Now that Representative William Jefferson, (D-LA) has been indicted on 16 alleged violations of federal law, including serious charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering, I have to wonder if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will honor her 2006 campaign pledge to make this a "more ethical" Congress?
The investigation into Representative Jefferson has been going on now for some time, a fact that did not prevent his re-election from the 2nd District of Louisiana in last November's congressional elections. Reports detailing some of the evidence collected by federal authorities include $90,000 in cash that was found in the congressman's freezer when law enforcement officials raided his Louisiana home in August 2005 and a videotape of Jefferson taking a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant.
The charges are so serious that the congressman, if convicted on all counts, could face up to 200 years in prison, not exactly a lightweight sentence. Two of his former associates have already reached plea deals with prosecutors in exchange for cooperation in the case against Jefferson. As one would expect, Republican leaders have already begun to take steps to have Representative Jefferson expelled from the House of Representatives, even as Jefferson has voluntarily given up his seat on the House Small Business Committee in order to avoid a vote on his removal from that position.
Speaker Pelosi could get off to a running start in her promised quest to preside over the most ethical Congress in history, a campaign pledge she now has the opportunity to make good on, by honoring the Republican request to expel Congressman Jefferson from the House of Representatives. Now, I know that a fundamental principle of the American legal system is that those accused of crimes are presumed to be innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. But rarely does a federal prosecutor take on such a high profile case, against an elected official of the federal government no less, unless the evidence is pretty sound that a conviction will result from the proceedings. One could easily argue that Representative Jefferson has a sufficient cloud over his head to justify his removal from the House.
Will Speaker Pelosi move to expel Jefferson as part of her campaign pledge for a more ethical Congress? My guess is no, although I suspect that if Mr. Jefferson were a Republican she might be more inclined to take such a measure.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 128
I suppose it's splitting hairs, but the Republicans have been running around saying that they are the "moral" party (morals and ethics being similar things). Considering the Abramoff scandal (which lost at least two Republicans their seats during the investigations), the guy who was soliciting his male interns about sex, the moral and ethical messes of the Iraq War and the activities of Cheney's pet company, Haliburton, the current Republicans have crapped all over their supposed high ground.
Bring back the Goldwater and Rockefeller Republicans. They were, at least a little bit less abusive with our governmental systems.
As for Scooter Libby; outing a covert CIA agent is treason. He's lucky he didn't draw a firing squad.
The CORRUPT dept of justice charges a congressman with corruption , now that is funny.
The big question is will the DOJ be able to find one competent prosecutor to try this case????
Maybe that Monica Gooding or one of those idiots from falwell u . , Jefferson would get off guilty or not
I agree with you. How is it possible to go to jail for lying about a crime that NEVER happened. Ok now for those that are going to scream that Plame was covert. If she was then why were there NO charges brought against anyone for outing her??? Because she wasn't covert.
Bill Scooter Libby never outed Plame it was Richard Armitage.
Now what's going to happen to Sandy Berger. He still hasn't taken the polygraph that was part of the agreement made in connection to his stealing of classified documents from the National Archives.
The House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday night — 373-23, with 13 voting "present" — to require the House ethics committee to begin an investigative subcommittee to look into Jefferson's dealings....And on Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the second-highest ranked House Democrat next to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, suggested it was time for Jefferson to step down , so Congress is taking action to have Jefferson removed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the republicans (specifically Bush) who promised to "restore integrity" to the White House?
The White House has plenty to be ashamed of, but so does the Congress.
Jefferson got caught red-handed with $90k in marked bills wrapped up like frozen fish sticks in his freezer. I can't even believe this has gone on as long as it has. This guy thinks he's going to say something in his trial that will sway a jury? He's caught.
How can he possibly spin this?
Whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, I don't really care. Let's start building the gallows the same day the trial starts....lol.
WHAT? Did you even read this sentence to yourself? What is the term you would use to describe this activity? ...........surely you don't consider this telling the truth?
when has it been proven that Bush has lied, about anything?...are lies the only way to lack integrity? And I notice you don't ask when has he lied, but when has it been proven.
