TexasTiger 12,865 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Okay, I'm against warrantless searches, but in this case there was a warrant and the suspect had refused to turn over the subpoenaed documents. Hastert, Boehner and Sensenbrenner have gone ballistic. So whom do you agree with on this one: Hastert and Sensenbrenner or Harry Reid and Barney Frank? House Holds Hearing on FBI's Capitol Raid By LAURIE KELLMAN , 05.30.2006, 01:08 PM House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner said Tuesday he will summon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller before his panel to explain their decision to raid a lawmaker's office for the first time in history. "I want to have Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller up here to tell us how they reached the conclusion they did," said Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and one of President Bush's most loyal House allies. Sensenbrenner's hearings, which began Tuesday, are examining whether the May 20 raid violated the Constitution. Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. Any progress in talks between House and Justice Department lawyers in crafting guidelines for future criminal investigations of Congress would not deter Sensenbrenner from calling the administration to account for weekend search of Rep. William Jefferson's offices. "They didn't get it right this time," Sensenbrenner said. For his part, Gonzales has said that the search of Jefferson's offices was legal and necessary because the Louisiana Democrat had not cooperated with investigators' other efforts to gain access to evidence. An affidavit on which the search warrant was based said investigators had found $90,000 stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's house. The Justice Department filed court papers Tuesday opposing the congressman's demand that property seized in the office raid be returned. Such a step would be "fundamentally inconsistent with the bedrock principle that 'the laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime,'" the papers said, quoting language from a near-century-old Supreme Court case. Jefferson's interpretation would remove courts from their traditional role of ruling on privilege claims and would subvert the principle that members of Congress are not immune from ordinary criminal procedures, the department said in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. While not defending Jefferson, Sensenbrenner made clear his opposition to the raid on constitutional grounds, titling Tuesday's hearing "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?" Calling it the first of three hearings into the matter, Sensenbrenner was not mollified by President Bush's order last week to seal the case, nor behind-the-scenes negotiations since then toward establishing a procedure for future searches. At the session, Democrats said a member of the Bush administration, and not just legal experts, should have been called before the panel to answer for the raid. "We've never been told why the search had to be done in the middle of the night," noted ranking Democrat John Conyers of Michigan. "We've never learned why the member in question was not permitted to have his attorneys present while his offices were searched for some 18 hours." The hearing comes more than a week after the FBI conducted an overnight raid of Jefferson's Rayburn House Office Building suite as part of a bribery investigation, without giving House leaders advance notice. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a rare joint statement last week protesting the raid as a violation of constitutional separation of powers protections. One witness at the hearing, former Rep. Bob Walker, R-Pa., said Congress should play hardball in seeking answers to its questions by subpoenaing administration documents authorizing the raid. "The American people should be deeply concerned that a decision to conduct a raid on Congress was made consciously and evidently at high levels inside the Justice Department and the FBI," Walker told the panel. "If the Rayburn raid was a precedent for coming attractions and intimidating tactics, the way Congress responds initially must be improved." House and Justice Department lawyers are trying to agree on guidelines for any future searches in criminal investigations - including the FBI's influence-peddling probe centered around convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Across the Capitol meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., joined his Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, over the weekend in declining to criticize the FBI for the raid. Frist said he does not believe the law enforcement agency violated the separation of powers. http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/.../ap2781110.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Sounds like territorial to me. A bunch of elected legislators scared that a precedence is being set and they all may get busted by the unethical things they do. Regardless of party, every one of these guys do things that violate ethics codes and they know it! Withing the last year, I have become more disillusioned with all of our politicians and am sick of career politicians. I don't think our forefathers ever intended there ever to be such a thing as a "career politician". You know how to tell the difference between an honest politician and a crooked one? The honest politician does not run again after a couple of elected terms because he refuses to compromise and become crooked with the rest of the lifetime politicians. I still support Bush strongly, but even he lately has given me reasons to gripe about him. In all honestly, and my fellow conservatives are going to probably shoot me for saying this, but the only elected offical from this state that serves at the federal level that has not did anything to tick me off is Bud Cramer, a democrat. Bud is a conservative democrat, if there is such a thing, but he seems to listen to his people more and take care of the needs of those who elected him. He has worked together well with Gov. Riley, a Republican, to bring alot of good things to North Alabama, both industrial and community programs. I have yet to hear of any hint of any type of ethics issues with Cramer. He is the reason I don't vote a straight republican ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 You know how to tell the difference between an honest politician and a crooked one? The honest politician does not run again after a couple of elected terms because he refuses to compromise and become crooked with the rest of the lifetime politicians. 237632[/snapback] You mean they would not prostitute their core beliefs for any amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 TERM LIMITS! 2 terms and you're done....with NO LIFETIME PAYCHECK! These crooks in DC need to be reminded by the American people that they are not above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 You know how to tell the difference between an honest politician and a crooked one? The honest politician does not run again after a couple of elected terms because he refuses to compromise and become crooked with the rest of the lifetime politicians. 237632[/snapback] But then there is a relatively famous quote from some legendary politician (I'm paraphrasing): "If you can't steal enough in one or two terms, you're not a very good politician". Does anyone know the source of this quote? I'm thinking it came from one of the notorious Long's of Louisiana, but I'm not sure. TERM LIMITS! 2 terms and you're done....with NO LIFETIME PAYCHECK! These crooks in DC need to be reminded by the American people that they are not above the law. 237674[/snapback] ...Or perhaps the American people need to be reminded that it's their duty to vote wisely and kick the crooks out of office after one term! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 You know how to tell the difference between an honest politician and a crooked one? The honest politician does not run again after a couple of elected terms because he refuses to compromise and become crooked with the rest of the lifetime politicians. 237632[/snapback] But then there is a relatively famous quote from some legendary politician (I'm paraphrasing): "If you can't steal enough in one or two terms, you're not a very good politician". Does anyone know the source of this quote? I'm thinking it came from one of the notorious Long's of Louisiana, but I'm not sure. TERM LIMITS! 2 terms and you're done....with NO LIFETIME PAYCHECK! These crooks in DC need to be reminded by the American people that they are not above the law. 237674[/snapback] ...Or perhaps the American people need to be reminded that it's their duty to vote wisely and kick the crooks out of office after one term! 237677[/snapback] As I have said before, in a perfect world, that is the way it is supposed to work. However, too many Americans don't take the time to educate themselves properly when they vote and just stick with the incumbent because he already has the "experience". Also, alot of these career politicians do just enough to not make their voters mad, but they don't do anything beyond the minimal. They also do alot of unethical stuff the longer they are in office, but unless those things are brought to light, the voters are none the wiser. That is the reason that the legislators from both parties are upset about the FBI search. They don't want to give any right to have their stuff searched either. Sometimes laws have to be passed to protect the people from its own ignorance. Term limits is one of them. If they President of the United States has a term limit, then why not our elected legislators? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Sometimes laws have to be passed to protect the people from its own ignorance. Term limits is one of them. If they President of the United States has a term limit, then why not our elected legislators? 237678[/snapback] Preach it, brother! Let's start a petition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.