As if we ever didn’t, now we know why Newt Gingrich – despite all his intelligence – ended up on the outside looking in as a Fox News Contributor instead of Speaker of the House or more. He has a tin ear to the most obvious (and honest) public opinion. In fact, declaring the arrest of a House member for, among other things, stashing a mysterious 90 silverfoil- wrapped grand in a freezer, a Separation of Powers issue in a year when public disgust with politicians is at or near an all-time high is more like having a Van Gogh Ear than a tin one – i. e. none at all. Sure Consitutional Lawyers can parse this issue until every Mad Cow comes home, but to the rest of us it just sounds like this guy Jefferson was videotaped in the act more than anybody but Paris Hilton and better explain it. And we don’t need William of Occam to tell us we care more about this Congress Character standing trial than whether he was taped by the FBI, the Capitol Police or America’s Favorite Home Videos. When someone like Gingrich wraps himself in the cloak of the Constitution on something like this, we don’t think about the Founding Fathers. We think which about which of our current fathers has his hand in the cookie jar too. And as for the Dems, they better get Jefferson off stage quick or they can say sayonara to the corruption issue in 2006.
I’ve always thought that columnists who have
to file columns twice a week end up sounding stupid. Krauthammer files once a week, and only once a week, that is why he always sounds considered and wise.
Imagine if you are trying to make a name for yourself on Fox or Hardball and Sean or Bill or Chris call you up twice a week and ask for you to educate and enlighten the great unwashed American TV watching public. It is a tough thankless job to be on stage all the time. Idiot comments come with the territory.
Indeed.
(in the words of someone who comments more frequently than Gingrich, but seems to get it right an extraordinary amount of the time)
I hope they prosecute every senator or congressman that they find with bribe money or playing pattycake with Special Interest Groups. I could care less which party they are from, nor how much/little they happened to accept. Public officials should be held to a very high standard and bribery on there part, seems as much treason to me as anything that any anti-war nutjob has spouted in the past 5 years.
Gingrich displays for all to see the main reason that he is no longer a force with which to contend. Tired, hackneyed “insider” rhetoric when the FBI clearly followed all the rules to get a warrant to search Jefferson’s office.
Makes you wonder what difference it would make if the NSA sought warrants for their intelligence gathering. Once you get inside the beltway, you’ve gone through the looking glass and nothing is what it seems…
Newt was a history professor before he was a Congressman. As such, he generally has a good grasp of the sweep of history, but is generally weak on legal issues. This is an instance of his somewhat limited grasp of the constitution’s legal concept of separation of powers.
The warrant was issued by a Federal Court upon probable cause based on sworn testimony of an agent of the Executive Branch, who was investigating a potential crime already legislated by Congress.
Is that a violation of the legislative process merely because the accused perp is a member of that body and his office is the object of the warrant?
Does Occam’s razor come with three, four or five blades; it’s so hard to keep up with now-a-days?
I think that all members of Congres, the House and the Senate, should be subject to random and targeted financial auditing just like all members of the FBI, the Treasury Dept., and the other federal law enforcement agencies. Add to that term limits of a very short nature…
a.) President: 1-6 yr term
b.) Senate: 2-4 yr terms
c.) House: 2-3 yr terms
and we’d go a long way to restricting abusive and illegal use of position. This would also go a long way to cutting down on campaigning, thereby allowing the federally elected officials to spend more time on their jobs as opposed to spending more to keep their jobs.
You are looking at this from an outside-the-Beltway view. The key to understanding the Congressional outrage is this: Preservation of perogatives, which include power and perks.
I think it’s terrific that the DOJ is going after Rep. Jefferson, since the evidence seems to be iron-clad that he is guilty. But the Executive Branch raiding a Legislative Branch office is nothing to sneeze at. There is a reason this isn’t done–it’s called the Constitution. And the Constitution gives each branch certain powers. This raid brutishly steps on the Legislative Branch’s foot, which will kick back.
Congress never gives a hoot about public opinion; you read about that every day. That’s why they have a ‘tin-ear’ on this issue, because they don’t care what all of us think. Members are solely interested in the preservation of their perogatives.
I predict you’ll see impeachment proceedings of some nature against AG Gonzales for this. They’ll go nowhere, but that’s not the point. Congress sending a message back to the Executive Branch of “don’t tread on me” will be the point of such actions.
