Rift over raid on lawmaker's office heats up; House leaders demand return of documents

WASHINGTON — A confrontation between congressional leaders and the Bush administration escalated Wednesday, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi demanded that the Justice Department immediately return documents that were seized when federal agents raided the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.

Noting that "no person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation," Hastert, R-Ill., and Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Justice Department must stop reviewing the documents and ensure that their contents are not divulged. Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

The demands by Hastert and Pelosi further escalated a separation-of-powers conflict between Congress and the White House. The raid on Jefferson's office last weekend, in connection with a bribery probe, was the first time in history that the FBI has executed a search warrant on the Capitol Hill office of a sitting lawmaker.

The Justice Department initially signaled an unwillingness to return the documents. But White House officials are concerned about the vigorous and repeated complaints of the congressional leaders and have pressed the Justice Department to find a way to defuse the controversy, according to a Justice official.

Many Republicans and Democrats contend that the unprecedented raid on a congressional office was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government that are meant to shield lawmakers from intimidation.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., said he would hold hearings next week on the "profoundly disturbing" questions that he said the Justice Department's actions have raised.

But some legal experts said the department appeared to be on firm legal footing, and some members of Congress began to question how the public would view the leadership's contention that congressional offices should be off-limits to federal agents with search warrants.

"For congressional leaders to make these self-serving arguments in the midst of serious scandals in Congress only further erodes the faith and confidence of the American people," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a letter to Senate leaders.

Off Capitol Hill, conservatives criticized House Republicans for putting themselves above the law. "In essence, they're asking for themselves to be treated as an imperial body," said radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. "Talk about being politically tone deaf."

Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Wednesday issued a statement denying an ABC News story that Hastert was under investigation in the far-reaching Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department," said department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, less than an hour after ABC News, citing "high-level Justice Department sources," reported that the Illinois Republican "is under investigation by the FBI" in connection with the Abramoff scandal.

In the Jefferson case, the FBI is investigating allegations that the Louisiana Democrat, who represents New Orleans, took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa.

The eight-term House member has denied wrongdoing and told reporters this week that he intends to run for re-election in November.

Jefferson also rejected a call by Pelosi to temporarily vacate his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee, the chief tax-writing panel, pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said the Justice Department resorted to a search of Jefferson's office only because "other means" of obtaining the material had been unsuccessful. Justice officials have declined to say what steps had been taken previously to attempt to force Jefferson to turn over the records held in his House office.

Jefferson challenged the weekend raid in a motion filed Wednesday in federal court.

Jefferson's case poses a political dilemma for Democratic leaders, who feel compelled to join in protesting the legality of the raid but who also are deeply troubled by the FBI's evidence against Jefferson and want to distance themselves as much as possible. The Democrats have sought to portray the Republicans as the party of corruption, but now the Democrats are being tainted by the Jefferson political-corruption investigation.

Democrats on Wednesday released Pelosi's letter to Jefferson asking him to step down from the Ways and Means Committee "in the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus."

In rejecting her request, Jefferson noted that he has served with members "who have been indicted, tried and won their cases, and who were never asked to step aside from their committee assignments during those processes."

A search-warrant affidavit unsealed on Sunday included allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson last summer taking $100,000 in bribe money and that the agents then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside a freezer in his Washington, D.C., apartment.

Two people — Brett Pfeffer and Vernon L. Jackson — have pleaded guilty to bribing the congressman to promote iGate Inc., a Louisville-based company that was marketing Internet and cable television technology in Africa.

Georgetown University Law Professor Mark Tushnet said he did not see a constitutional problem with the government's use of a search warrant to obtain evidence from a congressman's office.

"If they can prosecute you for something without violating the speech and debate clause, they can use the ordinary methods for gathering evidence of the crime, including searches of your office," he said.

The so-called "speech and debate" clause arose out of the experience of 16th and 17th century England, when the king locked parliamentarians in the Tower of London. It says senators and representatives "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of peace, be privileged from arrest" when attending congressional sessions or "in going to and returning from the same." And it concludes that "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

The Supreme Court has ruled that this privilege is not a shield for criminals. In 1972, the justices upheld a bribery charge against former Maryland Sen. Daniel Brewster, saying the Constitution did not "make members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility."

"The immunities of the Speech and Debate Clause was not written into the Constitution simply for the personal and private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process," wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger. "Taking a bribe is, obviously, not part of the legislative process or function."

Material from The Chicago Tribune is included in this report.