[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Warning America About Palantir: Richie From Boston

I'm not done asking questions about the killing of Charlie Kirk.

6 reasons the stock market bubble is worse than anyone expected.

Elon Musk: Charlie Kirk was killed because his words made a difference.

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: MADSEN: CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Source: Wayne Madsen Report
URL Source: http://waynemadsenreport.com/
Published: May 26, 2006
Author: Wayne Madsen
Post Date: 2006-05-28 10:34:21 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 118
Comments: 18

May 26, 2006 -- What if the United States experienced a constitutional crisis and no one reported it? The recent statements by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that the Bush White House was overstepping its constitutional separation of powers bounds by allowing the FBI to storm into a member of Congress' office and then "leaking" Justice Department information to intimidate the Speaker after he publicly complained about the raid indicate that this nation is experiencing a drastic constitutional crisis. The fact that the corporate media is not reporting this crisis is understandable when one considers that social studies (once called "civics") in this nation's education system is relegated to an afterthought and our corporate media talking heads and stenographers have as much knowledge of the U.S. Constitution as anyone who has ever passed a high school GED.

Hastert was joined in his criticism of the White House by the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate Bill Frist and the House Majority Leader John Boehner. When one considers that Hastert is the third ranking constitutional officer of the United States, his stark criticisms of White House unconstitutional behavior (regardless of Hastert's possible involvement in illegal campaign contributions), exceed anything this nation witnessed in Watergate. In that case, we were talking about impeachment, partly for White House-sanctioned break-ins of Democratic National headquarters and Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Never once did House Speaker Carl Albert complain about the Nixon administration trying to break into the offices of congressmen. Nor did Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield or House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill ever breach such concerns.

A number of Democrats have welcomed Hastert's sudden realization that the Constitution and the separation of powers clause is now under assault by the unitary fascist executive created by the neo-cons. But some Republicans continue to support Bush. These include the core of the Christian evangelical-Ziocon alliance, most evident by anti-Hastert comments from Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Norm Coleman (R-MN), respectively.

It is now clear, even to the Republican leadership in Congress, that the neo-cons are an anti-constitutional blight upon our nation. The true and most loyal neo-con agents of influence in Congress have now identified themselves (Vitter, Coleman, Lieberman, Cornyn, Kyl, etc.). It is high time for them and the Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings against this criminal gang and return this nation to normalcy and democracy. Hastert has it in his power to not only eliminate Bush and Cheney through impeachment, but he can replace them as a caretaker president until the 2008 election. That would be the best outcome in an overall bad situation.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: aristeides, Itisa1mosttoolate, Zipporah, BTP Holdings, Diana, angle, Pandora, bluegrass, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#0)

exceed anything this nation witnessed in Watergate. In that case, we were talking about impeachment,

Hastert's sudden realization that the Constitution and the separation of powers clause is now under assault by the unitary fascist executive created by the neo-cons. But some Republicans continue to support Bush. These include the core of the Christian evangelical-Ziocon alliance, most evident by anti-Hastert comments from Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Norm Coleman (R-MN), respectively.

Norm Coleman - where's George Galloway when we need him?

"evangelical-ZioCon alliance" ping!

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. – George Washington

"If the president made us go to war with Iraq, why doesn't he go over there and fight the war?" Christian May [6th grader]

robin  posted on  2006-05-28   10:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: aristeides, robin (#0)

The fact that the corporate media is not reporting this crisis is understandable when one considers that social studies (once called "civics") in this nation's education system is relegated to an afterthought and our corporate media talking heads and stenographers have as much knowledge of the U.S. Constitution as anyone who has ever passed a high school GED.

Perhaps the media isn't reporting the "constitutional crisis" because there isn't one? But there does appear be a lot of pointless posturing.

Here's the search warrant that was executed - http://www.bayoubuzz. com/jefferson_affdavit.pdf

I've read the search took so long because the FBI rather than pack up everything and take it away as they normally would do, was being more "surgical" by doing an on-site real-time evaluation of what evidence actually fit the warrant and was to be siezed.

The warrant itself, along with the $90,000 wrapped in foil found in Jefferson's home freezer (talk about your cold cash), are pretty damning.

