It most certainly doesn't help Republicans. Look, I don't find the actions/inactions of Jefferson or Pelosi out of character for them so it certainly won't hurt THEM. Democrats today rarely vote for Republicans (duh, Michael) (or vice-versa of course but that's currently beside my point) So none of this was going to affect the way Democrats vote in November. With Republicans like me severely pissed off about congressional arrogance on top of everything else I listed in this post, these bozos aren't going to win the close races on the backs of independents, who in any case, are probably just as put off by Hastert and his buddies as I am.
There is nothing for me to like about Hastert's position. Bush's cooling off period is strange, to say the least, but might be explicable.
Wince to Hastert: I'm not stupid. The American people are not stupid. We are quite capable of reading the Constitution. You cannot pull stuff like this. You need to reverse your position, accept that Congressional offices are not holy ground, commend the FBI, apologize to the American people, and resign your leadership post. Please realize I had much nastier ways I wanted to say this. I bit my tongue.
What's so faascinating, Ara? That we would take our own congressional leaders to task for being unresponsive to our wishes and beliefs? Are you in lockstep with the Democrats, come hell or high water or do you sometimes wish they would pull their heads out of their rear ends and get a clue?
Leon at Redstate seems to think Hastert is beginning to back down with this Op-Ed, but I didn't read it that way, myself.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
It's fascinating because we on the left have gotten used to seeing precisely that, lock-step adherence to the party talking points.
This is not a criticism. Just an observation. For the first time in a long time you guys are saying the things we've been saying, or at least you have adopted the same tone -- refusal to stand by and buy the crap coming from the GOP leadership.
I can't tell you how frustrating it's been to see unquestionably intelligent people defend this crowd.
Put yourself in our shoes just for one moment. If you read today someone regurgitating Hastert's line right now, wouldn't you think at the least they were being disingenuous if not blinded?
What's facinating is that at least my faith in you guys as possessing the reason I knew was out there has been reaffirmed.
Mark- in this case, there is a legitimate gripe with our leadership. Just as there is with the amnesty package and with the Harriet Meirs nomination. The left has just bitched to bitch.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Okay, maybe that was a bit gruff. Here's a decent quote that puts it nicely in a nutshell.
George Bush and his administration systematically distorted available intelligence to lead the nation to war on false pretenses. His administration has been marked by corruption, incompetence, lies, secrecy, and flagrant disregard for bedrock constitutional principles. None of that can be too complicated: Polls suggest that the majority of Americans believe all of those things.
Whether or not there were good reasons for going, and legitimate reasons to stay in Iraq, many who have looked at the evidence have justifieably concluded that the intel was distorted, that we were "sold" a war by spinmeisters.
That is a legitimate beef. Even if you disagree with the conclusion drawn from available evidence, and dispute the evidence itself, you can't characterize objecting to the way the war was begun and subsequently handled as just "bitching to bitch," and retain any credibility. Dismiss the argument itself if you must, but not the advocate or you seriously risk being dismissed as having anything serious to offer.
Are you trying to tell me that anyone who deplores the corruption typified by billions lost by no-bid contractors, let alone the Abramoff and Wilkes bribery organizations are not being serious, but just bitching?
The cronyism that led to Heckuvajob Brownie is not fair game?
Are you telling me that lying about how much the Medicare reform would cost isn't fair game?
How about the fact that the administration has doubled the amount of things it has classified compared to any previous administration? While I'm on secrecy, while certainly legal, was it proper to keep the members of the energy task force secret?
We aren't voicing legitimate conserns when we "bitch" about a veto-less POTUS who has issued over 750 signing statements asserting his "right" to disregard any law he deems fit, in his sole discretion?
Abrogation of the Geneva Convention. New definitions of human rights and torture to fit within our new policies of keeping detainees locked up without charges, without meaningful access to the legal system as they are kept in a definitional lymbo between POW and criminal.
Oh, and let's not forget IRRESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY.
Just what planet are you from to imply that these aren't seriously important issues for Americans, not just Democratic Party posturing?
Are you trying to tell me that anyone who deplores the corruption typified by billions lost by no-bid contractors, let alone the Abramoff and Wilkes bribery organizations are not being serious, but just bitching?
If it was the contractor that are bitching, I would take it seriously. As it is, those that "lost out" are actually earning from the Haliburton work. Haliburton has subcontracted, or spread the wealth if you will, to many of it's competitors. Many of Haliburton's competitors readily admit that they can't do the work that Haliburton does. Now as for overpayments etc...why no complaining about the real problem? We have how many 10's of 1000's of employees working in the accounting end of our govt and it takes the press/bloggers to catch accounting errors? Haliburton is not the only company to receive overpayments, but they are the focus of your ire so therefore it is Haliburtons fault.
Abrogation of the Geneva Convention. New definitions of human rights and torture to fit within our new policies of keeping detainees locked up without charges, without meaningful access to the legal system as they are kept in a definitional lymbo between POW and criminal.
The SCOTUS sided with him on enemy combatants.
let alone the Abramoff and Wilkes bribery organizations are not being serious, but just bitching?
Let's start with "This is a Republican scandal"
Whether or not there were good reasons for going, and legitimate reasons to stay in Iraq, many who have looked at the evidence have justifieably concluded that the intel was distorted, that we were "sold" a war by spinmeisters.
No, I don't think they have looked at the evidence. I think they have "cherry picked" details that fit their pre-determined conclusion!
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
pam:
I never referred directly to Cheneyburton. They aren't the only goofballs feeding at the public trough so I avoid singling them out when I can. They are truly amazing, and weild power and wealth that Caesar and Alexander would envy. What's missing is a Trumanesque body overseeing this monstrosity that takes it's job seriously, without political influence encouraging them to look the other way.
They may have great people at Cheneyburton, top to bottom they can afford to hire the best. But the corporate structure only permits loyalty to company first, and nation merely when convenient.
They got it easy and are out of control.
The SCOTUS sided with him on enemy combatants.
WRONG. In fact the admin was warned by the court that they were skating on thin ice by forum shopping. It is inconceivable to me, an officer of the court, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the integrity and honor of the judicial system, to see this country adopting a Kafkaesque prisoner policy.
Let's start with "This is a Republican scandal"
It is. I remain unmoved by your exhaustive litany in previous threads. You never addressed the structural organization that was created to maintain a perpetual GOP majority through lobbyist/campaign finance schemes that was working so well until some folks got greedy and overzealous, and showed their cards. To my mind, such a scheme, legal or not, goes against the nature of representative government.
As far as I know, you have ignored what truly sets this apart from individual greedy men and women, or makes it different than a criminal conspiracy. You are actually supporting a system that is maintained not to reflect the honest desires of the American people, but to keep in power those who have fought to impose their version of what is best for whom they deem worthy of supporting to the exclusion of contrary opinions.
Compromise, the essence of rational democratic decision-making, flew out the window with the coming of the modern GOP hegemony.
No, I don't think they have looked at the evidence. I think they have "cherry picked" details that fit their pre-determined conclusion!
Back at ya.
I'm not really ready to "fisk" your fisking of me, point for point complete with footnotes, but couldn't resist making some defense of my position. But that just plays into your hands and I should know better. To do so clouds the overall issue, distracts from the perception of an arrogantly unaccountable power structure in D.C. And it actually proves my point: since you deem it worthy of arguing with me issue by issue, you cannot stand by your position that our "bitches" lack sincerety. Otherwise you would dismiss all of my examples (a non-exhaustive list to be sure) as mere tripe.
You didn't.
I wasn't trying to bait you, but you took the lure anyway. And so did I. But that's not bitching, that's debate. You dignified my "bitching" by arguing with me.
As for my ass and what my preferences are, let me get back to you.... ;-)
<i>Compromise, the essence of rational democratic decision-making, flew out the window with the coming of the modern GOP hegemony.</i>
It actually flew out the window long before the Republicans came to power. The fact that the Democrats were acting pretty much exactly like Republicans are today was one of the reasons for the Republican takeover in the first place.
And by the way, the essence of compromise involves making actual policy compromise suggestions, which is something Democrats have pretty routinely failed to do the last few years. Whenever the Democratic leadership is asked to define what its policy positions are, it's usually nothing but the polar opposite of whatever comes out of the White House. Which is why some of us don't see Democrats being able to take the House easily, or being able to do much of anything if they do get in power. Lack of any definable agenda or set of values besides "Bush is evil" isn't exactly a governing strategy <i>or</i> any indicator of a desire for compromise.
