May 25, 2006
House Leaders Demand Return of Seized Files
By CARL HULSE, NY TIMES

LINK

WASHINGTON, May 24 - The constitutional clash pitting Congress against the executive branch escalated Wednesday as the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House demanded the immediate return of materials seized by federal agents when they searched the office of a House member who is under investigation in a corruption case.

The demand, by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, underscored the degree of the anger generated among members of both parties on Capitol Hill by the search on Saturday night at the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, who has been accused of accepting bribes.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement.

Mr. Jefferson made a similar demand in federal court. He called for federal agents to be prohibited from reviewing seized files and computer records.

Justice Department officials, who have said the search was proper and necessary, did not appear ready to return materials taken from the lawmaker's official House suite, setting the stage for a court battle to resolve competing claims of constitutional protection and criminal inquiry.

In a statement, the agency said it was trying to resolve the dispute in a way "that meets law enforcement's needs and also allays any institutional concerns that Congress may have."

Privately, Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials expressed dismay at the tone of statements by Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi.

The officials said there was virtually no possibility that any material taken legally during the search would be returned since it was now in the custody of the F.B.I. as evidence in an active criminal case.

Mr. Jefferson's case, which holds potential for Republicans to score partisan points, seemed an unlikely mechanism for bringing the two parties together in an election year.

But it appears to have done just that, leading Democrats and Republicans to find common ground in defense of institutional prerogatives.

The tense conflict is also developing into a potential new problem for President Bush.

The White House has reached out to Republicans on Capitol Hill to allay concerns about the president's low poll numbers and to try to heal deep rifts within the party over a variety of issues, including immigration.

The constitutional confrontation is doing nothing to help with that effort.

One lawmaker whose stance will be important to the fate of the immigration legislation, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday set a hearing for next Tuesday on the implications of the search.

Mr. Sensenbrenner called the subject of the hearing "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

Besides the immediate return of the material, the Congressional leaders also said the Justice Department must halt review of the documents, make certain that those who have reviewed them do not disclose their contents and make a formal request in court to void the original search warrant.

Once the documents are returned, the leaders said, Mr. Jefferson "can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights."

Mr. Hastert also said the F.B.I. agents involved in the search should be taken off the case.

The unanimity of Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi, two staunch political foes, was a vivid display of how seriously House members are taking the search.

The two leaders have had a strained relationship made worse this year by an intense battle for control of Congress and by Democratic attacks on the way the Republican majority has led the House, which by extension are attacks on Mr. Hastert.

Their offices tried earlier this week to fashion a joint statement objecting to the search but were unable to come to agreement.

While Ms. Pelosi is objecting to the search, she is taking aim at Mr. Jefferson and on Wednesday urged him to abandon his seat on the Ways and Means Committee as part of the effort by Democrats, who have made Republican corruption a main campaign theme, to show that they have no tolerance for it in their own ranks.

But Mr. Jefferson quickly refused. The F.B.I., in obtaining the search warrant, said they had taped Mr. Jefferson accepting $100,000 to use his influence to ease business deals in Africa. Agents said most of the money was later recovered from his freezer.

The Justice Department said it had subpoenaed material last August but the response was delayed in negotiations with Mr. Jefferson and the House counsel, prompting the search.

David Johnston contributed reporting for this article.

Congressman William J. Jefferson From Louisiana is Investigated For Corruption scheme

Related articles:

Why are Powerful Republicans Concerned about William J Jefferson?
By Citizen Conservative (05/23/2006)

As details concerning possible bribery charges against Democrat Representative William J Jefferson emerge, the reaction from several top Republicans is worth noting:

*Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said Monday that he had concerns about the constitutionality of the search and was seeking a legal opinion.

*"I think it is really outrageous," said Representative David Dreier, the California Republican who is chairman of the Rules Committee.

*Speaker J. Dennis Hastert issued a statement highly critical of the search.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this separation of powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by members of Congress," Mr. Hastert said, promising to seek a means to restore "the delicate balance of power."

