Crooks, Thieves and Liars (UPDATED)
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Politics, Useless Swine8:22 pm
When you read something like this:
House leaders of both parties stood in rare election-year unanimity Wednesday demanding the FBI surrender documents it took and remove agents involved in the weekend raid of a congressman’s office.
“The Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
…and if, by the Grace of G-d, you’re equipped with a brain and just the most basic of knowledge about human nature, the first two words to pop up in your mind should be “Guilty Conscience.”
So imagine our non-surprise when we read this at the Daily Pundit:
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.
Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.
Yes, he’s most certainly innocent until proven guilty, but you’d have to have the brains of a squished snail to NOT see some dots offering themselves up for easy and immediate connection.
And, considering that the above “we’re above the law!” squeal was completely unanimous, the only logical conclusion is that they all need to be fired in November. Every last one of them.
But we should search their offices first. We could always use the heaps of bribes and embezzled funds to pay off the national debt.
UPDATE: Hastert claims, and the DOJ confirms, that he’s not under investigation. Apparently ABC, er, “got a bit too far in front of the news cycle” on this one. Keeping in mind that it certainly wouldn’t be the first time and that the DOJ confirms, we’ll accept that. But it doesn’t change the fact that he and the rest of the crooked, bought-and-paid-for weasels sure sound like they OUGHT to be investigated.
Entries (RSS)
I always wondered what it would take to unite Congress…..now we know, don’t we? Mike Savage ripped those boys a new asshole this afternoon, leaving me with tears of laughter. I’d love to see the rotties run things for a while………..Misha for president!
May 24th, 2006 at 8:43 pmThe DOJ says he is not under investigation and ABC is wrong!
May 24th, 2006 at 8:50 pmWhat are the chances of ABC being wrong? Hmm, I might bet my own money on that but Hastert and the turds are sure acting like they’ve had their fingers in the honeypot!
First, maybe…
Curses! Foiled again!
May 24th, 2006 at 8:51 pmmy Friend Caveman sez:
I say: Caveman for CIA chief. waddya say sir?
nazi pelosi called for william jefferson to resign his spot on Ways and Means today. She probably wanted him to get out of the way so she could start calling for hastert’s resignation….so what’s the more heinous crime here? writing a letter influencing some tribe’s gambling rights and taking $26,000 or getting caught taking $100,000 and stashing it in your freezer or getting rich taking bribes from defense contractors or…or…jeeez there’s too many crimes to list, just too damned many crimes………let’s clean ALL of them out, regardless of party.
Oh yeah, I also nominate Blackiswhite for Attorney General
May 24th, 2006 at 9:03 pmp.s…..happy 15 Cave, you DID make that far didn’t you? I smoked that cigar in your honor….
May 24th, 2006 at 9:05 pmWell now could Denis Hastert have a few problems that might end up causing his own office to be searched for documents?
According to ABC’s, “The Blotter” (anything from ABC is at best questionable in my view) we have the following: Officials: Hastert “In the Mix” of Congressional Bribery Investigation…
Funny how ABC’s Blotter can’t seem to find it necessary that some dim-witted Dems also have a link with Abramoff…
I personally don’t have a problem with lobbying or lobbyist especially in light of the R.I.N.O. support of a weakened 1st amendment thanks to McCain-Feingold…
May 24th, 2006 at 9:15 pmAmendment IV (as amended 2006)
The right of the plebes 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. This amendment shall not apply to elected representatives to the congress nor members of the representatives families, staff, and pets. The private office areas maintained by said members of congress shall be inviolable and no warrants shall be issued against such property lest they be held to equal standards than their eminent dominion over the People demands.
They thought we weren’t wathching their asses, what with American Idols finals and Madonna’s latest insomnia remedy.
How many permits and lawsuits would be get for a Tar and Feathers Party permit application?
May 24th, 2006 at 9:15 pmYa know what really worries me in these blogs?
I think most of us who post here and elsewhere simply vent/steam our anger, and we don’t try hard enough to get Washington to clean up its act. We seem to take pleasure in these peoples’ failings and call them names, swear, etc, but we really forget that We The People elected them, and they represent US, and we get what we deserve - so how do we go about getting our citizens to pay more attention and actually DO something about all this?
