Forums | MacLife

I find the old procedure to be unacceptable.
I believe I've already said that. Lot's of old accepted practices are dead wrong some are even abhorred today.
I would much prefer the procedure to be what everyone else is subject too and what it always should have been.
I think the fact they DIDN'T just break in and take what they wanted but instead got judicial permission is extremely important.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Again, I'll point out that Congressmen are NOT above the law, but are not subject to unemcumbered investigation by the executive branch in order to maintain separation of powers--this IS a special circumstance due to the nature of these offices. Can't you guys separate this particular case involving Jefferson from the problem posed by the executive branch being able shut down any office inside Congress based on the suspicion of crime? Also, given that the evidence against Jefferson is so overwhelming, why is it necessary to violate established practices? Just to make sure that he gets 25 years in prison instead of 10?

Farmerkev, if you think that Congress is so corrupt that they will not police their own members, then you are talking about a completely different problem.

Yeah, but he wasn't accused of knocking over a 7-11, he was accused of accepting a bribe. Therefore, it would make sense to look for additional evidence in his office.

If they wanted to turn his office for something silly, I could understand the fuss. I don't think they should shutdown a congressional office to look for an overdue library books, for example. However, accepting bribes, kickbacks, or gratuities is one of those things that I believe rises to the level of "serious".

In this case, I think the investigation was right on. If Cunningham's office wasn't turned, it should've been - as should the office of any politician that gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

There is a world of difference, to me at least, between a "fishing expedition" and futher investigation of a serious crime.

Sassy wrote:

lunatic ranting

You've gone around the bend.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I find the old procedure to be unacceptable.
I believe I've already said that. Lot's of old accepted practices are dead wrong some are even abhorred today.
I would much prefer the procedure to be what everyone else is subject too and what it always should have been.
I think the fact they DIDN'T just break in and take what they wanted but instead got judicial permission is extremely important.

So you would rather have the legislators be subject to the mercy of the executive? Because this is what you are asking for.

No, I'm asking, make that demanding, that legislators be subject to the same laws and treatment we lesser mortals are.

I can say that because both the other branches were involved, not just the executive.
Read that Newsweek link.
The special privileges extended to legislators are only under specific circumstances and those have Constitutionally defined limits.
And before someone asks, I'd be all for this if it was President H. Clinton.

radarman wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Again, I'll point out that Congressmen are NOT above the law, but are not subject to unemcumbered investigation by the executive branch in order to maintain separation of powers--this IS a special circumstance due to the nature of these offices. Can't you guys separate this particular case involving Jefferson from the problem posed by the executive branch being able shut down any office inside Congress based on the suspicion of crime? Also, given that the evidence against Jefferson is so overwhelming, why is it necessary to violate established practices? Just to make sure that he gets 25 years in prison instead of 10?

Farmerkev, if you think that Congress is so corrupt that they will not police their own members, then you are talking about a completely different problem.

Yeah, but he wasn't accused of knocking over a 7-11, he was accused of accepting a bribe. Therefore, it would make sense to look for additional evidence in his office.

If they wanted to turn his office for something silly, I could understand the fuss. I don't think they should shutdown a congressional office to look for an overdue library books, for example. However, accepting bribes, kickbacks, or gratuities is one of those things that I believe rises to the level of "serious".

In this case, I think the investigation was right on. If Cunningham's office wasn't turned, it should've been - as should the office of any politician that gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

There is a world of difference, to me at least, between a "fishing expedition" and futher investigation of a serious crime.

But how could you tell the difference? Based on the administration's word that the crime was serious?

If the DOJ wanted to search his office, they could have followed established procedure and asked the Speaker to have Jefferson's office sealed pending investigation. If the Speaker was somehow not to be trusted, then I'm sure that an alternate body of members of the House could have been assembled to force the Speaker to do this or oust him as such.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Well how about that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13008302/site/newsweek/

FBI officials say the search was undertaken only after the Louisiana Democrat failed to turn over records subpoenaed by a federal grand jury nine months ago. The bureau was seeking material relating to an African business deal Jefferson allegedly helped promote in exchange for bribes—including $90,000 apparently stuffed in his freezer. Once it became clear Jefferson would not comply—reportedly on Fifth Amendment grounds—federal prosecutors got the green light from Gonzales to seek a search warrant.

