Hastert Successfully Takes Focus Off Freezer Scandal & Onto Bush
Could there have been... any reaction that would have been more damaging to the Republican Party, President Bush, the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate, than Dennis Hastert's response yesterday to the news of Rep. William Jefferson's outrageous freezer-foil bribery scandal?
Could there have been... anything that would have helped the Democratic Party more than Dennis Hastert's response to the news of Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) outrageous freezer-foil bribery scandal?
Could there have been... anything that the democratic media would have rather heard than Dennis Hastert's response to the news of Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) outrageous freezer-foil bribery scandal?
Could there have been... anything that would have played better into the Democratic mantra of a corrupt and executive power-abusing Bush White House more than Dennis Hastert's response to the news of Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) outrageous freezer-foil bribery scandal?
Just wondering.
Yesterday, Dennis Hastert was able to diffuse the swarm of media attention surrounding one of the most outrageous bribery cases in US history by taking the focus off of the perpetrating freezer-cash-stashing democrat, William Jefferson (D-LA), and placing the focus squarely on the back of President George Bush. The New York Times was only too happy to report out:
After years of quietly acceding to the Bush administration's assertions of executive power, the Republican-led Congress hit a limit this weekend.Thank you, House Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner!
Resentment boiled among senior Republicans for a second day on Tuesday after a team of warrant-bearing agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned up at a closed House office building on Saturday evening, demanded entry to the office of a lawmaker and spent the night going through his files.
The episode prompted cries of constitutional foul from Republicans — even though the lawmaker in question, Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana, is a Democrat whose involvement in a bribery case has made him an obvious partisan political target.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert raised the issue personally with President Bush on Tuesday. The Senate Rules Committee is examining the episode.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, predicted that the separation-of-powers conflict would go to the Supreme Court. "I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street," Mr. Boehner told reporters gathered in his conference room, which looks out on the Capitol plaza and the court building.
Big Lizards says that it is all about priveleges.
The Strata-Sphere appropriately calls it a "circular firing squad."
Roger L. Simon is pushing for:
Legislation making any convictions for law-breaking by Members of Congress subject to penalties vastly more extreme than those suffered by the general public.I'm in! ...and please include any corrupt CEO's in that legislation.
Dr. Sanity is happy, sort of, that there is at least one issue that Dems and Republicans can see eye-to-eye on.
Update: Hastert could have gone to his own freezer, pulled out $120,000 worth of frozen gold coins in a Crown Royal cloth bag, slammed it down on an investigator's table, confessing it was from a lobbyist for the liquor industry, and he would not have done as much damage as his thoughtless statements did yesterday!
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/24/2006 04:02:00 AM
11 Comments:
The time has arrived. We must pass term limits for the Congress Critters, then clean house and start afresh with a clean crop of senators and representatives who will look out for our "general welfare". Then place a copy of the Constitution of the United States into each congressman's office highlighting the powers granted to them by that document. These vaulted members of congress are no more exempt from search and seizure than you and I. Turn the pages and refocus on Congressman Jefferson,
Had Jefferson been a Democrat, Pelosi would be beating Republicans to a pulp with this event.
What is it that happens to Republicans that makes them so incomprehensibly stupid when they elected?
Sorry- I meant "had Jefferson been a Republican"
I guess I erred because he is a Democrat and Hastert is so empathetic.
I don't get it.
agreed... how dare these Republicans question our administration!... even the current crop of pseudo-conservatives (RINOs all) are too liberal for us... if we can get the right Congress elected perhaps they will pass an amendment eliminating Congress... all we need really is a strong President to look after our interests
Politicians throughout history have always been slime, and it's surely no different now. Give someone enough money and power, and pretty soon they think they deserve it.
Prediction: the Republicans are going to lose big in November, and they are going to deserve it. Nobody wants liberal democrat lite (LDL), which is what the Republicans are currently. See, those voters who do want LDL will go ahead and vote for the full-bore industrial strength LD.
"I want a Republican to be a mean old man who watches my money." - Bill Maher.