Good political theatre for all of us in D.C., though. -PB, ex-House staffer
I think you’re picking on Gingrich a little unfairly here. Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, and Nancy Pelosi have all raised the constitutional issue. I happen to agree with you that they are nuts to do so. Nevertheless, Gingrich’s reaction was hardly an isolated one.
Posh boy: What do you mean “there is a reason this isn’t done — it’s called the Constitution?” I wasn’t aware that the Constitution specified that the office space of the members of the legislative branch is off-limits to any criminal investigation. In what way is carrying out a physical search for evidence a violation of the separation of powers? Is searching a Congressman’s office a legislative function? Wouldn’t your view effectively bestow immunity upon a legislator for any criminal act carried out in his office, if police were barred from entering and searching the office for evidence?
I think Posh and Steven are right on regarding the practical political implications of the office search. I was speaking from the perspective of a lawyer, not of either a politician or a student of politics. Of course, the “correct” legal outcome is often totally at odds with the political outcome.
I am pretty sure P and S are also right that the Congressional Leadership in both houses and on both sides of the aisle will go to the mattresses on this one. They must do so as a matter of preservation of institutional power which is at the heart of their leadership role.
The “tin ear” might be with the Justice Department. Then again, this might be another of those shots across the bow by the Bush Administration to let Congress know it is not going to be open season on the Executive Branch, no matter what the outcome in November.
Maybe Occam’s razor is inapplicable here, and there is more than meets the eye.
Fun inside the beltway. Always good for blogging. More grist for the Pajama Game mill.
Now we’ll see if Jefferson walks or not. Over the years, ever since Ted Kennedy walked from a manslaughter indictment, we’ve changed into a nation of men, and away from being a nation of laws. Wrapping ones self in the Constitution in an attempt to thwart legal prosecution just amplifies this. At this point in time, in my opinion, there’s one set of laws and punishments for those in power, and a completely different set for those of us who are not. Given the nation that we’ve morphed into, I suspect this will be swept under the congressional rug pretty quickly, and then back to business as usual. After all, Jefferson got caught (tsk … tsk), but it does make one wonder who and how many didn’t.
Steven, you are confusing immunity from prosection and process of investigation. Law enforcement departments of the Executive Branch cannot execute search warrants on the Legislative Branch, especially so on property under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch. Only a law enforcement department of the Legislative Branch–in this case, the Capitol Police–can do that. The FBI way overstepped its jurisdiction with this; they should have asked the Capitol Police to assist with the investigation.
And I’d wager it was done this way on purpose. While I am not a lawyer, you would think the DOJ, filled with top legal minds, would know these simple Constitutional facts of separation of powers?
And vnjagvet is absolutely right. Regardless of the legal issues, both sides have to go to the mattresses on this. Politics in its most raw form just raised its ugly head. And it’s a shame, for we have much more to debate in this country than this nonsense.
No one has mentioned that Jefferson is probably breathing a big sigh of relief; this really helps his case. Why DOJ would have done it this way is beyond me–I can’t figure it out.
There is more than meets the eye in this case. And just think, we all get to blog about it! I think we found our summer political scandal…
Gee, jedrury, bloggers post 5 to 10 times a day, and yet, most of the ones I read would never say something as stupid as this.
AST:
Bloggers are special people sitting at home in their pajamas scratching themselves and petting the cat.
Oooops, it may the other way around for some.
I am no lawyer, but I fail to understand why it is a breach of anything if the FBI vs the Capitol Police does a search. In the end the point is the guy is a crook and it seems he has no great respect for the law himself.
Roger:
Term limits will “curtail corruption” in the same way that McCain Feingold limited campaign spending. There is no magic bullit. Any way you set up terms for political office, there will be those who take advantage of their position of power to steal and those who don’t. Someone will be voting on bills. Term limits do nothing to eliminate dishonesty. Those who are willing to steal will just do it quicker.
No matter how you try to set it up, voters have to take responsibility for who they vote for. Let’s face it, if Jefferson’s apparent crimes are not enough incentive for the voters of his district to vote him out then term limits will not guarantee that they won’t vote another crook in. And those who bribe government officials will still try to practice their proffession. Term limits will get the bums out faster. They will also remove those who are good out too.
I live in California. Nothing would make me more happy then the dream of Sen. Boxer already being out of office, especially since I helped vote her in. But my fellow voters would have voted someone with similar idea’s in her place because she meets their political needs. And even though I hate her politics I don’t think she is corrupt, even though she has been there for a long time.
