Bush orders documents seized in Capitol Hill search sealed

[BigKahuna13]

Let me ask you a question. Could the Congress have enforced the subpoena for Nixon's Oval Office tapes by forcible entry of the White House?

No, Congress itself can't do so because it's the law-creating body of government -- not the enforcement body. However, if the FBI (part of the executive) had a warrant, then yes. By all means they should.

There are no protections under the Constitution that creates a safe zone where one branch of government is free from the oversight of another. That's why we have a separation of powers clause in the Constitution...it's there to keep each branch honest. It's no different when a the home or office of a suspected corrupt judge is raided.

At least, that's how I interpret things...but then again, I don't have a law degree.

There is an implied protection in that all branches of government are equal. If Congressional agents cannot forcibly enter the White House
then the same should hold for the executive, irrespective of who has
law enforcement responsibility.

[Steve]

There is an implied protection in that all branches of government are equal. If Congressional agents cannot forcibly enter the White House
then the same should hold for the executive, irrespective of who has
law enforcement responsibility.

In that case, who holds anyone responsible for criminal activity?

[BigKahuna13]

There is an implied protection in that all branches of government are equal. If Congressional agents cannot forcibly enter the White House
then the same should hold for the executive, irrespective of who has
law enforcement responsibility.

In that case, who holds anyone responsible for criminal activity?

How does responsibility come into it? Lots of Congressmen have been arrested, tried and convicted in the past without law enforcement having to search Congressional offices.

[Steve]

How does responsibility come into it? Lots of Congressmen have been arrested, tried and convicted in the past without law enforcement having to search Congressional offices.

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

But let's say you're correct: "There is an implied protection in that all branches of government are equal." In this case, two branches were involved (judicial by authorizing the search warrant, executive by requestng and then executing the warrant.)

Are two branches of government greater than one?

[BigKahuna13]

How does responsibility come into it? Lots of Congressmen have been arrested, tried and convicted in the past without law enforcement having to search Congressional offices.

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

But let's say you're correct: "There is an implied protection in that all branches of government are equal." In this case, two branches were involved (judicial by authorizing the search warrant, executive by requestng and then executing the warrant.)

Are two branches of government greater than one?

No, I don't think so.

Besides it seems that Congress is mostly pissed about a potential violation of the "Speech and Debate" Clause which makes it unconstitutional for the executive to inquire into the inner working of the legislature. Presumably the FBI confiscated lots of documents that have nothing to with Jefferson's alleged crime and lots to do with legislative business.

[BrockVond]

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

pure idiocy.

[Steve]

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

pure idiocy.

Cut out the personal attacks, please.

Didn't someone else in this thread say they never did it before?
So either they didn't complete the investigations (didn't bother), or they didn't need to investigate the offices (not necessary.)

Please, tell me - what is wrong with that statement?

[BrockVond]

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

pure idiocy.

Cut out the personal attacks, please.

Personal? No, that wasn't personal. I was attacking the idea.

Now, if I had said "pure idiocy, you hideously overweight cipher", then that would have been personal. See the difference?

[Steve]

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

pure idiocy.

Cut out the personal attacks, please.

Personal? No, that wasn't personal. I was attacking the idea.

Now, if I had said "pure idiocy, you hideously overweight cipher", then that would have been personal. See the difference?

Yeah. Back to the idea:

Either they didn't bother, or it wasn't necessary.
What other options are there?

[BigKahuna13]

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

pure idiocy.

Cut out the personal attacks, please.

Personal? No, that wasn't personal. I was attacking the idea.

Now, if I had said "pure idiocy, you hideously overweight cipher", then that would have been personal. See the difference?

Yeah. Back to the idea:

Either they didn't bother, or it wasn't necessary.
What other options are there?

If it hasn't been necessary in the entire history of the Republic and there are ample cases of Congressmen being indicted and convicted in the past you have to wonder why it was necessary this time.

[BrockVond]

Because a search of the office hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother.

pure idiocy.

Cut out the personal attacks, please.

Personal? No, that wasn't personal. I was attacking the idea.

Now, if I had said "pure idiocy, you hideously overweight cipher", then that would have been personal. See the difference?

Yeah. Back to the idea:

Either they didn't bother, or it wasn't necessary.
What other options are there?

Oh yeah, the idea. Ok.

a)They didn't bother.

You are telling me that in the entire history of the fractious relationship between these co-equal two branches of government that they never bothered?

b)It wasn't necessary

you are telling me that in the entire history of this fractious relationship between two co-equal branches of government that they never felt it necessary to the investigation?

What other options are there? Sheesh, defend the sh*t alternatives of (a) and (b) and I'll debase myself by telling you what (c) is.

[Steve]

Oh yeah, the idea. Ok.

a)They didn't bother.

You are telling me that in the entire history of the fractitious relationshinship between these co-equal two branches of government that they never bothered?

b)It wasn't necessary

you are telling me that in the entire history of this fractitious relationship between two co-equal branches of government that they never felt it necessary to the investigation?