It's pretty amusing that some suggest that Congress can investigate the administration but the administration can't investigate Congress. What blithering idiot ever suggested <i>that</i> was true? Oh yeah. Hastert. Time to fire him.
It's pretty amusing that some suggest that Congress can investigate the administration but the administration can't investigate Congress.
That sounds like a good talking point.
Perhaps you could be more specific?
We know that the Constitution grants Congress several checks and balances against Executive branch power, i.e., oversight, investigations, power of the purse, impeachment/conviction, etc.
So, Dean -- refresh my memory: what are the Executive branch checks and balances over the Congress? More specifically, which one(s) grant(s) the Executive branch power to send the FBI against a sitting member of Congress? And, just as important, are there any Constitutional strictures against doing so?
Not being snarky here -- I just don't believe the legalities on this have been fully aired out yet.
All we have is a lot of political posturing from Bush, Gonzalez, Hastert, and the Office of the VP.
Hey, listen: we in Louisiana have known that Jefferson was a crook for a long time. But don't you believe that he deserves the presumption of innocence? I do. Sure -- take away his seat on Ways and Means. But raid his offices -- before he's even been charged with a crime? That's not right.
What if President Hillary Clinton had done that to the (already indicted) Tom Delay? Or any Congressman who is simply suspected of wrongdoing, like Bob Ney? Or (at the time) Duke Cunningham? Or...Dennis Hastert?
Hey, listen: we in Louisiana have known that Jefferson was a crook for a long time. But don't you believe that he deserves the presumption of innocence? I do. Sure -- take away his seat on Ways and Means. But raid his offices -- before he's even been charged with a crime? That's not right.
Jefferson has been dodging that subpoena since last August.
Ara- it's kind hard to take your Jefferson arguement seriously when you put this together as a sentence: Hey, listen: we in Louisiana have known that Jefferson was a crook for a long time. But don't you believe that he deserves the presumption of innocence?
As usual, you could take two minutes to do your own research, but you don't. In fact, here's my further prediction: I'll produce the evidence for you, and instead of doing what an honorable and decent person would do and just acknowledge it, you'll change the point. Just for laughs, here's one of many legal opinions on this stupid idea.
Furthermore, all you have to do is stop and think about it: are you honestly under the impression that no Congressman ever got indicted for a crime before William Jefferson? You fucking moron: these people get investigated and arrested for crimes all the time. A congressman or Senator is no more above the law or being investigated than anyone else, except in very proscribed circumstances.
The FBI got a WARRANT FROM A JUDGE. It is just plain fucking dishonest (something you're good at) to pretend that this is some great new power of the executive harassing the legislative.
And you know, now that I've written this, I'm completely annoyed with myself that I fell for it. You won't have any kind of rational response. You never do.
Indeed, one might ask, who the Hell gave the congress the right to demand testimony or evidence from anything in the White House?
Oh right, duh: because the "separation of powers" argument was shot down. And they don't even need to get a warrant from a judge, like the FBI did in this case.
I'd love someone to suggest that no one could execute a search warrant to search a judge's chambers becuase that would violate the "separation of powers." Or that no one could subpoeana anything out of the White House because that woudl violate the "separation of powers." Oh, but a Congressman can pile up dead bodies and pounds of heroin in his office, and no judge could issue or FBI agent execute a warrant to search it?
Anyone read the articles on Neo-Neocon and Dean's World about how terribly rude liberals and leftists are? It's truly shameful. I'm absolutely embarrassed to be associated with such vulgarian ideologies.
I loves pokin Dean with a stick! If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins.
As usual, you could take two minutes to do your own research, but you don't....I'll produce the evidence for you, and instead of doing what an honorable and decent person would do and just acknowledge it...
Please excuse me for not having a masters degree in political science like the esteemed Dean Esmay.
I've read the post from Orin Kerr you linked to. He isn't so sure one way or the other. He says it's "hard to reach a more definitive conclusion without spending more time looking through the cases."
I didn't read Powerline, Michelle Malkin, or any of the
are you honestly under the impression that no Congressman ever got indicted for a crime before William Jefferson?
Are you honestly under the impression that Jefferson has been indicted? He hasn't -- not yet. And even if/when he is, he's still due the common legal niceties of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You fucking moron: these people get investigated and arrested for crimes all the time.
No. Really? What's this country coming to?
A congressman or Senator is no more above the law or being investigated than anyone else, except in very proscribed circumstances.
Go burn that straw man in effigy somewhere else, my friend. No one said Jefferson "was above the law."
The FBI got a WARRANT FROM A JUDGE.
That is correct. And/but that decision (and a lot more) will probably be challenged in court and the constitutional issues will be for someone else to decide, not you.
And you know, now that I've written this, I'm completely annoyed with myself that I fell for it.
Yeah, but you always do. That's what I like about you.
You won't have any kind of rational response. You never do.
Just keep telling yourself that.
who the Hell gave the congress the right to demand testimony or evidence from anything in the White House?
If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were trying to be serious here.
Oh right, duh: because the "separation of powers" argument was shot down.
Now I have no idea what you're talking about.
And they don't even need to get a warrant from a judge, like the FBI did in this case.
Again, not sure where you're going. I don't think anyone believes that the Legislative branch can have the Oval Office searched. Who would do it? The Capital Police?
As you know, however, the Legislature can issue subpoenas to Executive branch officials and put them under oath. Not that that'll ever, you know, actually happen with this Congress and this White House. But, you know, it's in the Constitution. I'd love someone to suggest that no one could execute a search warrant to search a judge's chambers becuase that would violate the "separation of powers."
Be my guest.
Oh, but a Congressman can pile up dead bodies and pounds of heroin in his office, and no judge could issue or FBI agent execute a warrant to search it?
Again, another interesting point. But the fact remains -- in over 200 years of US history (and 80 years of the FBI), this has never happened before.
So for everyone who has read this far, consider this: as far as we know, al-Qaeda is not involved nor are there any dead bodies nor is there any heroin, right? So here's my question: why has the administration chosen this very moment to send in the FBI and why has it chosen a two-bit tinhorn Democratic Congressman from Louisiana to make it's test case?
Where did we go from the Congressman was under investigation by the FBI, in facted video taped..to now the POTUS sent them after Jefferson? That is just ridiculous...and at what point is a Congressman's actions not considered a two-bit tinhorn Democratic Congressman? As you know, this two-bit tinhorn ignored a subpoena...that gets you into all kinds of trouble...trouble that Jefferson created for himself!
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Talking points? Fuck off, Rubyan.
Gee Dean, I hope your Mommy stopped doing tricks to pay off your student loans. She should get her money back from that charm school you flunked out of.
Again, another interesting point. But the fact remains -- in over 200 years of US history (and 80 years of the FBI), this has never happened before.
Again...this is the 1st time in over 200 years of US history that a Congressperson has allowed their legal troubles to enter their office in that they did not cooperate with law enforcement and then resign office, before pushing the FBI to raid their office.
I guess you could make that point, if you had a firm enough grasp of history to back it up.
But, Pam, excuse me for being blunt, you ain't that person.
P.S.
this is the 1st time in over 200 years of US history that a Congressperson has allowed their legal troubles to enter their office in that they did not cooperate with law enforcement and then resign office
So Ara, please tell me who else has had their office raided? Or are you just not capable of reading a sentence?
this is the 1st time in over 200 years of US history that a Congressperson has allowed their legal troubles to enter their office in that they did not cooperate with law enforcement and then resign office, before pushing the FBI to raid their office.
Are you honestly under the impression that Jefferson has been indicted? He hasn't -- not yet. And even if/when he is, he's still due the common legal niceties of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Said Ara, as he throws up Ney and DeLay as guilty!
Dean may have been a bit to blunt, but he did have it right about you Ara:
I'll produce the evidence for you, and instead of doing what an honorable and decent person would do and just acknowledge it, you'll change the point.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Pam, I'm re-reading what you and Ara wrote, and nowhere do I see Ara pronouncing DeLay and Ney guilty.
Are you trying to say (and I'm being genenerous here) that DeLay and Ney are being fully co-opertive and that only? Or that the FBI had no choice and as you say, were "pushed" into the raid and couldn't have conducted the search in another way?
I believe they could have been less "Rambo" in their tactics, brought in the Capital Police for instance, but I also don't like to second guess law enforcement's discretion in the manner of executing a warrant.