And as Ron said above....WHAT???
there is plenty wrong with the way Iraq has been handled. Intelligence may have been manipulated or cherry picked, and some may have even been suppressed, but that doesn't make for a lie..
First of all, it is most certainly a lie of ommission. Secondly, don't know how you define "lie", but in my book, cherry picking and suppressing info to start a war does not integrity make.
I think a Pres who lies (oh, excuse me, surpresses and cherry picks) to start a war is a millions times worse than one who lies about a Lewinski. If you want to argue semantics about this, you are playing party politics, plain and simple.
The whole Plame affair is one of the biggest black marks on the Republicans, at least in my personal little voter handbook. Outing an agent, someone who puts their life on the line for the sake of our country, is the darkest of politics. The fact that details are still kept sketchy and unpunished speaks volumes about what is important to those currently in charge. It creates a lot of distrust for me towards candidates and office holders from the Republican party. Their concerns do not seem to expand beyond themselves; even though they do not live in a vacuum.
At least Reagan and Bush-1 kept their covert actions, covert; and fed the people lots of near believable candy coated stuff. The things we caught during their administrations actually had to be ferreted out. These guys just don't seem to care what or how the populace as a whole thinks or feels; and they've been making that clearer and clearer since the day after they took office.
I don't see a whole lot of difference between any of these elected officials and their cadre who are or have been charged with crimes... they are all lying scum and deserve to be kicked out of their government positions. At the very least aren't they a potential security risk?
>> But the Republicans weren't running around promising to
>> run the most ethical congress in history.
Even as George Bush ws being appointed by Supreme Court Justices
that had children with high-profile jobs in his administration who did
not recuse themselves from that decision, not to mention public quotes
by Sandra Day OConnor about how Gore would never be elected, he
was running around making all kinds of very public and FAMOUS promises
that were ignored after inaguration day.
Remember one big quote something like since the Democrats had brought
such disgrace on the White House, this administration is going to avoid
even the appearance or wrongdoing.
Like hiding emails using the Republican Party's email system instead of the
archived government email system ... I do not even want to type it all in,
I will need physical therapy halfway though for carpal tunnel.
The cycle of stupidity has to stop somewhere, and we do need to find
and weed out the corrupt politicians ... if that will leave anyone above
the level of page in Washington.
I'm not sure why charges were never brought, but I suspect it's because the person who actually ordered the outting had the authority to order it even if it were for political purposes and revealing that name would cause more problems than it would solve. Also, since certain government officials can declassify information at will, which is what happened in this case, technically it was merely unethical rather than illegal.
Greg: One thing we know for certain that Bush lied about. He was told by Joseph Wilson that the Niger story was false and the documents upon which it was based were forgeries. The claim was removed from the State of the Union speech for that reason. Mr. Bush put it back in knowing that it was untrue. That is, in my estimation, a lie unless you've somehow changed the definition of lying. Mr. Bush also admitted lying to the American people when he said Rumsfeld would be in office until the end of his term when he had already decided to fire him. That's two examples that are easy to verify.
You Repub apologists have really got to think things through better. Yeah, you will catch a handful of dozy non-politically involved types, and get them to blame everybody, but you will cause twice that number of half involved people to shiver in disgust at the low level of honesty and relevance of what folks like you do.
At least you don't hide your Republican affiliation, I respect that. You wrote in one of your comments - when has it been proven that Bush has lied, about anything? - You are right in the fact that King George hasn't been formally accused but please! The majority of the world and the American KNOW they were lied to multiple times. You can maintain an air of innocence if it makes you feel better (most politicians Dem or Rep are certainly experts at it) but at least get a reality check in your own heart.
By the way, I am neither Dem nor Rep. Like so many people I am just open minded enough to recognize an "elected" leader who fervently wishes to be King.
Good article, well written, great comments.
Namaste, Wayne
I just care about how silly it looks when the FBI thaws out traceable bribe money from your freezer.
