Comments on: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

By: Nobody

Nobody — Thu, 25 May 2006 17:51:27 +0000

MK wrote:
“Given the way the Congress operates, I would think that overuse of the search power would be the last thing we had to worry about, though of course a DeLay or an Armey or a Gingrich might easily abuse it. But that power has to exist somewhere, and I’d rather have it on the Hill than down at what’s still called the J. Edgar Hoover Building.”
So, let’s presume the worst of all three branches.
They are all incompetent, mendacious and will behave criminally if they think they can get away with it.
So, you’d rather have the criminal congress investigate itself, than have the criminal executive seek a warrant from the criminal judiciary before searching the offices of a member of the criminal congress.
Seems to me that it would be much easier for the criminal congress to gang up on an honest member if the criminal congress had the sole search power, than it would be for two separate criminal gangs (executive and judiciary) to agree to do so.
Even if they are all criminals but one lone congressman, each gang does have its own interests, which sometimes conflict with those of the other two. But one gang with the sole search power would not need cooperation of another, possibly competing, gang.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 25 May 2006 16:38:21 +0000

What almost everyone seems to have missed is that there was a right way to do this, and the Bush Administration chose the wrong way.
The right way was to ask the Capitol Police to conduct the search. Witnesses from the FBI, Hastert’s office, and Pelosi’s office could have been present to verify that the FBI (a) got what was requested in the warrant, and (b) did *not* get constituent letters, lists of supporters, Democratic strategy memos, or personal files, especially those of Jefferson’s staff.
People who are gloating about a crook getting his just desserts should consider what happens when the Executive’s power as chief law enforcement officer puts him over the Legislative branch. The Adams presidency, which amounted to period of tyranny, is a lesson to those who know their history and their Constitution.
Which evidently excludes most of the people who comment on the issue.
Finally, we should all be wary when a prosecutor tries its case in the press. Solid cases are tried in the courtroom. Furthermore, I don’t know the details of the release of evidence to the press, but the release could itself be a criminal act.
This issue divides fairly cleanly: either you are for separation of powers and legality or you are for giving all power to the Executive, including the power to break the law at will.
I know which side of that divide I stand on.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 25 May 2006 16:19:41 +0000

It seems a bit much to suggest that the Baird nomnation was derailed by the FBI. The nomination wasn’t going anywhere, no matter who leaked the information. As for her reputation as a “tough manager”: she earned that running a mid-size legal department. I’m not impressed, and I doubt the FBI was quaking in fear.
On the more serious point, there is no legal merit to Hastert’s point, but it’s actually been given a surprisingly respectful hearing. It’s been caught up in attempts to bash the Bush administration. Which is odd–if there’s a lesson here, it’s that Congress, just like the executive, is likely to over-read their perogatives.
There is no generalized exemption from our criminal laws for our congressional representatives, whether they investigate themselves or not.

By: Andrew J. Lazarus

Andrew J. Lazarus — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:05:15 +0000

I don’t think the literal Constitutional issue is very strong. Jefferson is being investigated for a crime committed outside the Capitol and he has ignored the relevant subpoenas.
But the other reason to oppose the Hastert/Pelosi madness is we do not want to create rights for Congress that do not apply to citizens. We already have the worst Executive in our history and in no small part because Bybee and Woo resurrected the Dispensing Power from the Stuart kings. Now Congress wants to get in on the act, playing the nobles to Bush’s king. Bad idea.
And as to the CBC, I wasn’t surprised. Among black leaders of a certain generation, having thwarted The Man by making it to Congress (or Mayor if you are Marion Barry) is what’s supremely important. How you conduct yourself in that office, much less so.

By: Bruce Moomaw

Bruce Moomaw — Thu, 25 May 2006 13:57:34 +0000

Well, the fact remains that Zoe Baird actually did commit a legal offense, which is generally regarded as a no-no for the Attorney General.
Kimba Wood, however, did NOT do so — and the fact that the Clinton Administration panicked and pulled her nomination anyway (after a discussion between White House aides, according to “Newsweek”, about what Rush Limbaugh Would Say) was the first thing that gave me that dropping-elevator-car feeling that we had once again picked a bunch of incompetents.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 25 May 2006 11:56:51 +0000

It looks like the answer is, the custodes:
“The United States government, not any court, is the best judge of whether to keep programs such as its controversial effort to eavesdrop on citizens a secret, an assistant attorney general said on Wednesday.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060525/pl_nm/security_att_dc_2

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 25 May 2006 10:49:02 +0000

“The Constitution places the authority and responsibility for disciplining Congressional misconduct squarely upon the Congress.”
It says that of “disorderly behavior”, and even allows expulsion, but bribery is a criminal offense, and nothing in the Constitution suggests that members of Congress have any particular immunity to the legal system. Indeed, bribery is a felony, and thus doesn’t even fall under the clause protecting members from arrest while Congress is in session.
Not only does the Constitution permit members of Congress to be subjected to search warrants, just like any ordinary person, in this case it extends explicit license to arrest Jefferson, and lock him away.
You’d have had a good point, though, if Jefferson stood accused of refusing to shut up while somebody else spoke, or had gotten into a fist-fight with another member on the floor.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Thu, 25 May 2006 08:05:21 +0000

Yes, May. She was “nannygate.” And just how do you think the raw FBI investigative files containing that information got to the press?
As to her threat to the Bureau’s independence: she was well known as a tough manager. The Bureau has avoided control by the Justice Department, of which it is nominally a part, mostly because Attorneys General are lawyers rather than managers, and tend to concentrate on the lawyering work done by attorneys in Main Justice and neglect the investigative agencies.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 May 2006 07:48:21 +0000

Zoe Baird was NannyGate, she hired an illegal alien to take care of her kids during the day.
I am not quite sure how you think that she was “torpedoed” by FBI files, or that she was a “threat to the FBI’s independence.
You should really research things before you write about them.

By: teacherken

teacherken — Thu, 25 May 2006 01:08:21 +0000

FBI cultural is NOT unanimously as it was under Hoover. There are agents today who are trying to make something else. Every now and then some come to the public eye. I note that Coleen Rowley is now running for the House in MN – that’s one example. I personally know at least a couple of others. Perhaps if Mueller stays around for the full term he will be able to promote people who can help change the culture. We should all hope so, because otherwise the FBI potentially can be yet another arm of an out of control executive branch.