| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2939
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:14 am: | 
|
This is strange. I'm suprised he would inject himself into this.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_House_Speaker_assails_Gonzales_FBI_0523.ht ml |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 544
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Makes you wonder what's in his freezer, doesn't it?
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2941
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/ABC_News_Hastert_fingered_by_Abramoff_0524.htm l
oh...got it. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3386
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 8:58 am: |
|
So Congress is all upset because the Admin has violated its privacy? Well, at least in this case the Admin got a warrant first before it busted into Jefferson's Capitol lair. Now perhaps these candy-arse pompous morons will know how we feel having the NSA routinely monitor our phones without reason or warrant (let alone having a President authorize corporate heads to lie about their cooperation in undermining our civil rights).
On second thought, there is no way these hypocrites will see the irony in this at all. |
HOMMELL
Citizen
Username: Hommell
Post Number: 197
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
This is a separation of powers issue. It is bigger than party politics. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5000
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
I can't tell you how refreshing it his to hear that ANYTHING is bigger than party politics these days. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2951
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
I don't want anything to interfere with this investigation. Jefferson is a bum. If this is going someplace funky, where pressure is going to be taken off members of congress in some kind of bipartisan deal, it's pichfork and torch time. I think this whole thing, with the 45 day waiting period, stinks. Something very strange is going on. I don't believe that Hastert and Bush are motivated by constitutional concerns. They are working to save someone's bacon somehow somewhere.
Don't forget this:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_en ded_guam_investigation/ |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2956
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Some context. Interesting. I guess maybe the objections are more valid than I thought:
"This triggers a confrontation under the "speech and debate" clause in the Constitution. The question on the validity of the warrant will be, I think, whether or not there was some triggering piece of information that Rep. Jefferson was attempting to use his office as a means to hide illicit information and/or to shield himself and whether that was the basis for obtaining the warrant. If Rep. Jefferson was using his constitutional protections as a means to avoid prosecution, then the warrant may stand up — because you never, ever want to reward someone for using a loophole to subvert the investigative process — Congressman or not.
Absent some extraordinary showing of that sort, an executive branch investigative agency would not have the authority to do this sort of search on Legislative branch property. It has never, in the history of the Congress, been done before. It’s really unprecedented — that’s why I’m wondering if there was an extraordinary show of cause in the warrant as to why this needed to be done, because I can’t think of any other valid reason for a federal judge to grant them access under the "speech and debate" protections that usually are in place.
And I do wonder why it took the FBI months and months after allegedly finding all this cold, hard cash in Rep. Jefferson’s freezer before they decided to search his office — at a time when GOP corruption stories were all over the news.
I mean, honestly, the timing is a little weird and I wonder what they needed from the Congressional office that they didn’t already have with their videotape of Jefferson allegedly accepting a bribe, the videotape of him allegedly removing said money from the back of the briber’s car and taking it to his own and then the alleged finding of the cash in his freezer. Why raid his Congressional office when you have a case that seems pretty darn solid? There are investigative reasons to do so — but it was a truly unprecedented move, and one that ought to have required very extraordinary circumstances before it was executed.
I suppose my confusion arises from the fact that Duke Cunningham, former representative from California who has now plead guilty to bribery charges, wrote out a "bribe menu" on his Congressional office stationary…and they didn’t search his office. And Tom DeLay has been running a virtual KStreet ATM machine for the GOP out of his office…and it hasn’t been raided. Or the fact that Bob Ney’s office has remained intact. Or…well, you get the picture."
www.firedoglake.com |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5003
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
For national security reasons it was vital to establish a corrupt Democrat on the front page of the newspaper.
If cjc or any others can give a good rebuttal to that I'd love to hear it. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 520
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Amendment IV to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [END]
So, unless you want to throw the Fourth Amendment out the door in your endless efforts to destroy Pres. Bush, why would you let a corrupt Congressman have more rights than we the People?
jd
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3247
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
As I'm sure you're aware, Congresscritters have several rights and priviledges that us ordinary citizens don't. Just as they are exempt from many laws that we are not. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2959
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
The whole thing is strange. We are supposed to believe that Bush acted on principle? And that the principle involved dampening the power of the exec branch? Very odd. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page