Fuller coverage:

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/05/24/ap2769097.html

My comment: I am thrilled with the sting and the raid. I suspect that there is way too much bribery of politicians in the US and in other places too. I see the bribery problem as sort of job #1 that needs to be done before any positive reforms can be made in other areas. Besides, it will be fun to see how many FBI stings Hillary chooses to do.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
It wasn't a "sting" operation, a la Abscam. The guy's just a crook who got caught.

---

First, yes this was a sting, at least within the common definition of that word:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19236148%255E663,00.html

That leaves the question of whether this guy really was a crook. I mean, there is nothing illegal about keeping money in the freezer. If I had to stash $90,000 USD, I might keep it in the freezer whether it was legal or illegal.

I think the question of whether this guy really was a crook opens some really interesting questions about what bribery really means in the political context. Many people think that bribery means the exchange of consideration (eg, cash, nights in Lincoln bedroom) in exchange for a specific result or specific vote. According to the Wiki, Jefferson didn't do that -- rather he made softer promises to consider a company's product when helping allocate federal money. That sounds closer to business as usual, rather than bribery. Furthermore, I haven't seen bribery convictions coming out of the sponsorship scandal, but maybe I missed that.

So what am I advocating here?

I think politicians and us laypeople operate with a very different understanding of what bribery is. I think it is time to close that gap, and I hope the Jefferson case does that. I am not personally familiar with the bribery laws here in Canada, but it may be time for a populist Candidate, either here or in the States, to make that issue an issue.

Putting it in the freezer was not a good idea. Doesn't everybody know that you've got to dig a hole and put it outside; where it's harder to find. Or behind the framing matte of clown pictures. Or was he planning a new recipe; and calling it "Franklin Lasagne?"

They'd been watching him for 14 months with suspicions of corruption and supposedly had a history of involvement in bribery schemes. Imagine how much money he would have made if his HiTech plan had come to fruition. -gasp-

He is now the subject of a house ethics committee enquiry. That should be fun. It'll take more than a Trout to get him out of this one.

The startling part about all of this is that this is the first time that the FBI has ever raided a sitting Congressman's office.

"The 83-page affidavit, used to raid Jefferson's Capitol Hill office on Saturday night, portrays him as a money-hungry man who freely solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, discussed payoffs to African officials, had a history of involvement in numerous bribery schemes and used his family to hide his interest in high-tech business ventures he promoted in Cameroon, Ghana and Nigeria." 1

And the Newt has the house all a buzz;

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) sent an e-mail to Capitol Hill Republicans on Sunday night decrying the FBI’s actions.

“What happened Saturday night ... is the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime,” Gingrich fumed, after having seen news of the search on CNN. “The President should respond accordingly and should discipline (probably fire) whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation. ... As a former Speaker of the House, I am shaken by this abuse of power.”

"The comments showed that congressional Republicans were more concerned about possible infringement on the authority of the legislative branch than on fueling the flames now circulating around Jefferson."2

You've got to admit that he's got a point. Although a terribly misguided one. I can't remember when the FBI ever cared if they blatently displayed an 'abuse of power.' I thought that this was just their M.O. I'm scratching my head with this one. Doesn't the FBI stand for; faggedabaadit?

My guess would be that Jefferson is in some hot water; accepting money on video tape; and wire taps; and 14 months of surveillance. I wonder what he will come up with to explain this one.

Oh, yea I forgot. Trout fishing in America!

The legislative is a separate and independent branch of government, and so deserves a fair amount of deference.

That is also true of the Executive.

But, as was made clear in the case of Nixon v. USA, there are limits to "executive privilege".

Obviously, if there are serious reasons to believe that a Congressman is taking bribes and hiding the money in his office, a warrant would be justified. But I stress: "Serious reasons to believe".

We would not want a situation (here in Canada) in which a warrant could be executed on the Premier of British Columbia, have that fact prominently covered on the tv news, and then have it turn out that the Premier (having stepped down) was not guilty of any offence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
They didn't invade Duke Cunningham's office and he was blatantly corrupt, so this does have a political overtone. . . .

---

This partisan counting game seems inappropriate when determining who get searched and who doesn't. You should not have the judges sitting around counting how many "red" pols get searched and how many "blue" pols get searched. That is not how the judiciary works generaly and that is why this politically insulated branch is charged with deciding who gets a search warrant and who doesn't.

Whether a warrant should issue in the Cunningham case or the Jefferson case or any other case should depend upon how likely a reasonable person would think that evidence could be found and how serious the crime is. It is possible that Cunningham was smart enuf to handle his money carefully enuf that a warrant to search his office would have been clearly useless and, as such, amount to pure harrassment. Also, the notion that the FBI had "enuf evidence" against Jefferson to convict without the warrant is ridiculous. There is no such thing as enuf evidence. When I stared this thread, I noted that Jefferson may have a good defense to the bribery charge notwithstanding the hidden cash and the freezer. Cases against Congresspeople are never airtight, especially not this one where no solid quid pro quo (arguably an element of criminal bribery) has been identified.

I don't buy what Jeff House said about giving Congresspeople extra protection from search (really they should be required to report all financial transactions to the taxpayers if I were king of America -- that 100 thou would be docked from Jefferson's Congresspay! -- less privacy for people in positions of trust, not more). However, I think you do have to worry about the law enforcement agency (in this case the FBI) going partisan and trying to enforce the law more against political opponents than political friends. The FBI was accused of doing the bidding of the Clinton administration in the early 90s and some people think the extreme BATF action at Waco was politically motivated. That is the potential problem, but I believe the solution is to vigorously remove any political bias from the system, rather than giving political fatcats extra insulation from being searched.