So someone help me out here with this "constitutional crisis":

Why is Hastert (a Republican) objecting to a legitimate constitutional search of a Democrat's office.

Why was Bush (a Republican) leaning towards return of the siezed evidence in a legitimate ongoing corruption investigation of a Democrat?

This seems a case of where the FBI was doing their job, effectively and constitutionally (Legislative branch is not exempt from Executive pursuit of criminal investigations authorized by the Judiciary) and the DoJ was backing the FBI against the Whitehouse & Hastert on what seems likely further evidence of Jerfferson's corruption.

This seems a rather stupid battle in which Bush & Hastert have involved themselves.

Yes Bush and the neo-cons have been engaged in unconstitutional acts, but the perps here are not the neocons, and the FBI/DoJ seem well within their constitutional preprogatives investigating demonstrable corruption.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-05-28   14:14:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Starwind (#2)

Well, what's next? Raiding the house of a Supreme Court Justice? This is a bad precedent.

FBI needs to work with Congress to get a hearing going to expel that member. Hastert is rightfully annoyed that this transpired without his knowledge.

Traficant is a good test case of how something should work. There is an investigation, the evidence is displayed before Congress, who then expels the member, and THEN the ex-member is put on trial. In the same vein, if the President is going to have charges brought against him, he needs to be impeached and removed from office first.

The gotcha is that Bush or any executive can concoct a charge in the future, raid a Congresscritter's office, plant evidence or whatnot and then demand votes by blackmail.

No, the Justice Department should have worked with Congress on this and operated by their rules.

Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2006-05-28   14:24:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: mirage, Starwind (#3)

Inside Out: The Abramoff Investigation and Speaker Hastert

On Thursday, Hastert did a radio interview with Chicago's WGN and said that he believes the Department of Justice had leaked the story to "intimidate" him in response to his vocal opposition to the recent FBI raid on the Capitol offices of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.): "It's just not true, you know. The Justice Department said there is no investigation, and this is one of the leaks that come out to try to, you know, intimidate people, and we're just not gonna be intimidated on it," he said. Hastert reiterated his demand that ABC News retract its story.

Some ugly goings on in the Bush Crime Family.

Hastert just never thought he could be next.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison

robin  posted on  2006-05-28   14:37:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: aristeides (#0)

It is high time for them and the Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings against this criminal gang and return this nation to normalcy and democracy. Hastert has it in his power to not only eliminate Bush and Cheney through impeachment, but he can replace them as a caretaker president until the 2008 election. That would be the best outcome in an overall bad situation.

They haven't got the balls. Even if impeachment of both Bush and Cheney happened, Hastert would have to watch his back (or front even) to keep from catching the JFK flu.

"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-05-28   14:48:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: robin (#4)

Some ugly goings on in the Bush Crime Family.

Hastert just never thought he could be next.

They all get too big for their britches as some point. ;0)

"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-05-28   14:55:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: mirage (#3)

When executing the warrant, the FBI used a "filter team" (this is what took so long) to filter out from siezure any 'Speech or Debate Priviledged' materials, the only immunity priviledge that attaches to a criminal investigation. There is no immunity from criminal investigation, unprecedented or not.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/21.html

U.S. Constitution : Article I
Section 6. Rights and Disabilities of Members
Clause 1. Compensation and Immunities

Privilege From Arrest

This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. 376 It does not apply to service of process in either civil 377 or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege. 379

Privilege of Speech or Debate

[...snip...]

Parallel developments may be discerned with respect to the application of a general criminal statute to call into question the legislative conduct and motivation of a Member. Thus, inUnited States v. Johnson, 397 the Court voided the conviction of a Member for conspiracy to impair lawful governmental functions, in the course of seeking to divert a governmental inquiry into alleged wrongdoing, by accepting a bribe to make a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. The speech was charged as part of the conspiracy and extensive evidence concerning it was introduced at a trial. It was this examination into the context of the speech--its authorship, motivation, and content--which the Court found foreclosed by the speech-or-debate clause. 398