Dear, before you start questioning anyone's honor and decency, don't put words in their mouths.
Historical examples abound, DeLay and Ney and Jefferson are only recent examples of public officials who were, um...less than coopertive with investigators. You should look at the Jim Trafficante case for a fun romp of hide-and-seek and pompus posturing.
Speaking of pompus posturing, I'm amused by the AG, Alburtabu Gongitmo, and FBI Dir. Mueller "leaking" that they considered resigning if POTUS told them to give what they found back to Jefferson. What's amusing is that they don't say they'd resign if Cheney demanded he wanted to take a peek. (And you just know he wanted to.)
Oh, and in case you thought I'd let that "a bit blunt," characterization go unchallenged, think again. It's a "bit blunt" to call someone a liar or fool. Dean is well beyond impolite. He habitually abuses others with despicably caustic and hateful vituperations that can neither be defended nor excused. Shame on you for associating yourself with his remarks.
Dear, before you start questioning anyone's honor and decency, don't put words in their mouths.
I am not questioning Ara on that..he has demonstrated time and again he doesn't have honor.
It's a "bit blunt" to call someone a liar or fool. Dean is well beyond impolite. He habitually abuses others with despicably caustic and hateful vituperations that can neither be defended nor excused. Shame on you for associating yourself with his remarks.
Dean called it like he saw it and I happen to agree with him. I would use conversations I have watched between Ara and Wince as an example of what Dean is referring to. I have brought up to Ara, on a number of occasions that he constantly changes the subject or something becomes a non issue when it won't fit into Ara's realm of thinking. As I sain, Dean may have been too blunt, but I agreed with him on the point he made.
How is it that we've come over 200 years in our history (and seen 80 years of FBI history) and this sort of thing has not ever, never happened before?
Surely you would agree that a corrupt Congressman from Louisiana is not so rare a species as to only have been seen once in our entire history?
If history isn't my strong suit, you are into the category of dementia...What part of this don't you grasp?
this is the 1st time in over 200 years of US history that a Congressperson has allowed their legal troubles to enter their office in that they did not cooperate with law enforcement and then resign office, before pushing the FBI to raid their office.
Are you dumb enough to believe that because it hasn't happened in 200 years, it can't happen? Or are you just ticked off that it happened during this administration.
Are you dumb enough to believe that because it hasn't happened in 200 years, it can't happen?
Gosh, no. It's just when something happens for the first time in two centuries, it gets my attention. I'd like to know why.
Or are you just ticked off that it happened during this administration.
Not ticked off; not even particularly surprised. Well, actually I was mildly bemused to discover that they bothered to get a warrant. After all the warrantless searches they've engaged in (and admitted to) it's somewhat bizarre to hear that they paused to get a warrant in this case.
Dean called it like he saw it and I happen to agree with him.
[shrug] Fine with me on both counts. But I will say this: when someone becomes deranged because of a disagreement during debate, well, that says a lot.
Ara...has demonstrated time and again he doesn't have honor.
You have no idea who I am, Pam.
But I will admit to this mistake -- it is continuing to converse with people who are otherwise beneath contempt.
All we have to go by is how you present yourself here. People try to have converstions and are dismissed. You hear and see what you want to, and if you don't see what it is you want..you never fail to steer the conversation in another direction. That's who I see. I see a person who wants to have his opinions and ideas respected, but you rarely reciprocate that.
shrug] Fine with me on both counts. But I will say this: when someone becomes deranged because of a disagreement during debate, well, that says a lot.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by deranged.and I have come to the conclusion that this is rooted a lot deeper than these past 2 weeks..Never a week goes by around here without someone referring to Dean in some derogatory way..why not take it to his blog? I've always felt it rather rude of people to come here to Rosemary's blog and bitch about her husband', Dean, blog. But that's me.
Yes, I thought Dean exploding was over the top, but it balances out the times I have sat here and watched you and others speak negatively about him in front of Rosemary...and I am not referring to the posts where she specifically calls him out on things..I've got to believe that, like myself, Rosemary, Miss Julie, Mrs Adams all feel that "alls fair in blog and war, but no one picks on my husband...if he is going to be called an ass, it will be by me..or a pig, again..I'll be the one to say it..."
Never a week goes by around here without someone referring to Dean in some derogatory way..why not take it to his blog? I've always felt it rather rude of people to come here to Rosemary's blog and bitch about her husband', Dean, blog.
Well, first off, no-one is bitching about Dean's blog. We're bitching about Dean's comments here.
Secondly, Dean has asked many of us ever-so-politely to not comment on his blog, as our opinions make him mad, and we're actually considerate enough to not want to ruin his blogging experience for him.
As most of us met and got to know each other at Dean's World, and we all like Rosemary, and Rosemary is kind enough to put up with us here, this is where we hang out.
Me, I think Dean likes coming over here and yelling at us because Rosemary's comment section is a lot more fun than his is now. At least to these jaundiced eyes.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
++UG: When Dean, as you so interestingly put it, asked many of us ever-so-politely to not comment on his blog, I told him to enjoy his echo chamber. I guess it's finally starting to get old reading the same old, "Yer right, Dean", and "Yep, me too, Dean," day in and day out, but that's all his blood pressure will permit him to deal with.
That, for those who weren't around, was what, two years ago? When did Rose start this little party? It was around the same time that I, as innocently as Pam defends Dean, had the temerity to suggest on Dean's World that Michael Moore was capable of uttering a factually accurate statement.
Oops, my bad.
"ever-so-politely asked.," Dude, you are one of the funniest humans alive.
"ruin his blogging experience for him." That's freaking classic. OMG, I can't breath.
Pam, this is one of the few places where right and left can politely discuss politics without much name-calling or demogoguery. If you don't get some of Ara and Wince's jumping around on subject matters, remember two three things. Things that drive Dean off the edge.
1) They've been having this conversation going on four years now. Some times they're back to subject matter that's been exhausted already, so a subject change is in order because they agree to disagree, both keep face and neither changes their minds. Intelligent, rational people can accept that kind of result. Dean cannot.
2) It takes two to tango. If one of the debaters goes off topic, he can be (a) called on it, (b) ignored, or (c) directly answered. The respondant has that choice, and thus the power to delve into uncharted territory -- and only by choosing one of the three alternatives. Dean, obsessive personality that he is, cannot help himself but choose "c," and typically for an enabled addict he will not take responsibility for his actions -- thus Ara (or Dean's foil de jure) by raising a point that does not counter directly the initial premise, but attacks it in a collateral albeit effective manner, becomes the villian in Dean's mind.
Pam:
I see a person who wants to have his opinions and ideas respected, but you rarely reciprocate that.
I know how you feel. I've felt that way about you (and a number of other "regulars") on many occasions, too. But after thinking about it some more, this is what I've found: if it gets too frustrating, take a break. Step away from the computer and do something in the real world for a while.
P.S. Maybe Rose would agree to some sort of system where if you get really frustrated with someone's comments she could moderate them or something.
One other thing: I want to apologize for saying that sparring with you and others often seems like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole. That's not considerate and I hope you'll accept my apology.
The truth is, I fight you here so that I won't have to fight you at home.
I thank-you for the history lesson of this
on going battle. That being said, Just as you were angered for being chastized for your stance on Moore, please don't chastize me for supporting Dean's point, I supported a position I had said a month ago. Just remember, this is
something between you ragamuffins...not all of are in the same boat.
I love the fact that this is an open forum with all sides of the debate represented...I just happen to think that a discussion is much better when everyone takes the time to listen to those around them. That's all. I love to learn and I have learned alot..I love to get lost in links people provide...I start reading those and then find myself needing to do just a bit more research...you get the point...Hence I used Wince as an example. I really appreciate the time and effort that he puts into his responses..
I thought Wince said all of us, excluding ++, were a$$&0!es..well then ++ got admitted..so now you say Wince is a weeny so does that make him a god in these woods..:)
Back to the topic...Mark, I was watching Judge Napalotano on Fox last week....I am not sure what context it had come up, so keep that in mind...
He said that when the Judge provided the FBI with the search warrant, it would have been illegal for them to tip off - (fill in the blank)- that they were going to search Jefferson's office.
1. Would it have been legal to for them to let the Capitol Police know what they were doing after the warrant was issued?