This guy is even known amongst his constituents in Louisiana as "Dollar Bill".
Let's clean up Congress one loser at a time.
As for the lying, it is important to remember that Bush is not in this alone. As the President he does not review every piece of intelligence available nor does he read every document produced. He is briefed by a select few, who admittedly have steered him in a direction that he was already predisposed to favor. Wolfowitz, Feith and Rumsfeld pushed hard for Iraq starting on September 11, 2001 (Read Bush at War by Bob Woodward).
That is not to say that Bush is without blame, but the way the process works is that he is advised by selected members of the government and then makes a decision based on that advice. Much of the work has been done before it ever reaches the presidential level, and briefings and reports are edited and tailored long before they are handed to the President. Now, perhaps he should have been more inquisitive, and you can certainly fault the natural human tendency to favor those positions toward which we are already predisposed.
But considering the number of actors involved in the process, and the amount of editing and revision done between the principals in the agencies and departments below the presidential level, it is a stretch to say that the president deliberately lied just so that he could start a war. And as for Joseph Wilson, he is but one piece of a much larger puzzle, and he certainly doesn't rise to the level of a principle (cabinet member).
Again, the point of this article was simply to point out that Ms. Pelosi made a campaign promise that she now has the opportunity to fulfill.
I'm happy when someone like Bob Ney is rooted out and sent to jail.
I'm happy when someone like Duke Cunningham is rooted out and sent to jail.
Although Jefferson hasn't been convicted yet, I have to admit that I'm hoping he is...............and fast. I felt the same way about Ney and Cunningham when I heard how overwhelming the evidence was against them.
Like I said before, let's get rid of all the scumbags, no matter what party they're in. And please, this nonsense about one party claiming to be better than another is silly and useless. Over the years, the score is probably tied.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060011?f=h_latest
"But while Birnbaum mentioned former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), who pleaded guilty to taking bribes from defense contractor Mitchell Wade, Birnbaum did not mention the other Republican members of Congress and Bush administration officials who have either pleaded guilty, been convicted, or been indicted:
* Former Rep. Bob Ney (OH) pleaded guilty in October 2006 to taking bribes from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
* DeLay was indicted in October 2005 for money laundering and conspiracy to launder money. A former DeLay aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection with the Abramoff scandal, while another former aide, Michael Scanlon, pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff to bribe public officials.
* Former White House procurement official David H. Safavian was convicted in June 2006 of lying and obstructing justice in the Abramoff investigation, as Media Matters for America has noted.
* Former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted in March 2006 of obstructing justice and making false statements. On June 5, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay a $250,000 fine.
* Former Deputy Secretary of the Interior J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty in March 2007 to obstructing justice. As a March 23 Associated Press article reported, Griles "admitt[ed] in a plea agreement that he lied in testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with the panel's investigators on October 20, 2005."
* Former CIA executive director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo was charged by federal prosecutors in San Diego with improperly trying to steer a $132 million contract to defense contractor Brent Wilkes.
* Former FDA commissioner Lester Crawford pleaded guilty to charges of "conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating," according to an October 17, 2006, Associated Press report. "Beginning in 2002," the AP report stated, "Crawford filed seven incorrect financial reports with a government ethics office and Congress, leading to the charges."
* Former Federal Housing Finance Board chairman John T. Korsmo "pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the Finance Board, and the Inspector General for the Finance Board," as Media Matters noted.
In addition, several current and former Republican congressmen and senators are reportedly under investigation over corruption allegations. For example:
* Rep. John T. Doolittle (CA) is reportedly under investigation by the FBI in connection to his dealings with Abramoff.
* Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA) is reportedly under investigation in connection with the Cunningham scandal, and will reportedly not seek re-election. According to a January 31 article in The Hill, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in an interview that "he believes Lewis is innocent until proven guilty, and that prevented him from toppling him from the top GOP spot on the [House Appropriations Committee]."
* Rep. Gary Miller (CA) is reportedly under investigation for two land deals and related taxes, although he says FBI agents have not contacted him.