However, inUnited States v. Brewster, 399 while continuing to assert that the clause ''must be read broadly to effectuate its purpose of protecting the independence of the Legislative branch,'' 400 the Court substantially reduced the scope of the coverage of the clause. In upholding the validity of an indictment of a Member, which charged that he accepted a bribe to be ''influenced in his performance of official acts in respect to his action, vote, and decision'' on legislation, the Court drew a distinction between a prosecution that caused an inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for performance of such acts and a prosecution for taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act in a certain way. The former is proscribed, the latter is not. ''Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator . . . Nor is inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation for a legislative act necessary to a prosecution under this statute or this indictment. When a bribe is taken, it does not matter whether the promise for which the bribe was given was for the performance of a legislative act as here or, as inJohnson, for use of a Congressman's influence with the Executive Branch.'' 401 In other words, it is the fact of having taken a bribe, not the act the bribe is intended to influence, which is the subject of the prosecution and the speech-or-debate clause interposes no obstacle to this type of prosecution. 402

Applying in the criminal context the distinction developed in the civil cases between protected ''legislative activity'' and unprotected conduct prior to or subsequent to engaging in ''legislative activity,'' the Court inGravel v. United States, 403 held that a grand jury could validly inquire into the processes by which the Member obtained classified government documents and into the arrangements for subsequent private republication of these documents, since neither action involved protected conduct. ''While the Speech or Debate Clause recognizes speech, voting and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that might otherwise attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts.'' 404

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-05-28   14:57:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: BTP Holdings (#6)

They all get too big for their britches as some point. ;0)

He should squeal real loud when it's his turn to sing.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison

robin  posted on  2006-05-28   14:57:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: mirage, Starwind (#3)

the Justice Department should have worked with Congress on this and operated by their rules.

I'll have to agree that the FBI went too far in this. It would have been OK to raid Jefferson's home to gain evidence, but to do so in his Capitol office is a bit beyond the pale. Protocol has been violated and I hope Hastert keeps screaming his head off.

"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-05-28   14:58:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Starwind (#7)

Raiding his office without consulting the Speaker of the House is still bad precedent even if it can be found as being 'legal.' Besides, an opinion that a part of the Constitution is "obsolete" is nonsense given that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It even says so. When we start ignoring our own Constitution, we have bigger problems than we know. We have an amendment process to take care of such matters.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine not so long ago about "legal" vs "constitutional" vs "right" and used Campaign Finance Reform as the example.

Muzzling people is "legal" because the courts upheld it, yet is is still unconstitutional because the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law.." and they did. The Supreme Court even acknowledged that, but said that "fighting corruption" trumped the Constitution. Those judges should be impeached.

Its not "right" in any sense of the term anyhow.

This is just bad precedent that takes us further down the slippery slope.

Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2006-05-28   15:12:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: mirage (#10)

Besides, an opinion that a part of the Constitution is "obsolete" is nonsense given that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. It even says so. When we start ignoring our own Constitution, we have bigger problems than we know. We have an amendment process to take care of such matters.

Oh, please. It isn't obsolete, nor did the analysis say so. It said practically obsolete, ie seldom applicable these days regarding civil suits against members which were more common when the provision was written. But the analysis went on to point out:

It [privileged from arrest] does not apply to service of process in either civil 377 or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege. 379

You further argue without basis in fact or law:

Its not "right" in any sense of the term anyhow.

The execution of a duly authorized search warrant is most certainly right in every sense. Just because it might be the first time a specific congressional office was searched has absolutely no bearing on the law, which attaches to criminal acts and the evidence of the crime itself, not the place where evidence of the criminal act may be found.

And Congress expressly made it a crime for their members to accept bribes (18 U. S. C. s. 201), and SCOTUS held (in United States v. Johnston, 383 U.S. 169 (1966)) that the Speech and Debate Clause does not absolutely immunize members of Congress from prosecution under Congress' very own bribery statute.

SCOTUS further held immunity under the Speech & Debate clause applies only to:

  1. "legislative acts" - those generally done in the process of enacting legislation (United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 514 (1971), which includes making speeches on the floor of a House of Congress or in committee, voting on the floor or in committee, contributing to reports entered into the legislative record;
  2. other acts that are "integral" to deliberation connected to legislative acts. (Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972)).

