Can anyone help me understand the problem with that FBI search

[Larry_OHF]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html

So this congressman has been caught with $90,000 in his freezer. Two people have pleaded guilty to bribing him to do stuff for them. The FBI followed lawful rules to get a warrent. But because this is a congressman and that this is the first time that such a thing has ever happened...that makes it wrong to convict him? WTF? Why has Bush sealed the documents for more than a damned month? Why are Democrats and Republicans both shouting foul? Where the hell is the foul? Its unlawful to send a congressman to jail?

Please help me understand what the big deal is...

[Bungleau]

I believe the issue is that his congressional offices were searched. His house would be no big deal, but his offices... that could open the door for the judicial branch to shake down the legislative through such practices.

Doesn't do anything about the impression that he's guilty as sin, though...

[True_Moose]

Bungleau is exactly right. The problem is that the action could be interpreted to mean that the executive branch can place checks and interfere in Congress, which violates the equality of the three branches. I suppose the ideal solution for them would be for Congress to police itself - which is pretty much not gonna happen. It's one of those situations where I don't thing anything was done in this particular instance, but some people are worried about the precedent it sets.

EDIT => Stupid sig. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-26-2006, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

[Luvian]

It's one thing to arrest some guy on the street, but a politician? Come on! How could they make a living without corruption, what do you think these guys get ellected for!

If a politician can't hide his crime evidences at his office where is he going to hide them now?

[ 05-26-2006, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[shamrock_uk]

Bush has sealed the papers because the top echelons give off very dubious vibes at the best of times and it's an uncomfortable precendent to set.

Can somebody please clarify about this executive branch interference with congress point (as my understanding of this is limited) - I thought the executive branch was basically the President and White House?

Is it not possible for the FBI to be acting autonomously, solely in their capacity as law enforcers, and hence arrest a congressman with no repercussions?

[ 05-26-2006, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

congress sets the laws, the executive enforces or executes the laws (and the judicial oversees both, but is appointed by the executive and approved by the legislative), so law enforcement is by default a branch of the executive.

[Bungleau]

My mistake. FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is an executive branch department. As I understand it, Bush sealed the paperwork for a month so everyone could cool down and discuss rationally.

Vegas isn't taking odds on that actually happening...

[True_Moose]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Is it not possible for the FBI to be acting autonomously, solely in their capacity as law enforcers, and hence arrest a congressman with no repercussions?

Theoretically, yes. But the Director of the FBI is a (Presidentially) appointed position. And anything as huge as the search of a Congressman's offices would probably go pretty damn high on the totem pole. So there's the appearance of impropriety, which in politics is pretty much the same thing as actual impropriety.

[Felix The Assassin]

Nixon and Watergate + Clinton and Whitewater = Politics as usual!