May 24th, 2006 at 9:18 pmI wouldn’t dream of wasting a perfectly good cigar, Jaybear.Yes, entered my sixteenth year without mishap. I like the idea of Black iswhite as AG…yep. But CIA? Only if I could tell the prez exactly what I found, no games or bullshit. But alas, I wouldn’t last, some asshole would bump me off I would imagine. I have a habit of meaning what I say and saying what I mean…or saying nothing at all. I prefer keeping the lower half of my face shit and the upper half open.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:18 pmLOL..never mind…………
May 24th, 2006 at 9:19 pmAs I said in the last discussion thread on this topic: since “Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace” under Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution are grounds for ignoring Senatorial and Congressional privilege…
…then based on the observed behavior and general demeanor of the current Congress, the Justice Department has 534 more Senatorial and Congressional offices to search.
By what he said today, Congressman Hastert’s office should be next on the list.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:22 pm[…] Update: Misha fortunately can express anger much better than I. Posted by Ian S. in […]
May 24th, 2006 at 9:24 pmAh yes, the thrill of the hunt……
May 24th, 2006 at 9:26 pmRobH sez:
By taking the damned parties back from the influence peddlers my friend. Get active by recruiting grass roots candidates, not party stalwarts or career party activists, recruit hell raisers and individualists. Attend your state and local conventions and shout loud….
Think back to the ‘94 Republican Revolution and the Contract with America. The best idea in the entire contract was term limits. Now think about how many of these corrupt bastards blew off the idea of term limits once they were wined and dined as DC elites….once they tasted the good life, they started saying things like “Term Limits??..Oh, I can’t leave after two terms, I still haven’t accomplished what I set out to do!!”. They forgot what they were sent there to do.
The quickest approved legislation to move out both houses always seems to have the words “Pay Hike” stamped on it. Everything else is open to endless debate and inaction.
Hey Cave, I know what you meant. Been shitfaced a few times myself..hee hee hee…
May 24th, 2006 at 9:29 pmI am not a Constitutional scholar, nor do I intend to play one here. But this is a situation where it might be possible that both sides of this issue are correct, creating somewhat of a gray area.
First, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that William Jefferson (D-LA) is guilty of at least some kind of wrongdoing and should be removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He was not only caught on an FBI video tape receiving a bribe, but after searching his home, they found $90,000 in $100 bills neatly wrapped and stashed in his freezer. Those bills matched recorded serial numbers by the FBI. (I don’t know about you, but I have found banks to be a much better place to keep $90,000 in cash than a freezer — especially with my wife and her need to spend every last dollar she gets her hands on…)
The issue brought up by both sides of the aisle in the House is whether the Executive Branch, by way of their enforcement arm, the FBI, has the Constitutional authority to serve a warrant on the premises of another branch of the government. If the roles were somehow reversed, do you think Congress would be allowed to execute a search warrant on the Executive Branch? This is where the separation of powers seems a little murky.
Our gut tells us that if a person breaks the law, then it is all fair game, however, the law (in this case the Constitution) might have a different view, and that the Executive Branch executing a search warrant on the Legislative Branch might be in violation of the Separation of Powers provision of the Constitution.
The funny thing here is that they didn’t really need anything from Jefferson’s office to prove a case of bribery. The sting itself and the search of his home occured outside the scope of his office, and it appears that they already have enough to convict him.
Secondly, (and I know you are probably going to cringe hearing this) it was Nancy Pelosi who initiated the whole thing in the first place by requesting an investigation to look into Jefferson’s affairs. It was the Democratic leadership that initially asked that Jefferson step down from his Ways and Means committee, and resign the house. He has refused to do both, saying that there are two sides to this story. (I am waiting to hear that second side — it should be good for a laugh or two…)
I think that the BIG picture issue here is not whether Jefferson is guilty, it has more to do with precidence, where one branch can be allowed to go into another branch to execute a search warrant.
Like I said, I am NOT a Constitutional scholar — I leave that to the experts. I am not going to give much weight to the opinion of any Attorney General in this matter mainly because they are part of the branch executing the warrant.
I can’t help but thinking that once the House Ethics committee completed their investigation, that the House wouldn’t have turned over the appropriate evidence.