2. Does the FBI usually let the police know when they are doing a search?
3. Does Jefferson have a legal claim against Pelosi when he charged that her request was "discriminatory"?
Ara- Alls fair in blog and war...If I didn't care about you, I would not have said what I did. You are a force to be reckoned with. I enjoy sparring with you otherwise I wouldn't be here.
"ruin his blogging experience for him." That's freaking classic. OMG, I can't breath.
I was serious about that one. It would have been fairly easy to keep commenting under a different name by spoofing IP addresses. Just why bother if it pisses him off? His blog, his rules.
I guess it's finally starting to get old reading the same old, "Yer right, Dean", and "Yep, me too, Dean," day in and day out, but that's all his blood pressure will permit him to deal with.
Well, you may have missed the bedwetting Islamophobes commenters calling him an apologist for terrorists the other day, so I wouldn't call it an echo chamber, but I still think it suffers terribly from a lack of our sparkling commentary.
I was a little stunned that one can call the host a terrorist apologist and not get banned though, while watching a Michael Moore movie or defending the Canadian healthcare system are bannable offenses. Topsy turvy old world.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Pam: please don't chastize me for supporting Dean's point...
A fairer request I could not imagine. You got it.
Ara: No matter how you do it, a moderation system would send us down the slippery slope to LGF, or worse, DW.
Shame has been inadequate, but it's better than the alternatives. Besides, if certain obnoxious posters aren't permitted to show their true colors on occasion, how else could we enlighten new members of the family about the hypocrisy that passes itself off as meaningful discourse.
++UG, My guess is that he'll put up with the islamophobes as long as he can make his evolving position clear. Give him a couple of months and when someone brings it up again who either doesn't appreciate his "enlightened" attitude or makes him repeat what all the world should have already read, they're gone in a heartbeat. He'll either change minds or he'll change the rules.
On topic: Pam: I've never know Napalotano to be an unbiased source for legal scholarship.
1. Would it have been legal to for them to let the Capitol Police know what they were doing after the warrant was issued?
1. Think about it as a jurisdictional problem. Not quite the same since the FBI's jurisdiction covers the entire US, but if you liken separation of powers to sovereign integrity of an Embassy or UN Mission, there might be a colorable argument there. I don't think that the Capital grounds are as sacred as the legal fiction of foreign territory on Embassy grounds, but this would be a case of first impression.
If you take the English system as an example (and where else do you look for precedent when there is no US custom?), Parliament does indeed hold itself above the judiciary in these circumstances. There's of course the added benefit there of an unwritten constitution of custom where the courts do not declare a law null and void, but merely "incompatable" with tradition. Moreover, the executive power is vested in the Prime Minister, the first among equals, and is an instrument of the legislature. In Britain, Parliament is holy ground, and answerable only to their highest Court, the "Law Lords" who as members of the House of Lords are also an arm of the legislature.
They don't have a Separation of Powers Doctrine like we do. Quite the opposite. The will of the people is the epitome of power in a parliamentary system. So, since the UK State Secrets cases don't help the FBI's here, where arguable the executive and judiciary teamed up against a member of the legislative branch, we can look to the conflicting jurisdictional cases in our own Federal system.
State to State, if a court in Ohio issues a warrant against someone in Michigan, the procedure is to file the Ohio warrant with a Michigan court, which, under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause should be re-issued by the Michigan Court to the local Michigan county sheriff for execution. If there is an arrest, there will be (pursuant to Due Process) an opportunity for an extradition hearing. Likewise the Michigan will give opportunity to quash subpoenas and dismiss warrants.
The point is, you get a hearing. Propery is often put under seal by the courts to preserve evidence. But I've never heard of a Sheriff (the county version of executive authority) or a mayor or governor putting evidence under seal on his own authority like Bush did in the Jefferson case. Not to say he cannot, and the Solicitor General being both an Article II and Article III creation, is probably just the guy to keep the stuff safe. But again, this is a case of first impression.
The FBI is very used to doing what they want, where they want to. When I saw Clinton send them to Yemen after the USS Cole bombing and in Nigeria after the Embassy bombings I wondered how they thought they could operate in a foreign land, but operate they did (with grudging acquiesence of the local governments).
I don't know, however, where Judge Napalotano got the idea that it would be illegal to "tip off" anyone unless there was an attempt at obstruction of justice. To serve the capital police with a warrant, ordering them to either cooperate with the FBI or to execute the warrant themselves cannot in any way be construed to be obstructionist.
Usually I see language in court orders to the effect that all law enforcement entities shall cooperate with the execution of the order. But, it would seem that the Justice Department never thought to ask that the warrant be executed that way, and the judge never demanded that those procedures be followed. That gives us our case of first impression where five out of nine robe wearing intellectuals get to make new law.
I'll guarantee that there is a case where the FBI raided a federal judge's chambers. I'd start by looking at Alcee Hasting's case and work backwards from there if you want a legal research project. While there will be much discussion of foreign law and interjurisdictional precedent, when it comes to a separation of powers argument, court versus executive can't be much different than court and executive versus legislative. No way was a law enforcement agent going to rely on a crony appointee like a bailiff, even though he would be a sworn officer, to execute a warrant on behalf of a federal investigation.
Of course, the counter argument will be that in a search of a federal judge's chambers, the warrant was issued by the judiciary and merely executed by the executive pursuant to the judiciary investigating itself. Once again, a case of first impression that can go either way (I think it goes against Jefferson IMO). But that's why judges get job security.
2. Does the FBI usually let the police know when they are doing a search?
It's not unheard of in multi-jurisdictional cases, but not common either.
3. Does Jefferson have a legal claim against Pelosi when he charged that her request was "discriminatory"?
Legal claim? Not that I can figure. But this thing is being played out in the political arena too, which while not dividing the democrats like immigration fractured the GOP, does cause a rift. Besides, she made a similar request of Mollohan, didn't she?
Mark- I believe the Judge was referring to letting Pelosi and Hasert have a heads up as a courtesy...
As for her request of Mollohan, I don't believe she did ask him. I believe that he stepped down and she accepted.
From this article, it appears that he will play the race card...
Jefferson promptly refused, calling her request “discriminatory” and “unprecedented,” and suggested that she was employing a double standard by failing to ask other lawmakers facing ethics questions to relinquish their committee assignments. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) has come under fire for earmarks he secured through his seat on the Appropriations Committee.
Pelosi was right to call for him to step down...Now the question is..what is her next move? This passage irked me to no end!
Most lawmakers would not comment afterwards, but a CBC aide summed up some members’ frustration, saying, “Congresswoman Pelosi, by preemption without any legal justification, has now created a new precedent for how members are going to be treated. Unfortunately, she’s chosen to single out an African-American for this honor.”
Then the aide added an electoral threat, saying, “The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader.”
I wonder what Conyers and Rangel will say when they hear that this aide has taken it upon himself to pronounce a death sentence on their chances of getting the chair of a couple of powerful committees.
P.S. "In a Roll Call op-ed...Stu Rothenberg writes that the attention on the raid's constitutionality resulted in Republicans missing their chance to exploit the Democrats connection to the corruption probe."
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Pam: I believe the Judge was referring to letting Pelosi and Hasert have a heads up as a courtesy... Well, that would've been just stupid, and the FBI agent who did it could have been charged with obstruction in that case. That would be no better than if Pat Fitzgerald called the White House Counsel and gave him 12 hours notice that the Grand Jury was going to subpoena all the e-mails and phone logs the administration had concerning Plame . . . Hey! Wait a minute......
I dunno about Mollohan. I found about 20 links saying he was "forced" off the Ethics committee where he had a leadership role, but still sits on Appropriations (which is where he got into trouble in the first place), so it's a mixed bag at best. Mollohan's got sum 'splainin' to do, for sure, but the evidence against Jefferson is pretty much cut-and-dried. The CBC can bloviate all they want, but they aren't doing themselves any favors and should eventually (as Ara said) find God and give WJ up.
The CBC might not be taking this lightly, but the African-American community they claim to speak for undoubtedly is, and are embarassed, and want the guy out of there too.
So Pelosi's no Ried, who seems to have tried to strangle a casino operator who was taped in a sting trying to bribe the Senator -- who also is mysteriously under examination for accepting what seems as a quite legal gift of boxing tickets from the boxing commission -- and voted against them anyway.
The thing with Mollohan and Jefferson is that even if all that has been alleged against Mollohan is true, he very well might just have been taking advantage of the system and didn't do anything illegal, just unethical and should not be returned by his district if they have any integrity.