Everyone thinks the Congress is bad, but they vote the same people back in over and over again. The joy of representitive democracy is that voters get to choose who they send to Washington. That is also the burden. The responsibility lies on the voters, and non-voters, and there is no magic bullit that will stop corruption. Instead of term limits, we should fight for maximum transparency and we should work on our neighbors and friends to take voting seriously. We will always have crooks in government and the solution is not term limits. If a crook thinks he has only 3 years to cash in he will just do it faster or take his bribes in post service perks. Corrupt people have a amazing capacity to adapt to the circumstances. And term limits will not help the voters in their voting taste.
I read elsewhere that the FBI got a searh warrant from a Judge Hogan following the failure of Capitol police to comply. Makes you wonder.
Posh boy: Thanks for clarifying what you say is the Constitutional issue. But quite honestly, as far as I can see the Constitution does not make any mention of a “Capitol police” force (or any other special police force) having any special jurisdiction over the physical space occupied by the legislative branch. That may be historical custom, but again, I’m not sure one can legitimately say it’s a “Constitutional” issue. (And I wasn’t saying that Congressman had actual immunity from prosecution; I meant that the inability of the police to carry out any investigation would effectively create the equivalent of such an immunity.)
I see no constitutional problem whatsoever when the FBI searches the office of a congressional member possibly involved in criminal activity. This seems to be nothing more than a long established custom. But why should any elected official be able to hide evidence in their office? This essentially would give them a free pass to continue breaking the law.
This is hardly the first time that the FBI has gone after corrupt Congressmen. Remember Abscam?
Since when does being a government employee (and that includes members of Congress) mean that you’re immune from prosecution? Sure, NASA management can kill two Shuttle crews and the “asked to retire”, a member of the VA can steal the personal information on 26.5 million veterans (including me) and be put on “administrative leave”, Ted Kennedy can kill a woman and get off, his son can have a wreck while driving under the influence and get off, and Sandy Berger can stuff code word SAP/SAR classified information in his pants and smuggle it out of the building and get off. But why do we let them get away with it?
If the FBI has the goods on Jefferson, they should frog walk him out of Congress just the same as they’d do to any of us. Some say we get the government we deserve. Perhaps we get the government we allow.
I want to get this straight. We elect congressional representatives over and over again, who are not ‘good’. They are therefore permanent fixtures in our political system. We then want to convert other nations systems that basically operate the same way, to our ‘supposedly’ better system. Is there something wrong here or am I just not getting the concept?
All i get out of the latest from the dummies in congress is the statement “We are above the law’. Wasn’t there a movie in the past that highlighted this same thing, criminals in government that think they are above the law?
“We then want to convert other nations systems that basically operate the same way, to our ‘supposedly’ better system. Is there something wrong here or am I just not getting the concept?”
No, Blogengeezer, you’re not. Democracy is not a perfect system. No one says it is (read your Churchill and E. M. Forster on that). But it is vastly better than the fascist and religio-fascist dictatorships we aim to replace. Rep. Jefferson may have stolen a bit of money. Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, cut their tongues out and stole billions of dollars in the process. If you don’t see the difference, I don’t know how to talk to you.
I thought that would get a response. I was being a bit antagonistic just to see what others would say. I have read several books lately refering to Iraq before as well as after SH. My opinion is that the next generation of ‘Congressional representatives’ are going to be much superior to the group that we have to put up with now.
The reason being is the hundreds of thousands of excellent troops returning after seeing the difference in our ‘civilization’, to what has been imposed on the people of Iraq for the last 30 plus years.
These troops are going to enter politics all across the USA for years to come. They are a far different breed than the 60′s crowd we have had to deal with in this generation.
The Universities are experiencing the same 60′s attitude in their tenured professors, that will change as well. I have great hope for the future of this great nation. Thank you for responding and God Bless you.
Gingrich’s problem is a tin ear to common morality, not a tin ear to public opinion…on the other hand, as a conservative Democrat, Maybe he does have a tin ear to public opinion…
Gingrich always reminds me of the scene in A Man for All Seasons..where Thomas More tells a young man to be a teacher because he wouldn’t be able to resist the corruption of politics…Gingrich, like that young man, is a great teacher…but his actions show he is corrupt. (e.g. divorcing his first wife when she was dying of cancer, shtupping his secretary while impeaching Clinton)
The best response to the confusion about Legislative Branch authority, who or what is a “government employee,” etc. I found via the link below.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/hastert-successfully-takes-focus-off.html#114848047044265078
“The congressional response has to do with how co-equal branches of government deal with each other. The House has a Sergeant at Arms. The FBI should have gone to THAT office – it’s a certified LEO – and together the FBI and Sergeant at Arms take the office in question apart. Yes, Hastert has a tin ear on this, but he’s not talking about the underlying crime, he’s talking about procedure.
