House leaders concede FBI right to search

by Mark5019 May 27, 2006 3:51AM PDT

WASHINGTON (AP) ? House leaders conceded Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week.
"I want to know exactly what would happen if there is a similar sort of thing" in the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Friday, shortly after summoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to his office.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., concurred: "I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right."

Gonzales was similarly optimistic. "We've been working hard already and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," he told The Associated Press.

im so glad they concedid since when are they above the law?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-26-congres-raid_x.htm

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

It's being reported that ...

by Evie May 27, 2006 3:52AM PDT

... Gonzalez, Mueller and another top FBI guy were close to resigning over this.

Evie

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) to bad they look foolish now

by Mark5019 May 27, 2006 3:56AM PDT

- Collapse -

by Evie May 27, 2006 4:26AM PDT

I don't think they look foolish. It's about time someone stood up on principal and stood their ground. The DOJ/FBI followed the proper procedure for any other search warrant. Perhaps it was a kneejerk response because he's so embattled (Bush), or just an overabundance of caution, but I've heard the 45 day "cooling off period" is a compromise to ordering the papers returned outright! So I think Gonzalez etc. acted admirably to stand up for what they believe was legal and proper.

Evie

- Collapse -

a legal search warrent was issued

by Mark5019 May 27, 2006 4:28AM PDT

seems they trew a temper tantrum

- Collapse -

Just to make sure ...

by Evie May 27, 2006 4:35AM PDT

... I think we're on the same page. If you think Congress looks foolish and threw an unwarranted temper tantrum, I'm in total agreement. If threatened resignations of top DOJ/FBI officials was what it took to stand up to the tantrum, I'm all for it.

Evie

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) were on same page:)

by Mark5019 May 27, 2006 4:36AM PDT

- Collapse -

They could have avoided a lot of trouble...

by EdH May 27, 2006 7:37AM PDT

if they had gone to Hastert and maybe the Sergeant at Arms first. Technically there IS a violation of the separation of powers. I can understand them wanting to protect their turf.

Seems like they have it worked out now though.

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) With a warrant, no seperation problem

by duckman May 27, 2006 8:01AM PDT

- Collapse -

It is my understanding ...

by Evie May 27, 2006 9:09AM PDT

... that they did request some stuff first, the House dragged their feet, so they went for the warrants. I'll have to look for a link.

Evie

- Collapse -

Don't know....

by EdH May 27, 2006 9:33AM PDT

I thought it was Jefferson himself they were requesting stuff from. Anyway, the President and the Congress seem to think there's an issue, so I guess the lawyers wil have to hash it out.

Looks a lot like the Executive leaning on the Legislative though. I think the House could have requested a search via the Sergeant At Arms.

- Collapse -

I disagree

by C1ay May 27, 2006 9:36AM PDT

Technically there IS a violation of the separation of powers.

Technically, bribery of a public official is against the law and the seperation of powers protects no one from that. To use it in that manner would be tantamount to obstruction of justice

- Collapse -

Just a matter of following the proper protocols..

by EdH May 27, 2006 9:50AM PDT

Not saying he shoudn't be charged.

- Collapse -

Seems no one mentioned why all the

by John Robie May 27, 2006 11:57AM PDT

protectionist of Jefferson, you know the guy who had to get his computer and briefcase above anything else during the N.O. flood. IMHO there are quite a few politician shaking in their boots that they might get caught up with their hidden files showing bribes.

- Collapse -

Like other members of the appropriations committee ...

by Evie May 27, 2006 12:13PM PDT

... he sits -- er, sat -- on?

- Collapse -

No, JR -- it's about specific language in the Constitution

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] May 27, 2006 12:33PM PDT

protecting Members of Congress and material they obtain in performance of their duties. This one may well end up in the SCOTUS. Don't forget, at the time of the Constitution it was just a bit over a Century since some English MPs were executed for permorfimng their duties, which was one factor that led to the English Civil War between King and Parliament, ending in the regicide of Charles I. That's one reason the Founding Fathers took separation of powers very seriously.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

House leaders concede FBI right to search

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info