Members of Congress Must Be Held to the Same Standards as the Citizens

FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned
Democrat Jefferson Denies Wrongdoing

By Dan Eggen and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 23, 2006; Page A01

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker. The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

Republican leaders, who previously sought to focus attention on the Jefferson case as a counterpoint to their party's own ethical scandals, said they are disturbed by the raid. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

-----------------SNIP-----------------

At issue is the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution -- language intended to shield lawmakers from intimidation by the executive branch. Historically, courts have interpreted the clause broadly, legal experts said.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Come now Mr. Gingrich, I believe you are hyperbolizing. It is true that members of Congress must be able to perform their duties free from the threat of harrassment or intimidation by an over-reaching Executive of Judicial branch, but any reasonable reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the "speech or debate clause explicitly exempts "treason, felony and breach of the peace." Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 1 states, in part:

"...They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Now I'm sorry, but I believe that suspicion of receiving a $100,000 bribe by any definition falls under the heading of "felony," as well as being a violation of the public trust.

While it is true that we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, without an investigation, how will we know whether of not Mr. Jefferson is guilty or not? Ms. Nancy "the Wicked Witch of the West" Pelosi says "[these] investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent." Would that she held other tradition and historical traditions in as high esteem (like not criticizing the President during a time of War or not giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war). I suspect her outrage is more about her fear that Jeffersons crimes destroy the myth (as promoted by the Democrat Party) that corruption is the sole province of the Republican Party.

As for the general outrage on both sides of the aisle at this "intrusion" into their privileged chambers, perhaps this indicative of the general contempt members of Congress seem to hold for the people as a whole. We are repeated told by those in Congress and in the mainstream media (MSM) that "sunlight is the best disinfectant," why is this true for some but not for all?

Again, I understand the need for members of Congress to be free of the fear of harrassment and intimidation in the pursuit of their assigned tasks, Legislators must be free to debate and exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights, but when the commission of a crime is involved, this insulation must have limits.

Full Story: "...All Men Were Created Equal..."

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below