This non-issue reminds me of how one judge inexplicably construed the Bible to read that prisoners must be allowed conjugal rights.
What's ambiguous about "GO FORTH and multiply."
And the Constitution is just as explicit: " ... privileged from ARREST ..."
On the issue of questioning a member of congress, both the language and the rational are as clear as can possible be; in the making of a speech or during a debate whatever is said is privileged...
Of course it does make sense that the notes made by a member of congress, regarding an upcoming speech or debate, would be privileged...
But in the instance at hand, where the search was aimed at discovering evidence of bribery, what's relevant is that the is no priviledge regarding allegations of felony (" ... except Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace ...").
On the issue of the threat of damaging accusations, pertinent here is how Alexander Hamilton understood that the will of the people, as expressed in our Constitution, must reign supreme...
Such, while " ... corruption is a pretty strong accusation ..." it's obvious that the law must be followed. That the laws are enforced is an obligation far outweighing that of protecting against the threat of a wrongly "stained" legislator.
And, really, Mr. Plumer, does your argument on this subject make any sense at all? Do we truely need to hand out passes when it comes to investigations of congressional corruption--simply because of the fact that the fed. law enforcement arm is known to be so very bent... I mean really now...

"Do we truely need to hand out passes when it comes to investigations of congressional corruption--simply because of the fact that the fed. law enforcement arm is known to be so very bent... "

Is anyone suggesting that? Not that I know of. Read Kleiman's post, he proposes that the House and Senate Ethics Committees get their own investigators. I'm not sold on that, but it's one possible alternative. Bush's executive overreach may sound good to you, but I certainly think it's cause for concern.

Jack Abramoff plead guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials as part of a deal that requires him to cooperate in an investigation into his dealings with members of congress...
In this one instance, where NUMEROUS members of Congress have been implicated, to turn the matter over to other members of Congress seems to me like setting the fox to guard the hen house...
Hypothetically though, sure, it does make sense that a corrupt Pres. such as Bush would utilize a smear campaign run by the FBI against a "rouge" legislator...
Of course this would indicate that a criminal conspiracy existed, one involving the Pres., the US Attorney Gen. and a fed. judge to boot...
The thing is though, wouldn't the victim here have good reason to call for impeachment proceedings--against the Pres., the A.G. and the judge--if he/she actually was completely innocent--if the entire episode wasn't completely "kosher."
Actually, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 was precisely designed to "combat" such crime, and it even includes provisions for criminality involving the US Attorney... This law prescribes a grand jury investigation for protection against corrupt gov. officials.

Members of Congress who disgrace the institution (no one has yet proved that Mr. Jefferson has) do not command sympathy--even by their colleagues--although in this era it may be difficult for the public to believe that last point. But it was true during my 18 years as a U.S. congressman (D-OR) and it is still true today.

The important thing in this, the first executive branch raid on an office of a member of the legislative branch isn't Rep. Jefferson's ultimate guilt or innocence. It is, rather, the precedent set by the executive branch. If allowed to stand, the Justice Department could use these powers to intimidate its partisan foes in the Congress--or, for that matter, in the U.S. Supreme Court--further aggrandizing the police power of the president as his executive agencies. Of course, the Executive will always say it is acting in the public interest (would one expect it to say otherwise?). But if the precedent stands, who would be able to counterdict it?

Reports of incriminating video and audio tapes of Rep. Jefferson should not blind us to the underlying principle that our freedoms are enhanced by separate and equal divisions of government power...

...or to the truism that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

These are good words to remember at a time when a president claims the power to choose which laws he will deign to follow, and when his justice department threatens to prosecute reporters as traitors who leak the truth of government excesses of power.

Rather than debate whether the FBI raid voided the professional courtesies that thieves normally extend to one another and what that portends for THEIR relationship, I'd rather deal directly with the issues that I see. First of all, the President can't simply direct an agency of the government to do his bidding. Has everybody forgotten this? The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld borg is trying to run the US government like a very dysfunctional corporation. Corporations would not permit their Presidents to task their internal security to arrest or detain employees or competitors. Why? Because it is illegal and potentially embroiling to do so. They would require that the President go through the appropriate motions of documenting the problem and then when there is PROOF of an issue, it would be attended to. However, the Security chief would drive the process because he/she are more familiar with the laws of evidence than the President. It's that simple, really, we have a President/Vice President/Chief Syncophant who are asserting powers that they only have in wet dreams.

We should all be concerned. We should be particularly concerned that the President (much like Nixon) has chosen to marry his assumptions of authority to the actual authorities and then some of the Justice Department. The fact is that Alberto is a stooge and does not fulfill the role that he is supposed to fulfill. He cannot take the President's word as law. It isn't. The only way that he can now prove that he doesn't give the President undue and illegal powers is to raid and arrest VP Cheney in his bunker for not turning over all the information from the Energy task force. For Cheney to have met with private companies and discuss government business is a violation of the Logan Act, I think.

On one hand, the FBI now has a precendent that it can raid offices of the elected officials. However, for this to be fair, ALL ELECTED OFFICES MUST BE TREATED THE SAME WAY. Personally, I'd like to see all of these criminals awarded a couple of weeks stay in Club Guantanamo or Club Abu Ghraiv with Halliburton charged to serve them the same terrible grub that they have served our forces.

Excuse me, but after reading yesterday's MoJo blog, "Court of Appeals upholds ..." it seems to me that when one hands such self-regulation to members of Congress, rather than setting the fox to guard the hen house, it is more like setting a dumb, mean junk yard dog...: "Unending secrecy of actions taken by government officials may also serve as a cover for possible official misconduct and/or incompetence."
Sure thing!!!
And what?, only one member of Congress didn't vote to allow Bush to practice his unwarranted, imperialistic takeover of Iraq... We sell Iraq WMDs, yet absent terrorist ties we should feel free to invade...
On the other hand, should agents of the dreaded (!!!!) FBI breach their duty by conducting unwarranted raid against a member of Congress, well, he/she would have many potential avenues of recourse: forget filed a suit requesting a grand jury investigation, or a harassment suit for damages, the fact of the matter is that the UN Commission on Civil Rights has jurisdiction over any such blatant abuse.
Of course, the actual truth is that the entire shebang is corrupt as all Hell. It's like with the Patriot Act..., wasn't Congress just setting it up so that the ACLU could come off looking like the great gangbuster...