Here's another bad guy, associated with Abramoff

[Neil D]

[:"green"]WASHINGTON, May 21 — The F.B.I. accused Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, on Sunday of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from a Kentucky businessman and stashing $90,000 from the scheme in his home freezer in Washington.

The accusations appeared in court documents that were made public only hours after a team of 15 agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation completed an all-night search of Mr. Jefferson's Congressional offices. F.B.I. officials said the raid, which began about 7:15 p.m. Saturday and ended early Sunday afternoon, was the first the agency had ever conducted at a lawmaker's office on Capitol Hill.

The search warrant and other documents, which were unsealed in Federal District Court in Washington, accused Mr. Jefferson, an eight-term lawmaker, of accepting bribes to help a small technology company win contracts with federal agencies and with businesses and governments in West Africa. Mr. Jefferson, who has denied wrongdoing, is one of several members of Congress who are under scrutiny by the Justice Department on corruption charges.

While the outline of the case against Mr. Jefferson has been known for months, the court papers released Sunday were the first in which he was linked by name to the bribery charges and to iGate Inc., the Louisville company that sought his help in winning contracts for its high-tech products. [/]

Here's a stupid democrate doing stupid stuff and he's appears to be associated with Jack Abramoff. Here's the rest of the story...[muttering] Man, this democrate is stupid...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

stashing $90,000 from the scheme in his home freezer in Washington.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Gives a new meaning to the phrase "cold cash".

[Dr. Shane]

This is the same guy that comandeered a National Guard cargo truck to go to his flooded house and retrieve a chest. The truck was suppose to be rescueing people trapped in the flood. When it got stuck they had to call in a helicopter, which also was to be rescueing people stuck in the flood. I don't think anyone ever did discover what was so important in the chest that it couldn't have waited until everyone was rescued.

[Dr. Shane]

First time in history the judicial branch ordered the executive branch to investigate the legislative branch.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

First time in history the judicial branch ordered the executive branch to investigate the legislative branch.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Hmmmmmmmmm.....This is beginin to sound...ironic...Republicans defending a democrate? All because he had cold cash in the freezer???? Something doesn't sound right....

[:"green"]Office search riles GOP

Jefferson raid violates precedent, they say

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

By Bruce Alpert

Washington bureau

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans continued Tuesday to strongly denounce the weekend FBI raid of Democrat William Jefferson's congressional office as a possible violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. [/] The rest of the story is here.

[Bravus]

I think the Republicans just know the same could happen to them - and don't want to cross that line.

Couple of things here: I think there *are* constitutional questions, but I also think the Democrats need to be very clear that, if this guy did accept bribes, he's cut loose and called on to resign. Worst possible thing they could do at this point is start explaining it away when it's one of their own but trying to chase the Republicans on corruption.

[Dr. Shane]

They are crying "seperation of powers" but they are forgetting about "checks and balances". The executive branch didn't go in on its own. It secured a warrent from the judicial branch first. Furthermore the warrent stated specific things they were allowed to search for and specified how legislative items were to be handled. In other words, the warrent didn't allow them to go snooping around in legislative affiars but only look for specific things connected with a criminal investigation.

Being that the attorney general use to be on the Texas Supreme Court, I suspect he dotted his i's and crossed his t's before executing the search.

I think Bravus is right. The Republicans are a little worried that something like this might happen to them. Bottem line is that being a congressmen isn't a license to break the law and we have a system of checks and balances so no one branch has too much authority.

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

They are crying "seperation of powers" but they are forgetting about "checks and balances". The executive branch didn't go in on its own. It secured a warrent from the judicial branch first. Furthermore the warrent stated specific things they were allowed to search for and specified how legislative items were to be handled. In other words, the warrent didn't allow them to go snooping around in legislative affiars but only look for specific things connected with a criminal investigation.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Um...I know that this is going to sound so trite, but what you describe is how a search warrent origionates...And it wasn't the judicial branch that origionated the search warrant...It was first looked into by the legislative branch, and they, in turn, asked for a warrant...

So, how did you come up with the idea that the judical branch of goverment origionated the warrant? I truely don't understand that....

