The Jefferson Kabuki

We all know that Republicans are only really good at one thing: getting elected. And while last week's internecine battle between Congress and the Justice Department over the raid of Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office seemed to be working in direct contrast to that goal, it actually was a great example of how the Republican election machine is still far, far ahead of us. I think we need to discuss how to combat this kabuki theater we're still seeing well into this week, and which we'll continue to see, IMO.

First the Speaker of the House came out and decried the raiding of THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE, saying it violated the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. In reaction the White House decided to seal THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN'S PAPERS until a deal could be reached. Later on, the Attorney General and the FBI Director threatened to resign if they were forced to give THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN back his papers. Then the Senate Majority Leader appeared to flip-flop on the issue when he decided that the Attorney General acted responsibly when he raided THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE, and he claimed that the controversy "has been pretty much put to bed." However, the controversy saw no signs of letting up, as the House held a hearing today on the RAID OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE to see if it represents, as Rep. Sensenbrenner titled it, "reckless justice."

Now, what is the overriding motif in this series of events?

It seems to me that this is merely a ploy to get Rep. Jefferson's lawbreaking far more days in the news cycle than it would otherwise merit. Sensenbrenner is talking about calling Atty. Gen. Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller up to the Hill for further hearings. There will be court battles. The status of Jefferson's papers is still in question. We're in a 45-day window where the documents are sealed. And all the casual observer hears is that a Democratic Congressman had his office raided and had $90,000 in his freezer (which wasn't in the office, so it's tangential to the issue). Politics being TV with the sound turned off, according to Rove, the only visuals you ever see when this is being discussed on the cable news gabfests is Rep. Jefferson at various news conferences, walking down hallways with cameras in his face, et al.

You have to give them this, they're pretty darn brilliant. All of this "infighting" is a sound and fury signifying nothing. The important thing is that they've made the Jefferson affair a national story lasting weeks and weeks. We all understand that if the Congress were serious about having their authority limited or abrogated they might look into the 750 signing statements that overrode legislation they enacted, or trumping federal statutes against warrantless wiretapping. The Republican leadership in Congress picked this issue to thrust Democratic lawbreaking, which they are trying to put on a balance with their own, into the limelight.

So how do we combat this? It's fairly difficult. Barney Frank's floor speech was a good start:

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the bipartisan House leadership criticism of the FBI's search of a Member's office. I know nothing specifically about the case, except that the uncontroverted public evidence did seem to justify the issuance of a warrant.

What we now have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress.

I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.

So I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think what they did, they ought to be able to do in every case where they can get a warrant from a judge. I think, in particular, for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate.

But he didn't go quite as far as I would have liked. How about openly questioning what the Republican leadership is afraid of? Now, in truth, they're probably not afraid of anything. They aren't likely to have incriminating materials in their Capitol offices (especially NOW), just as Rep. Jefferson might not have had anything in his (remember, the key piece of evidence, the $90,000, was found at his house). But we have to play this game, and make sure the dog whistle of REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION is just as loud as the whistle of Democratic corruption. I'd like to see Barney Frank say "I'm willing to have the FBI search my office with my consent as long as the Republican leadership does the same. What do they have to hide? Are they concerned that the FBI might find evidence of corrupt practices here in the people's House?"

I think the part of the electorate that doesn't pay attention needs it written real big with bright lines. Skywriting politics, call it. If the other side is writing "corrupt Rep. William Jefferson" everywhere, we have to be willing to do the same. Even if that means putting on some of the Kabuki makeup ourselves.