Privileged bodies

When FBI agents raided Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office a year ago and spent 18 hours searching for incriminating evidence against the occupant, uproar ensued.

Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who at the time was House Speaker, said: “The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case.

“Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this separation-of-powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by members of Congress.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was then minority leader, said, “Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with constitutional protections and historical precedent.”

This is fine and well, but it is also true, as both politicians acknowledged, that historical niceties should not become a shield for congressional criminality. That Jefferson has not been charged with wrongdoing after the FBI found $90,000 in marked cash stashed in his freezer suggests to all reasonable people that thorough investigation is called for. And how can an investigation be thorough if it excludes the suspect’s place of work?

The issue arises again today because, as The Hill reported yesterday, the Justice Department and House counsel are making no headway through the separation-of-powers thicket. Justice says allowing the House to screen documents would be like “giving the member the keys to the evidence locker.” Jefferson’s attorney, Robert Trout, suggests, rather, that FBI agents could have been on a fishing expedition.

However the issue is resolved, it raises the question of what value Congress members really place on historical privileges and precedent. And this, in turn, points an ironic finger at members who suggest, as some still do, that there should be an independent office of investigation that looks into lawmakers’ behavior and sends findings to congressional ethics panels so they can use them to launch official probes.

How is it that Congress should hand over investigative powers to some newfangled body without constitutional or historical role, and yet cavil about intrusion by the FBI, which is the embodiment of every president’s promise to uphold the law of the land? Are congressional privileges worth keeping or not?

If not, the FBI should have more authority to follow a trail of deep-frozen dollar bills than should a body dreamed up by a handful of D.C.’s downtown do-gooders.