Bi-partisanship in Congress is dead…..except when it come to the “culture of corruption” and protection. Many elections, including the last two, aided the party who was deemed least corrupt and punished the party who was “depicted” as most corrupt. Democrats are better at painting their opponents to appear dirty while maintaining the look of innocence themselves.

But when the limelight faded, the controversies took an unexpected twist: Democrats, now in control, sought to block or limit prosecutors from gathering certain evidence of corruption against members of Congress on constitutional grounds, complicating the criminal cases against the two Republicans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Democratic leadership joined with top Republicans to continue a years-long tradition authorizing the House general counsel’s office to intervene in outside investigations of its members.

Through court filings, the bipartisan coalition sought the exclusion of evidence it said was obtained in violation of Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause protects the legislative branch from meddling by the other two branches, declaring that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

Many see use of the clause as an effort by Congress to protect its own.

“I think the House as well as the Senate tries to over expand that right,” said Washington lawyer Robert S. Bennett, a prominent white-collar defense lawyer who has served as special counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in several major cases.

Mr. Bennett said the clause should be used “narrowly” and not “to cover things up.”

“Congress is largely unaccountable. … Ethics enforcement in Congress is largely a joke,” he said.

Imagine that!

Mrs. Pelosi’s office makes no apologies. There is “no incompatibility between adherence to the constitutional protections of the Speech or Debate Clause and the effective investigation and prosecution of members of Congress accused of wrongdoing,” her office told The Washington Times.

“On a bipartisan basis, we are negotiating with the Department of Justice to develop protocols that will meet the needs of law enforcement while respecting the separation of powers and the independence of the legislative branch,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

Don’t we all wish we could “negotiate” with law enforcement officials to decide if the law pertains to us?

The heightened concern over whether federal investigators have overstepped their authority began after the FBI searched Rep. William Jefferson’s Capitol Hill office in a bribery investigation in May 2006. Mr. Jefferson’s trial on charges that he solicited bribes began Tuesday in a federal courtroom in suburban Washington.

In 2006, House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert, Illinois Republican, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the minority leader, asked House attorneys to seek to exclude evidence FBI agents had gathered during what many lawmakers called an unprecedented search.

Mr. Jefferson was indicted in June 2007 for soliciting bribes from people who wanted help in advancing their businesses in Africa. The indictment said FBI agents found $90,000 in cash in a freezer in the Louisiana Democrat’s Washington, D.C., home, purportedly to use to bribe a Nigerian government official.

House attorneys, acting on behalf of the bipartisan leadership, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Jefferson case, arguing that he did not have an opportunity to screen and remove protected legislative records before the FBI raid. A federal appeals court later ruled that the search violated his constitutional rights and ordered privileged material returned.

You can’t except a bribe and then be protected because your an elected official? Why didn’t the federal appeals court order the “cold” cash in Mr. Jefferson’s freezer returned or was that allowed to stay in evidence?

Are Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) protected from having their suspect real estate deals investigated?

“The Speech or Debate Clause was never intended to provide members of Congress with blanket protection from prosecution for criminal acts,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), wrote in a brief in the Renzi case. She said the court would be “immunizing members of Congress from criminal investigation” if it said government agents may not incidentally overhear legislative material while monitoring telephone conversations.

Paul Orfanedes, director of litigation at Washington-based Judicial Watch, said the clause “wasn’t intended to make Congress a law enforcement free zone.”

“The House hurts its already much diminished credibility when it appears to be shielding members from criminal investigations, like it did in case of [Mr.] Jefferson,” Mr. Orfanedes said.

“The public will have even less confidence in Congress than it already has if the House can’t devise a better way to let law enforcement do its job when it comes to investigating political corruption.”

Ms. Sloan, in a January 2008 letter to Mrs. Pelosi and House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said the congressional leadership “is improperly shielding members of Congress from criminal investigation through an expansive interpretation of the Speech or Debate Clause.  

“Members of Congress are not above the law, but the House’s aggressive use of the Speech or Debate Clause to impede law enforcement authorities from investigating members’ potentially illegal activities is unseemly,” she said.

House Minority leader Boehner’s office declined to comment. A spokesman for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) said he was not available for comment.

No comment? The silence is deafening!

In the House, four Democrats and four Republicans are or have recently been under federal investigation, according to CREW. They are Democrats John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois and Allan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, and Republicans Jerry Lewis and Gary G. Miller, both of California, Don Young of Alaska, and Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Three former Republican House members – John Doolittle of California, Tom Feeney of Florida and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania – also are under federal investigation.

Ms. Sloan said Republicans and Democrats “may not see eye to eye on much, but both parties agree members of Congress should be above the criminal laws that apply to the rest of us.”

Bi-partisan corruption, bi-partisan concealment. Indeed!

The long awaited “report” is now out, the President has been briefed and the mainstream media is on a feeding frenzy. Fasten your seatbelts troops; the MSN will help paint the “gloom and doom” picture in an effort to demoralize the American public, our allies and the indirect consequences of “bad news” from home. National Public Radio (NPR) is describing the report and conditions in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” This term was used several times in one short news on NPR. They want to make sure we get it.

I wrote about the “Iraq Study Group” here, with an eye on the qualifications of “the group.” The infamous “deadline” isn’t until 2008 but it’s still a deadline, misunderstanding how patient and relentless terrorists and extremists are.

Here are some excerpts to ponder:

• The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.
• Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America’s credibility, interests and values will be protected.
• If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shiite clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.
• During the past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome in Iraq and the region.
• The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own.
• Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interesting in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.

• The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Once again, what qualifies this group of people to make recommendations on military operations and terror on the ground? Donald Rumsfeld is leaving but his final memo has more information and didn’t cost millions of dollars from a feckless group of pundits to put on paper. The people who are qualified to make decisions are in place. It’s easy to watch the evening news, examine reports and claim them to be relevant.

The Iraq Study Group has only provided ammunition to “cut and run” Democrats and the politicians who straddle the fence to ensure their reelection. This group is a mistake and doesn’t solve the war on terror, secular violence and certainly is unqualified to recommend military options.

The Baker-Hamilton group believes diplomacy, in code, placating the enemy states of Iran and Syria will somehow ease tensions in the Middle East. The report is no more than grandstanding from a bunch of ex-political advisors and lawyers who wish to remain relevant and in the public eye.

We would be better off if the group members remained either retired or in the private sector. They have no business meddling in the affairs where they have only opinion and zero experience.

I’ve heard this group called a “Blue Ribbon Panel”, so maybe they should move to a county fair or join a 4-H category and earn a real blue ribbon.