What other options are there? Sheesh, defend the sh*t alternatives of (a) and (b) and I'll debase myself by telling you what (c) is.

The comment was based on this:

But, that does not eliminate the serious constitutional question about raiding the congressional office of a sitting House member. That's an issue that's never come up before in over 200 years and, while we all can have opinions on it, the issue will need to be settled.

So if it never came up, either they never had to search a congressional office or they never bothered. Or Bubba is wrong - Which is entirely possible.

Make sense?

-steve

[BrockVond]

Oh yeah, the idea. Ok.

a)They didn't bother.

You are telling me that in the entire history of the fractitious relationshinship between these co-equal two branches of government that they never bothered?

b)It wasn't necessary

you are telling me that in the entire history of this fractitious relationship between two co-equal branches of government that they never felt it necessary to the investigation?

What other options are there? Sheesh, defend the sh*t alternatives of (a) and (b) and I'll debase myself by telling you what (c) is.

The comment was based on this:

But, that does not eliminate the serious constitutional question about raiding the congressional office of a sitting House member. That's an issue that's never come up before in over 200 years and, while we all can have opinions on it, the issue will need to be settled.

So if it never came up, either they never had to search a congressional office or they never bothered. Or Bubba is wrong - Which is entirely possible.

Make sense?

-steve

Don't try to take cover behind Bubba's skirt.

Your idiotic comment was wrong. Bubba was right. The "issue" has never come up because they never raided a sitting congressman's office.

The use of the phrases "they never bothered" and "it wasn't necessary" is what I have a problem with. You think they never wanted to raid a sitting congressman's office before? Or they were lazy or inept enough never to have bothered? They may be lazy and inept, but they have bothered, and for those very same reasons.

Transparent. AG Gonzales provided the judge with special considerations for the constitutional implications of their actions when seeking the warrant. They know exactly what they are doing, and they know exactly what they *think* they can get away with. The question is whether or not the American people will swallow it hook line and sinker while salivating to the newspeak of "they never bothered" before and "it wasn't necessary" before.

Wake up.

[Steve]

Maybe your awesome superiority eludes my feeble mind, but it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. Perhaps it's just a language barrier. You seem have a different definition of "Didn't bother" than I.

Your idiotic comment was wrong. Bubba was right. The "issue" has never come up because they never raided a sitting congressman's office.

Fine. No need to hide behind a skirt.

The use of the phrases "they never bothered" and "it wasn't necessary" is what I have a problem with. You think they never wanted to raid a sitting congressman's office before? Or they were lazy or inept enough never to have bothered? They may be lazy and inept, but they have bothered, and for those very same reasons.

Great. Since (you and bubba) both agree that your first statement is true, then lets look at why would they never have raided a congressman's office?
1. It wasn't necessary. Easy enough.
2. It was necessary, but they didn't do it because of some external reason. In other words, they didn't bother (and probably didn't complete the investigation.)

You are taking the phrase "didn't bother" and making it mean something other than what I intended. You see, when I said "Didn't Bother", I didn't necessarily mean they didn't want to. "Didn't bother" doesn't necessarily mean they were lazy or inept. "Didn't bother" doesn't necessarily mean that political pressure kept them from doing it.

"Didn't Bother" simply means that they didn't bother.

I don't know that we disagree on that "idea.."

[BrockVond]

Maybe your awesome superiority eludes my feeble mind, but it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. Perhaps it's just a language barrier. You seem have a different definition of "Didn't bother" than I.

Don't play the victim. You have a curious proclivity for jumping at that hook, even when it is justified.

Fine. No need to hide behind a skirt.

Still trying not to stand on your own two feet.

Let's stop right here and pause a moment. This is what I find repugnant in you.

You were given the chance after trying to duck behind the opinion of another, but still you persist in hiding behind others to protect yourself from the weakness of your own words. Stand up and be a man, godammit.

You disgust me.

Ok, I vented, let's move on, shall we?

Great. Since (you and bubba) both agree that your first statement is true,

Wrong. We will be at this a while if you don't pay me the minimal respect of at least getting the last post directed at you factually correct. I said that Bubba's statement was true, in my estimation. Bubba made no such assertion as to agreeing with me. Once again, I want to tell you in no uncertain terms what a f*cking worm you are for not standing up and defending what you yourself believe in, but rather find it necessary to rely on others to defend what you profess to believe in. Do we have that clear? I hope we do. What Bubba said was that it's never happened before. What you said was that not only has it not happened before, but it "hasn't been necessary to the investigations.. or they didn't bother. "

then lets look at why would they never have raided a congressman's office?
1. It wasn't necessary. Easy enough.
2.

That's it? you move on to 2? Easy enough, how? Explain to me why it wasn't EVER necessary, and more importantly, why the agency involved never ever could have felt that it was not necessary.

It was necessary, but they didn't do it because of some external reason. In other words, they didn't bother (and probably didn't complete the investigation.)

More sh*t. What specific external reasons are you referring to? Be very specific please.

You are wasting my time.