Is showcased in several recent incidents. First, the concerns over Congressional privilege brought up by Hastert are serious, though bullshit in the case of Jefferson given there was a search warrant and the FBI took it further with a screening team.
In Rep. Jefferson’s case, however, “separation of powers” just won’t cut it if the affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in his office. The same would apply to the President, the Vice President, their staffs, and the judiciary: If there is probable cause linking the place to be searched with an alleged crime, the search has the imprimatur of the law, is presumptively valid under the Fourth Amendment, and that is all that will be required to defeat a separation of powers claim. His private papers concerning his thoughts and votes are not off limits to a search warrant if the allegation in the affidavit is that the vote was paid for. That is bribery of a Member of Congress, and no Congressman is immune from that. Ask former Rep. Duke Cunningham.
When deliberations of a Member of Congress are relevant to charges, how is Congress different from the Executive? One way to mitigate these issues would be to set up a truly independent counsel law again and have independent counsels outside the normal power structure of the executive branch lessening the impact upon the separate branches.
It might also eliminate the stories such as high level DOJ officials from commenting on investigations into politicians. Currently there is an incentive to make a statement because of political ties–as we see in the double denial by DOJ of Hastert being ‘in the mix’ of the investigation over Abramoff.
The story at ABC is here, here, here, and here.
If one remembers Scott Lasser’s statement in 1998 that declared George Ryan was not under investigation, it gives you good reason to respect how Fitzgerald is so damn quiet about his investigations.
As a note, compared to the incestuous Note, Brian Ross is one of the few great investigative reporters left in television. His work on the Marianis Islands and the forced abortion there has been fantastic and he has been the guy hitting stories well ahead of the Abramoff scandal breaking showing the true evil that much of Abramoff’s work brought.
I?m confused. In the original story, ABC cites ?Federal officials.? Then, after the DOJ issues a statement declaring the story false, ABC issues a second story saying that ?federal law enforcement sources? claim the original report was accurate. Which begs the questions: are these “sources” the same as the originally cited ?Federal officials?? I think the only logical answer is: yes.
Now, that important to note because that would mean that the original sources were not ?officials? at all (implying that they were speaking in “official” capacity), but rather unauthorized leakers. And if that were the case (which logic suggests that it was), shouldn’t ABC have tried to get an actual, official reaction from the DOJ before going to print with the leak? To not do so was simply reckless and irresponsible journalism.
Then again, I’m not sure if responsible journalism was the high priority for ABC last night. By my estimation, they scored a two-for by making both the DOJ and Hastert look bad. They got a story in press with (pun intended) ?official? sounding sources that implicated the Speaker in a major scandal, and they got the DOJ to look like they are either incompetent or trying to cover for Hastert. Indeed, the only people to come away from this story looking even remotely trustworthy is ABC News. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as a basis for healthy skepticism?