BCT Editorial – 5/29/06

This page was last updated on May 31, 2006.

Above the law; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 29, 2006. Though it appeared in the print edition of the Times, this editorial was not posted on the Times website at the time I wrote this critique. As a result, I had to transcribe the editorial instead of being able to cut-and-paste it. I apologize for any transcription errors.

This editorial argues without success that the executive branch with a search warrant doesn’t have the right to search the offices of a legislator in pursuit of a criminal investigation. In doing so, however, the editorial effectively argues legislators are “above the law.” Given the Times believes the executive branch cannot investigate criminal activity of legislators – and presumably of the judicial branch, I wonder if we’ll read an editorial decrying Congress the next time it issues a subpoena for records or testimony from the executive branch. I think we know the answer.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Congress gets a taste of Bush administration’s disregard for Constitution

“They finally came for members of Congress.

“Let’s hope lawmakers have been awakened to the Bush administration’s indifference to constitutional rights and stand up to it before there is no one left to speak out.

“Members in the House and Senate were outraged over the Justice Department’s raid on U.S. Rep. William Jefferson’s office the weekend of May 20. Democrats and Republicans alike have protested the agency’s conduct, saying it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.”

[RWC] Nowhere in this editorial does it mention the search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas Hogan. That was a purposeful omission by the author, something the Times refers to as a “true lie” when others do it.

While it’s true “Democrats and Republicans alike have protested,” it’s also true “Democrats and Republicans alike have” upheld the legality of the search.

Read the Constitution (Article I, Section 6) and you’ll see the search didn’t violate any separation of powers. The relevant section states, Senators and Representatives “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and ingoing to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

Note that bribery is a “Felony,” and Rep. Jefferson hasn’t been arrested yet.

If you accept the “separation of powers” argument in this case, you make a lawmaker’s office off limits regarding lawful searches. For example, I could rob a bank and hide the money in my congressional office without fear of discovery. Does anyone in his right mind believe that’s what the law states?

“House Speaker Dennis Hastert – normally one of Bush’s most loyal legislative servants – went so far as to demand that the FBI surrender documents it seized and remove agents involved in the raid. FBI agents searched the New Orleans Democrat’s office in pursuit of evidence in a bribery investigation.”

[RWC] Again, the author intentionally leaves out a lot of details because they would muck up his agenda.

First, the author forgot to note at least two persons have already pled guilty to bribing Rep. Jefferson (D-LA). Therefore, this is a little more than just a “routine” bribery investigation.

Second, Rep. Jefferson (D-LA) was captured on videotape accepting a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant on July 30, 2005.

Third, on August 3, 2005, a search of Rep. Jefferson’s home uncovered $90,000 (wrapped in aluminum foil and frozen food containers) of the $100,000 (serial numbers matched) hidden in a freezer.

Fourth, as noted above, the FBI sought and received a search warrant for Rep. Jefferson’s office from a federal judge, and the judge instructed the Capitol Police to admit the FBI.

Fifth, the search warrant affidavit describes the negotiations the DOJ and House lawyers had been in to have the evidence turned over without the need for a search warrant. The FBI previously tried subpoenas, but Rep. Jefferson didn’t cooperate. The affidavit clearly shows the FBI considered a search warrant to be a last resort.

Sixth, the search warrant detailed exactly what the FBI intended to seize. The search was not a “fishing expedition.”

Seventh, the agents who conducted the search were not the agents conducting the bribery investigation.

Eighth, well, you get the idea by now.

Finally, the evidence presented so far has been damning enough that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has asked Rep. Jefferson to give up his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

“The Associated Press reported White House officials said they did not learn of the search until after it happened, and that they pledged to work with the Justice Department to soothe lawmakers. However, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the search, saying, ‘We have an obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists.’

“Sound familiar? It should. It is the same mindset this administration has displayed when trampling the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans in the name of fighting terrorism.

“By now, it should be obvious to all Constitution-minded Americans that this administration believes it is a law unto itself, that it can interpret the laws of this land to suit its needs and that it answers to no one but itself.”

[RWC] This editorial makes it clear previous complaints about the NSA terrorist surveillance program were purely political, as if we didn’t know that already. After all, editorials claimed the terrorist surveillance was wrong because it was done without seeking court approval. In this case, the FBI asked for and received a search warrant from the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Times still considers that “trampling … constitutional rights.”

“For too long, members of Congress, especially those in the GOP, have aided and abetted the Bush White House as it interpreted the Constitution to suit its agendas. But in the end, they found out that they, too, weren’t any different than others who get in the administration’s way.

“Members of Congress can no longer ignore this administration’s disregard for constitutional rights. They must speak out before it is too late.”

[RWC] Do Times editorial authors really believe its readers are that stupid?

Finally, let me reinforce the fact the editorial glossed over the alleged criminal activity of the target of the investigation and instead focused on procedures.

This is exactly the opposite way the Times treated allegations against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX). If you recall, the DA bringing the charges conducted grand jury shopping and charged Mr. DeLay with “crimes” that were not crimes at the time Mr. DeLay allegedly committed the acts. You won’t learn this reading the Times, but the trial judge threw out the non-crime charge against Mr. DeLay and a Texas appeals court upheld the judge’s decision.