Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
That's quite a reply, Ron. You are claiming that 86% of the population believes in unwarranted searches because a person is not all-white? This large percentage believes that citizens don't need to be protected from bad law? They don't believe criminals should get off on technicalities? It would be interesting to know where you get your facts to back up these claims.....or are you just saying that those who hold a view different from yours, even if they number 86% of the population, are all pure "end justifies the means" folks?
The actual truth of the matter is that 86% of the population feel that there is nothing wrong with searching a suspected criminal's dwellings if a warrant is issued and there is reasonable belief that evidence is present - even if that suspected criminal happens to be a member of Congress. 86% don't believe congressmen should be given a free pass when it comes from prosecution of criminal activities. Almost 9 out of ten Americans believe that the laws should apply to everyone equally. Now, if you want to take that to construct the above claims and brand them all as "ends justifies the means" people who are only interested in results regardless of how they are obtained, you are doing them an injustice and insulting this large majority just to try to prove some point that only 14% of the people agree with.
since you don't appear to believe that Congress should be protected from the Administrative branch...
I said no such thing and don't even see where that enters in here. Forget Congress....forget administrative branch....we are talking about a criminal investigation, a sting operation conducted by the FBI where evidence was uncovered and a warrant was issued to find further evidence in a search of the alleged criminal's abode....period. Had it been against a mobster or private citizen I'm sure you would have found nothing wrong with it but, since it was a congressman, somehow it gets changed into a "Administrative against the Congress" battle.
What do I think about executive privilege?
As presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other.
That's fine but what does it have to do with a criminal investigation of one member?
The most interesting line in the Wikipedia definition is this:
The concept of executive privilege is a legally murky one, and the Constitution does not mention it
There you have it, basically. All of the talk and finger-pointing about it being against the Constitution is hogwash. It's not even there. What do I think about it? I'm against it. I believe, as I mentioned before, that all individuals should be subjected to the same rules as all others. I would not respect any member of congress or the administration who tried to invoke it to cover a crime.
President Bill Clinton did the same when agreeing to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear.
I consider that bull. Terms for appearing before a grand jury after being subpoened are not to be dictated by defendants.
I guess, Ron, I'm saying I'm one of those damnable 86% who believes the laws should apply to all.....God help us!