Bribery case muddies D.C. political waters
Bribery case muddies D.C. political waters
Outcry over FBI raid could stain both parties
By William Neikirk
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published May 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The saga of Rep. William Jefferson, the New Orleans Democrat at the center of a FBI bribery investigation, is a case study in the treacherous politics of corruption, investigation and privilege in the nation's capital.
Though Republicans said the allegation that Jefferson accepted $100,000 in bribe money would help them overcome the Democrats' "culture of corruption" attacks in this year's congressional campaigns, the dramatic developments in the case could pose problems for the GOP as well.
In a political sense, this could be a case where the fallout favors neither side and perhaps deepens the public's negative feelings about their leaders in Congress, analysts say.
The FBI's late-night raid on Jefferson's Capitol Hill office a week ago produced rare bipartisan outrage in the House. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined to protest that the Bush administration, in sanctioning the raid, had violated the Constitution's doctrine of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches and its speech and debate clause.
President Bush, seeking to avoid a constitutional clash, ordered the seized documents to be sealed for 45 days while both sides negotiate which documents, if any, could be used in any prosecution of the Louisiana congressman.
Bush's cooling-off period was aimed partly at preventing resignations of the administration's top three law enforcement officials. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller had threatened to resign if Bush had ordered the return of the seized documents, according to New York Times and Washington Post reports.
`You can't touch us'
According to William Frenzel, a former Minnesota Republican congressman now at the Brookings Institution, the House leaders "did not take a very wise course, particularly when Congress is in such a state of disapproval. It seems that Congress is using the speech and debate clause to give itself special privilege."
Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said there is a political danger for Congress to hold such a position. "They seem to be saying, `You can't touch us. We're members of Congress,'" he said.
For Republicans hoping the bribery accusations against Jefferson would help them fend off Democrats' corruption charges, the asserting of constitutional privilege, seemingly to divert a criminal investigation, could offset some of the advantage, Black said.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a letter to Republican leaders that he rejected the separation-of-powers arguments of House leaders, adding that the FBI had a right to use search warrants in congressional offices.
"The American people will come to one conclusion--that congressional leaders are trying to protect their own from valid investigations," he said.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said Hastert is trying to make a constitutional argument, but also that "we don't want this investigation to be hampered."
Judging from its accusations in court papers, Frenzel said, the FBI apparently had strong evidence against Jefferson. The FBI said it had videotape of him accepting money from a business associate and also discovered $90,000 stuffed in a freezer at his Washington apartment.
With such evidence, analysts said, it was not clear why the Justice Department insisted upon a late-night search of his office.
According to a GOP congressman who asked not to be named, Hastert's office and the Justice Department had been negotiating for weeks on a way to obtain materials and evidence from Jefferson's office sought in a subpoena. Jefferson had not complied with the subpoena.
The negotiations broke down, the congressman said, causing the FBI to obtain a search warrant signed by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan. Agents conducted the search on the night of May 20 and refused to allow House lawyers to be present during the search.
The speaker's office had no immediate comment on the reported negotiations.
Bush intervened Thursday by sealing the seized records but indicated that the Justice Department should have the right to use any incriminating information in a prosecution.
Black, the professor, said the net effect of the White House's actions in the Jefferson case is to "raise the political costs for an administration with a strained relationship with Congress. The president is already having a hard time exerting his influence in Congress. This makes it even harder."
Relations were strained further when, shortly after the Hastert-Pelosi statement was released, ABC News reported that the speaker was part of the mix in the Justice Department's investigation of lobbying scandals on Capitol Hill. The speaker responded in an interview with WGN radio that it was an administration leak designed to intimidate him.
The White House denied such a leak, and the Justice Department issued a statement saying the speaker was not under investigation. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said someone in the Justice Department leaked the information, and "it's very clear what that's all about."
Pelosi in difficult position
The issue of Jefferson put Pelosi on the spot, too, especially because she has been outspoken in alleging the Republicans' "culture of corruption." She tried to get Jefferson to resign from the Ways and Means Committee. He rebuffed her and said her attempts were discriminatory.
Now a key question is how vigorously Pelosi will be able to pursue her campaign theme that Republicans have fostered a "culture of corruption," because a member of her own party is the focus of a bribery probe.
Republican political consultant Whit Ayres said the Jefferson case "muddies the waters" and will defuse such campaign charges. LaHood agreed.
In a USA Today article Friday, Hastert said that in the more than 215 years of the House's existence, the Justice Department never used a search warrant to obtain documents from a congressional office.
"I regret that they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution," he wrote. "But that is behind us now."