Again, I think this whole thing boils down to precedence. I don’t think anyone in Congress is comfortable with the Executive Branch invading another branch of government for whatever reason.
I think this whole thing could have been resolved eventually, but the Executive Branch decided it either couldn’t or wouldn’t wait.
So I am rather divided on this issue, and I defer to the experts.
May 24th, 2006 at 9:38 pmFor anyone still confused over this supposed imposition by the executive branch into the affairs of the legislative branch, please read Byron York’s excellent explanation in the NRO’s Corner section…
May 24th, 2006 at 9:45 pmMembers of congress require a place free from search and seizure laws for the purpose of … ????? I guess it must be the same reason they need Swiss and Camayan bank accounts.
Grits
May 24th, 2006 at 10:44 pmAgain, I refer back to the fact that the contents of this warrant were written by the Executive Branch, laying out their opinion as to the legality, not the opinion of a disinterested party — namely, one versed in Constitutional law.
I might add, that our Attorney General does not have a Constitutional law background — he was a corporate attorney, so his opinion in this case is extremely limited regardless of his high office.
BUT…
I will give you the fact that a judge did apparently sign off on the warrant, or otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.
I do have to question the partial/impartial capacity of any agent of the FBI. To me it doesn’t matter whether the agents assigned to do the searching or the agents assigned to filter the evidence, since they are all part of the Executive Branch. Perhaps I wouldn’t have such a problem of jurisdiction if the enforcement arm of Congress had been directed by the Judicial Branch to execute the warrant to search.
Obviously, my only sticking point in all of this is having one branch exerting power over another supposedly “equal power” branch, and the precedence this creates. But that is my only sticking point.
I am not saying that this joker needs to be prosecuted with all of the evidence in the hands of the prosecution — no, I do not want to see him hide behind a “separation of powers” argument. I do question the “exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records” argument that the government is making, because members on both sides of the aisle have pretty much made it clear that Jefferson did apparently break the law.
I suspect that the main reason there has been some form of stonewalling on all of this has to do with the ongoing legal battles of DeLay, Ney, Frist, and others. If they gave in on one, they would have to give in on all of the others, both known and unknown.
I think all of this is indicative of what we all seem to realize: there is a culture of corruption in Washington that trancends both parties. The question is, are we only scratching the surface, or does this go much deeper?
I have long been an advocate of term limits, public financing of elections, and huge restrictions of lobbyist money.
May 24th, 2006 at 11:25 pmHastert is totally full of shit on the Constitutional issue, ‘I do not think “Separation of powers” means what he thinks it means.”
May 25th, 2006 at 12:18 amThe Executive and Judicial branches are not immune from any interference by the Legislative, as Congress glories in its power ot control the first through the power of the purse and the second through its right to establish all courts below the Supreme Court (and thsu to define their jurisdiction).
A properly-obtained search warrant (issues by the Judicial branch and executed by the Executive) is a perfect example of checks and balances working correctly. I’ve had about enough of this self-interested asshat, who apparently only thinks laws apply to non-Congressweasels.
If Congressional offices can’t be search, guess where crooked politicians will hide their evidence…
Rush Limbaugh made that observation yesterday.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:29 amI’ve gotta call bullshit on this whole situation.
What we have here is not a constitutional issue, its a case of a bunch of ELECTED assholes who think they have “Royal Privilege”. There is no such thing (or shouldn’t be anyway) in America. We’ve fought at least two wars to see to this.
As far as I see it, they have no more rights to refuse a search warrant in their offices than I do in my home office. They’re only trying to preserve a place for them to hide evidence of wrongdoing.
I cannot beleive that the only politician I’ve heard against this crap is nancy lugossi.
They are US Senators, not princes or kings, and they should learn to at least ACT like Americans.
Duty, Honor, Country
May 25th, 2006 at 7:27 am(in THAT order)
Rowane
DJ Allyn (#18) brings up this point, a valid one too: “I might add, that our Attorney General does not have a Constitutional law background — he was a corporate attorney, so his opinion in this case is extremely limited regardless of his high office“…
Mind you DJ that I’m guessing here but I don’t think Gonzales actually did the work on making up the warrent, he just signed off on it…
Mind you, Byron York has an update on this you might find interesting: “SUBPOENAS? US? ARE YOU KIDDING?”
