You may be aware of the FBI’s search of Rep. William Jefferson’s Congressional office as part of a corruption investigation. You may also be aware that there has been much bipartisan wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the privacy violation, of the separation-of-powers issue when a division of the executive branch obtains a warrant for the search of the office of the legislative branch, oh, the humanity.
But at least one member of Congress sees the hypocrisy of a Congress that protects its own while allowing the executive branch to run roughshod over the privacy rights of all Americans. Barney Frank:
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I disagree with the bipartisan House leadership criticism of the FBI’s search of a Member’s office. I know nothing specifically about the case, except that the uncontroverted public evidence did seem to justify the issuance of a warrant.
What we now have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress.
I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.
So I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think what they did, they ought to be able to do in every case where they can get a warrant from a judge. I think, in particular, for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate.
Remember, the FBI had obtained a warrant to search Jefferson’s Congressional office, after they’d found $90,000 in his Washington home freezer and videotaped him accepting $100,000 in bribes. That just kind of screams “probable cause” to me. The guy’s small potatoes compared to a DeLay, but that doesn’t mean the FBI should have to overlook his corruption. (He also commandeered some National Guard trucks during Katrina to remove items from his Louisiana house, at a time when some of his constituents were awaiting rescue. If he keeps $90K in the freezer, you have to wonder what was in the house then that he felt the need to remove while people died for lack of transport.)
By contrast, the NSA has not been obtaining warrants for its massive spying program, which potentially involves every phone call from every phone in the US. And Congress is rolling over on the nomination of General Michael Hayden to become the director of the CIA, even though he oversaw this massive, intrusive, illegal program.
Civil liberties, it seems, are not for the little people.
The hypocricy is unbearable.
I love Barney Frank. He’s one of the few with actual integrity.
There’s been a lot of commentary on this matter all over the blogosphere, which raises a number of issues that need to be resolved or explained. First, there’s the seperation of powers issue. The executive should not be sending people with guns to intimidate the legislature. There’s a reason that 200+ years of presidential administrations have respected this precedent, even in the face of corruption much more serious than Jefferson’s. Further, there’s the clear evidence of political motivation for the raid. It can’t possibly be a coincidence that under this administration, for which every decision is political, that William Jefferson, a black Democrat is the only member of Congress subjected to this treatment. Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Katherine Harris, Conrad Burns – none of them have had their offices raided. They’re all corrupt Republicans. It can’t be coincidence that this unprecedented action managed to keep the Jefferson scandal in the media for an extra week or two. Finally, this raid is part of a continued and aggressive campaign to expand the power of the executive and render the legislature impotent. What better way to do that than to send jackbooted thugs into the offices of opposition legislators, to come back with “evidence” that no doubt includes strategy documents, research, and private communications with other legislators?
Jefferson may well be corrupt (and the evidence seems compelling so far), but that doesn’t excuse another Bush administration power grab, or the abuse of law enforcement resources for political gain.
This issue was decided a long time ago in United Stave v. Brewster, 408 US 501 (1972).
A U.S. Senator sought to avoid conviction for bribery under the “Speech & Debate” clause. The Court said that the protection of legislators does not extend to cover criminal activities. See also, United States v. Nixon.
Not to say that Rep. Franks should not be castigating Congress, bravo for him.