Newt Gingrich is not alone. Now another Republican “scholar” Dennis Hastert (no comment) is proclaiming the FBI arrest of Rep. Jefferson unconstitutional. I don’t know about the rest of you but I find this continued charade not only to be tone death, but to be truly morally repellent. In fact, it makes me want to support legislation making any convictions for law-breaking by Members of Congress subject to penalties vastly more extreme than those suffered by the general public. Serving the country is a special privilege. If somone doing that commits a crime, he should serve more time and pay more fines than if you or I committed the same crime. Far more. Not only is the person a public servant, he is supposed to be an example to every school child in the country. That is what Hastert should be thinking about, not about who arrested Jefferson.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey (via Glenn) has more details of the Constitutional ins and outs here, but since some are complaining the Capitol Police should have done the heavy lifting here, let me tell a personal story. In the mid-eighties I was commissioned to write the screen adaptation of MURDER IN THE SENATE by (then) Senator William S. Cohen of Maine (he had a collaborator whose name has somehow mysteriously disappeared from the Amazon link). Cohen was a friendly, bright guy, but, to be kind, as a mystery writer he was no threat to Raymond Chandler. His plot made little sense (at least to me and I think to the studio mogul who had optioned his book, in part, for the senatorial name value ) and my job was to give it a story. I never could, finally. But in the process of doing my research I did a lot of nosing around with the Capitol Police – met the chief, saw their facilities, etc. Again, to be kind, this was not Scotland Yard. These guys were closer to campus cops at a middling private college – Colgate, say. Even then they were telling me how they called in the FBI when things got dicey. I’m sure they’ve beefed up some in the age of terrorism – but turned into serious crime stoppers? Not bloody likely. In fact, there’s something spooky and beyond the law about the whole thing. The complaints of Hastert, et al, remind me of some rich kid calling out. “Hey, isn’t Uncle Charlie going to arrest me? I want Uncle Charlie!”
Keep the pressure on, bloggers. This one has legs.
MORE: Someone’s calling someone a “blithering idiot.” The first someone is right. The second someone puts me in mind of the famous Woody Allen line: “Those who can’t, teach. And those who can’t teach, teach gymn.” Someone should come up with the equivalent for the Congress.
ONE MORE THING: A lot of people are negative about Third Parties in our system because “they don’t work” or some such. But do our traditional parties “work” when they yield up the likes of Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi as the leaders of the Democrats and Republican in the House? Think about that one, you critics of third parties.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
29 Comments
1. David Thomson:ìThe institution has a right to protect itself against the executive branch going into our offices and violating what is the Speech and Debate Clause that essentially says, ëThatís none of your business, executive branch,íî Hoyer said.î
What is House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer talking about? The FBI did not search Rep. William Jeffersonís office to violate the Speech and Debate Clause. It did so to investigate the possibility of criminal behavior. No elected official should consider their official office as some sort of safe haven to hide evidence of law breaking. I am flabbergasted by the argumentation of Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert. It doesnít pass the laugh test.
May 24, 2006 - 1:00 am 2. HA:Amen, Roger. There is only one course of action:
THROW THE BUMS OUT!
If every person in this country voted AGAINST the incumbant in the primary and/or general election, then in this year, the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand and Six, we the People have the power to exercise our inalienable right to throw out 368 of 435 of our Congressional Wannabe Overlords.
Democrat. Republican. I don’t give a damn! They’re all scum.
People of this great country, grab your pitchforks and throw the bums out!
May 24, 2006 - 3:18 am 3. pastorius:Yes, Roger, thanks for saying that.
I agree. Add Congressman David Dreyer to the list of Congresspeople voicing this idiotic meme I heard him do so on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Thankfully, Hugh, who is usually a Republican Party lapdog, disagreed with him (although rather tentatively).
It seems our Congress has become arrogant, almost in a “Let them eat cake” way.
May 24, 2006 - 3:52 am 4. Barry Dauphin:It sounds like it’s time for the blogosphere to give these folks the Trent Lott treatment.
May 24, 2006 - 4:02 am 5. Michael Heinz:You’re overstating the case – neither Gingrich nor Hastert has objected to the arrest of Jefferson (has he even been arrested? I thought he hadn’t been charged yet?) I’m especially annoyed that you (and many other sites) are making this claim when the article you link to says something completely different.
