When the going gets weird…

…the weird turn pro.

After the weekend’s raid on Congressman Jefferson’s office, and the “Separation of Powers” flap between Congress and the FBI, the President has decided to slap a 45 seal on the records that were seized from the Congressman’s office.

What exactly are the pols up in arms about? It’s not like the FBI didn’t have a court-issued warrant. Or videotape of the Congressmen accepting $100,000 in cash. Or found $90,000 in his freezer. Why are they trying to prevent the conviction of one of their own who is clearly a crook. I mean, it’s not like someone planted $90,000 in his freezer. Or he’s not on tape. I mean, any idiot can see this guy belongs behind bars and not in the US Congress.

Why are the Congresscritters trying to stop the removal of criminals from their midst?

4 Comments so far

  1. Don (unregistered) on May 25th, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

    In the most general I think they don’t like the idea that they might be accountable or have to respond to the law; They don’t even have to stop for metal detectors ferchrissake. More specifically in this case I think they may be concerned about what kind of information is in that office and could be entered into evidence. Jefferson is on the budget and ways & means committee – perhaps there’s concern about what kinds of information he has lying around that they don’t necessarily want the public to see. Ways and Means in particular might worry them, given some of the items under their jurisdiction:

    1. Customs revenue, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.
    2. Reciprocal trade agreements.

    I think that would be a bullshit concern but then again I don’t see how big a threat nail clippers or Cat Stevens are on an airplane.

    Snakes, on the other hand….

  2. Jmd94 (unregistered) on May 26th, 2006 @ 7:33 am

    They’re all scared to death, because they’re all on the take! But I’m not a cynic.

  3. MattF (unregistered) on May 26th, 2006 @ 8:23 am

    Ha Ha. I wonder, what’s the parliamentary rule for determining a majority when significant numbers of congresspeople are permanently ‘out of town’?

  4. Gary (unregistered) on May 26th, 2006 @ 11:57 am

    The other issue, is actually a constitutional one. While, this person should be accountable, generally it should fall to Congress to clean it’s own house.

    When you have the justice department, which is part of the Executive Branch, interfere with the Office of a Congressmen, there becomes an issue as to whether or not it interferes with the Speech and Debate Clause of the constitution. Interpretation of which has been, well crazy.

    Essentially though it creates a certain immunity for Congressmen in the execution of their duty, on the floor of congress and perhaps in their offices.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.