I did miss this due to some quirk in the MAF editing.

So ask yourself: why didn't the Bush Administration go to Speaker Hastert IMMEDIATELY after the federal grand jury request was refused? Why give Jefferson nine months (!) to launder materials within his office?

First off, why do you keep making this "the Bush admin"?
You think he even had 1 freeking clue what was going on? The man isn't Mr Detail.
I would imagine Hassart and the rest of them knew though.
Why hadn't he or the minority whip forced Jefferson to comply with court orders?
Why hadn't the House Ethics Committee gotten involved?

Sassy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Sassy wrote:

lunatic ranting

You've gone around the bend.

OK Mr. Moderator, just how 'moderate' are you in regard to getting personal? I've never written anything like that against you anyone else on this forum. So, clean up your own act! ince I've been on this board, it is my experience that you are quick to judgment and short on evidence to back up your opinions, not to mention

In my opinion you are blowing this totally out of proportion.

What's next? An full fledged invasion with tanks and guns? It is fascist, totalitarian behavior foreign to every American's respect for the rights and privileges the voters endow their representative agents whom they elect. That fact that some dishonor that respect lays at the feet of the accused/convicted, not the body of the people's branch of government. It, by no stretch of legal or Constitutional authority, gives to the Executive or the Judiciary the RIGHT to take from the Legislative its authority to protect its work from spying eyes.

This part is especially off the wall and borderline frothing at the mouth description of actions that are legal procedure for the rest of the 99.9999% of the country.

Farmerkev wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

You've gone around the bend.

OK Mr. Moderator, just how 'moderate' are you in regard to getting personal? I've never written anything like that against you anyone else on this forum. So, clean up your own act! ince I've been on this board, it is my experience that you are quick to judgment and short on evidence to back up your opinions, not to mention

In my opinion you are blowing this totally out of proportion.

What's next? An full fledged invasion with tanks and guns? It is fascist, totalitarian behavior foreign to every American's respect for the rights and privileges the voters endow their representative agents whom they elect. That fact that some dishonor that respect lays at the feet of the accused/convicted, not the body of the people's branch of government. It, by no stretch of legal or Constitutional authority, gives to the Executive or the Judiciary the RIGHT to take from the Legislative its authority to protect its work from spying eyes.

This part is especially off the wall and borderline frothing at the mouth description of actions that are legal procedure for the rest of the 99.9999% of the country.

So, I"M 'frothing at the mouth" am I?   Your argument is is ALL opinion, short on facts and short on debate . But, that doesn't surprise me.

Comparing a signed search warrant to an invasion with tanks and guns sure doesnt seem very reasonable. Frankly it sounds quite emotional.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

You've gone around the bend.

Come on, that's really not necessary. If you feel that strongly, I suggest you step back.

And what would you describe an extremely overly dramatic and emotional response as?

Farmerkev wrote:

lunatic ranting. You've gone around the bend.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Comparing a signed search warrant to an invasion with tanks and guns sure doesnt seem very reasonable. Frankly it sounds quite emotional.

Read the post again. I DID NOT SAY THAT! I asked the question, "What do you want ...?" is the preface. Not particularly inflamatory when the Commander in Chief and the current Sec'ty of State talk about a smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud!

Sassy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Comparing a signed search warrant to an invasion with tanks and guns sure doesnt seem very reasonable. Frankly it sounds quite emotional.

Read the post again. I DID NOT SAY THAT! I asked the question, "What do you want ...?" is the preface. Not particularly inflamatory when the Commander in Chief and the current Sec'ty of State talk about a smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud!

No actually you said "whats next?" as if a search warrant were anything near what you were describing.