john, this reminds me of something that happened in the town i moved from a couple of years ago. the town counsel had a private meeting (which, under the law they were not supposed to do) to determine the parameters of a soon-to-be retired town official.

a newly elected counselor blew the whistle on this and let the local paper in on the story.

yow. one of the private meeting counselors took the new guy to court, claiming that he'd broken one of the laws of the town counsel...that is, making private information public.

well, the case was thrown out of court twice. since that didn't work the older fellow took the new guy to court under his own name (original suit was town vs. new counselor guy)....that was thrown out as well.

this is exactly the kind of thing that sours me on politics in general. i mean, is it ALL about power and getting one's way? just plain gross.

You're right, of course, but in defense of the Craven Curs who insist that congressional offices be sacrosanct, there is some historical basis for this since, traditionally, raids on political offices were used to plant evidence for trumped-up charges. One might well extend this privilege to every citizen since any citizen may be so abused, and that's why the Founders carefully circumscribed the police powers of The Executive. But the Bold Defenders Of Corruption As Usual have not a leg to stand on if the same procedural requirements are observed for a congressman as for any other citizen.

Of course, if they really need to, the admin can have the NSA breakin to find evidence as a Matter Of National Security. It works for the rest of us.

If it was Tom DeLay's office, would you be singing the same tune?

They got a warrant, there was oversight...

Hey, if they got a legal warrant, then there is no problems.

But I do have some info to share that seems to have been missed in all the hullabaloo.

The incident with the $100k and the $90k in the freezer happened about a year ago.

Now, some might find it interesting, in the political dirty tricks department, that the AG, Gonzalez (you know, the guy who wrote the guidelines on torture and extrodinary rendition), decided to wait until this part of the political/news cycle to hold an unprecedented raid on a Congressman's office.

My curiosity is why hasn't any of Duke Cunningham's or Abramhoff's friends been subjected to the same treatment by the FBI?

All that being said, if the bastard is "dirty", hang 'em high. Then get the rest of them and treat them the same.

Until they do, it just looks like pure partisan bullshit under Rovian dictates to try and spin the newscycle.

I'm cynical like that.

Why didn't Cunningham get the same treatment? Because he resigned as soon as he was accused, as opposed to Jefferson who's taking an "F" you attitude about it.

Or maybe they were just looking for something specific in his office. I'm sure when the search warrant gets unsealed we'll see what's behind it.

I must weigh in on the side of Congress in this one. It is more important to maintain the balance between the executive, the judciary and congress then to get additional evidence against one crooked representative. Next congress will be sending in thier security people to raid the White House.

John Fletcher, Esq.

At what point did the judiciary not get involved with the search warrant process?

This is two branches (not one) using a process they are entitled to by law to do their job.

Now, some might find it interesting, in the political dirty tricks department, that the AG, Gonzalez (you know, the guy who wrote the guidelines on torture and extrodinary rendition), decided to wait until this part of the political/news cycle to hold an unprecedented raid on a Congressman's office.

This is entirely irrelevant, and is basically just a way of throwing in a partisan slam. Gonzales' position on torture when he was white house council and what his subordinates at justice have done in this case can't even begin to be connected to each other. Trying to do so is just partisan whining.

My curiosity is why hasn't any of Duke Cunningham's or Abramhoff's friends been subjected to the same treatment by the FBI?

Abramoff's files and the files of various groups he was associated with were seized by the FBI. That's pretty much SOP in prosecutions for corruption.

Dave

The reason for the dust-up is all of the corruption cases for which warrants have not yet been executed. I'm sure many of these critters thought that their Hill offices were the safest places to keep incriminating documents. They are terrified... and rightly so

What's funny is to watch how this has become a bipartisan issue with Hastert leading the charge.

Congress is not some safe zone where you can hide from the law. If he's guilty, lock him up. I don't care what side of the aisle someone is on if they break the law unlike some BCers.

I must admit, I'm curious as to why they waited a year to move in, but I'm leaning towards their hope to catch more law-breakers rather than Heckler's conspriacies.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out back at hme for him since this occured after the primary, so he's safe from a Democratic challenge.

The article should have noted that Pelosi asked Jefferson to resign from the Ways and Means Committee. I have no doubt it's calculated, but at least on appearance it's better than the actions of Republicans when one of their own get caught.

And Cunningham didn't get the same treatment from this author unless you have a link to the BC article you wrote about his illegal activities.

"What's funny is to watch how this has become a bipartisan issue with Hastert leading the charge."

Now it's becoming clearer...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is probing corruption in Congress, ABC News reported on Wednesday.

ABC, citing high level Justice Department sources, said information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a (eh, eh, eh) on an Indian reservation that would have competed with those of other tribes.

Why didn't Cunningham get the same treatment from me? Well I'm not really railing against Jefferson here, I'm railing against those protecting him in Congress trying to create an impregnable barrier around the Capitol. And Hastert, a Republican, is bearing the brunt of my wrath.

In fact, I just posted that I hope if Hastert is guilty of bribery that he hangs too.