While it is true that lots of his Republican colleagues were unhappy with the Speaker’s loud objections to the execution of a search warrant on Rep. “Freezer” Jefferson’s office, their discomfort shouldn’t be dispositive of the merits of those objections. The fastest way to clear a meeting of the GOP caucus is to ask who among them is willing to master the seemingly dry details of a constitutional separation of powers dispute in order to make an argument with terrible p.r.

While his initial objection was overly broad and seemed to assert that there was a constitutional prohibition on any search of a congressional office for any material for any reason, that is not his position. He allows that it is constitutionally permissible if it is conducted with a proper regard for congress’ privileged documents and the separation of powers. Given how and why this search was conducted, I think he has a legitimate beef here. Prosecutors have to seek evidence in accord with the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments–and with Article I of the Constitution. Rifling through every document in a congressman’s office, including clearly privileged material, is arguably not in accord with constitutional protections designed in part to prevent intimidation of the legislative branch by the executive branch. Speaking of intimidation, let’s not forget that someone at DOJ falsely told ABC that Hastert “is under investigation by the FBI” in connection with the Abramoff scandal immediately after he objected to the FBI search. It was a neat reminder of why Congress might not want people capable of that kind of political payback rummaging through their offices.

The search did break 219 years of precedent. Why couldn’t an accommodation be reached that would permit DOJ to get the documents they sought? Because no accommodation was attempted. Had DOJ exhausted all other options for getting the documents it had subpoenaed? Unclear, but DOJ did tell the Speaker’s office that the search was necessary because the department “was tired of waiting.” Any fear that crucial documents would be destroyed (i.e. documents apparently critical to add to the direct testimony of a former Jefferson aide, the bribe delivery they have on tape, and the marked bills found in Jefferson’s freezer)? No. Copies of the subpoenaed documents that were the subject of the search warrant are in the House counsel’s safe.

The fact that DOJ has a right to execute a search warrant on a congressional office doesn’t mean it should have been done in this case, in this manner. Should a constitutional challenge be litigated, the Jefferson case could be delayed for years. The president has had to intervene. He too has been intimidated by DOJ officials who leaked that they were ready to resign if all the material seized (including the office’s hard drives) was returned to the House.

Hastert’s case is not easy to make, as I learned when I attempted to briefly this past weekend. But I’d think less of a politican who is willing to abandon a principle he believes is worth defending because it’s too awkward or complicated.