Well, it seems that no matter how much whining the 'bipartisan advisory committee' could whip up, for once
the rule of law (and common sense) prevails.
Boehner and
Hastert must be so disappointed.
In a sometimes scolding tone, Judge Hogan wrote that the warrant had not violated Mr. Jefferson's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, nor did it step on constitutional principles. "The facts and questions of law here are indeed unprecedented," the judge wrote. "It is well established, however, that a member of Congress is generally bound to the operation of the criminal laws as are ordinary persons." [emphasis mine]
It's not surprising that Judge Hogan would feel this way- he signed the original search warrant. What is refreshing is the way he managed to point out what we here in Reality Land know to be true: members of Congress can and must be held accountable if the rule of law is to mean anything at all. More gems from the judge below the fold...
Apparently Jefferson et al were using the
Speech or Debate clause to argue that the FBI's search of his office
as part of an investigation into a bribery case was overstepping the separation of powers between the branches of government. Which is pretty ironic, considering what the clause was actually written to do:
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution states in part, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place." The purpose of the clause is to prevent the arrest and prosecution of unpopular legislators based on their political views.
Who knew that keeping $90,000 in the freezer was part of Jefferson's arguments on the floor of the house?
Judge Hogan, thankfully, was having none of it.
"Congressman Jefferson's interpretation of the speech or debate privilege would have the effect of converting every Congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime," the judge concluded. <snip>
"If there is any threat to the separation of powers here, it is not from the execution of a search warrant by one co-equal branch of government upon another, after the independent approval of the third separate, and co-equal branch," he wrote. "Rather, the principle of the separation of powers is threatened by the position that the legislative branch enjoys the unilateral and unreviewable power to invoke an absolute privilege, thus making it immune from the ordinary criminal process of a validly issued search warrant."
He noted that the founding fathers had rejected a proposal that would have allowed Congress "to be the exclusive judges of their own privileges."
Of course (and unfortunately) Jefferson's lawyer has announced that there will be an appeal, and if he has his way he'll get a stay on the evidence that was collected in the search in the meantime. But why listen to the founding fathers? Their ideas were so quaint.