http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/ap_on_go_ot/raid_on_congress
Here it comes!.....
2007-08-03 08:02:36 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Answer: Constitutional but…How can you give one that is known to have accepted “marked” currency in the commission of a crime, the concept of personally sorting what in their possession is what they would relinquish to incriminate themselves…Bet your hat and your house cat that an ordinary citizen would not be given the ability to decide what evidence could be examined.
The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.
Maybe that would give him the opportunity to hide the balance of evidence known from the 16 month investigation in the crisper.
2007-08-03 08:36:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No doubt about it there are crooks on both sides of the isle. The ratio may be 1 Dem for every 10 or so Rep but they are there. No one desputes that at all. The thing is Jefferson may be free of trial because the FBI overstepped its bounds. Police sometimes do that and screw up a case.
2007-08-03 15:10:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think the court ruled properly.
In a first-of-it's-kind case there was bound to be procedural issues.
If this guy had a shred of credibility, Nancy would not have dumped him.
I think responsible liberals got this one figured out.
2007-08-03 15:14:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not a liberal issue.
But for those who care about balance of power, it highlights the fact that the executive branch is limited by "congressional privilege" (under the Speech and Debate clause) -- just like the executive branch limits things using "executive privilege".
Both branches have areas they can keep private.
And no, the raid itself was not declared unconstitutional. Only the seizure of certain congressional documents that are protected under the Speech and Debate clause.
So what?
2007-08-03 15:07:05 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
"That is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's constitutional. Privacy for certain documents. "
wonder if these same Dem's saying this will continue to bloviate about executive privilege? I'm not holding my breath.
2007-08-03 15:19:36 · answer #5 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why?..Jefferson is a piece of crap and should be put in jail. Did you notice that Newt Gingrich came to jefferson's defense?
2007-08-03 15:06:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If he did it he should pay with his job and maybe his liberty
me=liberal democrat
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 ...
2007-08-03 15:05:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
That is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's constitutional. Privacy for certain documents.
2007-08-03 15:13:26 · answer #8 · answered by Stereotypemebecauseyouknow 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Fruit of the Poisonous tree.
2007-08-03 15:07:38 · answer #9 · answered by Kevy 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You bet . And they'll do it while ignoring the evidence and the $90,000 found in the freezer too !
2007-08-03 15:20:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