Brushback Hearing (FBI House Raid)--EJDionne--WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060101535.html?referrer=email


Brushback Hearing

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, June 2, 2006; A19

So don't be fooled by the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the Justice Department's supposed violation of congressional rights in an FBI search of Rep. William Jefferson's office in a bribery investigation....The hearing was dominated by talk of abuses of power by long-dead monarchs and the need of the people's representatives for untrammeled communication with their constituents...
But Rep. James Sensenbrenner's committee was really sending a message as the House confronts a far-reaching corruption investigation: Nice little Justice Department you have there, Mr. Attorney General. Too bad if anything were to happen to it. Stop messing with us before we mess with you.

How else to explain this from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.): "We have the power to impeach the attorney general. Now, I'm not sure that articles of impeachment are going to come out today. I think we're a couple shakes short of a quorum for that purpose. Although I suspect members would quickly be here if it was brought by the chair."

Why would House Republicans be so concerned with Jefferson, a Democrat from Louisiana who, according to prosecutors, kept $90,000 in cash in his freezer? ...One answer is high principle. The more plausible answer is that Republicans are worried that the next shoes to drop in the congressional probes will belong to Republican members. Using a Democrat's case now to protect Republican members in the future is not so much clever as transparent.

According to 2005 Census Bureau estimates, there are 296,410,404 people in the United States. The Judiciary Committee is clearly concerned with the rights of 435 House members and -- give them the benefit of the doubt -- 100 senators. Someday, the committee will get around to thinking about the rights of the remaining 296,409,869 of us.

Of course it's true that the Justice Department could have shown more regard for congressional prerogatives, perhaps by informing the speaker and the minority leader in advance of the search. And blanket sweeps of congressional offices by the executive would indeed be a clear violation of the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause protecting senators and representatives from executive intimidation...But this was no politically motivated search. The evidence indicates it was a response to Jefferson's attempts to withhold evidence. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has rebuked leaders of both parties for their self-protective zeal. The speech-and-debate clause, he said, "should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen." Amen.