May 25th, 2006 at 7:31 amHe may not have written it, but I am sure he directed it, and he does have the final say on it. He has been known in the past to have a Constitutional opinion on a number of things: Torture, Unitary Executive, etc., why not on Separation of Powers?
As I tried to say in a previous comment, I don’t think I would have ANY problems with a warrant if it had been executed by an agency NOT directly connected with the Executive Branch.
If I am not mistaken, the US Marshal’s service is connected with the Judicial Branch. If the Executive Branch had sought a warrant through the Judicial Branch, then because of the Separation of Powers provision, perhaps the Marshal’s service should have done the search.
In other words, I am NOT saying that the warrant shouldn’t have been issued/served, I am just questioning who does the service in this type of case.
We want our three branches of government to be not only equal, but we should also expect that one branch doesn’t hold more power over the other two. I know all of this sounds like a technicality over common sense, but we do have to be mindful of unintended consequences by setting a precedence for the future.
Ask yourself this question (and this might cause you a brief moment of indigestion):
Imagine Hillary being president. (see? I warned you :lol:) We have now established a precedent for the Executive Branch being able to search the offices of Congress. Would you feel comfortable with a Hillary Executive searching a Republican Congresscritter’s office after obtaining a search warrant?
In this current case, there is obvious evidence of wrongdoing on the part of William Jefferson. But a future case might not be so clear cut. As with everything in government and politics, things have a tendency to slide downhill if there isn’t something there to shore it up. Give an inch, and some people will take a mile.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:20 amIf it was obtained through proper channels, I probably wouldn’t, PROVIDED of course that the reasons for and methods by which it were obtained were open to scrutiny and criticism.
It’s hard to say, since it’s a hypothetical and I obviously don’t have the details surrounding something that has yet to happen.
I CAN say, categorically, that I WOULDN’T immediately issue a statement claiming that it was un-Constitutional and demand that all of the evidence be returned.
If it turns out later, as more details come to light, that the manner in which Jefferson’s papers were seized were less than kosher, then obviously the evidence would be inadmissible, and I expect any court worth its salt to reach the same conclusion.
So far, however, it sure doesn’t look that way.
Now, back to the Separation of Powers issue: I’m not a Constitutional scholar either, but I don’t see the Founders intending for the three branches of government to be banned from interfering with each other as a result. It would sort of throw the whole “checks and balances” concept out of the window, wouldn’t it? As Tanker points out, that would mean that the House shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with White House policy by refusing to fund it. The Senate shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with judicial appointments by voting on them either.
I agree that one should be vigilant and forever skeptical when one of the branches seeks to interfere with one of the others, but that’s hardly the same as standing up and unanimously claim Royal Immunity on general principle.
Oh, and along the same vein: It looks like Bob Ney might get a visit from the FBI as well, seeing as how he too is refusing to respond to subpoenas.
I have no problem with that either. Raid his damn office and frog-march him off to jail if they find evidence that he’s guilty. The bastards in there need to be reminded that they’re citizens like the rest of us and have to play by the same rules. I’m sick and fucking tired of that “for me, but not for thee” mentality and I would remind the elected criminals of what happened to the last band of miscreants trying to pull that one off.
1776 and all that.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:13 pmDJ (#23) says: “As I tried to say in a previous comment, I don’t think I would have ANY problems with a warrant if it had been executed by an agency NOT directly connected with the Executive Branch“…
Well then who should’ve the Executive called to do it? The French?
Let’s face facts, if we go the way you are saying then one could say that any Senator or Representative could keep the body of someone he or she murdered in his/her office and no one could get to it…
I know I’m using hyperbole here but that was the reason I linked to better minds than mine…
May 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pm“he’s most certainly innocent until proven guilty”
Well, that’s close. It’s an important distinction. He is to be CONSIDERED innocent, by the AUTHORITIES, until proven guilty. You and I are free to declare people guilty all we want.
This important principle is what stops things like (1) congressmen declaring that the Marines currently under investigation are cold blooded killers, and (2) the then-mayor of Los Angeles declaring that the cops videotaped smacking Rodney King around are criminals.
