Et Tu WSJ?
The Wall Street Journal has an unsigned editorial today taking issue with the search of Congressman Jefferson's office in the Capitol. The thing that stuck out to me was this paragraph that stated:
"Yet with all of this evidence in hand, the question is why prosecutors also felt the need to raid Mr. Jefferson's office in the middle of the night--the first such raid in the history of Congress…(snip snide remark about embarrassing headlines)...If they really believe Mr. Jefferson is running a criminal enterprise out of his Capitol Hill office, they could always negotiate the parameters of such a search with House leaders."
Yet the same pages report on May 28, in a signed article by Robert F. Turner:
Based upon such compelling evidence and Mr. Jefferson's refusal to comply with a subpoena to surrender key documents for eight months, a federal judge issued the search warrant that was executed in the congressman's Capitol Hill office last weekend. (Emphasis mine)
So for eight months Jefferson refused a subpoena and the House leadership was unaware that something was going on? Maybe, but I find that hard to believe. We (the People) just sentenced an aid to Congressman Jefferson to eight years relating to said subpoena. Let me hear about the negotiations or lack of them. Today's article speaks of prosecutorial intimidation, but eight months of kissing this congressman's ass speaks more of prosecutorial timidity.
There are plenty of cases where prosecutors use unwarranted or unfounded intimidation to squeeze less than substantive information out of someone, but this isn't one of them. The WSJ also accuses Attorney General Gonzales of intimidating the President. After the hell that Bush 'and' Gonzales just went through to put him in the Attorney General slot, this is either the most ungrateful and stupid sonofabitch that ever worked in government, or the WSJ is engaging in some uncharacteristic sloppy thinking. I'm not sure which idea I like least.
