Comments (24)

EH wrote on August 3, 2007 12:36 PM:

"the court basically just issued a blanket cover against searches.... "

And when I hear someone say "basically" it means they're leaving out a lot of stuff that contradicts their statement.

hit_escape wrote on August 3, 2007 12:46 PM:

And the Bush Admin creates another legal fiasco by going their own way and refusing to follow legal procedures. Can the Republic survive the remaining days in office of these clowns?

NW Side Chicago Dem wrote on August 3, 2007 1:18 PM:

I don't know the make up of the appellate panel but this will be a nice precedent for the claim that all Executive documents are privileged from the Legislative branch.

Cinderella Ferret wrote on August 3, 2007 1:29 PM:

So as long as you work for a government official (Executive or Legislative) you can hide behind the shield of "privilege"? The Dukester and Ney are even dumber than they looked! Should have take a few more notes from Rove and Jefferson.

BronxInTN wrote on August 3, 2007 1:52 PM:

Having read the NYT report on this unanimous ruling, I agree with the decision. One challenges the government with the defendants you have, not the defendants you wish you had, as in the Larry Flynt censorship case. The wholesale confiscation of documents by the FBI from the office of a sitting Congressman or Senator is a dangerous precedent. The court ruled that some of the documents could be taken but others could not. And the ruling has nothing, so far, to do with the money found in the freezer of Jefferson's home.

anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 2:25 PM:

"I don't know the make up of the appellate panel but this will be a nice precedent for the claim that all Executive documents are privileged from the Legislative branch."

Not really.

There is no comparable constitutional provision establishing executive privilege.

Second, there is a vast difference between what Congress did, which was ASK for relevant documents to be delivered, and what the White House (via the FBI) did with respect to Jefferson, which was to without announcement physically enter his office and confiscate wads of paperwork without any ability of the congressman to segregate privileged materials and without any control over what documents the FBI agents could view. Thus, the FBI, whether they took the documents or not, were permitted to review even documents irrelevant to their investigation to which they were neither legally nor constitutionally entitled.

There were any number of ways in which the DOJ and FBI could have sought to obtain the relevant documents, such as serving subpoenas on Congress and allowing congressional leaders oversee the search for and collection of responsive documents.

Congressional leaders didn't send the Sergeant at Arms or march over themselves to the White House and themselves start rumaging through all White House documents looking for relevant ones, but that is exactly what the White House did to Congress.

Jefferson should probably be thrown out of Congress and Congress should search his office itself and turn over any relevant documents to investigating authorities, but allowing one branch of government to physically (or electronically) invade the offices and information of another branch is repugnant to the constitutional separation of powers and the rightful privileges to be accorded to each branch.

This issue here is not whether Congress would have to turn over relevant documents in response to a subpoeana, the scope of which could be challenged in court just as Bush is forcing with his overbroad claim of executive privilege, permitting the issue of scope of congressional privilege to be determined, but the arrogance and defiance of the physical and political integrity of a co-equivalent branch of government.

Patrick wrote on August 3, 2007 2:28 PM:

I too have to disagree with the analysis. This is not an order against ever entering Congressional offices in furtherance of a search warrant, it's a correct response to the FBI confiscating and refusing to return clearly legistlative-only documents.

The Bush administration should be afraid of this decision. Their own justice department has argued successfully that no single branch of the government can seek refuge behind the cloak of their governmental duties. Therefore in furtherance of an investigation of conspiracy to subjourn perjury or conspiracy for malicious prosecution then the other branches of government can and will be allowed to search the Oval Office. Ok, I'll believe it when I see it, but why would it be any different?

This is a good decision.

anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 2:41 PM:

Patrick: "This is a good decision."

Exactly . . .

Roehrekasse (White House tool): "We are disappointed with the ruling that requires that a member of Congress be provided advance notice and the right to review materials before the execution of a search warrant."

What a hypocrite.