* Rep. Rick Renzi (AZ) is reportedly the subject of a preliminary investigation into whether he pressured several landowners to buy land from a business partner.
* Former Sen. Conrad Burns (MT) is reportedly under investigation in the Abramoff investigation.
* Former Rep. Curt Weldon (PA) is being investigated over allegations that he "used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter," according to an October 14, 2006, Associated Press article.
In addition, as The Washington Post reported on March 8, Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) is the subject of a preliminary Senate ethics investigation into a phone call he made to then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias before the 2006 elections. According to an April 12 article in the Post, "[B]ecause the House ethics committee keeps its probes secret, it is unclear whether the lower chamber is looking into the similar allegations concerning Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), a close ally of Domenici." Domenici and Wilson allegedly pressured Iglesias to indict a local Democratic official on corruption charges before the 2006 elections.
By contrast, one Democrat, Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV), is reportedly the subject of an FBI investigation."
Why do you suppose these republicans are so quiet about all of the republican politicians who're currently under investigation? Isn't that weird?
Now, if Jefferson is guilty, and it appears rather likely, based upon what I've seen, I DO believe that he should resign, if for no other reason than to keep this from becoming an issue for the republicrites. However, I find it rather incredulous that these republicrites, who have a LONG standing history of making heroes out of THEIR convicted felon politicians, and are currently IGNORING the dozen or so republican politicians who're under investigation as we speak, have suddenly found that it's "outrageous" that Mr. Jefferson still resides in the halls of congress. Let's try to remove just a teensy bit of the shameless hypocrisy for a change, shall we?
Another thing that needs to be recognized, with regard to the Jefferson case, is that this issue is being brought forth by a department that no longer represents US law, but rather represents the intents and goals of the GOP. The department of justice is not a credible organization any longer, so whatever charges have been levied against Mr. Jefferson, it would seem entirely plausible that they, as the countless other "criminal" allegations made against other democratic politicians over the past few years, will turn out to have been nothing but yet another GOP political witch hunt.
It's truly sad that I have to even say that, isn't it? However, when it seems that the entire upper echelon of the justice department continually lies under oath to congress, and more and more evidence is unearthed that the entire dept. has been turned into a partisan arm of the GOP, rather than a non-partisan arm of the law, one cannot help but become skeptical at ANY charges or allegations brought forth against ANY politician of the opposition party.
"Democrats always make promises they never intend to keep. Why should we expect more this time? While Scooter Libbey is fined a quarter of a million dollars and a prison sentence of 30 months for obstruction of an investigation that was never brought to trial is what I have a problem with. But, then again, he's a Republican, so I guess it's to be expected. Sad, isn't it"
What stupid comments. The first sentence is nothing but a partisan lie. The rest of the paragraph is devoted to utter nonsense defense of republican CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Here's a little clue for you, honey...the REASON why no other charges were brought forth in this investigation is PRECISELY BECAUSE your precious little Scooter LIED and OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE!!!
The prosecutor did NOT state that there was no underlying crime to his investigation. What he very emphatically stated was that, because of the massive amount of lying and obstruction of justice, it was impossible for him to carry out his duty! That, my sweet little honey buns, speaks VOLUMES. Why do you suppose Mr. Libby would choose to lie and obstruct justice, exposing himself to up to 30 years in prison, if there was no underlying crime to cover up? hmmmmmm?
Of course, since it was a REPUBLICAN committed crime, it doesn't matter to blind, foolish, hypocritical ideologues like you.
You apparently know something that none of the rest of us do at this point. I prefer to wait until he receives judgment in a court of law before condemning him, especially considering the above-mentioned partisan nature of today's DOJ. You wish for rapid conviction of him, based solely upon what you've seen released in the public domain. You know nothing of the actual details of the case, nor do I.
We can both long for justice, but I honestly can't see wishing for condemnation before the trial even begins. I honestly believed that Mr. Libby would be found guilty of treason at some point, but I truly did not believe that he should be sent to a firing squad before he was convicted of the crime. Luckily for him, others felt the same way, huh?