Mind you, these are the same people who would defend to the death the right of the Bush Administration to conduct whatever domestic surveillance, including eavesdropping, the president might deem necessary against ordinary citizens, with or without probable cause.

Yet a congressmen caught on video receiving $100,000 in cash, $90,000 of which was later recovered from his home freezer, may be the victim of abuse?

Seems to me the powerful 'protesteth too much.'

*Ed: Views are those of individual authors and not necessarily those of American Daily.

May 23, 2006
For Democrats, a Scandal of Their Own
By CARL HULSE, NY TIMES

LINK

WASHINGTON, May 22  Democrats' plans to make Republican corruption a theme of their election strategy this year have been complicated by accusations of wrongdoing in their own ranks, leading the party to try on Monday to blunt the political effects of the unfolding case against Representative William J. Jefferson.

Democratic leaders sought to distance the party from Mr. Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who has been accused by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. In doing that, the leaders tried to draw a distinction between the accusations against him and what they said was a much broader pattern among Republicans of trading legislative influence for campaign donations, trips and other perks.

Mr. Jefferson appeared on Capitol Hill to deny any wrongdoing. Facing a bank of television cameras down the hall from his Congressional office, which was raided by federal agents on Saturday night, Mr. Jefferson said that he would not resign and that he expected to be cleared.

In court documents made public on Sunday, the F.B.I. said Mr. Jefferson had taken bribes to help a small technology company win federal contracts and to help it with business deals in Africa. The F.B.I. said he had concealed $90,000 from the scheme in the freezer of his home in Washington.

"There are two sides to every story," Mr. Jefferson said, without providing any details.

For all the intense partisanship that has surrounded the wave of legal and ethical cases on Capitol Hill, the Jefferson case brought some Democrats and Republicans together on one point: that the all-night search conducted by the F.B.I. raised questions about whether the executive branch had violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by carrying out a raid on the official office of a member of Congress.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said Monday that he had concerns about the constitutionality of the search and was seeking a legal opinion. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader in the House, said that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with constitutional protections and historical precedent." Some House Republicans said they were also disturbed by the way the search was handled.

"I think it is really outrageous," said Representative David Dreier, the California Republican who is chairman of the Rules Committee.

The constitutional question aside, some Democrats acknowledged that the headline-grabbing case involving a colleague they know as Jeff had the potential to dilute one of their core political arguments against the Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

No prominent Republican spoke out against Mr. Jefferson on Monday. But Democrats harbored no hope that Mr. Jefferson would not become part of a Republican counterattack against Democratic efforts to portray the Republicans as a party that had lost its ethical bearings.

"There is no doubt that the charges, the conduct of any Democrat, is going to be raised by those who question our attacks on a culture of corruption as a way to divert attention from that," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas and a vocal critic of Representative Tom DeLay, the former majority leader.

Mr. DeLay stepped down from his leadership post and announced he would leave Congress after he was indicted in Texas on charges that he had used campaign contributions illegally and came under partisan fire for his ties to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who has pleaded guilty in a wide-ranging public corruption inquiry.

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Mr. Jefferson's situation was that of an individual who had yet to be charged formally. The Democratic case against Republicans, he suggested, went to a pattern of trading influence for personal gain within an incestuous world of revolving-door staff members, lobbyists and campaign fund-raisers that Republicans helped establish.

"They are different scales," Mr. Emanuel said. "One is a party outlook and operation; the other is an individual's action. They have institutional corruption."

Even before the case against Mr. Jefferson became public, Republicans were pointing to ethical questions about the activities of another Democrat, Representative Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, who is under F.B.I. scrutiny for his personal finances and his efforts to steer millions of dollars to nonprofit organizations that he helped control.

On Monday, Democratic leaders were considering steps to isolate Mr. Jefferson, including the possibility of removing him from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Pelosi had already endorsed the idea of an ethics inquiry against Mr. Jefferson, and one was initiated last week.