What they are complaining about is the first-time-in-history search of a Congressman’s offices. I don’t know much about this subject, but I do know other sites have noted that apparently Jefferson was aware that the Capitol was immune to search by the DOJ and was apparently using that to hide evidence.
Seriously, I haven’t decided if Hastert is right or wrong, but how can we have an intelligent debate on the right or wrong of a subject if people are determined to misconstrue the facts at hand?
May 24, 2006 - 4:23 am 6. timmah!:If it is the first time that DoJ has investigated a Congressional office, so much more the shameful. Republicans should be tossing this loser to the wolves, not defending him. There is no constitutional right to crime, and the FBI was far more circumspect and courteous than they would have been with an average citizen.
May 24, 2006 - 4:42 am 7. James E. Griffin:The problem has to do with how co-equal branches of government deal with each other. The House has a Sergeant at Arms; FBI should have gone to THAT office – official LEO – and together FBI and Sergeant at Arms take the office in question apart.
from the website:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/legbranc/abtcong.htm
The Sergeant at Arms maintains the order of the House under the direction of the Speaker and is the keeper of the Mace. As a member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board, the Sergeant at Arms is the chief law enforcement officer for the House and serves as Board Chairman each even year. The ceremonial and protocol duties parallel those of the Senate Sergeant at Arms and include arranging the inauguration of the President of the United States, Joint Sessions of Congress, visits to the House of heads of state, and funerals of Members of Congress. The Sergeant at Arms enforces the rules relating to the privileges of the Hall of the House, including admission to the galleries.
May 24, 2006 - 4:53 am 8. HA:James E. Griffin,
That’s no different than having the Attorney General investigate the President. It is a potential conflict of interest.
The Executive branch sought and acquired a search warrant from the Judicial branch to raid the office of a member of the Legislative Branch. Constitutional requirements were fulfilled.
The reaction by Congressional Republicans is nothing more than a naked attempt to put themselves above the Rule of Law. They thoroughly disgraced themselves. If we allow these corrupt bastards to remain in office after this, then SHAME ON US.
May 24, 2006 - 5:04 am 9. george III:In regard to “throwing the bums out”: In a system composed of two institutionally entrenched parties, who alternate in control of the government, it is literally impossible to throw the bums out as both parties are constituted by bums. We elect one party on vapid promises to “reform” the corruption of the other and, after that has run it course, we do it all over again.
Please note that all of the issues of crime, drugs, war, social security, abortion, and yes immigration, have all been on the agenda since I cast my first serious and involved little ballot–and I am, alas, no longer a young man. Our government is an ossified, decrepit, bloated, incompetent, expensive bureaucracy whose only real accomplishment (beside spending our great grandchildren’s salary) is the survival of prehistoric mediocrities like (merely for instance) Robert Byrd who has been in office since before I was born. Problem is, there is only a younger version of Bobby Byrd waiting to replace him.
The only way to break the cycle is to create strong and frightening third parties that can punish both Republican and Democrats. It has happened before. As you recall, the Republican Party was once itself a third party. The Grange Movement, Agricultural Alliances and Populism in the late 19th Century caused great political change. Admittedly it wasn’t all good change, but the point is if we look only to current institutions we are doomed.
May 24, 2006 - 5:10 am 10. HA:george III,
I disagree. If members of both parties knew with some degree of confidence that We the People would throw their sorry asses out if they abuse the power we loan them, then eventually they would realize that a change in their behavior towards a more responsible exercise of their borrowed power would be in their own best interests. No politician wants to be a one-termer.
Throw the bums out! We have the power. It is ours. We own it. How far must we be pushed before we actually fight back? What the hell is it gonna take? For the love of God, let’s finally use our power!
May 24, 2006 - 5:28 am 11. James E. Griffin:HA,
you said: The Executive branch sought and acquired a search warrant from the Judicial branch to raid the office of a member of the Legislative Branch. Constitutional requirements were fulfilled.
Not exactly. Legislatures around the country have their own rules and procedures – dating back to the colonial period and beyond – that have force of law. Yes, it can get arcane.
Eyes on the long term. And questions of jurisdiction serving a warrant. Had the House Sergeant at Arms and the FBI executed the search, there’d be no question.
