search and seizure

[OperaTenor]

Yes, such is virtually the case here. From what I could read between the lines of what they were telling me, they were just short of major rule bending when they didn't take me in. It was their way of sympathizing with me.

<small>[ 03-23-2006, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

So.... What is the general consensus of the board on the search of Rep. Jefferson's office in D.C.?

Lawmakers Express Outrage at FBI Search

They had a warrant. Is Congress above the law? Didn't the Republicans say that they would require Congressmen to abide by the same laws as the rest of us?

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Didn't the Republicans say that they would require Congressmen to abide by the same laws as the rest of us?

Yes, and it's funny most of the whining quoted in the article is from Republican Congressional leadership.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'm cheering for the FBI on this one. :HOORAY: Anything that seriously annoys that many congresscritters has to be good.

I don't think it matters which side of the aisle any particular congresscritter sits; they all want to preserve their rather weird set of exemptions from ordinary laws. There was a science fiction author - H. Beam Piper - who suggested declaring a legal hunting season on politicians. It'd allow disgruntled constituents to file a genuine grievance. And the license fees could be applied to the national debt.

[OperaTenor]

I agree. I think any rule designed to shield any politician from being subject to the laws the rest of us must abide by should be illegal.

I believe one of the premises our country was founded on was that no one is above the law.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I think any rule designed to shield any politician from being subject to the laws the rest of us must abide by should be illegal...

Think about it. They made a law excempting themselves from ordinary law enforcement and ordinary rules, and this makes it illegal to be legal, and legal to be crooked, and illegal to get a bench warrant to search an office and legal to... w!:

Kind of ties the whole concept of "illegal" into a knot doesn't it. Where'd I leave that bottle of Excedrin.

[shostakovich]

I'm enjoying the rare opporunity to be on the same side as Shap this time. A crook is a crook is a crook.
Shos

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/26/house.shots/index.html
Wow. Looks like an exciting day. Did somebody get a hunting license?

Also wondering if the FBI will respond

[dai bread]

OT,

In some States, the police are now required to make an arrest if called to a domestic dispute. Apparently, this is in response to the number of cases where, after being cooperative with the police during their 'visit', a spouse has beaten the crap out of the one that called the police.

The arrest does not have to result in charges, and can simply entail a ride to a local motel or safe-house.

V/R
Shapley

Here, the police can bring their own charges in DV cases. This gets around the problem (which I've witnessed) of the wife refusing to testify in court.

[Shapley]

I've been thinking about the serch of Rep. Jefferson's office. The accusations against him involve taking bribes from Nigerians. We also know that radical Islam, including (but not limited to) al Queda, operate in Nigeria. The question that comes to my mind is whether or not there may be a connection between to two. I'm not suggesting that Rep. Jefferson would knowingly support al Queda, I'm suggesting that it's possible that the crooked businessmen and politicians with whom he was doing business could have connections to such groups unknown to Mr. Jefferson. Obviously, we're not privy to such information, but the FBI, and the judge who issued the warrant would be. If true, the charges would go beyond simply taking bribes and other run-of-the-mill corruption and move into the realm of treason. As such, all Constitutional restrictions would be null and void, as the Constitution specifically removes Constitutional priveledge from members of Congress when they are accused of Treason.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part. But I've been curious why the FBI took such a bold step as to conduct this search, and a judge was willing to issue a warrant to support it. To my thinking, there are only two real possibilities: 1) Mr. Jefferson was not cooperating with the FBI in their requests for information, and there was fear that he would dispose of such evidence if he had reason to believe his office was not secure from search, or 2) the possibility of charges of treason.

Thoughts on this, anyone, anyone?

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Two words come to mind in considering the search of Jefferson's office...."legal" and "appropriate". A third and hopefully operative word is "effective".

[Shapley]

I believe the Republicans, instead of seizing the opportunity to deflect attention from their own woes by pointing out that this typifies the high level of corruption that continues to exist in the Democratic Party, have opted to defend Congressional protection against efforts to prosecute such corruption, mindless of the fact that it just such issues that helped them gain power. They have shown themselves (with a few notable exceptions) to be no better on this issue than the Democrats were when they lost power. The Democrats, however, by their own response or lack thereof, have shown that they have not learned the lesson that their removal from power was meant to teach them. The Republicans are unworthy of being retained in power, and the Democrats are unworthy of being restored to it.

Third party, anyone?

