http://www.house.gov/bass/cl_052606.html

"FBI Raid of Congressman Jefferson�s Office

The FBI raid on Congressman William Jefferson�s office may have been aggressive and a breach from a long-standing tradition, but I do not believe it was improper. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution should not be misconstrued as shielding Members of Congress from investigation of criminal behavior. Members should not be shielded from investigation simply because evidence of criminal behavior may be located in their taxpayer-funded offices. Such thinking is an outrageous affront to those citizens who have chosen us to represent them."

Where to start? How about here: House Rep. and Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Caleefornia) is facing a revolt from - surprise - the Congressional Black Caucus. Essentially, they’ve accused her of a ‘racial double standard’ of sorts...

Ross has some explaining to do, especially with Hastert threatening legal action against ABC for publishing news reports that it knows to be false. Hastert's counsel has written demanding a retraction of the story...

Please, Jamesâ?? links on the legality of the issue are pretty clear.

And as I suggested, I've not seen any convincing arguments there, either; I think the raid perfectly legal and proper. We don't disagree at all on the validity of the arguments, Steve.

But that he makes arguments does not of itself suggest he's siding with Jefferson, or covering any criminality of his own, either, particularly when other, less interested parties, have taken up similar arguments to his.

That said, there are a number of reasons why someone might take up such an argument. All the things you suggest are Hasterts motivations, I state are Pelosi's. Pelosi, after all, has a far more substantial record of clearly less than honnorable motivations than Hastert, in my view.

My presumption is that this is the Cynthia McKinney Syndrome writ large: they seem to believe they are privileged and not subject to the same enforcement of laws that normal citizens are. They only seem to be concerned when it might be their telephone records being scrutinized or their offices searched.

I think those calling for the congressional offices to be sacrosanct from search are going about it wrong. There is a way to respond to this if you really think it was wrong. Write an amendment, get 2/3 of congress to vote for it and then send your congress critters home on break to persuade their states to adopt the amendment. Then they can have all the privilege they want. Saying 219 years on not doing it means it shouldn't be done is not the way. Now whether you could get 2/3 of congress to agree to specific wording on an amendment when the polls start showing up, let alone the states to pass it, is an open question. But that is how the congress protects its turf in a checks and balances game.

If the FBI raided Murtha because he might have been involved in the CIA leaks, I would man the barricades with Hastert. Not because I think Murtha is in any way right or that the CIA leaks shouldn't be prosecuted, but because it would look like the executive branch trying to intimidate a critic in congress. That sort of abuse is the only thing I could imagine that congress could be trying to defend against. But this isn't that case. I suspect that in the 8 months of stonewalling, there were more than one FBI memo to Hastert and Pelosi asking for cooperation on getting the subpoenaed items resolved. They should have been quietly pushing to cooperate with the FBI. If they think the charges are bogus, then go public 8 months ago. If they think there was something behind the charges, then use the capital police to execute the subpoena if they want to keep things in the family. But the fact that they didn't keep their own nest clean does not mean they should now see the monsters under the bed.

Pelosi is siding with Hastert and the rest with the "this is wrong, the FBI has no right to search a Congressional office" schtick. It is contemptible.

Bithead,

Please, James' links on the legality of the issue are pretty clear. The part of the Constitution that Hastert et. al. are citing doesn't cover hiding evidence of criminal behavior in one's congressional office.

Mind you, I have my problems with Hastert as well (UNrelated to this) and I think the constitutional issue he brings up just now a bit misguided. But the concern he raises is, I think, far less sinister than you're making it, Steve.

Please Bithead. Pelosi and Hastert have taken actions, these actions are what have shaped my views of them (for the record I had pretty much no views on either of them prior to this). Saying that their actions are not part of what is shaping my views of them is just nonsense.

SV

the more correct question, is who has somehting to gain from spreading the perception that they do?

Oh please. Hastert and Pelosi only have themselves to blame in this case as they have decided to side with Jefferson.

Some of this argument we're seeing is genuinely a question of constitutional inteprtetation.... one that's not been decided yet. How else to account for the publicly taken position of Gingrich, as an example?

In general, it seems to me that the reason that these issues are as yet undecided, is that the conduct of the Congresscritters has never been bad enough to warrant these questions being brought to the front and center, before.

Particularly, the reason the questions have never been forced before is because weâ??ve not had people like Democrat Jefferson, perviously. Clearly, being caught with cash in the freezer is enough to end most of the arguments about his guilt or innoence in the minds of Americans, thereby requiring action.

One gets the impression that this is not a matter of covering some sort of criminal activity so much as arguing a major, unsettled constitutional question.

Personally, Iâ??m inclined to think the search and subsequent gathering of evdience resulting from that search to be legal, and proper, but I donâ??t think that Hastert and Gingrich (and others, for large part) arguing otherwise is indcative for anything other than an unfounded constitutional concern.

I mean, the timing of the arguments being posed sucks, but when else would such constitutional questions have come up, previously?

And as for:

What does Hastert and Pelosi have to hide?â??

the more correct question, is who has somehting to gain from spreading the perception that they do?