How annoying would it be if Jefferson’s lawyer could say that the search was illegal, and have evidence thrown out on those grounds? Hopefully, a
judge would NOT fall for that. Better to take an extra step, and guarantee that Jefferson has no out. Judges have made annoying decisions before!
What we want is for Jefferson to be held accountable. We don’t want criminality to be obscured by errors in police procedure.
May 24, 2006 - 5:56 am 12. Mark Poling:The goal: 100% turnover.
Do what you can.
May 24, 2006 - 7:38 am 13. Jonathan Sabin:Roger, isn’t it obvious?
Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, teach gym. Those who fail gym are elected to congress.
May 24, 2006 - 8:20 am 14. Stacy's Mom:The Capitol Police? Aren’t they the bunch who drove Rep Patrick Kennedy home after his recent 3:00 AM car crash, so as to ensure no inconvenience to the good representative in his impaired state?
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
May 24, 2006 - 8:28 am 15. tim maguire:James: You bring up another interesting point. Generally, the results of a search that is illegal because the warrant is invalid are still admissible if the officers conducting the search reasonably believed the warrant was valid.
Would that hold here? I don’t know. I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the very limited congressional immunity clause applies in this case. On the surface, the separation of powers argument appears to be without merit and I don’t have time to do the research that could tie it in.
What interests me here is the role this will play in the tug of war of fall elections. Thus far it’s been a case of Republicans making people want to vote Democratic and Democrats making people want to vote Republican. Being that they are in power, the Republicans should be able to win this war of repulsion (and, therefore, lose the election), but the Democrats stay in the running on talent alone.
This issue may put the Republican horse on the inside track to failure. Let’s see if the Democrats have what it takes to join with Hastert and Gingrich and get themselves back in this meltdown competition.
May 24, 2006 - 8:29 am 16. jedrury:For the life of me, I can not figure out why Gingrich/Hastert get out front on this when the Dems/Pelosi are breathing down their neck to throw them out and this is one true corrupt Dem politician involved.
And, please spare me the adage that this all about the separation of powers, the good of the House, that forge of democracy.
All one needs to know about the Capitol cops and their reputation for bi partisan law enforcement is how they cozily handled an addled Patrick Kennedy a few weeks ago.
“Come on Congressman, let me drive you home!!!”
May 24, 2006 - 8:32 am 17. dclydew:jedrury,
Well, I think the answer might be interesting. Gingrich and Hastart seem focused on the proceedures of politics. For career politicans, proceedure sometimes appear as their lifeblood. If proceedure is changed without warning, then the politican may feel at a disadvantage. I don’t see them trying to protect a congressman as much as protect tradition.
The Dems, on the other hand, appear quiet. Why? Because the Republicans already seem to be doing what needs done on the political front (and at the same time, they’re stuck with giving the appearance of supporting yet another crook). If the Dems are going to try to win on the “Rebuplicans are Corrupt” ticket, they need to distance themselves from Jefferson ASAP. That’s what they seem to be doing, Republicans probably expected to see them close ranks and join in on the proceedure issue (since in the end, it seems less about left and right… and more about political power). Instead, it looks like (for once) the dems are keeping their heads and shutting their mouths. Nancy Pelosi’s statement was as non-committal as you can get, while Hastart and Frist sound much more like they’re defending a crook, based on nothing more than proceedure. If the Dems maintain this line, they could easily make the Republicans look like the bad guys once again.
I wonder if someone with political intelligence has actually joined/been hired by the Democrats. I think that this has the potential to actually be a rather cunning political move on their part… possibly the first in at least a decade
May 24, 2006 - 8:51 am 18. Steven Mitchell:You can’t beat something with nothing. Barbara Boxer is the exception that proves the rule.
A third party that actually did the hard work of becoming a party and stood for something concrete and useful (and not for vapor, such as with the libertarians), would not stay a third party long. The idea that, “third parties do not work” is more accurately stated, “there is only room for two parties in our system”. It doesn’t say that those two parties have to be Democrat and Republican.
Of course, the reason that is so hard to accomplish is that the parties affect each other. A hard-working, concrete, useful third party would change at least one of the existing parties (and probably both) before it could really get off the ground. (It’s unclear at this point whether or not the Democrats can recover fast enough, though.)