Mr. Jefferson said he intended to "continue to represent the people who have sent me here to try to respond to their needs and their issues." He said he expected to seek re-election, though potential challengers were emerging in New Orleans.

Mr. Jefferson also called the search, evidently the first ever executed at an official Congressional office, an intrusion into the separation of powers. But Ms. Pelosi suggested the lawmaker bore some responsibility.

"Members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation," Ms. Pelosi said in a statement. "If they don't, they will be held accountable."

Late Monday evening, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert issued a statement highly critical of the search.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this separation of powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by members of Congress," Mr. Hastert said, promising to seek a means to restore "the delicate balance of power."

Donald Ritchie, a historian with the Senate, said his office could find no record of a similar search, though the homes and business offices of lawmakers had been searched in the past.

At an unrelated news conference, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called the search "unusual steps that were taken in response to an unusual set of circumstances; I'll just say that."

In their affidavit, federal prosecutors said they had adopted special procedures in the raid to minimize the likelihood that any politically sensitive materials unrelated to the inquiry would be seized in paper form or from office computers.

Lawmakers under federal investigation have in the past raised their special status under the Constitution in an effort to thwart charges with mixed results, with prosecutors sometimes narrowing the case in response, though the Supreme Court has also refused to consider such claims.

In 2002, Mr. Jefferson sought to join the House leadership by becoming the chairman of the Democratic campaign committee, citing his fund-raising record. But Ms. Pelosi chose her fellow Californian, Representative Bob Matsui, who died in January 2005, and her relationship with Mr. Jefferson has been somewhat strained since.

Mr. Jefferson's problems were generating wisecracks on Capitol Hill about cold cash and freezing assets. As in the case of Randy Cunningham, a California Republican jailed after a bribery conviction this year, fellow lawmakers also expressed amazement at the purported goings-on.

"If the allegations are true," Mr. Doggett said, referring to Mr. Jefferson, "he has no place here."

washingtonpost.com
Hastert Tries Damage Control After Remarks Hit a Nerve
By Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 3, 2005; A17

LINK

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert began his day yesterday explaining that he really does not want to see New Orleans bulldozed, and he ended it defending his absence from the Capitol when Congress approved a $10.5 billion hurricane aid package. In between, a former president hinted he would like to throttle the Illinois Republican.

Hastert was still reeling from reaction to his comments earlier this week about the storm-ravaged city. "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," he said in an interview with the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, Ill. Asked whether it made sense to spend billions of dollars rebuilding a city that lies below sea level, he told the paper, "I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me."

Hastert later issued a statement saying he was not "advocating that the city be abandoned or relocated." But Louisiana Democrats were incensed. Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco demanded an apology. "To kick us when we're down and destroy hope, when hope is the only thing we have left," she said, "is absolutely unthinkable for a leader in his position."

In Syracuse, N.Y., former president Bill Clinton was discussing New Orleans's dilemma when someone described the speaker's comments. Had they been in the same place when the remarks were made, Clinton said, "I'm afraid I would have assaulted him."

Hastert again tried to smooth things over. Shortly after a small number of House members unanimously approved the $10.5 billion relief plan at about 1 p.m., he issued a statement saying, "Our prayers and sympathies continue to be with the victims of Hurricane Katrina. In times like these, it is more important than ever for Americans to stand united in helping our fellow citizens."

But there was one problem: Hastert was not in Washington, and his top lieutenants had to oversee the vote. He was in Indiana attending a colleague's fundraiser, staff members said, and he later attended an antique car auction.

By 4 p.m., Hastert had reached the Capitol, eager to explain his tardiness and to try again to show his solidarity with Katrina's victims. The Indiana fundraiser, he told reporters, had been on his schedule "for a long, long time."

"Yes, I went to a charity auction," Hastert continued. "I took one of my cars and sold it for tens of thousands of dollars. And that money will go to hurricane relief efforts."

Staff writer Dan Balz contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company