Let's see now. Congress seems to think it's fine for the NSA to spy on all of us without any sort of a warrant whatsoever. But it's not OK for the FBI to conduct a raid on Congressman William Jefferson's office with a warrant after finding 90 grand in his freezer and after waiting weeks for him to comply with a subpoena to turn over evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation, evidence which he has refused so far to turn over.

Now, members of both parties are all worked up about this. They positively have their shorts in a knot over this. You see, they want the Capitol police to handle their stuff, you know, the same ones who failed to give Congressman Patrick Kennedy a breathalyzer after Kennedy crashed his car into a stationary barrier a couple of weeks ago. Instead, they just drove Kennedy home and said, "Good night, Congressman, and have a nice evening." You see, the Capitol police answer to Congress. The speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert even complained personally to President Bush about the raid on Congressman Jefferson's office. It's believed this was the first raid of a congressman's office in 219 years. Well, judging by the reaction on Capitol Hill, maybe the FBI ought to raid their offices more often. What is it do you suppose they're hiding in those offices?

Once again, Congress is demanding a different set of standards for themselves.

[...]

I find it fascinating that the debate suddenly is about whether or not the FBI can search this guy's office. It's not about the videotape that allegedly shows him taking a $100,000 payoff or his refusal to comply with a subpoena to hand over evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation. The congress people, Republicans and Democrats are all afraid the FBI might want to look in their office. Unbelievable. [Video here]

Cafferty's frequently too libertarian/conservative for my taste, but in this he's absolutely right, and Pelosi is totally wrong. A judge or magistrate, from the judicial branch, issued a warrant in response to evidence presented by the FBI, from the executive branch, to raid the office of a Congressman, from the legislative branch. That's the way it's supposed to work. Senators and Representatives have a certain very specific immunity:

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. - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6

but otherwise they are subject to the same laws as anyone else, and that includes being raided by the FBI when a warrant has been issued to authorize it. No member of Congress is exempt from these laws, nor is the President.

The only way that an argument could conceivably be made that there's a constitutional issue, is if the Congress, having refused to exercise its proper constitutional role in the appointment of judges, has, for reasons of partisanship, instead rolled over and let the Executive Branch have whoever it wanted on the bench. Then, you might argue that the Judicial branch was, in effect, controlled by the Executive and wasn't acting impartially -- but surely Hastert wouldn't be making that arguement, would he?

No, he's just arguing that it's his damn House and no one can do anything in it without his say-so -- I wonder what his reason for that might be? That Pelosi apparently agrees with him is ludicrous, and damning. Her stance, and her unwillingness to strip Jefferson of his perks, has lost her a great deal of respect in my eyes.