----------
wneikirk@tribune.com
Outcry over FBI raid could stain both parties
By William Neikirk
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published May 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The saga of Rep. William Jefferson, the New Orleans Democrat at the center of a FBI bribery investigation, is a case study in the treacherous politics of corruption, investigation and privilege in the nation's capital.
Though Republicans said the allegation that Jefferson accepted $100,000 in bribe money would help them overcome the Democrats' "culture of corruption" attacks in this year's congressional campaigns, the dramatic developments in the case could pose problems for the GOP as well.
In a political sense, this could be a case where the fallout favors neither side and perhaps deepens the public's negative feelings about their leaders in Congress, analysts say.
The FBI's late-night raid on Jefferson's Capitol Hill office a week ago produced rare bipartisan outrage in the House. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined to protest that the Bush administration, in sanctioning the raid, had violated the Constitution's doctrine of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches and its speech and debate clause.
President Bush, seeking to avoid a constitutional clash, ordered the seized documents to be sealed for 45 days while both sides negotiate which documents, if any, could be used in any prosecution of the Louisiana congressman.
Bush's cooling-off period was aimed partly at preventing resignations of the administration's top three law enforcement officials. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and his deputy, Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller had threatened to resign if Bush had ordered the return of the seized documents, according to New York Times and Washington Post reports.
`You can't touch us'
According to William Frenzel, a former Minnesota Republican congressman now at the Brookings Institution, the House leaders "did not take a very wise course, particularly when Congress is in such a state of disapproval. It seems that Congress is using the speech and debate clause to give itself special privilege."
Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said there is a political danger for Congress to hold such a position. "They seem to be saying, `You can't touch us. We're members of Congress,'" he said.
For Republicans hoping the bribery accusations against Jefferson would help them fend off Democrats' corruption charges, the asserting of constitutional privilege, seemingly to divert a criminal investigation, could offset some of the advantage, Black said.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a letter to Republican leaders that he rejected the separation-of-powers arguments of House leaders, adding that the FBI had a right to use search warrants in congressional offices.
"The American people will come to one conclusion--that congressional leaders are trying to protect their own from valid investigations," he said.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said Hastert is trying to make a constitutional argument, but also that "we don't want this investigation to be hampered."
Judging from its accusations in court papers, Frenzel said, the FBI apparently had strong evidence against Jefferson. The FBI said it had videotape of him accepting money from a business associate and also discovered $90,000 stuffed in a freezer at his Washington apartment.
With such evidence, analysts said, it was not clear why the Justice Department insisted upon a late-night search of his office.
According to a GOP congressman who asked not to be named, Hastert's office and the Justice Department had been negotiating for weeks on a way to obtain materials and evidence from Jefferson's office sought in a subpoena. Jefferson had not complied with the subpoena.
The negotiations broke down, the congressman said, causing the FBI to obtain a search warrant signed by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan. Agents conducted the search on the night of May 20 and refused to allow House lawyers to be present during the search.
The speaker's office had no immediate comment on the reported negotiations.
Bush intervened Thursday by sealing the seized records but indicated that the Justice Department should have the right to use any incriminating information in a prosecution.
Black, the professor, said the net effect of the White House's actions in the Jefferson case is to "raise the political costs for an administration with a strained relationship with Congress. The president is already having a hard time exerting his influence in Congress. This makes it even harder."
Relations were strained further when, shortly after the Hastert-Pelosi statement was released, ABC News reported that the speaker was part of the mix in the Justice Department's investigation of lobbying scandals on Capitol Hill. The speaker responded in an interview with WGN radio that it was an administration leak designed to intimidate him.
The White House denied such a leak, and the Justice Department issued a statement saying the speaker was not under investigation. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said someone in the Justice Department leaked the information, and "it's very clear what that's all about."
Pelosi in difficult position
The issue of Jefferson put Pelosi on the spot, too, especially because she has been outspoken in alleging the Republicans' "culture of corruption." She tried to get Jefferson to resign from the Ways and Means Committee. He rebuffed her and said her attempts were discriminatory.
Now a key question is how vigorously Pelosi will be able to pursue her campaign theme that Republicans have fostered a "culture of corruption," because a member of her own party is the focus of a bribery probe.
Republican political consultant Whit Ayres said the Jefferson case "muddies the waters" and will defuse such campaign charges. LaHood agreed.
In a USA Today article Friday, Hastert said that in the more than 215 years of the House's existence, the Justice Department never used a search warrant to obtain documents from a congressional office.
"I regret that they did not work with us to figure out a way to do it consistently with the Constitution," he wrote. "But that is behind us now."
----------
wneikirk@tribune.com
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home