Oddly, in the Jefferson case, I believe that Bush did not want the search and that the FBI did it on purpose to mess him up. That might be regarded as partisan (in a reverse psyops, false flag kinda way), but it also might be regarded as the FBI protecting its institutional integrity from a president who seems to want to insert himself in federal agencies in inapprpriate, overbearing ways.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Moving to Toronto a couple years ago I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that Toronto police do door to door warrantless searches. NDP Mayor David Miller has come out against this practice, but has not acted decisively to completely quash it. This is a much more pressing problem for us than any of this FBI intrigue. In this nation with so many politicos *not* going to jail in the sponsorship scandal, it seems ridiculous that I have to worry about whether the police will show up at my door and want to search my apartment because some woman or kid got murdered somewhere in Toronto (pop 2.5 million).

[ 26 May 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 26 May 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 26 May 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

Someone said they hoped if indicted that it wouldn't be one of those cushy type prisons. it wouldn't be a state prison; it would be federal of course; and therefore cushy to some extent. to the extent that he will have three squares a day; unlimited commissary benefits to the point that he may have a television set; a radio; snacks and treats and magazine subscriptions; and all that mail can deliver. (within reason)

also he is still screaming innocence and refusing to resign from the house ways and means committee

pretty crazy stuff all around; especially yesterday with the gunshots heard early in the parking lot; making everyone receive a blackberry report which was all unnerving and everyone had to stay put and close all doors. no one knew what was going on.

quote:

---

I don't buy what Jeff House said about giving Congresspeople extra protection from search ....... However, I think you do have to worry about the law enforcement agency (in this case the FBI) going partisan and trying to enforce the law more against political opponents than political friends.

---

The danger is that the law enforcement agency may be used for political purposes. One political purpose is to have the Congress rendered ineffective. Obtaining a search warrant is extremely easy; the affiant simply makes up a story justifying a search, and claims he got it from his sources. Much, much later, it turns out the sources said something different, but then it is WAY too late for the elected politician.

Appropriately I'll leave out the details of who; but it's important that you guys know that I'm here because my politics are almost completely opposite from my families; and they think I'm a nut.

That's OK. They're entitled to their opinion. I love my family; but I've never agreed to anything politically that they believe in. Most that angers me are the issues that are put on the back burner, swept under the carpet. Which are the most important issues to me; they regard me as an extremist and a radical; left-wing anarchist who could be dangerous; if I wasn't such a damn dirty, make love not war hippie.

Here's the lastest; the rest you can read by pulling up the story in the washingtonpost.com > Politics > In Congress

News & Politics
Mr.Jefferson and his congressional colleagues are crying foul about an executive-branch... More
Return of Jefferson Files Is Sought
Bipartisan Request Sent to Justice Dept.

By Shailagh Murray and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 25, 2006; Page A01

In a rare bipartisan action, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded yesterday that the Justice Department immediately return documents that were seized when federal agents raided the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) as part of a bribery probe.

Noting that "no person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation," Hastert (R-Ill.) and Pelosi (D-Calif.) asserted that the Justice Department must cease reviewing the documents and ensure that their contents are not divulged. Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

Last weekend's raid on Rep. William J. Jefferson's office was unprecedented. (By Mark Wilson -- Getty Images)

VIDEO | Congressman Jefferson Says He Will Not Resign

FBI Says Jefferson Was Filmed Taking Cash
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), the target of a 14-month public corruption probe, was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from a Northern Virginia investor who was wearing an FBI wire, according to a search warrant affidavit released yesterday.

More Jefferson Coverage
Read post coverage of the scandal surrounding Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures.

• FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned
• FBI Says Jefferson Was Filmed Taking Cash
• FBI Searches Congressional Office of Louisiana

Save & Share

The demands by Hastert and Pelosi further escalated a separation-of-powers conflict between Congress and the White House. The raid on Jefferson's office last weekend was the first time that the FBI has executed a search warrant on the Capitol Hill office of a sitting lawmaker.

The Justice Department initially signaled an unwillingness to return the documents. But White House officials are concerned about the vigorous and repeated complaints of the congressional leaders and have pressed the Justice Department to find a way to placate Congress and defuse the controversy, according to a department official.

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, which is meant to shelter lawmakers from administrative intimidation. Legal scholars are divided on this issue, however, and some said yesterday that the raid does not violate the letter of the Constitution or subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court.

The FBI is investigating allegations that Jefferson, who represents flood-ravaged New Orleans, took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa. The eight-term House member has denied wrongdoing and told reporters this week that he intends to run for reelection in November. Jefferson also rejected a call by Pelosi to temporarily vacate his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax-writing panel, pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

House Judiciary Committee ChairmanF. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) announced yesterday that he will hold a hearing on the "profoundly disturbing" questions that he said the Justice Department's actions have raised.

A Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said after the Hastert-Pelosi joint statement was released that "the department will not agree to any arrangement or demand that would harm or hurt an ongoing law enforcement investigation."

"We are in discussions with them on something that would preserve law enforcement interests while also allaying their institutional concerns," the official said. "But our position is that we did it legally and we did it lawfully, and we're not going to back away from that."

Earlier in the day, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty said the Justice Department resorted to a search of Jefferson's office only because "other means" of obtaining the material had been unsuccessful. "We believe our actions were lawful and necessary under these very unusual circumstances," McNulty said.

Jefferson challenged the weekend raid in a motion filed yesterday in federal court. The motion sought the return of the documents and "immediate relief," including that the FBI and Justice Department stop reviewing seized items; that the materials be sequestered in a locked, secure place; and that the FBI raid team file a report with the court detailing which documents were reviewed and what was done to sequester the documents.

The motion was filed with Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who signed the Saturday-night search warrant.

[ 28 May 2006: Message edited by: erroneousrebelrouser ]