Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pelosi Statement on Judge's Decision on FBI Raid of Congressional Office (William Jefferson, D-La.)
U.S. Newswire on Yahoo ^ | 7/10/06 | Nancy Pelosi

Posted on 07/10/2006 10:46:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON, July 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on Judge Thomas F. Hogan's ruling upholding his approval of the search warrant of Representative William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record)'s congressional office:

"No one is above the law and no Members of the House can use a congressional office to conceal evidence of criminal wrongdoing or to shield them from prosecution.

"This particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles.

"The House will continue discussions with the Department of Justice to develop procedures so that any future searches of Members' offices will protect the ability of the FBI to do its job and maintain the constitutional balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of government."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana
KEYWORDS: congressional; decision; fbi; office; pelosi; raid; statement; williamjefferson

1 posted on 07/10/2006 10:46:35 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Since the Judge said it was a legal search, has he not "maintain the constitutional balance"?

I am troubled though that the Judge who decided this was the same one who issued the warrant. That alone could be grounds for appeal, I would think.

2 posted on 07/10/2006 10:50:28 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Nothing says "SLUTT", like a tattoo on the BUTT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

According to Pelosi...

"This particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles.

It is my understanding that the way the search was conducted painstakingly excluded documents and information that was inappropriate for the FBI to seize. My guess is the formula and process that the Justice Department and FBI used in this case will become the blueprint for future searches of corrupt congressmens offices. It was also put them on notice that they better keep their criminal enterprise out of their congressional offices.


3 posted on 07/10/2006 10:54:18 PM PDT by Hootch (Time for the CONSTITUTIONAL option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I still got a feeling that a lot of the Nigerian Email scams are originating in the "halls of congers." From guess which party? Who's doing the most hollering? Who's slopping their dripper?


4 posted on 07/10/2006 10:56:29 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"The House will continue discussions with the Department of Justice to develop procedures so that any future searches of Members' offices will protect the ability of the FBI to do its job and maintain the constitutional balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of government."

Translation

"Procedures will be developed so that crooked Congresscritters will be given an adequate heads-up prior to any FBI search in order that they may destroy and/or remove any incriminating evidence they have stashed in their offices."

5 posted on 07/10/2006 10:59:56 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

It's all CYA so she can get back to running on evil GOP culture of corruption. LOL


6 posted on 07/10/2006 11:03:46 PM PDT by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Hopefully the congresscritters will get the message: "WE AREN'T TOLERATING YOUR MISDEEDS, NOR ARE YOU ENTITLED TO MORE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THAN US SCHLUBS OUT HERE IN FLYOVER COUNTRY. WE PAY YOUR SALARIES SO DON'T FORGET IT!"
7 posted on 07/10/2006 11:17:25 PM PDT by Humidston (Congress is like the Mafia - NO PAY, NO PLAY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Oh, just SHUT UP, Nancy!


None of you holier-than-thou congresscritters are above the law even if you think you are.


8 posted on 07/10/2006 11:19:45 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
She's one of the left's heavy thinkers.


9 posted on 07/10/2006 11:23:35 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"This particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles."

Pelosi is a stupid bitch posturing for her moonbat base. There is no way the search could have been conducted that would have further perserved Constitutional principles. The ruling by the federal court (and subsequent ones to follow up to the SCOTUS) will confirm that.

Gawd I despise libscum, esp. posturing ignorant stupid libscum politicians. They will support any traitor and any corrupt libscum to try to keep/regain power. Libscum such as Pelosi need to be voted out of office NOW (or rather the next closest election). I seriously cannot fathom the level of cognitive dissonance it takes to vote for such a worthless scumbag...


10 posted on 07/10/2006 11:31:43 PM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar
There is no way the search could have been conducted that would have further perserved Constitutional principles.

I remain troubled by the version of the process that hit the presses, which was that NOT a judge, BUT a second FBI team gives the go ahead to the prosecuting FBI team as to what is privileged. That's more commonly known as a fox guarding the henhouse. Now if this is further buffered by a compilation presented to the defense who gets to appeal any and all privileged status to a judge before the prosecuting team sees it, the process is not so troubling, but I have never seen this spelled out anywhere.

You know the USSC has said that the Congress can just de-fund something if Congress doesn't want it to happen even if the USSC has said it does want it to happen. Congress, if so minded, could really put the choke on the FBI.

11 posted on 07/10/2006 11:37:55 PM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Humidston

"WE AREN'T TOLERATING YOUR MISDEEDS, NOR ARE YOU ENTITLED TO MORE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THAN US SCHLUBS OUT HERE IN FLYOVER COUNTRY. WE PAY YOUR SALARIES SO DON'T FORGET IT!"

Worth repeating.....


12 posted on 07/10/2006 11:41:44 PM PDT by garylmoore (Faith is the assurance of things unseen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

Keep in mind what this precedent opens up (further) to a Hillary vs. our favorite Pubbies. If an unprincipled President can harass with the USSC's blessing, that President probably will harass.


13 posted on 07/10/2006 11:45:14 PM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Did the bus wheels just thump over something?


14 posted on 07/11/2006 3:46:13 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Go home and fix Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

I believe the Judge starts off his decision saying that no one challenged whether the issuance of the warrant was proper. That being conceded, then yes he would be allowed to decide whatever other gripes they had concerning whether the speech and debate clause was infringed. Judge said it was incidentally abused but that is tough. (paraphrase)


15 posted on 07/11/2006 3:52:26 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"A federal judge on Monday upheld the FBI's unprecedented raid of a congressional office, saying that barring searches of lawmakers' offices would turn Capitol Hill into "a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."

This can not be repeated enough - get that congresscritters? You have NO right to turn your office or your position into a sanctuary for your criminal activity.
16 posted on 07/11/2006 4:04:25 AM PDT by Brytani (Someone stole my tagline - reward for its return!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hootch
It also put them on notice that they better keep their criminal enterprise out of their congressional offices.

And that's what really is upsetting her.

17 posted on 07/11/2006 4:06:55 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod (Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Speaker Pelosi says blah, blah, blah.


18 posted on 07/11/2006 4:13:08 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Let’s see…

Once towards the end of the 19th century, again in the middle of the 20th century, and finally a third time at the beginning of the 21st century. How many times must the congress critters be told that they aren’t above the law?

If you are engaged in a criminal activity and come to the attention of law enforcement don’t expect to have a place to hide. This goes double to our employees - the congress critters we elect every two or six years.


19 posted on 07/11/2006 4:15:08 AM PDT by Nip (SPECTRE - Whistling death from the darkness of night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"This particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles"

Apparently it was conducted in that manner. The judge ruled that the search was constitutional. So what is there to complain about?

20 posted on 07/11/2006 4:41:58 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"This particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles. "

It was you ditz, it's called a search warrant!

 

21 posted on 07/11/2006 5:12:31 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem
Good! Thanks

I still think that this will be appealed as far as it can be. In doing so, whoever does so (dems or joint dems/rep.) will lose favor with the public.

22 posted on 07/11/2006 7:23:20 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Nothing says "SLUTT", like a tattoo on the BUTT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson