Priorities in Congress

by Kagro X

Separation of powers. Heard of it? Congress has.

And here you thought they hadn't!

Why not?

Was it because they haven't yet been willing to enforce their own subpoenas?

Was it because they haven't yet been willing to exercise their "power of the purse" to remove our troops safely from Iraq?

Was it because they acceded to the president's demands that they pass exactly the FISA language they wanted, or he wouldn't let them recess?

Was it because the president is setting them up for more of the same by threatening to veto every single appropriations bill that doesn't match his budget numbers, thereby threatening a government shutdown?

Well, you can lay your fears to rest. Congress has rediscovered its willingness to defend its prerogatives:

Constitutionally Protected Chats? By Paul Kiel - August 23, 2007, 11:19 AM From the AP:

Florida's top police agency said Wednesday its investigation into former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's lurid Internet communications with teenage boys has been hindered because neither Foley nor the House will let investigators examine his congressional computers.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement says it hopes to conclude its investigation next week. Foley, a Florida Republican, resigned from Congress on Sept. 29 after being confronted with the computer messages he sent to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill.

"We have requested to review federally owned computers that Mr. Foley used during his time as a representative, but the U.S. House of Representatives ... cited case law restrictions that prohibited them from releasing those computers," said Heather Smith, an FDLE spokeswoman.

Ta-daaa! More winning PR! This is the separation of powers battle the House has picked to fight.

Comments

[Mary]

That "case law" they cited - didn't it just say that things like the computer can't be seized without having a way, first, to have info reviewed for legislative privilege and that privilege asserted where it applies (which would normally require a listing of the kinds of things being held back and why)? As I read the synopsis (although I didn't read the whole opinion) that seemed to be the unremarkable holding. No absolute protection for info that maybe commingled with legislative info - just a requirement for better process to make sure that the legislative info can have privilege asserted prior to the Exec pawing through it.

What a stupid fight to pick - why not start proferring up some process that would work?

[joanneleon]

So they are basing this on the court decision re: William Jefferson?

In that order:
"We do not, however, hold, in the absence of a claim by the Congressman that the operations of his office have been disrupted as a result of not having the original versions of the non-privileged documents, that remedying the violation also requires the return of the non-privileged documents."

So how can Foley's chats (and whatever else) be considered to be privileged or having anything to do with legislative matters?

[bmaz]

Mary and Joanne - For the life of me, this seems stupid. Did in Jefferson too. Criminal activity not directly related to legislative matters is clearly not protected (criminal activity related to legislative matters should not be either; but that is not at issue here). Why cannot the material (contents of hard drive here I suppose) simply be submitted for an in camera inspection by a judicial magistrate and a representative form the House (House counsel?) and any salacious criminal items of Foley's split off and used as evidence?

[P J Evans]

bmaz

Maybe someone in leadership knows is afraid that the stuff in Foley's computer will implicate more members.

[W]

Plames boss was Foley(CIA). Foley(USAID) was murdered in Jordan. Foley got in trouble after this. This may be the problem.

[Kagro X]

I don't think there's anything sinister going on here, just tone deaf and stupid.

The House has a very legitimate interest in protecting the privileges and prerogatives of its Members. This defense for Foley would and should, under normal circumstances, be automatic -- as bad as the optics are.

What's troubling, though, is how fastidious they're being about protecting legislative branch prerogatives in a case with no upside but maintaining the principle of separation of powers, and how weak they're being in other cases where the same principle underlies the fight and where there's considerably more at stake than a single pervert Congressman's computer.

If you're going to fight for the principle, fight for it all the time.

Or if you're going to be inconsistent on principle, be for principle when the stakes are high and abandon them when the optics suck and the stakes are low.

If you can't be principled, then at least be smart.

[MarkH]

I sense the hand of Steny Hoyer or Rahm Emanuel in this. I can't imagine Nancy "transparency is good" Pelosi standing in the way of a sensible review of the records to provide a judge with only germain information.

[bmaz]

Kagro - Oh, I totally agree. My only point is that "in protecting the privileges and prerogatives of its Members", Congress has gone into overkill on both Foley and Jefferson. There is a well worn and time tested method in courts for dealing with precisely these types of problems; why can't they just use it? Really, that is your point as well I suppose. They are willing to fight to an extreme and unnecessary end on these sideshows, but lay down on the fundamental critical issues of separation of powers. Inexplicable.

[bmaz]

MarkH - Actually as minority leader prior to the 2006 election, Pelosi did support this position in relation to Jefferson as i recall.

[Jodi]

Let me see. What did DemFromCT say?

The Democrats know how to govern well?

Ah, come on now. Surely he didn't say that!?

Surely????

[bmaz]

Freepatriot - I hope you and mother are doing well. My thoughts are with you. As you can see, the mental midget has reared its ugly head. Made me think of you. It is the ONLY thing of any value that the shitstain provides here. Hurry home

[G.Florence Scott]

I've been wondering about Congress. Like does Rove/Cheney/Bush have something on all of them or what? I can't understand why they are taking all the blustering in such an intimidated way. They need to stand up and help clean house. I do believe their lack of resolve in doing what they need to do is why their rating is so low with the public in the polls.

GFS