V/I

Shapley

[jamiebk]

I believe the Republicans, instead of seizing the opportunity to deflect attention from their own woes by pointing out that this typifies the high level of corruption that continues to exist in the Democratic Party, have opted to defend Congressional protection against efforts to prosecute such corruption, mindless of the fact that it just such issues that helped them gain power.

Shap....why does this always have to come down to Reps -vs- Dems or vice versa? This isn't about that...It's simply about what is right and what is wrong. People who break laws get caught and hopefully pay for it....not because they are Republican...not because they are Democrats...but because they did something illegal. It should not matter who they are.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

I agree but...

The Republicans were given control of Congress largely because they stood against this type of corruption, which the Democrats had turned a blind eye to when they were the majority power. The Democrats preferred to allow the Congressm to police itself, i.e. offer meaningless reprimands to Congressmen who were caught with their hand in the till. The Republicans promised to make Congress accountable, one aspect of which was the requirement that Congress would have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Yet now, when that principle is actually put to the test, they have cried "Foul". I'm a die-hard Republican, but I'm angry that I'm now seeing my party falling into the same mould that I fought hard to see them rise above.

Both parties have the opportunity to stand for law and order here, and both are shying away from the opportunity. Clearly they've finally reached bipartisan agreement on something, and it's the wrong thing.

V/R
Shapley

[Serenity]

Vote them all out! Strip them of power! Change the incumbents to someone new! Watch them and do not become complacent!

[BigJon@Work]

Here in Pennsylvania, we had some nefarious and underhanded doings by the legislature. They literally voted themselves a grandee pay raise (to the second highest in the nation) in the dark of the night. Little debate, no time for public comment. They basically pissed all over the state constitution The nattering class went (rightly so) ballistic and turned this into a "turn the bums out" movement throughout the state. The pay raise was repealed. We still went ahead and voted out a state supreme court judge who voted that the law was constitutional. This is the first time in state history that has happened. Many incumbents announced retirement instead of facing the voters. Then in the spring primaries, we turned out most of the Republicans who voted for the pay raise, most of the Democrats were victorious. At least in PA, it is clear which party is the party that supports a culture of corruption.

I wouldn't mind playing our legislators the second highest pay in the nation if we had somewhere close to the second best legislature. We don't. They rank near the bottom of all 50 states on many measures of effectiveness and corruption

[Shapley]

I've said before that Democrats send legislators to Washington hoping they'll steal more money from the other districts, collectively, than the other districts, collectively, steal from them. That's why they don't generally get too upset if they pocket a little of the take in the process. As long as they're bringing home the bacon, they don't really fret the accounting.

Republicans (voters, not the politicians) generally send legislators to Washington hoping they'll reduce the theft overall: Steal less in taxes, steal less property, steal less freedom. We tend to get ticked when the guys we sent to stop theft are caught stealing. Sometimes we'll turn a blind eye ourselves, but we're far more likely to hold our crooks accountable than the other party is to hold its crooks accountable.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

The first President I remember with any clarity was Ike, who seemed like a nice enough fellow, but then I never fought against his army in a war. I remember Adlai Stevenson running against him, and while I was just a kid, he never seemed to inspire much trust from me. Just feelings of a naive child.

Jack Kennedy wasn't particularly loved in Orange County, CA when he was president, but then came LBJ and every time I saw him, I wanted to take a shower.

So far, Republicans gave me better warm fuzzies than Democrats, especially when I realized just how inept LBJ was at running a war.

Then came Nixon and Watergate, and Ford and the pardon. Now neither side has the scruples of a sewer rat.

There's some truth to the old adage of "power corrupts." I don't know how you can be a career politician and not be tainted.

[Shapley]

Barfle,

I have to agree. Professional politicians spend their lives running around their districts asking people to give them money so they can first obtain and then keep their jobs, and we are supposed to believe that all these people give them the money they ask for in exchange for nothing. The lifestyle itself is corrupting, but many of them enter the arena already tainted. That's why I've always encouraged people to look closely at the people they elect to local office, because they will be the State and Federal policitians of tomorrow.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

There's some truth to the old adage of "power corrupts." I don't know how you can be a career politician and not be tainted

It is said of criminals that the best place to send them for "training" is back to jail. The same is true for polititians. The best place to send them to learn corruption is to State and Federal posts.

I don't know if it is the power that corrupts as much as it is the environment many good intentioned politians are placed in. They start the job with verve and enthusiam and end up having to "work the system" to achieve their goals. So much is compromised and so many others have their own agenda to advance. And thus, the "art of the deal" is born and it's often very ugly. I really think the system is in need of an overhaul.