No one may care about this, but it's been pissing me off all day.
I've seen some disasters in my time, but this one just takes the cake. Having worked there (and acknowledging that it could be considered that I have a law enforcement bias now), the reaction to the "raid" on Congressman Jefferson's office is downright embarrassing.
Never mind that the Congressman has apparently been recorded on tape accepting a $100,000 bribe, never mind that $90,000 of that was found in his freezer, and never mind that he refused to comply with a subpoena for documents in his office, the House GOP in its increasingly diminished wisdom thinks that the real problem is that the FBI removed documents from a House office building with a search warrant.
Basically, they are arguing that the Constitution created a safe zone in the Capitol and in the House Office Buildings to commit crimes if they so wish. Under their logic, a Congressman can accept bribes in his office and law enforcement can't try to wiretap it. Under their logic, a Congressman can sell drugs out of his office, and law enforcement can't do anything about it. Under their logic, a Congressman can keep evidence of a murder in his office and law enforcement can do nothing about it.
Maintaining separation of powers and upholding the perogatives of Congress are important, but not at the expense of putting yourself above the law, which is where they are saying they are.
Honestly, I could not be more embarrassed to have thought these people were leaders of any sort.
3 comments:
I concur completely with Chris' outrage and analysis of the situation.
Defenders of what Chris refers to as a supposed "safe zone" quote as their support the "separation of powers" principle generally and the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause specifically.
In this case, first we must ask, "what separated power of the Legislature has the executive usurped or trampled in this instance?"
The answer is none. The law enforcement powers are granted to the President and the FBI through Article II of the Constitution, the 1870 Act Establishing the Department of Justice, and the 1907 Founding Order establishing the DOJ's "regular force of special agents" that became the FBI.
Moreover, there is no "power to commit crimes" in Article 1 (the Legislature-focused Article of the Constitution). Nor is there any power to prevent law enforcement from exercising its duties on Capitol Grounds...except for specific provisions protecting the legitimate performance of speech or debate and other behaviors in support of legislative responsibilities.
We now have only to ask, do the specific protections of "speech or debate" in Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution, create a broad "safe zone" that would prevent the FBI from searching Capitol Hill offices for evidence of criminal behaviors? The answer is no.
The provision states that Senators and Representatives "...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."
So, they cannot be arrested while at Congress unless in case of felony, treason, or Breach of Peace; nor can they be questioned criminally for words uttered during any session-related speech or debate.
So, what this provision really says is that no member of Congress may be persecuted or prosecuted by the executive branch by the legitimate exercise of legislative responsibilities and powers.
However, by no means does it create the sweeping "safe zone" that as Chris says, would allow Congresspeople to "accept bribes...sell drugs...(or) keep evidence of a murder...." in their offices without fear of discovery or investigation by law enforcement authorities acting under the auspices of the executive branch.
In fact, the Constitution even says explicitly that a Congressperson can be arrested within the grounds of the Capitol in cases of "...treason, felony, and breach of peace...." So, this immediately breaches the notion of some absolute protective wall between Congress and executive law enforcers on the Capitol grounds.
Moreover, any reasonable interpretation of Article 1, Section 6, must admit that if a Congressperson can be arrested for such crimes, certainly also law enforcement may pursue evidence of such crimes within the walls of the Capitol.
As Chris says, it is embarrassing that our representatives are reacting so ignorantly (or perhaps disingenuously) to the FBI's entirely legitimate exercise of law enforcement powers.
In other news (if anyone gets beyond Chapin's dissertation and is reading this, thanks) the informant who passed the money and wore the wire is my cousin-in-law's sister-in-law.
Dude, in my family, we just call them cousins.
Remember gentlemen -- there may be a "safe zone" on the hill, but if you're Phil Gramm's bushes, or Howard Coble's bar tab, there's no such thing as safety.
Post a Comment