This isn't me being a little grumpy…

…it's Kos being very wrong as he launches an(other) attack on Nancy Pelosi for joining Dennis Hastert in criticizing the raid on William Jefferson's office and demanding the return of any documents siezed. Here's some of the letter she signed on to…

"No person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years. These constitutional principles were not designed by the Founding Fathers to place anyone above the law. Rather, they were designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power, and those principles deserve to be vigorously defended.

"Accordingly, the Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized. Once that is done, Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights.

…and here's some of Kos' response...

And there is NOTHING in the Constitution that places Congress above the laws faced by the rest of American citizens. If there is lawbreaking happening on Capitol Hill, the Justice Department is duty bound to investigate and enforce the law.

And if Hastert and Pelosi can't see that, then the place is truly completely hopeless.

So, no one's above the law. At least everyone seems to agree on that.

Where the disagreement lies, of course, is in what, exactly, the law is. Kos is wrong, of course, about the relationship of Congress and the rest of American citizens to the law. There are Congressional exceptions to the law written into the Constitution, principally via the Speech and Debate clause that Pelosi and Hastert cite. Members, for instance, are immune to suit for libelous speech on the floor and immune from arrest on their way to work. Those protections don't hold true for you and me.

Those protections may not extend to immunity from the executive serving a warrant issued by the judiciary, either, but I don't know that, and neither does Kos. I suspect not, and so apparently does he, but we don't know. Since the separation of powers is based on the principle of co-equality between the three branches of government, with every decision and action being the proper subject of some sort of check and balance between them, my sense is that two in agreement have standing to act in relation to a third, but I don't know that, either.

In fact, the most compelling fact surrounding the case is that in 219 years, no Attorney General has found it necessary to turn to any court for a warrant to invade the working space of any member of the House or Senate, and that there's been a common understanding that they couldn't do it if they wanted to. The Jefferson search upends that long-standing precedent. It's perfectly in order for Congressional leadership, on a bi-partisan basis, to assert the traditional prerogatives of their fellow members, without partisan distinction.

Nancy Pelosi has shown no more taste for sheltering William Jefferson from the charges surrounding him than she previously showed for indulging his ambitions in the caucus. In fact, there's every reason to believe she would be happy to see him go. Her call in this case is not on behalf of William Jefferson, but of the other 534 beneficiaries of a variety of Congressional prerogatives.

I think her case fails in this instance, but what I think isn't at issue. It will take the opinions of at least five Americans to settle this one, and Nancy Pelosi being a part of getting that ball rolling is perfectly appropriate.

Markos owes the Minority Leader an apology.