[Dr. Shane]

Maybe I have not understood the story that well. I thought the FBI asked for the warrant. A warrant is a court order so once it is issued to the executive branch, the executive branch must follow it. So the judiciary branch, by issuing a warrant, ordered the executive to invetigate the legislative.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

it wasn't the judicial branch that origionated the search warrant...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Warrants are court orders so they can only originate in a court. However, the police or FBI can request a warrant, which is most often the case.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It was first looked into by the legislative branch, and they, in turn, asked for a warrant...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Am I to understand that Congress asked for the warrant and not the FBI? If that is the case, what are these congressional leaders complaining about?

[Dr. Shane]

This is from Neil's link:

[:"blue"] What motivates Republican leaders, Ornstein said, is a fear that federal prosecutors are sending a message that they are extending the investigation well beyond Jefferson to include GOP wrongdoing related to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to bribery and tax evasion, and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who pleaded guilty to taking millions of dollars in bribes to add defense appropriations to spending bills.

Thomas Mann of the liberal Brookings Institution agreed.

"They must be worried by the expanding Department of Justice investigations following the Cunningham plea and the Abramoff affair, both of which are likely to involve sitting Republican members of the House and Senate," Mann said.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said he has ordered his staff at the Senate Rules Committee to prepare a memo on how the Senate should respond if the Justice Department attempts to search a senator's office.

"This is a little bit of a wake-up call," Lott said. "I don't know if what happened here (with Jefferson) was appropriate, but I want to make sure to create" a process to deal with such an event.

Crime investigation

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was much more restrained than his Republican counterparts in talking about the raid.

"I believe strongly in separation of powers," Reid said. But, he said, when people commit crimes they should be prosecuted, whether "that person is a member of Congress or driving a cab."

"I will be happy to take a look at this," Reid said. "From the little bit that I know about it now, I'm not going to beat up on the FBI." [/]

[Neil D]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Maybe I have not understood the story that well. I thought the FBI asked for the warrant. A warrant is a court order so once it is issued to the executive branch, the executive branch must follow it. So the judiciary branch, by issuing a warrant, ordered the executive to invetigate the legislative.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is an outgrowth of the Abramoff scandel. Isn't there a special proscecutor involved in this? If so, isn't the legislative branch, who set this up, empowering the FBI in the process to look into all the details of the case, including this alleged scumbucket of a representative of the people? Even if the legislative branch did not order the investigation, the FBI has the power to look into this sort of thing...And they did...

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Am I to understand that Congress asked for the warrant and not the FBI? If that is the case, what are these congressional leaders complaining about?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't know...Haven't been following the case that closely. But it was the FBI who asked for and got the warrent... So, what's the problem???

My understanding of the problem is found in this article-

[:"green"]"These self-serving separation of power arguments" have no basis in law, said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., in a letter to GOP leaders. He noted that search warrants had previously been served on members' homes, including Jefferson's.

"A distinction that would treat searches in their offices completely differently is superficial and baseless," Vitter wrote. "The American people will come to one conclusion that congressional leaders are trying to protect their own from valid investigations." [/]

[Dr. Shane]

Officials: Hastert "In the Mix" of Congressional Bribery Investigation

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This week, Hastert has been outspoken in his criticism of the FBI for its raid on the office of another congressman under investigation, Democrat William Jefferson of Louisiana.

"My opinion is that they took the wrong path, Hastert said of the FBI. "They need to back up, and we need to go from there."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't want to jump on any bandwagon too quickly but I never liked Hastert anyway. He never impressed me much.

[Dr. Shane]

Look's like another news media may have egg on their face:

[:"blue"] Hastert Legal Letter To ABCNEWS President Westin

David Westin

George Stephanopoulos

Brian Ross

ABC News

7 West 66th St.

New York, NY 10023

RE: False Story Regarding Justice Department Investigation

Dear Mr. Westin, Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ross:

At 7:25 p.m., the Statement of the Department of Justice confirmed:

“Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.”

At 10:21 p.m., you wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

This statement is false, and your republication of it after actual knowledge of its falsity constitutes libel and defamation. ABC News’ continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity, evidences a specific and malicious intent to injure and damage Speaker Hastert’s reputation by continued repetition of a known falsehood.

We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct.

Please advise regarding who will accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood.

Very truly yours,

J. Randolph Evans

Stefan C. Passantino

Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

[/]