Otherwise, legislative business unrelated to enactment of specific legislation lobbying, petitioning, constituent meetings, speeches at home, parties, etc are not privileged "legislative acts" and therefore can serve as a basis for prosecution.

Evidence of criminal acts is not immune from search & discovery simply because it is hidden amongst otherwise legitimate "Speech & Debate" material.

And in no case is there congressional immunity from criminal investigation of a particular place whether at home, the office, the restroom, the skybox, wherever - there is no precedent attaching to a "place" wherein evidence is kept, which "place" is irrelevant to the "act" being investigated. There is only congressional immunity of legitimate "Speech & Debate" materials, which legitimate materials were being separated from criminal evidence when Hastert, Jefferson & Bush started squealing like stuck pigs.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-05-28   16:14:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Starwind (#11)

Sorry, but there is the "legal" there is the "constitutional" and then there is what is "right" - that sentiment is echoed by both judges and attorneys. Sometimes they converge and sometimes they don't. I've spent most of my life dealing with both.

Anyhow...most issues dealing with Congress and whatnot is based on procedure and precedent, the same with the courts, and with most other things.

I am unaware of a situation prior to this one where Congress did not take the first disciplinary action by expelling the member and then turning them over to be prosecuted. Using Traficant as an example, which is the last one that I know of, he was expelled and then prosecuted.

Thus, this is highly irregular according to precedent regardless.

Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation.

mirage  posted on  2006-05-29   4:13:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: mirage (#12)

Sorry, but there is the "legal" there is the "constitutional" and then there is what is "right" - that sentiment is echoed by both judges and attorneys. Sometimes they converge and sometimes they don't. I've spent most of my life dealing with both.

A sweeping irrelevant generalization. You have yet to cite any actual statutes, case law, or constitutional provisions to demonstrate the search and seizeure in this specific instance was neither legal, nor constitutional, nor right, nor have you demonstrated they didn't "converge" in this specific instance. You have merely posited they might not have. Well, did they or didn't they and on what facts and law do you base your analysis? Or is this case of "when you have neither facts nor the law to support your case, yell and pound the table"?

Anyhow...most issues dealing with Congress and whatnot is based on procedure and precedent, the same with the courts, and with most other things. I am unaware of a situation prior to this one where Congress did not take the first disciplinary action by expelling the member and then turning them over to be prosecuted.

Investigation of bribery is *not* the job of congress, it is that of the FBI and the DoJ. Congress is welcome to make its own rules and investigate its own, but that in no way precludes the FBI/DoJ from fulfilling their statutorily mandated responsibility to investigate Congress under laws passed by Congress about Congress.

And I trust you're not really going to argue that the same Congress guilty of Abscam, using its post office as loan center, taking bribes from Abramhoff, etc, etc is really to be trusted to investigate its own via committee?

Using Traficant as an example, which is the last one that I know of, he was expelled and then prosecuted.

Incorrect. Traficant was investigated by the FBI (an investigation that lead to 70 other convictions including judges, prosecutor, and sheriff) and was convicted Apr 11 2002 before the House finally acted to expell him July 24 2002, a mere week before he was finally sentenced - ie, the FBI investigation was a necessary prerequisite for House ethics action.

Seemingly, you've not read the search affidavit. Should you, on page 73 (under section VII) is a redacted portion wherein the government says (apparently to Judge Hogan's satisfaction) that they have "exhausted all lesser intrusive approaches". That may well have included the customary request routed through the Clerk of the House who perhaps denied the government's request in whole or in part. We don't know, yet, that the House balked in this instance for some yet undisclosed reason necessitating a direct and lawful search & siezure. Nor would it be surprising to later learn that Hastert and Pelosi had a private role in rejecting that request while now publicly squealing about having been subsequently bypassed.

Lastly, they admit the search was legal, and as is typical of political posturing, rather than take a losing argument into court they threatened the DoJ with budget cuts Update 6: Official Details FBI-Congress Standoff:

By DEB RIECHMANN , 05.27.2006, 06:26 PM
The constitutional showdown that followed the FBI's search of a congressman's office came down to this: The House threatened budgetary retaliation against the Justice Department. Justice officials raised the prospect of resigning.