Roehrekasse not only demands that when Congress is investigating the executive branch that the White House get advance notice and an opportunity to review materials, but that the White House may absolutely and unilaterally decide what to turn over and what not to turn over, even though Congress's privilege is expressly set forth in the Constitution and the executive privilege that Bush is claiming is not.

If Roehrekasse really believes this crap, then why doesn't the White House apply the same standards to itself that they are insisting apply to Congress and allow congressional investigators physical access to all executive branch documents (e.g., all the documents in Rove's office) so the congressional investigators can themselves paw through them all looking for the relevant ones?

The DOJ is lucky it didn't win this case.

If it had, then Congress would be well within its rights to send congressional investigators physically into Rove's office (or any other White House office) to peruse through all documents in that office looking for anything relevant to their investigation.

Phil wrote on August 3, 2007 2:46 PM:

I have to disagree that this is an aid to corrupt politicians. Anyone who has studied the issue realizes that while the precedent of practice in Congress is that a certain process is followed before raiding the home of a congressman under the circumstances that occurred here. Neither the majority nor minority leaders were informed, as they should have. A slew of other mistakes occurred.

The blame lies with the Bush Justice Dep't. See these links to legal scholars:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070518.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060530.html

KYJurisDoctor wrote on August 3, 2007 3:15 PM:

Correct ruling, right reasoning but Speech and Debate Clause is a BIG stretch!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/congressman-william-cash-in-freezer.html#links

anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 3:16 PM:

Saying this is an aid to corrupt politicians is like saying the Miranda rights are an aid to criminals.

Just like we need to protect innocent persons accused of crimes from overbearing police tactics, we also need to ensure that no branch of government abuses the power of investigation to physically or electronically gain access to information to which it has no right.

Congress has approached its investigation of the White House in a reasonable manner, with respect and due process, while the White House has improperly asserted vast and unlimited privilege to ignore even courteous and respectful requests for information.

Imagine how the GOP and Bush administration would have howled if Democratic congressional leaders has secretly gone to a Democrat-appointed federal judge to obtain a search warrant for Karl Rove's office and sent congressional investigators to the White House with an armed Sergeant at Arms and capitol police to ensure entry to physically take control of Rove's office and rifle through all of the papers in his office looking for whatever they believed to be relevant to their investigation, making off with not only relevant documents but a host of other documents that clearly fall within the executive privilege (to the extent and within the scope of its existence).

This is simply another example of the double-standard conservatives apply to themselves and liberals shouldn't buy into it just because they want to rid a nasty and corrupt congressman.

There are better legal ways to deal with Jefferson and get the goods on him, just as their are better legal law enforcement tools to convict criminals without violating their constitutional rights.

Shame on public corruption watchdog groups for blasting this decision.

If you are really interested in making sure that Jefferson is held accountable, then demand that congressional investigators search and obtain the necessary evidence themselves and turn it over to law enforcement authorities.

But backing the White House's position that it can physically invade congressional offices any time it wants to in order to paw through the papers of a co-equal branch is an invitation to further executive intimidation of Congress.

Just. Say. No. To. Abusive. White. House. Methods.

TheraP wrote on August 3, 2007 3:26 PM:

So, is it two "anons" now? One with no name. And one with anonymous as a name?

Getting confusing here. We need a password... or should I just ask the fat lady?

Hermione wrote on August 3, 2007 3:33 PM:

Give us a clue here anon. Please.

TheraP wrote on August 3, 2007 3:41 PM:

The posts look consistent with Anon's Constitutional focus, Hermione. (I know you've been focusing on "spells" and magic, not on the real world.)

If these don't belong to Anon, I think we'll get a message to that effect. But the posts ring true - true to the Constitution.

Hermione wrote on August 3, 2007 4:46 PM:

"loud and clear" - "ring of truth"

Sometimes in the wizzarding world there are spells so you can change your shape - maybe even your "name."

