Defending the Right of Congressmen to Break the Law in Private
Posted on May 23, 2006
Over the weekend, the FBI executed a search warrant to search Representative William Jefferson’s congressional office. While it might be amusing to point out that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana is a Democrat, the intent here is not to make partisan jabs (okay, maybe a little). Corruption has been a part of both parties and neither has a lock on it. (Just look at Illinois).
A politician, particularly from Louisiana, being on the take is not a big surprise. Nor is the fact that the same politician was caught on tape taking the money, nor the money having been found neatly wrapped still in his freezer at home. The biggest thing that voters should sit up and take notice is that congressional leaders from both parties are taking offense to the fact an object of a criminal bribery probe had his congressional office searched. That’s right. These congressmen have the audacity to complain that searching Rep. Jefferson’s office violated separation of powers.
To review, any police department (an executive agency) is required to ask a court before getting a search warrant. They have to lay out what they are searching for and why they want to search where they’re requesting to go. A judge (a member of the judiciary) hears them out and either approves or denies the warrant. Odds are, because of the high-profile nature of this warrant, a judge took his time and carefully considered this warrant. At the end of the day, both the executive and judiciary landed on the same page with regards to this legislator’s corruption. Or, you could look at it as the two other branches of government are checking the corruption of the third.
The facts are these, Rep. Jefferson is accused of using his legislative office to perform official acts for private pay… he took bribes. The FBI states that they have this bribe-taking on tape and that they found the money in Jefferson’s home. While there is “two sides to every story” and he is “innocent until proven guilty” it certainly looks like the FBI might have a pretty solid case here. Perhaps if Jefferson is so concerned about executive and judicial scrutiny of his office, he ought to have considered not being corrupt in the first place.
The party leaders and other congressional members carrying the water for Jefferson, however, is beyond the pale. Instead of being angry with Jefferson for abusing his office or calling for impeachment hearings, they are complaining that the FBI… did their job. The message they are sending is that they demand the right of privacy for congressman who use their office for illegal activities.
If someone was shot in one of their offices, could there be an investigation?
What if one of them was dealing drugs out of their office, could they try to catch the Congressman in the act?
Any right-thinking person can see why a congressional office shouldn’t be an impregnable veil against those who investigate and punish criminal activity. Apparently, congressional leaders of both parties thing there are more important things than stopping criminal activity, at least if one of their own is involved.
Voters of both parties need to send a clear message. Not only will we not tolerate corrupt individuals among our elected representatives, but we must not tolerate those who seek to protect them or otherwise prevent investigation and prosecution of them. We cannot let these congressmen… our employees tell us that the Constitution requires that we let them get away with taking bribes.
Any congressman who seeks to defend this activity, or construct absurd walls to investigating congressional misbehavior, need to be thrown out of office regardless of partisan affiliation. It is time that these lawmakers focus more of cleaning their own house instead of protecting the criminals within it.
John Bambenek is an academic professional at the University of Illinois and a columnist for the Daily Illini. He blogs at Part-Time Pundit
Others: Strata-Sphere
Expose The Left
» Filed Under Illegal Activities, News
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “Defending the Right of Congressmen to Break the Law in Private”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I’m just wondering if you, like the fearfully fatuous and uncomprehending Gribbit, believe that political corruption is really more pronounced on the Democratic side than on its counterpart.
Forget celebrated GOP sleazeballs like DeLay, Frist, Abramoff, Rove, Harris, and Libby; I’m sure names like John Rowland, “Duke” Cunningham, and more recently, James Tobin and Ernie Fletcher mean a lot to you, and that their shenanigans are just as troubling to you as those of any Dems.
If right-wingers have any sort of beef to bring to the table these days, they’d be wise to avoid pointing fingers at corrupt Democrats, as the Bush primate house is clearly shaping up to be the dirtiest administration in ages.
I’m sorry, hasn’t the Frist thing already been debunked? And DeLay, don’t even get me into that farce. It took 7 grand jury attempts to get an indictment there and it’s based on what *they think* the evidence looks like. Libby? If he lied, he should hang. Rove? Still hoping he gets indicted don’t you?
In short, yeah, if “my boys” broke the law, they should hang. However, the constant attempt to debunk conservativism by finding crimes has come up short thus far.
Hell, they got Jefferson on tape. What do they have against Rove?
Both parties have their fair share of sdaehtihs. What one schmuck does shouldn’t speak for the rest of the schmucks. Political parties suck – especially American ones.
“Political parties suck – especially American ones.”
Spoken like a true liberal *cough*American*cough*.
I guess I should apologize for thinking it’s stupid that people are constantly pigeonholed into one of two groups when it comes to political opinions. Using “conservative” and “liberal” instead of the party names isn’t any better. At least other countries have more than one option.