From CNN:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a letter Wednesday to U.S. Rep. William Jefferson asking him to resign from the House Ways and Means Committee days after FBI agents raided his Capitol Hill office… Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, quickly wrote back that he would not give up his post on the committee.

The lawmaker’s office in the Rayburn House Office Building was raided last weekend in connection with a bribery probe…

He has not been charged with a crime and has proclaimed his innocence, vowing this week to stay in Congress and seek re-election in November…

Bipartisan anger over raid

The raid on Jefferson’s office has united House Republicans and Democrats in opposition to what they say is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, on Wednesday said the FBI should surrender materials seized from Jefferson’s office.

“I think those materials ought to be returned,” Hastert said. He also said the FBI agents involved “ought to be frozen out of that [case] for the sake of the Constitution.”

Pelosi, D-California, also said the Constitution was violated.

…Hastert said the search was the first time a lawmaker’s office had been searched in U.S. history.

Attorney general calls search ‘essential’

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who oversees the FBI, defended the bureau’s actions Tuesday but said Justice Department and congressional officials were having discussions about the propriety of the search.

“It is true it’s never been done before, and the reason isn’t because there’s never been corruption in Congress … but because before, we were able to reach accommodation or agreement to get the information, the evidence we needed through subpoena,” Gonzales said.

Washington (FA wire) - Throughout Washington, both legislators and members of the executive branch expressed a deep confusion over the issue, admitting that the case was clouded by a growing uncertainty over “what exactly is legal and what isn’t.”

“I really wish there was some sort of guidepost as to what the police are allowed to do in terms of things like ’searching’ and ’seizing’ stuff,” said one lawmaker, on condition of getting his name in the paper. “I wish somebody had thought to write something down about that.”

“The Patriot Act allows us to… sorta… do stuff in the name of national security, doesn’t it?” asked one senior law enforcement official. “But as to what exactly “national security” is, well… pffffft,” he added, shrugging his shoulders while raising both palms towards the ceiling.

All around Capitol Hill similar conversations were taking place as the Jefferson case developed. There was growing fear among many government officials that they themselves might be “next.” “On the one hand, I don’t like that they raided his office, because you have to respect the rule of law,” said Rep. Lawrence McElroy (D., GA), who asked not to be identified. “On the other, well, you have to respect the rule of law.”

What all sides agree on is that there ought to be some safeguards in place, like a body that decides what the law actually means on a case by case basis, and perhaps too an independent body whose job it was to report on events and offer analysis. Such institutions, according to most, would help Americans enforce, safeguard, and understand their freedoms.

“That’ll never happen of course,” said one lifelong politician, who badly wanted to be identified. “It’s a shame, but for some reason our founding fathers didn’t provide for legal interpretation of the Constitution or independent analysis.” The senator then returned to his luncheon, hosted by the “Let’s Destroy Activist Judges and the Biased Media Foundation.”

“We’re at war,” said one administration official, who asked that his name be revealed through a complicated series of riddles, anagrams, and clues. “And when you’re at war, sometimes you have to spy, raid, invade, search, seize, imprison, question, waterboard, and hold without trial, just to safeguard our freedoms. Or something to that effect. I mean, right?”

There is some hope, however. Already, some congressmen are calling for a committee to begin preliminary hearings “into investigating what steps could be taken in giving Americans a clear set of some sort of ‘rights’ when it comes to what the government can and can’t do to them, providing for a way of determining if these have been violated, and making sure that everyone knows about ‘em.” Preliminary work on such measures is expected to clear the new subcomittee by late 2009 “or so.”

The executive branch is getting involved as well. “Americans need to know what can be done to them, and what can’t,” said a White House spokesman on condition of being kissed and fondled gently. “And to those who are wondering, we have a clear message: Ask us. We’ll tell you.”