I’ve been saying for some time that the biggest objection to a pathetic Democrat party is that the Republicans would only do well enough to squeak by. To the extent that the only valid challenger goes rotten, you can expect distinctly sub par from the leader.
In the end, all you can do is vote for the best candidate you can find (or convince to run), looking at every election individually. Since not every party gets better or worse on the same schedule, you can expect times when a straight slate (or close to it), makes sense from a message sending point of view.
But if anyone thinks that voting Dem this fall is going to fix anything, they are smoking weed. What we really need, instead of term limits, is the Russian option of “none of the above”. If that choice wins, leave that office open for 2 years.
May 24, 2006 - 9:04 am 19. Mark Poling:The only theory I can come up with to explain Hastert’s behavior is that, when the AMA was offering free lobotomies for the Republican caucus, Hastert went back for seconds.
May 24, 2006 - 9:12 am 20. jedrury:dclydew:
Your explanation is understandable but the position of Gingrich/Hastert is silly.
Republicans can be so blind and stupid sometimes.
May 24, 2006 - 9:34 am 21. James E. Griffin:Folks are commenting about the Capital Police. Let me make mine.
A personal friend of mine – now retired – was a private first class, Capital Police, on 9-11. With the twin towers hit, and the Pentagon burning, flight 93 was still in the air. My friend was at his post, at the Capital, guarding a door. While everyone else was evacuating, my friend stood his post. As he was required.
He knew if there was another attack, he could die, at his post. He could have run, and did not.
His duty means something to that man.
While there are some dunces on the Capital Police, the vast majority of them are sound. And their duty means something to them.
May 24, 2006 - 9:48 am 22. AllenS:We desperately need term limits. It wouldn’t solve everything, but it would help.
May 24, 2006 - 10:01 am 23. Kevin Peters:Roger:
Third Party? Ok, great, I love it. Who’s leading it? What is it based on? Which of the two parties are you going to dump because we don’t have a parliment and like it or not, each section of our 3 legislative branches is set up with the top party having control.
We have alternative parties. Green, libertarian, ect, ect. Is it going to be one of those? If not, you better get cracking because the Senate and the Congress is going to be decided in the fall and 2008 is coming fast. Form your third party. Organize your candidates. It can’t just be a Presidential candidate, he has to have someone in congress to push his agaenda. Put your party platform together. I am a registered independent.I used to vote Dem, I vote Republican today but if you present a realistic alternative I’ll listen, and if it isn’t a Perot, Anderson, Teddy Roosevelt, Nader party of one person I’ll sign on and pitch in.
Both parties are depressing but yelling 3rd party and not presenting a plan is too easy. Create a party platform and a slate of candidates. “we are for good government and we are against bad government” is not going to cut it. If it is going to be a centrist party explain what ideas you are going to take from the Dems and the Repubs, or create your new ideas.”Throw the bums out!’ Great! Who are you replacing the bums with? Someone takes office. One party is going to set the rules in each branch, President, Senate, House. If the third party doesn’t win, guess what, it’s either going to be the Republicans or the Dems. And which party is going to be cut out? When the Republicans won before the civil war it was the Whigs who died out. Are you replacing the R’s or the D’s? We have a two party system. If you can organize a new party to replace one of the two we have now go ahead.I have little love for the either side these days. But you better get a move on.
May 24, 2006 - 11:20 am 24. Kevin Peters:Roger:
“What we need is none of the above.” OK. which State is going to volunteer to have just one or no Seanators representing their state? Having an open seat does not stop the legislative process, it just makes the majority that is needed on any vote smaller.
I hate to be a snot or a wet blanket. But this isn’t a “let’s put on a show” Mickey Rooney movie. One of the two main parties is going to win. Or we will have a split government. And if you look at countries with multiple party styles of government you still have stupidity, corruption, and lousy pol’s. France, Canada, Israel. U.K.. Iraq, Mexico, and on and on. Do you think that their citizens don’t have the same bitches that we do? It is the nature of the beast.
Show me a viable third party and the plan that you intend to carry out,(and that includes the politicians that are going to lead this party, and I will give anyone an honest listen. But all I ever hear is “we need a third party”. OK, give me some details, don’t just take the easy route and say “look at those dummies”. I already knows that. Ask the politicians that you admire why they don’t form a third party. Many of them are just as disgusted as you are.