Jefferson, OTOH, is toast. Caught red-handed, the House would be w/in it's rights to refuse to allow him a seat if he were miraculously re-elected. (Jim Trafficante actually got on the ballot while he was in prison.)
Criticize Pelosi all you want. Most of it is well deserved because her personal instincts, her heart, is in the right place, which is directly at odds with her leadership role. She wants to do the right thing, but doesn't want to be mean. That's my take on her personality, which is why her statements on this often seem conflicted. That and I think her political instincts take a back seat to her personal ones -- which works for most liberals most of the time.
She's a nice lady in a nasty job. Instead of threatening the whole party, the CBC should be fighting to get their own guy/girl (anybody but Maxine Waters) into the speakership. One thing's for sure, they will indeed be a force to be reckoned with, a powerbroker position, when the Dems take over the House.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Ara: Leave it to the editors at the WSJ. If there's an obviously wrong opinion to promote, they seize it.
I guess that way they can stand out and have less competition. They must not like just being one of many rational voices, preferring to shine in the spotlight of the ridiculous.
I gotta go and read me some neocon nincompoopery. Catch ya in a couple of hours after I've digested what the geniuses of Wall Street have to say about separation of powers, eek. Thanks for the link Ara.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Hey, it was a short article, WTF.
Jesus Ara. doesn't it tell you something that the WSJ referred to directly to the speech and debate clause, yet omitted the operative language:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
What is left unsaid speaks volumes about the WSJ's agenda here.
It's a felony case. The privilege does not apply.
They can argue separation of powers and that this is a case of first impression, but not speech and debate. That's a loser except as evidence of the intent to impose separation of powers, but not -- specifically not -- to be used a any kind of shield from law enforcement.
This ain't the bloody British Isles or some other parliamentary commonwealth country where the legislature is beyond reproach. (With all due respect to ++UG.)
Ara- I caught that article this morning. I read the author to be saying that Congress is above the law:
Mr. Bush's sensible decision to seal the Jefferson evidence has had the useful effect of calming this dispute down. If it turns out that Justice has to prosecute its case without evidence obtained from Mr. Jefferson's Congressional office, so be it. Prosecutors have to work around such limitations all the time. Congress's right to legislate without being intimidated by the executive is a core element of the Constitution, and bullying prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to violate it.
I think the fact that they waited 6 months after a 3 month subpeona lapsed, was being rather generous of the FBI. I have a feeling you and I would not be afforded that luxury!
Okay, now I will bring up my favorite gossip...Cindy Adams
HOLIDAY'S over. I'm back, you're back, we're all back, back to impor tant things, like the investigation of Louisiana congressman William Jefferson a k a "Dollar Bill."
You will remember - you absolutely better remember - that I have repeatedly told you, starting as early as last year, predating even the Jack Abramoff scandal - that a large load of House of Representatives members would be indicted. I said we could put it at a dozen. I said this number could conceivably rise, depending on whom they then implicate, to maybe 20, but that this larger number was only a guess at this juncture. I said it would come under the heading of influence peddling. I now tell you, wait for another 11.
I think she may be onto something! Now who will they be?
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
++UG: The legislature is beyond reproach here? In a technical sense only, because you don't have three separate co-equal branches of government, just one and one-half. With all real power vested in parliament and it's organs, it only investigates itself.
That is not to be construed that there aren't crooked MP's or that crooked MP's don't get caught and taken down. You're just a more trusting, gentile and civilized lot that avoids the turf battles.
Assuming this gets dragged out in the media, who does it help and who does it hurt?
Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
Wince to Hastert: I'm not stupid. The American people are not stupid. We are quite capable of reading the Constitution. You cannot pull stuff like this. You need to reverse your position, accept that Congressional offices are not holy ground, commend the FBI, apologize to the American people, and resign your leadership post. Please realize I had much nastier ways I wanted to say this. I bit my tongue.
Yours,
Wince
Leon at Redstate seems to think Hastert is beginning to back down with this Op-Ed, but I didn't read it that way, myself.
This is not a criticism. Just an observation. For the first time in a long time you guys are saying the things we've been saying, or at least you have adopted the same tone -- refusal to stand by and buy the crap coming from the GOP leadership.
I can't tell you how frustrating it's been to see unquestionably intelligent people defend this crowd.
Put yourself in our shoes just for one moment. If you read today someone regurgitating Hastert's line right now, wouldn't you think at the least they were being disingenuous if not blinded?
What's facinating is that at least my faith in you guys as possessing the reason I knew was out there has been reaffirmed.
My Ass.
That is a legitimate beef. Even if you disagree with the conclusion drawn from available evidence, and dispute the evidence itself, you can't characterize objecting to the way the war was begun and subsequently handled as just "bitching to bitch," and retain any credibility. Dismiss the argument itself if you must, but not the advocate or you seriously risk being dismissed as having anything serious to offer.
Are you trying to tell me that anyone who deplores the corruption typified by billions lost by no-bid contractors, let alone the Abramoff and Wilkes bribery organizations are not being serious, but just bitching?
The cronyism that led to Heckuvajob Brownie is not fair game?
Are you telling me that lying about how much the Medicare reform would cost isn't fair game?
How about the fact that the administration has doubled the amount of things it has classified compared to any previous administration? While I'm on secrecy, while certainly legal, was it proper to keep the members of the energy task force secret?
We aren't voicing legitimate conserns when we "bitch" about a veto-less POTUS who has issued over 750 signing statements asserting his "right" to disregard any law he deems fit, in his sole discretion?
Abrogation of the Geneva Convention. New definitions of human rights and torture to fit within our new policies of keeping detainees locked up without charges, without meaningful access to the legal system as they are kept in a definitional lymbo between POW and criminal.
Oh, and let's not forget IRRESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY.
Just what planet are you from to imply that these aren't seriously important issues for Americans, not just Democratic Party posturing?
If it was the contractor that are bitching, I would take it seriously. As it is, those that "lost out" are actually earning from the Haliburton work. Haliburton has subcontracted, or spread the wealth if you will, to many of it's competitors. Many of Haliburton's competitors readily admit that they can't do the work that Haliburton does. Now as for overpayments etc...why no complaining about the real problem? We have how many 10's of 1000's of employees working in the accounting end of our govt and it takes the press/bloggers to catch accounting errors? Haliburton is not the only company to receive overpayments, but they are the focus of your ire so therefore it is Haliburtons fault.
The SCOTUS sided with him on enemy combatants.
Let's start with "This is a Republican scandal"
No, I don't think they have looked at the evidence. I think they have "cherry picked" details that fit their pre-determined conclusion!
I never referred directly to Cheneyburton. They aren't the only goofballs feeding at the public trough so I avoid singling them out when I can. They are truly amazing, and weild power and wealth that Caesar and Alexander would envy. What's missing is a Trumanesque body overseeing this monstrosity that takes it's job seriously, without political influence encouraging them to look the other way.
They may have great people at Cheneyburton, top to bottom they can afford to hire the best. But the corporate structure only permits loyalty to company first, and nation merely when convenient.
They got it easy and are out of control.WRONG. In fact the admin was warned by the court that they were skating on thin ice by forum shopping. It is inconceivable to me, an officer of the court, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the integrity and honor of the judicial system, to see this country adopting a Kafkaesque prisoner policy.
It is. I remain unmoved by your exhaustive litany in previous threads. You never addressed the structural organization that was created to maintain a perpetual GOP majority through lobbyist/campaign finance schemes that was working so well until some folks got greedy and overzealous, and showed their cards. To my mind, such a scheme, legal or not, goes against the nature of representative government.
As far as I know, you have ignored what truly sets this apart from individual greedy men and women, or makes it different than a criminal conspiracy. You are actually supporting a system that is maintained not to reflect the honest desires of the American people, but to keep in power those who have fought to impose their version of what is best for whom they deem worthy of supporting to the exclusion of contrary opinions.
Compromise, the essence of rational democratic decision-making, flew out the window with the coming of the modern GOP hegemony.Back at ya.
I'm not really ready to "fisk" your fisking of me, point for point complete with footnotes, but couldn't resist making some defense of my position. But that just plays into your hands and I should know better. To do so clouds the overall issue, distracts from the perception of an arrogantly unaccountable power structure in D.C. And it actually proves my point: since you deem it worthy of arguing with me issue by issue, you cannot stand by your position that our "bitches" lack sincerety. Otherwise you would dismiss all of my examples (a non-exhaustive list to be sure) as mere tripe.
