Instapundit weighs in:

Could Al Qaeda have slipped mind-altering drugs into the DC water supply? What's gotten into these people? Or has some sort of deal been cut? Whatever it is, I don't think I like it.

The Washington Post reports:

Bush hoped to mollify Hastert, one of his most reliable legislative allies, at a time of increasingly sour relations with the GOP-controlled Congress, according to White House sources. Tempers rose so high this week that some House Republicans threatened to seek the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, although GOP leaders said the idea was not seriously considered.

As to Hastert's role, he gave Bush an earful on Air Force One.

On the ride home aboard Air Force One, Hastert was adamant that the Justice Department had violated the Constitution and implored the president to intervene, the sources said. The next day, the two spoke by phone and Hastert told Bush he and other leaders would only intensify their campaign to stop Justice from sifting through the materials seized in the weekend search, according to the accounts.

Is it just coincidence that the feds leaked info to ABC News -- later denied by the Justice Department -- that Hastert was under investigation in the corruption scandals?

And guess whose fingerprints are all over this sealing order?

Bush had Vice President Cheney call Hastert to inform him of his decision.

I'm not getting the separation of powers argument. Neither is Last Night in Little Rock, who just happens to be a major 4th Amendment expert. In his words:

In Rep. Jefferson's case, however, "separation of powers" just won't cut it if the affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in his office. The same would apply to the President, the Vice President, their staffs, and the judiciary: If there is probable cause linking the place to be searched with an alleged crime, the search has the imprimatur of the law, is presumptively valid under the Fourth Amendment, and that is all that will be required to defeat a separation of powers claim. His private papers concerning his thoughts and votes are not off limits to a search warrant if the allegation in the affidavit is that the vote was paid for. That is bribery of a Member of Congress, and no Congressman is immune from that.....

In agreement on the 4th Amendment issue: White Collar Crime Blog

The Fourth Amendment does not afford any specific protection to legislative offices so long as there is probable cause to believe that there is evidence of criminal activity at the location specified, and the House of Representatives would not have standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim on its own.

It predicts the issue Jefferson will take to the Supreme Court should the case rise that far is the Speech and Debate Clause issue:

The two leading Supreme Court cases on the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause are United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972), and United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979). In Brewster, the Court stated, "[A] Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government's case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts." In Helstoski, the Court explained,

Likewise, a promise to introduce a bill is not a legislative act. As to what restrictions the Clause places on the admission of evidence, our concern is not with the "specificity" of the reference. Instead, our concern is whether there is mention of a legislative act. To effectuate the intent of the Clause, the Court has construed it to protect other "legislative acts" such as utterances in committee hearings and reports. But it is clear from the language of the Clause that protection extends only to an act that has already been performed. A promise to deliver a speech, to vote, or to solicit other votes at some future date is not a legislative act.