Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal Red Warrior's Journal: D,R,D,R,D,R,FU 18

Journal by Red Warrior

OK, listen up you elected retards, no you DO NOT have a constitutional immunity to having your offices searched pursuant to a search warrant issued in the course of a lawfull investigation by a duly appointed judge. Especially after acknowledged lawful subpeanas (and Jefferson informed the house ethics committe when he received same) have been issued and ignored (Not fought in court, ignored.)

No, you are not above the law, no matter how many times you say it. No, that ISN'T what the constitution says. It says that you cannot be arrested for doing your job as a congress-critter, nor in your travel to or from same. It also says you can't be forced to explain your political positions to "da man" (to the voters is another matter.).

Ds - You make yourselves look guilty as hell, and hypocritical. What was all that noise about "culture of corruption" and "restoring transparency"? (Especially considering that the FBI brought along extra agents to ensure that only relevant materials, and not "politically sensitve" items were seized)? Do you REALLY want to argue that you and your comrades are above the law as a perk of being elected? I don't think It'll play in Peoria.

Rs - WTFFTASD? Same as above, PLUS you make it look like you're nervous that you're next on the list. I halfway hope it's with good cause. Dickheads.

Bottom line: The story is that Jefferson is a corrupt politician who was caught by the FBI, which insured that it dotted every I and crossed every T.

No, the fact that "it is the first time", that "it is unprecidented" (Uhm, stop and think about exactly how precidents get made, nimrods.) makes no difference. The FBI did its job, and it did it by the book.

You are elected officals, not royalty. Get over yourselves.
J.F.C., Just when I think I can't despise the Ds more, they prove me wrong.
Just when I think the Rs might decide to show a little character, they prove me wrong.

Screw you guys, I'm voting for Nader[1].

[1] OK, I'm not, but DAMN!!!!

UPDATE: Best QOTD:
"I think the FBI should raid all the refrigerators in Congress.
We may recover enough money to save Social Security."

This discussion was created by Red Warrior (637634) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

D,R,D,R,D,R,FU More

D,R,D,R,D,R,FU

Comments Filter:

  • well stated (Score:3)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 24, 2006 @10:32PM (#15399070) Journal

    It's nice to see a two-sided discourse from a single person. Congratulations, well put!

    Of course, he is innocent until proven guilty, which is totally NOT the point... the Ds and Rs look ridiculous (or more so than usual).

  • According to him, back in the olden days, they wouldn't touch a case unless they were 100% sure of victory. They had a reputation of something like a 99% conviction rate. Well, if the case looks shaky, and you turn it over to local law enforcement, then that doesn't count as a loss in court, right?

    So the other side of that coin is that when they do take something to prosecution, they dot every i, cross every t, and spell out numbers in alpha just to be sure.

    I'm not saying a search warrant shouldn't be read by the target - but only a fool would complain to the press that the FBI was abusing its power by conducting a search with a warrant.

  • Dork side (Score:3, Funny)

    by peacefinder ( 469349 ) * <alan.dewitt@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday May 24, 2006 @11:03PM (#15399178) Journal
    Screw you guys, I'm voting for Nader

    There you go. Release your anger. Strike them down with all your hatred and join me in this broken metaphor!

    Or something.
  • I tend to think you're right, but OTOH, I am not privy to the centuries of court precedent on Congressional privilege.

    • Re:Not convinced (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Red Warrior ( 637634 ) * on Thursday May 25, 2006 @12:24AM (#15399444) Homepage Journal
      If there is precedent supporting the idea that congresscritters have the privilege of being above the law, and not subject felony investigations or properly issued search warrants, then it needs to be overturned.

      Even if it's super-duper precedent. ;-/

      • Re:Not convinced (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        If there is precedent supporting the idea that congresscritters have the privilege of being above the law, and not subject felony investigations or properly issued search warrants, then it needs to be overturned.

        Not having given too much thought to it, and reserving the right to change my mind: I agree. The problem I have is, there is plenty of room here for abuse by the executive to persecute the legislature. The obvious answer, of course, is that the judiciary is a check on it, since they have to approv
        • The obvious answer, of course, is that the judiciary is a check on it, since they have to approve the warrant, and I find that answer to be fairly compelling.

          Exactly. As long as the balance is maintained, then the searach is Constitutional. Beyond that, the FBI tried to recover the documents by less invasivve means first but were ignored. Congress might have a beef if the FBI started their investigation by searching his office, but in fact it was about the very last thing they did.

          For all their fault

        • I think the immunities are laid out in Article I [cornell.edu], and unless bribery is a misdemeanor, then they're not covered:

          Section 6. Clause 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same; and for

      • Re:Not convinced (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jhon ( 241832 ) on Thursday May 25, 2006 @12:49AM (#15399511) Homepage Journal
        If there is precedent supporting the idea that congresscritters have the privilege of being above the law, and not subject felony investigations or properly issued search warrants, then it needs to be overturned.
        I find it amusing that in a statement made by Hastert and Pelosi they cited a part of the constitution which they say supports their view that what the FBI did was wrong and violated "separation of powers":
        Section 6
        The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
        It appears to me that the Constitution allows for exactly what the FBI did...
        • In this case you can also add in since a warrant was issued the judicial branch became involved so it wasn't just the executive over the legislative.

          But, on the other hand, you really can't blame the congress-critters, all their tin foil hats had been taken to wrap the money up in.
  • sounds redundant
  • ...I changed political affiliations this year.

    For the first time since I was old enough to vote, I'm not a Republican.

    I'm not retarded enough to go for the Democrats, either. In this game, they're becoming one and the same.

    Something you said struck a chord, though:

    It says that you cannot be arrested for doing your job as a congress-critter, nor in your travel to or from same.

    This might explain why Joe Kennedy (D-RI) [house.gov], getting out of his car after driving under the influence[1], was quoted as saying, "I'm l

Slashdot Top Deals

I program, therefore I am.

Close