You didn't.
I wasn't trying to bait you, but you took the lure anyway. And so did I. But that's not bitching, that's debate. You dignified my "bitching" by arguing with me.
As for my ass and what my preferences are, let me get back to you.... ;-)
It actually flew out the window long before the Republicans came to power. The fact that the Democrats were acting pretty much exactly like Republicans are today was one of the reasons for the Republican takeover in the first place.
And by the way, the essence of compromise involves making actual policy compromise suggestions, which is something Democrats have pretty routinely failed to do the last few years. Whenever the Democratic leadership is asked to define what its policy positions are, it's usually nothing but the polar opposite of whatever comes out of the White House. Which is why some of us don't see Democrats being able to take the House easily, or being able to do much of anything if they do get in power. Lack of any definable agenda or set of values besides "Bush is evil" isn't exactly a governing strategy <i>or</i> any indicator of a desire for compromise.
It's pretty amusing that some suggest that Congress can investigate the administration but the administration can't investigate Congress. What blithering idiot ever suggested <i>that</i> was true? Oh yeah. Hastert. Time to fire him.
It's pretty amusing that some suggest that Congress can investigate the administration but the administration can't investigate Congress.
That sounds like a good talking point.
Perhaps you could be more specific?
We know that the Constitution grants Congress several checks and balances against Executive branch power, i.e., oversight, investigations, power of the purse, impeachment/conviction, etc.
So, Dean -- refresh my memory: what are the Executive branch checks and balances over the Congress? More specifically, which one(s) grant(s) the Executive branch power to send the FBI against a sitting member of Congress? And, just as important, are there any Constitutional strictures against doing so?
Not being snarky here -- I just don't believe the legalities on this have been fully aired out yet.
All we have is a lot of political posturing from Bush, Gonzalez, Hastert, and the Office of the VP.
Hey, listen: we in Louisiana have known that Jefferson was a crook for a long time. But don't you believe that he deserves the presumption of innocence? I do. Sure -- take away his seat on Ways and Means. But raid his offices -- before he's even been charged with a crime? That's not right.
What if President Hillary Clinton had done that to the (already indicted) Tom Delay? Or any Congressman who is simply suspected of wrongdoing, like Bob Ney? Or (at the time) Duke Cunningham? Or...Dennis Hastert?
Jefferson has been dodging that subpoena since last August.
I'm just saying :)
As usual, you could take two minutes to do your own research, but you don't. In fact, here's my further prediction: I'll produce the evidence for you, and instead of doing what an honorable and decent person would do and just acknowledge it, you'll change the point. Just for laughs, here's one of many legal opinions on this stupid idea.
Furthermore, all you have to do is stop and think about it: are you honestly under the impression that no Congressman ever got indicted for a crime before William Jefferson? You fucking moron: these people get investigated and arrested for crimes all the time. A congressman or Senator is no more above the law or being investigated than anyone else, except in very proscribed circumstances.
The FBI got a WARRANT FROM A JUDGE. It is just plain fucking dishonest (something you're good at) to pretend that this is some great new power of the executive harassing the legislative.
And you know, now that I've written this, I'm completely annoyed with myself that I fell for it. You won't have any kind of rational response. You never do.
Oh right, duh: because the "separation of powers" argument was shot down. And they don't even need to get a warrant from a judge, like the FBI did in this case.
I'd love someone to suggest that no one could execute a search warrant to search a judge's chambers becuase that would violate the "separation of powers." Or that no one could subpoeana anything out of the White House because that woudl violate the "separation of powers." Oh, but a Congressman can pile up dead bodies and pounds of heroin in his office, and no judge could issue or FBI agent execute a warrant to search it?
Totally fucking stupid assertion. Period.
Anyone read the articles on Neo-Neocon and Dean's World about how terribly rude liberals and leftists are? It's truly shameful. I'm absolutely embarrassed to be associated with such vulgarian ideologies.
Talking points? Fuck off, Rubyan.
I loves pokin Dean with a stick! If I was having more fun, I'd have to be twins.
As usual, you could take two minutes to do your own research, but you don't....I'll produce the evidence for you, and instead of doing what an honorable and decent person would do and just acknowledge it...
Please excuse me for not having a masters degree in political science like the esteemed Dean Esmay.
I've read the post from Orin Kerr you linked to. He isn't so sure one way or the other. He says it's "hard to reach a more definitive conclusion without spending more time looking through the cases."
I didn't read Powerline, Michelle Malkin, or any of the
are you honestly under the impression that no Congressman ever got indicted for a crime before William Jefferson?
Are you honestly under the impression that Jefferson has been indicted? He hasn't -- not yet. And even if/when he is, he's still due the common legal niceties of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You fucking moron: these people get investigated and arrested for crimes all the time.
No. Really? What's this country coming to?
A congressman or Senator is no more above the law or being investigated than anyone else, except in very proscribed circumstances.
Go burn that straw man in effigy somewhere else, my friend. No one said Jefferson "was above the law."
The FBI got a WARRANT FROM A JUDGE.
That is correct. And/but that decision (and a lot more) will probably be challenged in court and the constitutional issues will be for someone else to decide, not you.
And you know, now that I've written this, I'm completely annoyed with myself that I fell for it.
Yeah, but you always do. That's what I like about you.
You won't have any kind of rational response. You never do.
Just keep telling yourself that.
who the Hell gave the congress the right to demand testimony or evidence from anything in the White House?
If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were trying to be serious here.
Oh right, duh: because the "separation of powers" argument was shot down.
Now I have no idea what you're talking about.
And they don't even need to get a warrant from a judge, like the FBI did in this case.
Again, not sure where you're going. I don't think anyone believes that the Legislative branch can have the Oval Office searched. Who would do it? The Capital Police?
As you know, however, the Legislature can issue subpoenas to Executive branch officials and put them under oath. Not that that'll ever, you know, actually happen with this Congress and this White House. But, you know, it's in the Constitution.
I'd love someone to suggest that no one could execute a search warrant to search a judge's chambers becuase that would violate the "separation of powers."
Be my guest.
Oh, but a Congressman can pile up dead bodies and pounds of heroin in his office, and no judge could issue or FBI agent execute a warrant to search it?
Again, another interesting point. But the fact remains -- in over 200 years of US history (and 80 years of the FBI), this has never happened before.
So for everyone who has read this far, consider this: as far as we know, al-Qaeda is not involved nor are there any dead bodies nor is there any heroin, right? So here's my question: why has the administration chosen this very moment to send in the FBI and why has it chosen a two-bit tinhorn Democratic Congressman from Louisiana to make it's test case?
Gee Dean, I hope your Mommy stopped doing tricks to pay off your student loans. She should get her money back from that charm school you flunked out of.
Again...this is the 1st time in over 200 years of US history that a Congressperson has allowed their legal troubles to enter their office in that they did not cooperate with law enforcement and then resign office, before pushing the FBI to raid their office.
I guess you could make that point, if you had a firm enough grasp of history to back it up.
But, Pam, excuse me for being blunt, you ain't that person.
P.S. What about Tom Delay? Or Bob Ney?
Have the FBI gone into Ney's and DeLay's office?
Do you even know what the dicsussion is about?
Said Ara, as he throws up Ney and DeLay as guilty!
Dean may have been a bit to blunt, but he did have it right about you Ara:
No, Godzilla is a bit blunt. I'm not really sure what we can call Dean.
Are you trying to say (and I'm being genenerous here) that DeLay and Ney are being fully co-opertive and that only? Or that the FBI had no choice and as you say, were "pushed" into the raid and couldn't have conducted the search in another way?
I believe they could have been less "Rambo" in their tactics, brought in the Capital Police for instance, but I also don't like to second guess law enforcement's discretion in the manner of executing a warrant.
Dear, before you start questioning anyone's honor and decency, don't put words in their mouths.
Historical examples abound, DeLay and Ney and Jefferson are only recent examples of public officials who were, um...less than coopertive with investigators. You should look at the Jim Trafficante case for a fun romp of hide-and-seek and pompus posturing.
Speaking of pompus posturing, I'm amused by the AG, Alburtabu Gongitmo, and FBI Dir. Mueller "leaking" that they considered resigning if POTUS told them to give what they found back to Jefferson. What's amusing is that they don't say they'd resign if Cheney demanded he wanted to take a peek. (And you just know he wanted to.)
