You sneak up behind him and then…..
The White House tried to cool congressional anger Thursday over a report linking House Speaker Dennis Hastert to a wide-ranging corruption probe, denying the story was leaked to punish Hastert for criticizing the FBI’s raid of a lawmaker’s office.
Hastert demanded a “full retraction” of an ABC News report that he is being investigated in connection with the Jack Abramoff corruption probe, and he speculated that the leak was meant as retaliation by Justice Department officials.
Hastert has been a particularly vocal critic of an FBI search of a Democratic lawmaker’s office Saturday and suggested the leak was meant to intimidate him.
House aides told CNN that lawmakers from both parties have blamed the FBI for the ABC report.
On Wednesday night, the report prompted the Justice Department to take the highly unusual step of denying on the record that the Illinois Republican is the subject of a probe.
However, ABC News posted a statement on its Web site late Wednesday standing by the story.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
ABC News, citing “high-level official sources,” reported that the FBI is investigating a letter Hastert wrote three years ago urging then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton to block an Indian casino that would have competed with casinos operated by other tribes, which were represented by Abramoff.
Hastert’s letter, the details of which were widely reported during news coverage of the Abramoff case, was written shortly after a fundraiser for the speaker was held at the lobbyist’s Washington restaurant, where Abramoff and his clients made contributions to Hastert.
A source involved with the Abramoff case told CNN that Justice Department officials have asked Abramoff about the fundraiser, which netted $75,000 for Hastert days before he wrote the letter.
And then…
Thursday, President Bush ordered the documents placed under seal in the solicitor general’s office at the Justice Department for 45 days while both sides seek a resolution to the dispute, but he pledged that “This investigation will go forward, and justice will be served.”
Gosh, I’m glad everyone is buddy-boos, again.
These guys dont REALIZE….
as they have said about actors and Popperatzi…
THEY are public figures and are at the focus of ALL attention.
They have NO rights in PUBLIC VIEW…
Both parties are crying foul at the executive branch’s invasion of the legislative branch’s territory. Naturally, they’re just trying to keep their dirty laundry in the hamper, but Constituionally speaking, they’re absolutely correct. So, is standing for a principal for all the wrong reasons still an honorable act?
Well, the Administration is crawling all over my phone records without a warrant, and is now threatening journalists contract to the first amendments. So Congress, welcome to the party!
They say we have to LIVE by the LAWS they creatw, but this should be DOUBLE for them…
In this government, there SHOULD BE NO government PRIVACY…
WE, You and I, MUSt know what is going on, so that WE/US can make a decision..
THEY are public figures…LET them stand naked in the streets and be witnessed…
The speech and debate clause has an exemption for treason and felonies. Last time I checked, bribery was a felony.
Not to mention the speech & debate clause was never intended to protect a congressman doing criminal activity of any kind. It was solely intended so that the president could not imprison congressmen on the way to a vote.
Under the seperation of powers clause, it’s always been that Congressional offices were off limits. This has never been formalized, basically just a tradition. But Congressmen are expected to fully cooperate with FBI investigations, even when it’s their goose being cooked.
The FBI did get a warrant, and it was quite strict on what they could look at and couldn’t. The basis of the warrant was what they found at the Congressmans home and the fact he has been stonewalling them.
What they found at the Congeressmans home collaborated what the Congressmans aide told them in a statement he made. The aide is about to go up the river for his part in the bribery scheme.
So far, 3 of the 4 people arrested, tried and convicted of this scheme have all pointed the finger(with collabrative evidence) at the illustrious Congressman Jefferson.
Just goes to show that what I keep harping on is true….the greed for power and money isn’t confined to any one party in our goverment.
Actually, a large majority of Jack Abramoff’s illicit contributions and ‘sweet’ deals were with Republicans. Hastert is among the legislators who benefitted.
Guy on CNN talking about Congress freaking out because the FBI searched a Congressman’s office… with a warrant! 29 thousand views and climbing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpOcxxuJ7xM&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b
# 5 & 6, That is indeed the intent of the speech and debate clause. A Congressman or Senator may be arrested and charged with a criminal felony act whenever there is probable cause. They are immune to misdemeanors. An investigation, however, is not an arrest and therefore can not be given the excuse to go where they are not allowed.
Congressional offices are a direct separate division and beyond the reach of ordinary law enforcement. The only legal way they could have entered and searched the office is with the Speaker’s knowledge and consent. The court had the opportunity to present the subpoena to the House of Congress and demand that the Congress turn over any documents. Now, even with the subpoena, the FBI and the District Court Judge are possibly in Contempt of Congress. Instead of Justice being done in this case, the heavy hand of the Bush Administration is coming back to haunt them.
The same would have happened if a Congressional Committee decided it wanted to subpoena the records of a Supreme Court Justice for an investigation. No investigator, even armed with a warrant from the Committee Chairman, would be allowed to enter the Supreme Court Building. If the Committee wanted to investigate the President or even a White House staffer, the same would happen. No warrant would get them in the door. The FBI, as a branch of the Executive, is no different and does not have extra powers over the other branches of Government.
This is not to excuse Jefferson or suggest his guilt. That is for a court to decide. The Congress might be finally waking up to the separation of powers. And it is that separation of powers that keeps the American republican form of government working. This is the only republican form of government that has not fallen into a dictatorship over it’s history. (contrast to the parliamentary form of government which has a much better track record)
#9 Milo, what Jack McCafferty on CNN says is irrelevant. He is just another talking head who likes to think he actually knows what he is talking about. I’m sure O’Rielly on Fox and Carlson on MSNBC have had a few comments as well. All of them like to play to emotions instead of reality.
Dear Congress,
Not so nice when it happens to you, is it? Welcome to the surveillance state you helped create, where the traditional restraints on searches have crumbled.
Any complaints about the loss of privacy will will be addressed by the following questions:
(1) why do you hate our troops?
(2) why do you hate America?
(3) why do you support the terrorists?
Sincerely,
The Fourth Amendment
Hastert says, and even the liberal blogosphere agrees, that this was the Justice Department throwing a knockback pitch in his direction because he spoke up against Bush. Bush’s people are MEAN little shitheads, and it doesn’t surprise me that they “leaked” the information to smear Hastert. Hastert, you see, isn’t on “their” side anymore, so he’s Fair Game, as L. Ron Hubbard callled it.
I didn’t know any of that Mr. Fusion. In my country it works quite differently.
So:
1) why do you hate our troops?
(2) why do you hate America?
(3) why do you support the terrorists?
Actually….Hastert admitted today that it’s NOT illegal or unconstitutional to search a Congressmans office with a warrant. The three top members of the Justice Department were set to resign over this.
As I said in my post yesterday, it’s only a tradition, not the law. With a properly issued warrant the FBI CAN search a Congressmans office.
And the FBI has the right to enter any office in the White House with a proper warrant and remove files as well. It has happened in the past.
Though I can’t imagine this happening to the Oval Office.
For 200 years tehy never had to inspect a Congress office, but suddenly this guy with the money in the freezer had to be searched? No wonder the Black Caucus is upset with Pelosi