Debate rages on office raid [William Jefferson]

Times-Picayune/NOLA ^ | June 17, 2006 | Bruce Alpert

[ncountylee]

WASHINGTON -- U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan on Friday promised a quick ruling on a legal challenge to the May 20 Justice Department raid on Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office, but conceded that legal precedent is tough to find.

While Hogan suggested he'd be making legal history, he also said he isn't buying the arguments of lawyers for Jefferson and the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House that the raid was unconstitutional, saying he was "not sanguine" with their position.

Speaking in a courtroom jammed with lawyers and others who wanted to watch the constitutional showdown between Congress and the executive branch, Hogan sharply questioned the Justice Department's lawyer on why this case merited the first-ever search of a Capitol Hill office. Would a legal victory in the Jefferson search case, Hogan asked, lead agents to go "marching up there time and again" to search the offices of congressional members?

Hogan had issued the search warrant for Jefferson's office May 19 after the government said it believed that documents related to its 15-month political corruption investigation of the New Orleans Democrat would be found in the office. The search of Jefferson's office began the next night and continued through May 21, lasting 18 hours.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Roy McLeese told Hogan that the raid, while unprecedented, was constitutional. "There is probable cause to believe the materials recovered from Rep. Jefferson's office

[ncountylee]

Grand jury do your duty and indict "Dollar Bill" before the race card inhibits our spineless politicians further.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

But - it's a D.C. Grand Jury, right?

Jake...it's Chinatown...

[Diogenesis]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[debg]

Funny how the following is left out of so many articles:

Jefferson ignored a subpoena for eight months...and Congress made no effort to force him to comply.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Well said!

[butternut_squash_bisque]

Same bunch of lowlifes who declined to indict the mentally-ill, criminal McKinney b!tch.

[Boundless]

> Would a legal victory in the Jefferson search case,
> [judge] Hogan asked, lead agents to go "marching up
> there time and again" to search the offices of
> congressional members?

Sounds like the judge knows that the "sanctuaries" are
brimming with contraband and criminal evidence.

Did the judge ask the opposition why they stonewalled
on the subpoeanas? Compliance would have avoid the
present faux crisis.

[Bahbah]

Hastert's reaction was way out of proportion, given the fact that the documents had been under subpoena for 8 months. Now it appears that Mr. Hastert has a project in which he holds a quarter interest that was significantly benefitted by an earmarked project that he helped push through. The Sunshine Foundation has questioned him on it and his response has been belligerant and inaccurate. Scroll down to "Captain Ed Has Dirt on More Hastert Earmarking."

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/

[YaYa123]

Let's hope the good judge kept up with other news of the week:

"June 15, 2006

Top Court Upholds No-Knock Police Search
By GINA HOLLAND
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

0615dv-scotus-decision The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival...."

[NonValueAdded]

Asked by Hogan what would stop a future executive branch of government from using the search process to intimidate members of Congress, McLeese said that such an abuse wouldn't be allowed because searches require a judicial order.

There is an eerie parallel to the recent SCOTUS ruling against the exclusionary rule. McLeese and soon-to-be-ex-Rep. Jefferson, DemocRAT from Louisiana, should take no solace from that. The majority opinion held that civil remedies and a professional police force were sufficient safeguards for us lowlife citizens. Why should a Congresscritter expect more? In this case, the weight of the probable cause is enough to dismiss any claim of intimidation. The proper exclusion of legislative material should suffice.

[P-40]

Jefferson ignored a subpoena for eight months...and Congress made no effort to force him to comply.

Were it not for that fact I would be a little uneasy about the raid and I've met many others that share the same sentiment. Guess that is why it is left out so often.

[mrsmith]

The House Leadership's demand that Members be able to object to the seizure of documents and have a judge resolve that objection- yea or nay- before the Executive Officers examine the documents will be upheld.

The Constitution is inconvenient at times but there are usually only four justices on the Supreme Court who ignore it when the mob is on their side.

[nothingnew]

Would a legal victory in the Jefferson search case, Hogan asked, lead agents to go "marching up there time and again" to search the offices of congressional members?

Hogan had issued the search warrant for Jefferson's office May 19 after the government said it believed that documents related to its 15-month political corruption investigation of the New Orleans Democrat would be found in the office.

So, Hogan issued the warrant and is now having problems with it? WTF?

FMCDH(BITS)

[debg]

I'm of the opinion that that is why they had to raid his office. (It's his own danged fault!)

[P-40]

I'm of the opinion that that is why they had to raid his office. (It's his own danged fault!)

From what I have heard so far, a lot went into selecting the team that would conduct the search. It sounds like they were at the end of a rather long road and were presented with a "double dare ya!" from Jefferson...and he lost.

[debg]

Absolutely.

[ops33]

How can anyone argue that the search was an unconsitutional f separation of powers? If that was true, then any member of Congress can simply hide all the evidence of their illegal activities inside their office. You cannot use the law to hide the fact you are violating the law.

[oceanview]

that's what they want, and both parties want it - let's not kid ourselves.

this is a critical case regarding corruption in this country, we must win it, DOJ must litigate it to the SCOTUS if needed.

and if the Rs hold the house in 2006, there needs to be a grass roots effort to get rid of hastert as speaker.

[Sam Ketcham]

... and the Republican leadership jumped on the Demonrats bandwagon as if they are co-conspirators. Search of Congressional Offices is no more sacrosanct than the search of a person's residence. Indeed, a home is more personal than a business office. There is no Constitutional obstacle to searching a Congressman's Office, but the restriction on searching a home ARE protected. Makes you wonder what the rest of these Politicans thought was beyond search in their offices... and why!!!