Oh, and in case you thought I'd let that "a bit blunt," characterization go unchallenged, think again. It's a "bit blunt" to call someone a liar or fool. Dean is well beyond impolite. He habitually abuses others with despicably caustic and hateful vituperations that can neither be defended nor excused. Shame on you for associating yourself with his remarks.
they did not cooperate with law enforcement and then resign office, before pushing the FBI to raid their office.
"Pushing the FBI to raid their office?"
You know, Pam, some would say you're blaming the victim, but fine -- I get your point. I certainly would not advise playing chicken with the FBI.
But you still haven't answered my question:
How is it that we've come over 200 years in our history (and seen 80 years of FBI history) and this sort of thing has not ever, never happened before?
Surely you would agree that a corrupt Congressman from Louisiana is not so rare a species as to only have been seen once in our entire history?
You certainly cannot believe that can you?
Now, Pam, I know history is not your long suit. But, as a courtesy to me, can you please answer my question?
Thanks.
I am not questioning Ara on that..he has demonstrated time and again he doesn't have honor.
Dean called it like he saw it and I happen to agree with him. I would use conversations I have watched between Ara and Wince as an example of what Dean is referring to. I have brought up to Ara, on a number of occasions that he constantly changes the subject or something becomes a non issue when it won't fit into Ara's realm of thinking. As I sain, Dean may have been too blunt, but I agreed with him on the point he made.
If history isn't my strong suit, you are into the category of dementia...What part of this don't you grasp?
Are you dumb enough to believe that because it hasn't happened in 200 years, it can't happen? Or are you just ticked off that it happened during this administration.
Are you dumb enough to believe that because it hasn't happened in 200 years, it can't happen?
Gosh, no. It's just when something happens for the first time in two centuries, it gets my attention. I'd like to know why.
Or are you just ticked off that it happened during this administration.
Not ticked off; not even particularly surprised. Well, actually I was mildly bemused to discover that they bothered to get a warrant. After all the warrantless searches they've engaged in (and admitted to) it's somewhat bizarre to hear that they paused to get a warrant in this case.
Dean called it like he saw it and I happen to agree with him.
[shrug] Fine with me on both counts. But I will say this: when someone becomes deranged because of a disagreement during debate, well, that says a lot.
Ara...has demonstrated time and again he doesn't have honor.
You have no idea who I am, Pam.
But I will admit to this mistake -- it is continuing to converse with people who are otherwise beneath contempt.
Present company excluded, of course.
:^)
All we have to go by is how you present yourself here. People try to have converstions and are dismissed. You hear and see what you want to, and if you don't see what it is you want..you never fail to steer the conversation in another direction. That's who I see. I see a person who wants to have his opinions and ideas respected, but you rarely reciprocate that.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by deranged.and I have come to the conclusion that this is rooted a lot deeper than these past 2 weeks..Never a week goes by around here without someone referring to Dean in some derogatory way..why not take it to his blog? I've always felt it rather rude of people to come here to Rosemary's blog and bitch about her husband', Dean, blog. But that's me.
Yes, I thought Dean exploding was over the top, but it balances out the times I have sat here and watched you and others speak negatively about him in front of Rosemary...and I am not referring to the posts where she specifically calls him out on things..I've got to believe that, like myself, Rosemary, Miss Julie, Mrs Adams all feel that "alls fair in blog and war, but no one picks on my husband...if he is going to be called an ass, it will be by me..or a pig, again..I'll be the one to say it..."
Well, first off, no-one is bitching about Dean's blog. We're bitching about Dean's comments here.
Secondly, Dean has asked many of us ever-so-politely to not comment on his blog, as our opinions make him mad, and we're actually considerate enough to not want to ruin his blogging experience for him.
As most of us met and got to know each other at Dean's World, and we all like Rosemary, and Rosemary is kind enough to put up with us here, this is where we hang out.
Me, I think Dean likes coming over here and yelling at us because Rosemary's comment section is a lot more fun than his is now. At least to these jaundiced eyes.
That, for those who weren't around, was what, two years ago? When did Rose start this little party? It was around the same time that I, as innocently as Pam defends Dean, had the temerity to suggest on Dean's World that Michael Moore was capable of uttering a factually accurate statement.
Oops, my bad.
"ever-so-politely asked.," Dude, you are one of the funniest humans alive.
"ruin his blogging experience for him." That's freaking classic. OMG, I can't breath.
Pam, this is one of the few places where right and left can politely discuss politics without much name-calling or demogoguery. If you don't get some of Ara and Wince's jumping around on subject matters, remember
twothree things. Things that drive Dean off the edge.1) They've been having this conversation going on four years now. Some times they're back to subject matter that's been exhausted already, so a subject change is in order because they agree to disagree, both keep face and neither changes their minds. Intelligent, rational people can accept that kind of result. Dean cannot.
2) It takes two to tango. If one of the debaters goes off topic, he can be (a) called on it, (b) ignored, or (c) directly answered. The respondant has that choice, and thus the power to delve into uncharted territory -- and only by choosing one of the three alternatives. Dean, obsessive personality that he is, cannot help himself but choose "c," and typically for an enabled addict he will not take responsibility for his actions -- thus Ara (or Dean's foil de jure) by raising a point that does not counter directly the initial premise, but attacks it in a collateral albeit effective manner, becomes the villian in Dean's mind.
3) Wince is a weeny. :^) But I love him anyway!
I see a person who wants to have his opinions and ideas respected, but you rarely reciprocate that.
I know how you feel. I've felt that way about you (and a number of other "regulars") on many occasions, too. But after thinking about it some more, this is what I've found: if it gets too frustrating, take a break. Step away from the computer and do something in the real world for a while.
P.S. Maybe Rose would agree to some sort of system where if you get really frustrated with someone's comments she could moderate them or something.
One other thing: I want to apologize for saying that sparring with you and others often seems like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole. That's not considerate and I hope you'll accept my apology.
The truth is, I fight you here so that I won't have to fight you at home.
:^)
Seriously, thanks for being a good sport.
I thank-you for the history lesson of this
on going battle. That being said, Just as you were angered for being chastized for your stance on Moore, please don't chastize me for supporting Dean's point, I supported a position I had said a month ago. Just remember, this is
something between you ragamuffins...not all of are in the same boat.
I love the fact that this is an open forum with all sides of the debate represented...I just happen to think that a discussion is much better when everyone takes the time to listen to those around them. That's all. I love to learn and I have learned alot..I love to get lost in links people provide...I start reading those and then find myself needing to do just a bit more research...you get the point...Hence I used Wince as an example. I really appreciate the time and effort that he puts into his responses..
I thought Wince said all of us, excluding ++, were a$$&0!es..well then ++ got admitted..so now you say Wince is a weeny so does that make him a god in these woods..:)
He said that when the Judge provided the FBI with the search warrant, it would have been illegal for them to tip off - (fill in the blank)- that they were going to search Jefferson's office.
1. Would it have been legal to for them to let the Capitol Police know what they were doing after the warrant was issued?
2. Does the FBI usually let the police know when they are doing a search?
3. Does Jefferson have a legal claim against Pelosi when he charged that her request was "discriminatory"?
Yours Truly,
Cheshire Cat
I was serious about that one. It would have been fairly easy to keep commenting under a different name by spoofing IP addresses. Just why bother if it pisses him off? His blog, his rules.
I guess it's finally starting to get old reading the same old, "Yer right, Dean", and "Yep, me too, Dean," day in and day out, but that's all his blood pressure will permit him to deal with.
Well, you may have missed the bedwetting Islamophobes commenters calling him an apologist for terrorists the other day, so I wouldn't call it an echo chamber, but I still think it suffers terribly from a lack of our sparkling commentary.
I was a little stunned that one can call the host a terrorist apologist and not get banned though, while watching a Michael Moore movie or defending the Canadian healthcare system are bannable offenses. Topsy turvy old world.
I too apologise for all, and there are alot, of rude things I have said!
"And the lion shall lie down with the lamb."
[cue the white doves]
:^)
A fairer request I could not imagine. You got it.
Ara: No matter how you do it, a moderation system would send us down the slippery slope to LGF, or worse, DW.
Shame has been inadequate, but it's better than the alternatives. Besides, if certain obnoxious posters aren't permitted to show their true colors on occasion, how else could we enlighten new members of the family about the hypocrisy that passes itself off as meaningful discourse.
