The police, even if they have their own three-initial name and a TV show named after them, can't just go around putting individuals under surveillance without a warrant supported by independent evidence that indicates probable cause. Without that, the police can follow anyone who annoys them in the hope of catching them in a criminal act. And that is called "harassment".

This is very different from placing a public location under surveillance, and seeing someone there committing a crime.

Evidence gathered as a result of information obtained outside of legal rules is inadmissable. That's not my standard. That's the law. It doesn't matter if they have videotape of him taking bribes while wearing a tee shirt that says "I Take Bribes. Make Me An Offer." If the Department of Justice, or any of its affiliated agencies, has gathered evidence improperly, it can't be used.

Since there is so much evidence, and it's apparently become public before his arrest (thus making a jury selection much more difficult), it would be a shame if they can't nail his butt to the wall because they decided not to follow the rules. If indeed they decided not to follow the rules.

And if they did follow the rules, why are people threatening to quit? Because their honor is impugned by the questions? Spare me. Law enforcement is one long string of questionings by both sides, always. Anyone who has risen to leadership in law enforcement ought to be used to that.

Since this particular investigation involves a person whose office entitles him to special protections, given on purpose by the Constitution, questions ought to be expected rather than be a horrible surprise. So much more important for Justice to have made sure that every single point of punctuation was correct all along the line.

Please put down the partisan flag. You have asked if his party makes a difference. Not to me, it doesn't. If they have enough legally gathered evidence that takes his legal status as a congressman into account to make their case, they should throw the book at him. Procedure followed by Justice has become an issue. It has to be resolved before anything else can go forward, and not just by either party crying that the man is a Democrat.

The law is about crime and proof. There has to be both, and the latter can't be tainted in any way. It really is possible for someone to be guilty as hell but legally "not guilty" in American law. Generally, this makes our legal system better for the people. Sometimes, it lets a criminal walk because of high standards of evidence and the tenet "Innocent [under the law] until proven guilty [in court]". Sometimes, it lets a criminal walk because the police or the prosecutor didn't know enough or care enough about the rules of evidence.

My question to you is, do you want a conviction that will stick or don't you? If you do, let the courts do their job, including the Supremes (who customarily and by law handle disputes between the other two branches), and hope that all that the methods the FBI used to pick up all that evidence will stand up under scrutiny.

If nothing else, Justice will do a better job with the next corruption case because of the lesson being taught here. I hope.