Hm, maybe it didn’t stop either of those things. Still, I like the principle.
(Sigh)
May 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pmI don’t think that the issue is narrowed down to just that evidence linked to Jefferson’s wrong-doing. From what I understand, ALL of his papers were seized, (as is usually the case with these type of search warrants) to be sifted through later by “non-assigned” FBI agents. It isn’t the evidence itself and the possibility of it being admissible or not, it is the Executive Branch, through its enforcement arm having access to ALL of the papers related or not.
Skipping to a related comment:
Technically, I think it should have been the call of the Judicial Branch, using its enforcement arm, the US Marshals.
In a civil matter, when one party subpoenas the records of another company, it is a third party that picks up, copies, and makes available, those records. In a criminal case, it is a law enforcement agency, keeping a documented chain of evidence that does it. Since this is technically one branch serving on another, I think that the third and impartial branch should have done the deed, that’s all.
I am not sure that was the case. The House was just starting to convene its “Ethics Committee” after years of doing absolutely nothing. I am pretty sure that if the committee had gone through its investigations, it would have probably eventually given up the requested evidence.
I find it interesting that Bush has ordered all of the seized material to be sealed for 45 days as a “cooling down” measure. He might realize that maybe this does reach that border.
I suspect that by the time this is all said and done, there will be some sort of compromise where both branches get what they want.
I do agree, Misha. These people put their pants on the same as you and I. They work for us, not the other way around. My only concern in this whole story is a procedural one. I don’t want anyone hiding behind “priviledge”, or using technicalities to stonewall a legitimate investigation.
If someone is dirty, then we need to root them out and dispose of them. I don’t care who they are, what party they belong to, or who they know. Dirty is dirty. There is a mechanism in place in both houses that allows them to police themselves, but they have been ignored and have gone unused for a long time.
I think the American people are fed up. This transcends party lines. Republicans swept into office in a 1994 revolution proclaiming that they were going to do away with the corruption the Democratically-held Congress had been presiding over for decades. Instead, it became “Meet the old boss, same as the new boss”.
If we agree on nothing else, we all should stand up loud and clear and demand integrity and honesty by our elected officals, and demand swift and serious consequences for those who break the laws and rules.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:56 pmThe only problem being, of course, that when that point in time was reached, Jefferson’s great-great-great-great-grandchildren would be in nursing homes.
That’s why we have such a concept as “responding in a timely manner.” The problem here was that Jefferson wasn’t responding in a timely manner, as a matter of fact he was refusing to respond to the subpoenas at ALL (responding, incidentally, would’ve eliminated the “risk of unrelated documents falling into government hands”). It’s not like the Executive branch was sitting around saying “hey! Let’s nail this guy Jefferson!”, then racing off to the courthouse to get a warrant two minutes later.
I, on the other hand, KNOW that by the time this is all said and done, none of the documents seized will ever find their way into a courtroom, Jefferson won’t face a nanosecond of justice and everybody EXCEPT for Lady Justice and We the People will have gotten exactly what they wanted which, for the corrupt swine in DC, is complete and utter immunity from felonious behavior for the Anointed Classes in DC.
Hopefully, at some point, We the People will have had enough of that tyrannical behavior and we’ll fix it the way we did before.
I have LOTS of rope and absolutely NO reluctance in putting it to good use.
And that goes for BOTH sides of the aisle. I don’t care WHAT letter is attached to the dirty, arrogant, lying, thieving, corrupt scumbags’ names, all of their necks stretch equally well.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pmMaybe the seized documents will not show up in a courtroom. From what we know now, do they really need them? There is the tape, and there is the matter of $90,000 big ones nestled in between the frozen holy mackerel in the freezer.
Jack “the curmudgeon” Cafferty has the following commentary that I tend to agree with:
(if you have trouble seeing it, go here)
Me thinks that Hassert doth protest too much.
Cafferty is right. All of a sudden this became an issue over whether the FBI had the authority to search a congresscritter’s office, instead of the obvious case of corruption that caused them to search in the first place. I admit, I got caught up with this myself, although I still have some concerns about procedure in this. Perhaps if I just separate the issues…
May 25th, 2006 at 7:52 pm