Takes a wizzard. To know.

kilo wrote on August 3, 2007 6:00 PM:

the last thing on earth politicians need is "extra-protection". They are already fucking invincible unless they get their dick sucked or something as trivial. Sure, we voters can be wiretapped and the whole sha-bang without a warrant, but god forbid a corrupt politician getting his house raided with probable cause.

Ats wrote on August 3, 2007 9:53 PM:

Most of you couldn't be more wrong. The FBI search was no different than any other criminal search. It was a proper search for evidence based on a finding of probable cause as by a federal judge. During such searches, agents routinely view documents not pertinant to the case - and they DON'T seize them. That is why they search.

female wrote on August 4, 2007 1:01 PM:

I am relieved the court said the FBI couldn't take EVERY document in Jefferson's office and Rove look at what was to him relevent.

Ross Best wrote on August 5, 2007 7:34 PM:

"Doing that creates a 'fox guarding the henhouse problem,' says Sloan."

As a representative of the fox community, I must object to the biased terminology of "henhouse." As PBS loves to remind us, there is more than one side to every story. I think objectivity requires us to refer to the more inclusive "henfoxhouse."

anonymous wrote on August 6, 2007 9:28 AM:

Hermione: "Give us a clue here anon. Please."

I bet you would have been one of those who needed to know who Publius was and which of the three authors of the Federalist Papers wrote which article in order to evaluate the usefulness of the ideas contained therein.

You would think ideas would stand on their own and be objectively evaluated, rather than trying to make it a game of judging personalities.

Sad.

kilo: "Sure, we voters can be wiretapped and the whole sha-bang without a warrant, but god forbid a corrupt politician getting his house raided with probable cause."

Get your facts straight.

It wasn't his house, it was his congressional office, the equivalent of congressional investigators raiding Karl Rove's office.

Ats: "Most of you couldn't be more wrong. The FBI search was no different than any other criminal search. It was a proper search for evidence based on a finding of probable cause as by a federal judge. During such searches, agents routinely view documents not pertinant to the case - and they DON'T seize them. That is why they search."

Yes, it was different, because it was the offices of an equal branch of government.

Moreover, you must not be following the story, since it is clear from the opinion that documents that were privileged and not subject to seizure were in fact seized.

Isabeladgl wrote on November 23, 2007 1:28 AM:

vScVwh , doxycycline hyclate [url="http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/doxycycline-hyclate/index.html"]doxycycline hyclate [/url]http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/doxycycline-hyclate/index.html doxycycline hyclate ujeelv, ca estate norco real [url="http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/ca-estate-norco-real/index.html"]ca estate norco real [/url]http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/ca-estate-norco-real/index.html ca estate norco real qiz, acetaminophen e [url="http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/acetaminophen-e/index.html"]acetaminophen e [/url]http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/acetaminophen-e/index.html acetaminophen e 8-]], lexapro weight gain [url="http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/lexapro-weight-gain/index.html"]lexapro weight gain [/url]http://xanaxcom.freehostcore.com/lexapro-weight-gain/index.html lexapro weight gain zyxx,

ersdf wrote on November 24, 2007 12:20 PM:

Good Site! Thanks!
clindamycin clindamycin
[URL=http://topdrugsforyou.110mb.com/clindamycin/index.html] clindamycin [/URL]
clindamycin side effects clindamycin side effects
[URL=http://topdrugsforyou.110mb.com/clindamycin-side-effects/index.html] clindamycin side effects [/URL]
clonidine clonidine
[URL=http://topdrugsforyou.110mb.com/clonidine/index.html] clonidine [/URL]
codeine cough syrup codeine cough syrup
[URL=http://topdrugsforyou.110mb.com/codeine-cough-syrup/index.html] codeine cough syrup [/URL]
coumadin diet coumadin diet
[URL=http://topdrugsforyou.110mb.com/coumadin-diet/index.html] coumadin diet [/URL]

Prescription info wrote on January 3, 2008 6:28 PM:

Free prescription

Prescription info wrote on January 10, 2008 4:34 PM:

Buy Tramadol online