’s generous self-empowerment regarding the holding of terrorist suspects, the withholding of documents and more. So it’s been fascinating to watch the congressional push-back against the Justice Department’s bribery investigation of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., particularly the unprecedented raid of his Capitol Hill office (see photo). House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., is right to be protective of the separation of powers. Meanwhile, President Bush ordered Thursday that the seized records be sealed for 45 days, to give federal prosecutors and Congress time to try to resolve the dispute.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

7 Comments

  1. heartlander
    Posted May 26, 2006 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    If foreign embassies are absolutely immune to raids, and if their couriers’ briefcases and pouches are totally protected, and if the White House can never be raided, then doesn’t it seem logical that congressional offices too should be immune to raids, ordered by the White House?If a federal judge is complicitous, he/she should be impeached and removed from the bench. If the Supreme Court issued a ruling holding this invasion to be “lawful” then the pro-voting justices should be impeached, and removed from the bench.

    Or ELSE, EVERYBODY who is operating in America should be vulnerable to raids.

  2. Gary C.
    Posted May 26, 2006 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    What gets me is that the congress will stonewall/ignore when it comes to wiretaps and survelliance of Americans, and also pass legislation like the patriot act. BUT when it comes to protecting thier asses they immediatley take action and cry about seperation of powers.

    What if there was murder evidence in a congressmans office? Would they still follow the seperation of power laws?

  3. heartlander
    Posted May 26, 2006 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    In civil and criminal law, we have fictitious “persons” called corporations. When Boeing agreed to pay $615 million, Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher didn’t pay a dime. Who is paying? Boeing shareholders. It is like actions against bad public employees. Who pays for individuals’ wrongdoing? Taxpayers.

    If the laws were to be changed to hold public employees and corporate heads individually accountable for misfeasance and malfeasance, we’d have a different, more honest nation.

  4. Nick
    Posted May 26, 2006 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    I think it is all kind of comical because any legislation that comes from it, is going to highlight exactly who is working for their own self serving interests, and who is really there as a representative of the people.Had someone told me there would be all this outrage and support for representatives to use their offices as a safe haven to hide incriminating evidence against them, I’d have said they were nuts.I just hope some sharp newspaper types are cataloging and making note of those who would create an additional extension of congessional immunity from ethical and lawful behaivor.

  5. Joe Williams
    Posted May 26, 2006 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    They make me upset, thinking they are above the law.

  6. writerdog
    Posted May 27, 2006 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    If you are not for me then you are against me, I can think of only a few reasons that a high member of the Government should be free from a raid done on their offices. All of which deal with the operation of the Government….. I should say the above board operation of the Government. But the raid in this case is not one of them but the classic example of when they should not be free from their offices being raided. But only with a warrant, a Congressman should not be above the law the same as the law should not be above following the law.Yes the uproar is not about this Congressman and his dirt it is about all those that fear the mess in their own office.

  7. Sum1
    Posted May 27, 2006 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    I have a coworker from Syria, who’s family knows an entertainer who was denied entry in the US because he’s Muslim. My coworker’s sister recently died. When I called his house to express my condolences did I find myself in the line of phone switches? Is it that easy to unconstituionally be swept up in this wave of lawlessness?

    I bring this up because it amazes me the Congress can now cry about the constitution. When it has to do with you and me the constitution isn’t something to fight for.