The Republican leadership is trying too hard to be nice, and they are in no way watching anyone's money. Goodbye guys, I guess we'll try (more) Socialism for a while.
http://ixmanmortgage.blogspot.com/
Eyes on the long term. What we want is for Jefferson to be held accountable, not to get off on a technicality.
The congressional response has to do with how co-equal branches of government deal with each other. The House has a Sergeant at Arms. The FBI should have gone to THAT office - it's a certified LEO - and together the FBI and Sergeant at Arms take the office in question apart. Yes, Hastert has a tin ear on this, but he's not talking about the underlying crime, he's talking about procedure.
Legislatures around the country have their own rules and procedures - dating back to the colonial period and beyond - that have force of law. Yes, it can get arcane. And that was evidently what Jefferson was depending on.
Jefferson evidently believed his congressional offices were immune to a DOJ search. He forgot, or did not know, that the House Sergeant at Arms is a certified LEO - he sits on the Capital Police board! Had the FBI taken an extra step and had the warrant served by both FBI and the House Sergeant at Arms office, there'd be no question of a legal search and separation of powers.
How annoying would it be for Jefferson's lawyer to get evidence thrown out of court based on that technicality? Hopefully, a judge wouldn't fall for that, but judges have made annoying decisions before.
Again, what we want is for Jefferson to be held accountable. We don't want criminality to be obscured by an error in police procedure.
>From the website: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/legbranc/abtcong.htm
> The Sergeant at Arms maintains the order of the House under the direction of the Speaker and is the keeper of the Mace. As a member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board, the Sergeant at Arms is the chief law enforcement officer for the House and serves as Board Chairman each even year. The ceremonial and protocol duties parallel those of the Senate Sergeant at Arms and include arranging the inauguration of the President of the United States, Joint Sessions of Congress, visits to the House of heads of state, and funerals of Members of Congress. The Sergeant at Arms enforces the rules relating to the privileges of the Hall of the House, including admission to the galleries.
After 44 years of supporting Republican and conservative causes; I'm done. I'll be staying home this year, because the GOP Congress has become as bad as the Dems in pork, immigration and 'holier-than-thou' atitude.
If you can't search a Congressman's office due to seperation of powers, then I guess you can't charge him with a crime either.
What stupidity!
"... The Sergeant at Arms enforces the rules relating to the privileges of the Hall of the House, including admission to the galleries"
This long list has what, exactly, to do with subpoenas and warrants? I see no mention of either. The Sergeant seems to have mainly a ceremonial function, with perhaps a bit of traffic cop thrown in.
What we are looking at here is only the latest round in a dance the President and Congress have been doing since at least George Washington's second term, and maybe earlier. That earlier history, although concerning mainly a bunch of dead white guys, is relevant to the issue, in terms of context and precedent. If it plays out as it always has, the Congress will squawk, but the President will win.
Anyone who stays home and doesn't get out and get conservative candidates into the primary slots to challenge the incumbents had better not utter a word of complaint when their taxes get raised, we surrender and lose the war, when the economy (due to the new tax burden) tanks, when there are endless "investigations" and impeachment proceedings...etc.
Staying home? No bitching rights, because it will have been your fault for enabling liberal victories.
The Republican Party is not broken - there are a gaggle of annoying moderates and spinless bastards in there, to be sure.
Term limits are a bad idea, although initially seductive - they will get rid of long-time embarrassments like Ted Kennedy, Byrd, etc. , but they will also require good conservatives to be thrown out of office because of some arbitrary limit set out of pure frustration (without foresight). The best (and only) term limits are elections and primaries.
Frequent rotation of new people into office is also worth implementing, but there is a snag. What if the out-party and its candidates are too bad to consider? This may be what we have today.
In 1976, my boss (engineering, not political) and I were offended by the available candidates for President, Ford and Carter, and came up with an idea to help the voters out. We sent it as a letter to the editor of the NY Times, who, of course, did not print it. The idea was to allow the voters to choose "none of the above" and to mandate certain outcomes based on the percentage of such votes cast. It went basically like this:
Level 1: Restart the general election campaign
Level 2: Restart the nomination process, excluding the original candidates
Level 3: And put the rejected candidates in jail for the length of term they were seeking
While our exposition was crude and simplistic, this concept still looks like a winner!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home