++UG, My guess is that he'll put up with the islamophobes as long as he can make his evolving position clear. Give him a couple of months and when someone brings it up again who either doesn't appreciate his "enlightened" attitude or makes him repeat what all the world should have already read, they're gone in a heartbeat. He'll either change minds or he'll change the rules.
On topic: Pam: I've never know Napalotano to be an unbiased source for legal scholarship.1. Think about it as a jurisdictional problem. Not quite the same since the FBI's jurisdiction covers the entire US, but if you liken separation of powers to sovereign integrity of an Embassy or UN Mission, there might be a colorable argument there. I don't think that the Capital grounds are as sacred as the legal fiction of foreign territory on Embassy grounds, but this would be a case of first impression.
If you take the English system as an example (and where else do you look for precedent when there is no US custom?), Parliament does indeed hold itself above the judiciary in these circumstances. There's of course the added benefit there of an unwritten constitution of custom where the courts do not declare a law null and void, but merely "incompatable" with tradition. Moreover, the executive power is vested in the Prime Minister, the first among equals, and is an instrument of the legislature. In Britain, Parliament is holy ground, and answerable only to their highest Court, the "Law Lords" who as members of the House of Lords are also an arm of the legislature.
They don't have a Separation of Powers Doctrine like we do. Quite the opposite. The will of the people is the epitome of power in a parliamentary system. So, since the UK State Secrets cases don't help the FBI's here, where arguable the executive and judiciary teamed up against a member of the legislative branch, we can look to the conflicting jurisdictional cases in our own Federal system.
State to State, if a court in Ohio issues a warrant against someone in Michigan, the procedure is to file the Ohio warrant with a Michigan court, which, under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause should be re-issued by the Michigan Court to the local Michigan county sheriff for execution. If there is an arrest, there will be (pursuant to Due Process) an opportunity for an extradition hearing. Likewise the Michigan will give opportunity to quash subpoenas and dismiss warrants.
The point is, you get a hearing. Propery is often put under seal by the courts to preserve evidence. But I've never heard of a Sheriff (the county version of executive authority) or a mayor or governor putting evidence under seal on his own authority like Bush did in the Jefferson case. Not to say he cannot, and the Solicitor General being both an Article II and Article III creation, is probably just the guy to keep the stuff safe. But again, this is a case of first impression.
The FBI is very used to doing what they want, where they want to. When I saw Clinton send them to Yemen after the USS Cole bombing and in Nigeria after the Embassy bombings I wondered how they thought they could operate in a foreign land, but operate they did (with grudging acquiesence of the local governments).
I don't know, however, where Judge Napalotano got the idea that it would be illegal to "tip off" anyone unless there was an attempt at obstruction of justice. To serve the capital police with a warrant, ordering them to either cooperate with the FBI or to execute the warrant themselves cannot in any way be construed to be obstructionist.
Usually I see language in court orders to the effect that all law enforcement entities shall cooperate with the execution of the order. But, it would seem that the Justice Department never thought to ask that the warrant be executed that way, and the judge never demanded that those procedures be followed. That gives us our case of first impression where five out of nine robe wearing intellectuals get to make new law.
I'll guarantee that there is a case where the FBI raided a federal judge's chambers. I'd start by looking at Alcee Hasting's case and work backwards from there if you want a legal research project. While there will be much discussion of foreign law and interjurisdictional precedent, when it comes to a separation of powers argument, court versus executive can't be much different than court and executive versus legislative. No way was a law enforcement agent going to rely on a crony appointee like a bailiff, even though he would be a sworn officer, to execute a warrant on behalf of a federal investigation.
Of course, the counter argument will be that in a search of a federal judge's chambers, the warrant was issued by the judiciary and merely executed by the executive pursuant to the judiciary investigating itself. Once again, a case of first impression that can go either way (I think it goes against Jefferson IMO). But that's why judges get job security.It's not unheard of in multi-jurisdictional cases, but not common either.Legal claim? Not that I can figure. But this thing is being played out in the political arena too, which while not dividing the democrats like immigration fractured the GOP, does cause a rift. Besides, she made a similar request of Mollohan, didn't she?
As for her request of Mollohan, I don't believe she did ask him. I believe that he stepped down and she accepted.
From this article, it appears that he will play the race card...
Pelosi was right to call for him to step down...Now the question is..what is her next move? This passage irked me to no end!
I wonder what Conyers and Rangel will say when they hear that this aide has taken it upon himself to pronounce a death sentence on their chances of getting the chair of a couple of powerful committees.
Quick -- check the weather report. Did Hell just freeze over?
The Wall Street Journal op-ed page says the Justice Department went overboard in raiding Rep. Jefferson's office.
Well, that would've been just stupid, and the FBI agent who did it could have been charged with obstruction in that case. That would be no better than if Pat Fitzgerald called the White House Counsel and gave him 12 hours notice that the Grand Jury was going to subpoena all the e-mails and phone logs the administration had concerning Plame . . . Hey! Wait a minute......
I dunno about Mollohan. I found about 20 links saying he was "forced" off the Ethics committee where he had a leadership role, but still sits on Appropriations (which is where he got into trouble in the first place), so it's a mixed bag at best. Mollohan's got sum 'splainin' to do, for sure, but the evidence against Jefferson is pretty much cut-and-dried. The CBC can bloviate all they want, but they aren't doing themselves any favors and should eventually (as Ara said) find God and give WJ up.
The CBC might not be taking this lightly, but the African-American community they claim to speak for undoubtedly is, and are embarassed, and want the guy out of there too.
So Pelosi's no Ried, who seems to have tried to strangle a casino operator who was taped in a sting trying to bribe the Senator -- who also is mysteriously under examination for accepting what seems as a quite legal gift of boxing tickets from the boxing commission -- and voted against them anyway.
The thing with Mollohan and Jefferson is that even if all that has been alleged against Mollohan is true, he very well might just have been taking advantage of the system and didn't do anything illegal, just unethical and should not be returned by his district if they have any integrity.
Jefferson, OTOH, is toast. Caught red-handed, the House would be w/in it's rights to refuse to allow him a seat if he were miraculously re-elected. (Jim Trafficante actually got on the ballot while he was in prison.)
Criticize Pelosi all you want. Most of it is well deserved because her personal instincts, her heart, is in the right place, which is directly at odds with her leadership role. She wants to do the right thing, but doesn't want to be mean. That's my take on her personality, which is why her statements on this often seem conflicted. That and I think her political instincts take a back seat to her personal ones -- which works for most liberals most of the time.
She's a nice lady in a nasty job. Instead of threatening the whole party, the CBC should be fighting to get their own guy/girl (anybody but Maxine Waters) into the speakership. One thing's for sure, they will indeed be a force to be reckoned with, a powerbroker position, when the Dems take over the House.
I guess that way they can stand out and have less competition. They must not like just being one of many rational voices, preferring to shine in the spotlight of the ridiculous.
I gotta go and read me some neocon nincompoopery. Catch ya in a couple of hours after I've digested what the geniuses of Wall Street have to say about separation of powers, eek. Thanks for the link Ara.
Jesus Ara. doesn't it tell you something that the WSJ referred to directly to the speech and debate clause, yet omitted the operative language:
What is left unsaid speaks volumes about the WSJ's agenda here.
It's a felony case. The privilege does not apply.
They can argue separation of powers and that this is a case of first impression, but not speech and debate. That's a loser except as evidence of the intent to impose separation of powers, but not -- specifically not -- to be used a any kind of shield from law enforcement.
This ain't the bloody British Isles or some other parliamentary commonwealth country where the legislature is beyond reproach. (With all due respect to ++UG.)
I think the fact that they waited 6 months after a 3 month subpeona lapsed, was being rather generous of the FBI. I have a feeling you and I would not be afforded that luxury!
I think she may be onto something! Now who will they be?
Cunningham is definitely number 1.
The legislature is beyond reproach here?
I must look into this.
I have a feeling you and I would not be afforded that luxury!
You would be correct.
In a technical sense only, because you don't have three separate co-equal branches of government, just one and one-half. With all real power vested in parliament and it's organs, it only investigates itself.
That is not to be construed that there aren't crooked MP's or that crooked MP's don't get caught and taken down. You're just a more trusting, gentile and civilized lot that avoids the turf battles.