“Legislatures around the country have their own rules and procedures – dating back to the colonial period and beyond – that have force of law. Yes, it can get arcane. And that was evidently what Jefferson was depending on…
“The Sergeant at Arms maintains the order of the House under the direction of the Speaker and is the keeper of the Mace. As a member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board, the Sergeant at Arms is the chief law enforcement officer for the House and serves as Board Chairman each even year.”
You have to understand that a person working for Congress is NOT a government employee. Government employees as commonly understood by the public are Executive Branch personnel (IRS agents, Treasury clerks, Cabinet members, etc.). While working in the House, I was not considered a government employee. I was a Legislative Branch employee. Outside the Beltway, D.C. may look all the same, but legally and Constitutionally it isn’t.
This whole mess smells as bad as the “Diplomatic Immunity” that protects the hoodlums at the UN. Isn’t taking a bribe from FEDERAL investigators a felony?
From the Constitution Article I, Section 6
“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. 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.
The separated part is the key, I’d go so far as to say that, during time of war, bribing a Senator (or being bribed as one) should be considered treason.
Our country is supposed to be “One Law for All” not “this for me and this for thee”
I hope they find more of these scrofflaws and prosecute them ALL, whatever party affiliation.
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Well, hell, since it seems OK to turn UN missions into an organized crime concessions and mosques into armories, I suppose it was only a matter of time before we’d see the government offices of a democracy turned into a Mulberry Street ‘social club.’
Those who get away with this seem to have power or media approval or public apathy or some combination of all three working in their favor.
Wake me when we get to the ‘might makes right’ stage. At least the rules will be clear.
Posh boy,
Your comment –
“Law enforcement departments of the Executive Branch cannot execute search warrants on the Legislative Branch, especially so on property under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch. Only a law enforcement department of the Legislative Branch–in this case, the Capitol Police–can do that. The FBI way overstepped its jurisdiction with this; they should have asked the Capitol Police to assist with the investigation.”
This is, I believe, utterly and completely without merit. What is your authority for such a sweeping generalization?
Simply repeating it, as you keep doing, will not make it so either. There may be those who wish that this was true, but it is not. There was a judicial warrant obtained to conduct the search. Perhaps you could be so kind as to direct all of us to any case holding for the proposition as you have stated it? Rest assured, I won’t hold my breath waiting for your reply, which seems to derive from the notable distinction of your having been a former employee of the Legislative branch. You concede you’re not a lawyer.
In the first place, the FBI had an obligation to follow up, having obtained such a clear indication of felonious criminal activity. The constitutional privilege from arrest at the session that house (and senate) members enjoy during attendance, does not shield a member from felonious activity. In fact it states that the privilege does not shield them from “treason, felony and breach of the peace.” Bribery is and always was a felony. And I would add that this allegation of bribery is particularly egregious, as it is specifically and directly related to Jefferson’s constitutional duties as a Congressman. The allegation is that he put his vote up for sale!
If you think for a moment that the federal courts — going all the way up — are going to let this Congressman successfully challenge the execution of an otherwise properly executed and judicially sanctioned search warrant, and get away with it because the Capitol police were not asked to assist in the search, I think you are dreaming. That would provide every member and Senator with a guaranteed “safe harbor” defense to try and hide the fruits of crimes they want to commit, so long as it is done within the Halls of Congress. You think the Courts will uphold this proposition simply because any “investigation” would have to have included participation by a police force which answers to them, and which is sworn to protect them?
On the question of whether bribery is a felony, ask former Congressman Frank Thompson (NJ) if taking a suitcase full of dough — $50,000.00 as I recall — was a felony or not!
One additional observation, if I may: Proof positive that brevity truly is the soul of wit.
Eugene Volokh, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, reacted here,
http://volokh.com/posts/1148525780.shtml
to the Congressional suggestion that they will hold hearings on the “unconstitutional,” though judicially-sanctioned execution of the search warrant at the Office of Congressman Jefferson, and he (Volokh) selected what he termed:
“My Favorite Suggestion for More Congressional Hearings, from an anonymous comment to Orin’s post below:”
“WARRANTS: Not good enough for us, too good for you.”
Heh.