This is hysterical hypocrisy as well. All we've heard from republicrites over the past 6+ years is "Yeah, but Clinton..." or "Yeah, but look at Rostenkowski...," or "Yeah, but Kennedy stole 1960..." Get real. Stop being such a flaming partisan hypocrite, and look in the mirror sometime. Your party is diseased, from top to bottom. The democratic party are choir boys compared to the GOP, in terms of corruption. You people have literally written the book on it over the past 6 + years.
Remember a couple of short years ago, when Tom DeLay was house speaker and was indicted on criminal charges? What did the "moral, ethical, party of family values" do about that? They immediately sought to change house ethics rules, so that he could remain, not just in congress, but in his position of significant power. Where was the outrage from you shameless hypocrites then? You were lambasting democrats, as I recall, for "daring" to demand integrity.
You people have some very short and selective memories and ethical stances, don't you?
Again, though, the point of this article was not to complain about Jefferson. The point was that Speaker Pelosi now has an opportunity to do what she promised. I would expect her to do the same if a Republican is indicted.
Absolutely. Now, which crime is it that Jefferson has been found guilty of, btw?
"The point was that Speaker Pelosi now has an opportunity to do what she promised."
I believe it shouldn't have anything to do with Pelosi. At this point, it would be far better if Jefferson would simply resign, rather than be forced to do so. That said, he was forced to step down from his cabinet position as soon as it was known that he was under investigation, so, if he refuses to resign, I wouldn't find it unacceptable for democratic leadership to force him to do so.
As for Pelosi, you're right that Jefferson should resign. But I'm a firm believer in holding public officials to the promises they make. That is what it has to do with Pelosi.
I have every confidence that the democratic leadership is currently urging him to resign at this point, and that, if he pulls a Tom DeLay and refuses to do so, she will do the opposite of what republicans did with Mr. DeLay, and will seek to have him removed.
My point is simply that I find it laughably hypocritical for ANYONE who leans republican to suddenly have found religion, with regard to morality and ethics in congress, given the republican's recent past history, and the fact that about a dozen of them are currently under investigation in one form or another. Additionally, these are the same people who're attempting to make a case that Scotter Libby shouldn't go to jail, even though he's BEEN CONVICTED of lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice, in what could arguably be seen as one of the most egregious abuses of power and violations of the law and national trust to have ever been committed in a white house.
No, in the eyes of the suddenly virtuous, suddenly moral and ethical republicans, Mr. Libby should be made into a national hero, as have their previous convicted felons, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, John Poindexter, Negroponte, etc. Apparently, morality and ethics only become a concern when a democrat has come under scrutiny. The interesting thing though, is that, while republicans have a habit of making their convicted felons into national heroes to be proudly put on display, democrats toss their criminals to the waste heap forever. Why is that?
I also feel it's extremely important to remember, in the case of Mr. Jefferson, that these charges have been brought forth by a highly corrupt, highly partisan DOJ that has been turned from an impartial, unbiased arm of the law into a partisan political arm of the GOP. The DOJ simply has no credibility whatsoever, with regard to the rule of law, because it is no longer an arm of the law.
This is why it's so critically important that an Alberto Gonzales, a Dick Cheney, and a Karl Rove never be allowed to interfere with and manipulate such a critical department, and why it's so critically important that Mr. Gonzales step down, as so many of his top people have already. Oh wait...we have a different standard for republicans, don't we? Sorry...my bad.
Can you tell me your thoughts on why Berger still hasn't compleated his plea agreement from stealing documents?
As for a different standard, I don't have one. Gonzales is appointed by the president and he serves at the pleasure of the president. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks of him. If the president wants him to stay, he has that constitutional authority and there's no use spinning our wheels about it. That said, he has proven himself grossly incompetent, but that's not the same as corrupt.
Cheney: come on, enough already. Nobody on the left likes him, but short of an impeachment attempt what can you do? