Be Careful What You Wish For--The Jefferson Raid Ruling
There has been a minor buzz on the internet in response to the decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan to uphold the seizure of papers from the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) Actually, the reaction has been surprisingly muted. That just means that the blog-o-sphere has been swamped by other juicy worthy targets ranging from the fortuitous death of Enron’s Ken Lay, the Joe Lieberman soap opera in Connecticut, Israel’s all out offensive in Gaza and now in Lebanon, the usual Iraqi blood bath cubed, the administrations sudden agreement to treat the Guantanimo prisoners “as if they were covered by the Geneva Conventions,” to the Resident’s patently ridiculous assertions that his tax cuts were responsible for increased tax revenue and will “wipe out the deficit.” So many juicy tomatoes lined up on the fence and only so many shots to take with our .22 caliber single shots.
So it is not too surprising to find coverage of the court decision to slide down to mid page on many big time blog sites, or never to appear at all on others.
Still, the limited reaction has been decidedly mixed. A large number of commentators, left and right alike, are enthusiastic supporters. Congressmen, they assert in nodding agreement with the judge, are not exempt from the same investigative procedures to which a dime bag dope pusher may expect to be subjected. And there is a certain reasonableness, not to mention rough justice in that view.
Others, however, with a wary eye on an insatiable administration, squirm like picnickers after sun cooked potato salad. They understand that the court has just handed the executive broad, and easily abused powers, to intimidate Congress.
Put me in the latter group. For my take on how Attorney General Roberto Gonzalez, ever the obedient stooge of the President (and therefore of Dick “Edgar Bergan” Cheney) may be using the Jefferson case to intimidate Congress, including restive Republicans, see my June 1 posting “Hassert vs. Justice Department: Intrigue in Washington”.
A quick review of the Jefferson case may be in order. Jefferson, a Black Louisiana Democrat has pretty clearly been a very bad boy. And a greedy one. Unlike recent cases involving Republicans and complicated schemes with K street lobbyists, Jefferson apparently specialized in good old fashion retail corruption. His legislative influence seems to have been on sale. Among scads of damning evidence, the Feds found lots of cold cash stuffed into a freezer at his home. They also have a ton of other evidence. At best anything found in an unprecedented raid on his Congressional office would have provided extra icing on an already very elegantly decorated cake, perhaps an extra butter cream rose or two.
Congressional Dems, as mortified as the ethically challenged House GOP caucus was delighted, recently stripped Jefferson of his plum committee assignments.
So the argument was not over the dubious virtue of one chiseling scum bag. The challenge was recognized by a frightened Speaker Denny Hassert, who by “coincidence” was the very same week as the raid the subject of a Justice Department leak that he himself might be under investigation. That drove him into the uncomfortable arms of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Together they denounced the raid and supported Jefferson’s appeal to have his paper returned.
They recognized a naked political threat as bold as one is apt to find in Washington, and knew it came from the highest levels of the Administration. So they trotted out the arguments of separation of powers. Constitutional stuff. Dull stuff, but important.
Judge Hogan, who had issued the original search warrant at the request of the Justice Department, was not amused. In fact his opinion in rejecting the appeal, while called “comprehensive” by some legal observers, often had the impatient, scolding tone of someone whose own legal integrity was being challenged. He had carefully considered all of the constitutional arguments, he said, before issuing the warrant. He did not seem to like his judgment being questioned. So his decision was sharply, even, by judicial standards, colorfully worded.
While I am not thrilled by the ruling (there is always a slender chance it may be over turned on appeal,) I recognized that the boys at Justice, and more importantly their bosses in the White House, may not be too thrilled either.
Judge Hogan did not just affirm is original decision and leave it at that, as well he could. He made some broad assertions. The most critical was this: that the Constitution does not make members of Congress “super citizens immune from criminal responsibility.” More over “like members of the co-equal executive and judicial branches, members of Congress are not above the law.”
Those words “MEMBERS OF THE CO-EQUAL EXECUTIVE…ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW” must scream out to everyone in the administration from the Vice President, to the President on down. If upheld on appeal, such language dooms the administration's claims of immunity under the “unitary powers of the executive” or even under emergency war powers.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Not a LiveJournal Member? Comment to pmurfin@sbcglobal.net.