"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

quote:

---

The problem, and even the joke, of this whole thing  is the outrage of Jefferson and his lawyers that his office was searched. THAT is what they are trying to focus on and that's why the case has been delayed for so long. The search for evidence against him, according to them, is the real crime, not the evidence they uncovered. It will all come out, eventually. Until it does - and because of his obvious guilt - it is not wrong not to trust him or put him in positions where he could further usurp his authority. To simply say "He hasn't been convicted yet.." is not reason enough to give him a clean slate.

---

quote:

---

Congressional office raid
The May 20 raid of Jefferson's office in Room 2113 of the Rayburn House Office Building set off a series of political events. Jefferson immediately challenged the action in federal court, and members of the House generally reacted strongly against the raid. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued "a rare joint statement demanding that the FBI return the documents and saying that Jefferson then should cooperate more fully with the investigation."[16] "Many Republicans and Democrats contend that the unprecedented raid on a congressional office was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government that are meant to shelter lawmakers from administrative intimidation."[17] Tensions escalated to the point where, according to AP, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, his deputy, Paul McNulty, and possibly FBI Director Robert Mueller "were said to be ready to quit if the Justice Department was asked to return the Jefferson documents...[while the] House was threatening to go after the Justice Department's budget."[18]

On May 25, President Bush stepped in, taking the extraordinary step of "directing the Department of Justice to seal all the materials recovered from Congressman William Jefferson's (Democrat-Louisiana) office for the next 45 days and not to allow access to anyone involved in the investigation."[19]

While members of the Senate seemed to take a more measured view of the raid,[20] on 30 May 2006, Representative James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee began to hold hearings, called "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?", on the "profoundly disturbing" questions that he said the Justice Department's actions have raised.

The FBI, in answering Jefferson's complaint of the raid, attached an FBI agent's affidavit claiming that the raid was necessary because while the FBI was searching his home in August, Jefferson tried to "surreptitiously remove" documents.[21]

An ABC News poll released 1 June 2006 found 86% of Americans supported the FBI's right to search congressional offices when they obtain a warrant.[22]

On July 10, 2006, Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled the FBI raid on Jefferson's office was legal,[23] rejecting his and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the Unites States House of Representatives claim that the search violated the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, separation of powers principle and Fourth Amendment. Chief Judge Hogan, in a 28-page ruling, acknowledged that the "facts and questions of law presented here are indeed unprecedented," but wrote that it is "well-established" that a Congressman is "generally bound to the operation of the criminal laws as are ordinary persons," and the Speech or Debate Clause does not "make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility.'"[24] Hogan, in his conclusion, wrote:

"The existing broad protections of the Speech or Debate Clause – absolute immunity from prosecution or suit for legislative acts and freedom from being 'questioned' about those acts (including privilege from the testimonial act of producing documents in response to a subpoena) – satisfy the fundamental purpose of the Clause to protect the independence of the legislature. The Court declines to extend those protections further, holding that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield Members of Congress from the execution of valid search warrants. Congressman Jefferson's interpretation of the Speech or Debate privilege would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime. Such a result is not supported by the Constitution or judicial precedent and will not be adopted here. See Williamson v. United States, 28 S. Ct. at 167 ('[T]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime.') (quotation omitted).[25]
However, later that same month, a three-judge appellate panel unanimously overruled Hogan's decision and affirmed that the Department of Justice could not review Rep. Jefferson's files until he had seen what files were taken and which of those pertained to his work as a legislator. The appellate court directed that Hogan, the judge who originally authorized the controversial search and seizure, should determine if Jefferson's claims of legislative privilege extend to specific seized files that the lawmaker may cite. Jefferson was not charged with any crime at the close of July of 2006.[26]


[edit] Stripped of committee membership
On May 24, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly requested his immediate resignation from the House Ways and Means Committee; he declined to do so.[27] Although Mel Watt, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus declared the strong support of the caucus for Jefferson it has since been reported that two prominent members of the caucus, John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) have played a major role in the campaign to force Jefferson to step down.[28]

On 15 June 2006, House Democrats voted to strip Jefferson of his committee assignment while the federal bribery investigation continues. Members approved the move after Jefferson repeatedly refused to step aside. Despite claims of the Congressional Black Caucus that Jefferson was being treated unfairly, the vote passed 99-58. Some have reported that the vote was passed as a result of Democrats who are determined to make an election-year point about ethics. The full House, which is the only group with the power to actually remove Jefferson, then stripped him of his seat on the committee on June 16th in a voice vote without debate. Jefferson had offered to step aside temporarily if the Democratic caucus established a rule concerning cases like his and if his seat went to Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA). This offer was rejected by House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi.[29]

---

quote:

---

. . . you paint an interesting scenario where the power could be used for nefarious activities against one political party by another but I don't think it's that simple. How easy do you think it was to get a search warrant for his office? Do you really think the FBI could just go to a judge and say that some so-and-so's claim Senator Stickyfingers engaged in criminal activities and the judge would just turn one over? I find that highly unlikely. I know a little about how hard it is to get a search warrant for common police cases and I'm sure it is a thousand times more difficult to get one involving the properties of members of the Senate. I cannot imagine a judge issuing one without an extremely high belief that the warrant is justified. The FBI doesn't just go "prancing" into a Senator's office and I'm sure you know that.

---

quote:

---

Fortunately, the majority of the American people are more unbiased. Bush's popularity rating is somewhere areund 30% and yet 86% saw nothing wrong the FBI's actions or with searching congressional offices.

---