Centerfield

Tully, might want to update with a link to the Enron story, Lay and Skilling were just convicted.

And Hastert wants to know where he can serve the papers on ABC and crew. Done and done.

"continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity"

That statement describes most of the cable news, talk radio and government information programs running in the United States today.

Interestingly Hastert spoke this morning on a radio show about the timing of this announcement, i.e., he thinks the Justice Department leaked this info to ABC. He believes that it is in retaliation for him criticizing the Justice Department for their search and seizure of Rep. Jefferson's office. Check out thehill.com for the story...

Can anyone explain what the beef is with that anyway? What I'd heard is that they've basically got this guy Jefferson red-handed, unless there's some sort of innocent reason why he was hiding 10k packets of cash wrapped in tinfoil in his freezer.

Does this has something to do with some sort of privilege that congress claims, whereby probably cause isn't enough reason to search Jefferson's records, simply because of either who Jefferson is or where his offices are?

I'm confused...

Hastert's simply wrong about the constitutionality of searching congressional offices with a properly issued search warrant, IMHO. It's a broad "privileges" assertion I don't see backed in the Constitution. Hastert opines on that in USAToday. Personally I think Patrick Kennedy was on more solid legal ground when he asserted he was on his way to a vote in order to avoid arrest. Had that been true, Kennedy would indeed have been immune to arrest.

Regardless, it's pretty much Hastert's duty and obligation as House speaker to make that assertion of privilege on behalf of Congress. Just as it is the President's duty and obligation to assert broad privileges on behalf of his office.

That doesn't mean that the press leak aimed at him may not be the result of back-room infighting prompted by his assertions of broad Congressional immunity. Many believe that there's a lot going on behind the scenes here that we're not seeing, and they may well be right.

Some have a different take on Hastert's assertion. And some are speculating that the sealing of the siezed Jefferson records is a lifeline being tossed to Hastert.

This gives all sides in Congress an opportunity to step down from the ledge and save their credibility before the White House pushes this to the Supreme Court -- where Hastert, Pelosi & Co will get derisively shot down for asserting that the Capitol grants sanctuary from law enforcement of any kind.

Jefferson's attempt to get the seized records returned is hopeless. He'd pretty much have to show that criminal bribery was a legitimate function of his office, and of Congress, to make that stand up. Congress is not above the law.

That's sort of what I figured, that Hasteret was talking out his rectum about the violation of a search (leaving aside the leak part of the story...)

So why do we think a lifeline is being tossed here, in return for favors? Seems to me no real harm could come of disabusing congress of the notion that capitol hill provides some sort of legal sanctuary.

But then it also seemed to me that congresscritters would NOT really want to make any sort of argument in a context that suggested that they had some sort of privilege that allowed them to avoid investigation for being corrupt. What's the downside to throwing Jefferson to the wolves here?

An article in the WSJ suggests that Congress is worried that the FBI and DOJ seem to be proceeding with the belief that doing favors (writing letters, inserting amendments to bills) in return for campaign contributions is bribery under the main bribery statute, even though the money doesn't go into the candidate's personal pocket. If so, that would go a long way toward explaining the otherwise apparently sudden vast overreaction by Hastert and other Members. The Hastert "investigation" based on some published reports seems to involve a letter that Hastert wrote for Abramoff the day after taking in some $26,000 (I think) of campaign contributions at an Abramoff-hosted fundraiser.