May 24, 2006 - 1:41 pm 25. Terrye:The last time we gave the third party thing a try the Clintons won.
no thank you. down that road lies madness.
Everybody would be fighting about it anyway. same old same old.
I think this is turf war between branches of government. At least we know they can do something in a bipartisan way.
May 24, 2006 - 1:57 pm 26. Anthony (Los Angeles):Think about that one, you critics of third parties.
It seems to me the better way is to run candidates in the primaries to replace those corrupted by their time in Washington.
Third parties don’t necessarily fail –the Republicans were once a “third party”– but they usually have a short, pathetic life (Reform Party, anyone?) and wind up giving the election to the party from which they stole the fewest votes.
How do you think we got Bill Clinton in 1992?
May 24, 2006 - 3:55 pm 27. Steven Mitchell:Kevin,
“OK. which State is going to volunteer to have just one or no Seanators representing their state? Having an open seat does not stop the legislative process, it just makes the majority that is needed on any vote smaller…”
Sure. However, the purpose of a, “none of the Above” option is not to, “throw the bums out!” Oh sure, if a guy gets really, really bad, it might happen occasionally. Mostly, though, it provides a way to register dissatisfaction with the incumbent in a way that actually means something–in polls or even in later races. If a guy is doing that badly versus, “none of the above,” then he is likely to attract a challenger.
Besides, I’m mainly in agreement with you. You want a poster-child for this kind of Congress-critter nonsense? Try “my” representative, Bud Cramer. What a non-entity. Guess how he keeps getting elected? He shifts with the wind, and stays as close to the “center” as a southern Democrat can–but always manages to slickly preserve congressional prerogatives. When I was first voting, Tom Bevill made Robert Byrd look like a piker when it came to “get money for my district and name the whole freaking place after me.” The so-called “center” is a much to blame (if not more) for this kind of thing as left and right wingers.
Cramer hasn’t had a real challenger in years. Let’s pretend that someone that roughly shared my beliefs and principles (but was telegenic and capable of pretending to like the campaign circuit) ran against him. Actually in Congress, such a person would vote more with the general desires of the commenters here, than Cramer. Sure, on a few things, there would be complete opposition. OTOH, you’d know where this person stood. You could take the good with the bad. And at the end of the day, the bad would be pretty niche, and mostly cancelled by equally princpled congress-critters from other districts.
Yet, should such come to pass, and you hear a platform from such a person, most of you wouldn’t vote for him. Even without a media pile-on, there would be some issue or three that would be disqualifying–perhaps even justifying a “kook” label. (There goes that guy talking about school vouchers again. Must be some kind of religious fanatic.) It would make the slurs against Tom Coburn look tame.
If people frequently find standing on principle disqualifying, and calls for candidates with character to merely be thinly veiled Clinton/Monica code words, then why are we surprised when we get what we voted for? If we make “men without chests”, we can hardly expect anything else.
May 24, 2006 - 4:19 pm 28. Steven Mitchell:Another thing while I have this head of steam:
I think there is a subtle double-standard at work lately that has rather wide-ranging effects. In the centrists portion of the blogosphere, it seems to have become the attitude that the Democratic party was made up of children while the Republicans had the grownups. Now, there are times and places and individuals where I’d agree with that assessment. As such, it provides a useful shorthand.
OTOH, when that idea hardens into an attitude, it becomes perverse. “We know the Democrats are spoiled brats. So we discount their behavior. But I thought Republicans were supposed to know better. We need to send them a message!”
That effectively says that you have already made as many excuses for the Dems as you are prepared to make. So they can keep on doing the same old thing, and it will not matter. OTOH, the Republicans are expected to summon a majority to do the right thing with very little help from the opposition. This is hard! After awhile, some of them start to think those lowered standards look fairly appealing. Sure, it’s petty. But you try being nice to Ted Kennedy for a decade, then get called on the carpet for harmless comments (e.g. Trent Lott). It takes an *immense* amount of personal integrity to be above reproach in that environment. You can’t vote for muddlers and expect to get the integrity as well.
May 24, 2006 - 4:40 pm 29. Mark Poling:Apparently the Justice Department is sniffing around connections between Hastert and Abramoff.
Could explain a lot, that.
May 25, 2006 - 12:38 am