Austin American-Statesman Editorial - Hold members of Congess to the same legal standards

"Hold members of Congess to the same legal standards," Austin American-Statesman, July 17, 2006

Last Monday, a judge ruled that the search by federal authorities of Rep. William Jefferson's congressional office was, in fact, constitutional. Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia held that legislators are bound by criminal laws just like ordinary people, and that the Constitution can't be used to "make members of Congress supercitizens, immune from criminal responsibility."

Hogan made the right decision.

Federal authorities acted within the scope of their jurisdiction and in no way violated our nation's Constitution when they searched Jefferson's congressional office in May.

As a former prosecutor in the U.S. Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, it was my job to make sure that our federally elected officials did their jobs and obeyed the rules.

In my judgment, there is no greater betrayal than violating the trust the American people have placed in us.

I have reviewed the evidence and the laws pertaining to this case and believe the agents did exactly what they were supposed to do — their jobs.

As evidenced in the affidavit for the search warrant, signed by a federal judge, the federal investigators were acting on probable cause that a crime had been committed in Jefferson's office. The 83-page affidavit that supported the search warrant contains allegations that the congressman was videotaped accepting marked money, that $90,000 of that marked money was later recovered from his freezer, and that he had made incriminating statements regarding his role in an alleged bribery scheme.

Despite those extensive allegations of criminal activity, Jefferson remains innocent unless he is proven guilty by due process of law.

If he is found guilty, as a trusted representative of the American people, he should be given the strictest punishment that the law permits.

Many of my colleagues on Capitol Hill disagree with me and have made the argument that, because Jefferson is a House member, the FBI and federal prosecutors, who work for the executive branch of our government, violated the "speech and debate" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

They claim the executive branch intruded into the workings of the legislative branch as a result of the FBI search of Jefferson's office, and therefore violated the Constitution. This interpretation of the speech and debate clause would, as Hogan noted, "have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."

While I believe that proper coordination before the search of a congressional office should be required, I also believe the Constitution does not cloak members of Congress with immunity from criminal activity. As the target of a criminal investigation, Jefferson should be treated as any other American would be treated.

The fact that he is a congressman should if anything, in my opinion, hold him to a higher standard. (As I have pointed out to my congressional colleagues, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the speech and debate clause does not protect criminal activity, which is obviously not a part of our legislative duties.)

To do otherwise would eviscerate the purpose of a warrant to search for evidence in any place where legislative materials are kept.

To justify this ideal, we need look no further than America's copy of the Magna Carta, which is in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol.

The Magna Carta was written in 1215 to legally protect the British people from the absolute power of King John, and communicated to future generations, such as America's Founding Fathers, that all men are equally bound by the law.

http://www.mccaulforcongress.com/news/aas_06-0717.php