That scenario, as described Saturday by a senior administration official, set the stage for President Bush's intervention into the fight over the FBI's search of the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., an eight-term lawmaker being investigated on bribery allegations.

During contentious conversations between the Department of Justice and the House, top law enforcement officials indicated that they'd rather quit than return documents FBI agents, armed with a warrant, seized in an overnight search of Jefferson's office, the administration official said.

Until last Saturday night, no such warrant had ever been used to search a lawmaker's office in the 219-year history of the Congress. FBI agents carted away records in their pursuit of evidence that Jefferson accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping set up business deals in Africa.

After the raid, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, lodged a protest directly with Bush, demanding that the FBI return the materials. Bush struck a compromise Thursday, ordering that the documents be sealed for 45 days until congressional leaders and the Justice Department agree on what to do with them.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, were said to be ready to quit if the Justice Department was asked to return the Jefferson documents, the senior administration official said on condition of anonymity. The resignation of FBI Director Robert Mueller also was implied, the official said.

"But none of these guys ever said to the White House that they were going to take that action," the official said, playing down any implication that the threatened resignations were the reason the president decided to seal the documents.

"You didn't have them (the law enforcement officials) marching up and threatening insubordination," said the official, who is familiar with discussions between the House and Justice Department. "It was more like `Well, if that happens, than this will happen.'"

The House was threatening to go after the Justice Department's budget, and with both sides taking entrenched positions, the president stepped in as a mediator, the official said.

"In one of the conversations, both sides sort of backed off, even," the official said, adding that with a cooling-off period both sides have an interest in resolving the dispute.

House leaders acknowledged Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established.

Gonzales was similarly optimistic. "We've been working hard already and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," he told The Associated Press on Friday.

In an editorial page article in USA Today on Friday, Hastert said he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have directed House lawyers "to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally execute a search warrant."

The new talks are aimed at establishing guidelines for any future searches that might stem from federal investigations, including a widening Capitol Hill influence-peddling probe centered on convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

If Hastert and Pelosi had a legal argument, they'd have been in court with it. But there isn't one, they knew it, they finally admitted it.
Thus, this is highly irregular according to precedent regardless.
And your concern might carry more weight if you were to substantiate what is legally and constitutionally wrong with this particular precedent with something more than hand wringing.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-05-29   10:44:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Starwind (#13)

The House threatened budgetary retaliation against the Justice Department.

That might not be a bad thing. We've got too many lawyers in this country.

We need more rope!

"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-05-29   10:53:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: BTP Holdings (#14)

That might not be a bad thing. We've got too many lawyers in this country.

I've learned to embrace gridlock - lol.

I think, IMO, what underlies this 'spat' between the House/Whitehouse is the Congress just got a reality check that their corruption can not be immunized by wrapping it in copies of draft bills.

They reacted by trying to pull strings with the Whitehouse essentially threatening, "Oh yeah? well as long as you're issuing search warrants against us perhaps we'll issue subpeonas into the NSA wiretaps, Plamegate, niger uranium, Downing Street memos, ... " and Bush blinked.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-05-29   11:02:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: BTP Holdings, Starwind, mirage (#9)

Protocol has been violated and I hope Hastert keeps screaming his head off.

The days of protocol and obeying laws by our govt are gone.

We now have crooks and gangsters ruling us from both parties.

Diana  posted on  2006-05-29   11:19:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Starwind (#15)

They reacted by trying to pull strings with the Whitehouse essentially threatening, "Oh yeah? well as long as you're issuing search warrants against us perhaps we'll issue subpeonas into the NSA wiretaps, Plamegate, niger uranium, Downing Street memos, ... " and Bush blinked.

It's hell when you get bitch slapped and don't have a come back. ;0)

"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-05-29   12:43:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Diana (#16)

We now have crooks and gangsters ruling us from both parties.

It's criminal syndicalism. They make the mafia Dons look like choir boys.

"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-05-29   12:44:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]