Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
Jul 10th 2006, 9:12 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
By TONI LOCY
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol
Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are
not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic
Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May
20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever
raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections
against intimidation of elected officials.
"Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by
permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly
issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request
to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.
Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy
disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during an
18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office.
At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech and debate
clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the
president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their
legislative work.
"No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's
office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there
was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some
privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not
constitute an unlawful intrusion."
The raid on Jefferson's office angered members of Congress, some of
whom threatened to retaliate by tinkering with the FBI and Justice
Department budgets.
President Bush stepped in and ordered the solicitor general to take
custody of the seized materials so Congress and the Justice Department
could work out procedures to deal with similar situations in the
future.
The president's 45-day "cooling off period" ended Sunday with no
compromise worked out but with assurances from the Justice Department
that it would not seek to regain custody of the materials until Hogan
ruled on Jefferson's request.
Because Hogan signed the search warrant authorizing the search,
Jefferson's legal team was not surprised by his ruling upholding it.
"While a Congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must
also follow the law," said Jefferson's lawyer, Robert Trout. "We
appreciate the consideration the judge accorded our motion for the
return of the seized property, but we respectfully disagree with his
conclusion, and we intend to appeal the ruling."
Hogan said a search warrant seeking material is very different than a
subpoena seeking testimony.
"Jefferson may never be questioned regarding his legitimate legislative
activities, is immune from civil or criminal liability for those
activities, and no privileged material may ever be used against him in
court," the judge wrote.
Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegedly
using his position to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment
and services offered by iGate, a Louisville-based firm, that sought
contracts with Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations.
In return for his help, Jefferson allegedly demanded stock and cash
payments. Jefferson has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol
Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are
not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic
Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May
20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever
raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections
against intimidation of elected officials.
"Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by
permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly
issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request
to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.
Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy
disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during an
18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office.
At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech and debate
clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the
president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their
legislative work.
"No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's
office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there
was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some
privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not
constitute an unlawful intrusion."
The raid on Jefferson's office angered members of Congress, some of
whom threatened to retaliate by tinkering with the FBI and Justice
Department budgets.
President Bush stepped in and ordered the solicitor general to take
custody of the seized materials so Congress and the Justice Department
could work out procedures to deal with similar situations in the
future.
The president's 45-day "cooling off period" ended Sunday with no
compromise worked out but with assurances from the Justice Department
that it would not seek to regain custody of the materials until Hogan
ruled on Jefferson's request.
Because Hogan signed the search warrant authorizing the search,
Jefferson's legal team was not surprised by his ruling upholding it.
"While a Congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must
also follow the law," said Jefferson's lawyer, Robert Trout. "We
appreciate the consideration the judge accorded our motion for the
return of the seized property, but we respectfully disagree with his
conclusion, and we intend to appeal the ruling."
Hogan said a search warrant seeking material is very different than a
subpoena seeking testimony.
"Jefferson may never be questioned regarding his legitimate legislative
activities, is immune from civil or criminal liability for those
activities, and no privileged material may ever be used against him in
court," the judge wrote.
Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegedly
using his position to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment
and services offered by iGate, a Louisville-based firm, that sought
contracts with Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations.
In return for his help, Jefferson allegedly demanded stock and cash
payments. Jefferson has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.
Jul 10th 2006, 9:56 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
Earl Evleth wrote:
> By TONI LOCY
> Associated Press Writer
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol
> Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.
> Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are
> not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic
> Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May
> 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
> In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever
> raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections
> against intimidation of elected officials.
> "Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by
> permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly
> issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request
> to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.
[snip]
So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then decided the
warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
> By TONI LOCY
> Associated Press Writer
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol
> Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.
> Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are
> not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic
> Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May
> 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
> In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever
> raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections
> against intimidation of elected officials.
> "Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by
> permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly
> issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request
> to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.
[snip]
So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then decided the
warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
Jul 11th 2006, 7:32 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
On 10 Jul 2006 14:56:33 -0700, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then decided the
>warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
Agree - he should have disqualified himself from hearing it.
=====================
Dave
There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then decided the
>warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
Agree - he should have disqualified himself from hearing it.
=====================
Dave
There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Jul 11th 2006, 9:16 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
Dave wrote on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:32:28 +1000:
??>> So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then
??>> decided the warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
DP> Agree - he should have disqualified himself from hearing
DP> it.
DP> =====================
DP> Dave
Nonsense, marked bills were found in the freezer of the
presumptive sorry crook.
James Silverton.
??>> So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then
??>> decided the warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
DP> Agree - he should have disqualified himself from hearing
DP> it.
DP> =====================
DP> Dave
Nonsense, marked bills were found in the freezer of the
presumptive sorry crook.
James Silverton.
Jul 11th 2006, 4:14 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal
On this day of 7-11-2006 5:16 PM, James Silverton saw fit to scribe:
> Dave wrote on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:32:28 +1000:
>
> ??>> So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then
> ??>> decided the warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
>
> DP> Agree - he should have disqualified himself from hearing
> DP> it.
>
> DP> =====================
>
> DP> Dave
>
> Nonsense, marked bills were found in the freezer of the presumptive
> sorry crook.
That has nothing to do with it. The point is that judges aren't really supposed
to judge on cases they had something to do with in the first place. That is why
Roberts did not vote in the Supreme Court ruling concerning Guantanamo; he'd
already covered the case during his previous career.
--
David C. Haley
[email protected]
(no unmunging necessary)
> Dave wrote on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 05:32:28 +1000:
>
> ??>> So Hogan issued the warrant in the first place, then
> ??>> decided the warrant was legal. Why am I not surprised.
>
> DP> Agree - he should have disqualified himself from hearing
> DP> it.
>
> DP> =====================
>
> DP> Dave
>
> Nonsense, marked bills were found in the freezer of the presumptive
> sorry crook.
That has nothing to do with it. The point is that judges aren't really supposed
to judge on cases they had something to do with in the first place. That is why
Roberts did not vote in the Supreme Court ruling concerning Guantanamo; he'd
already covered the case during his previous career.
--
David C. Haley
[email protected]
(no unmunging necessary)
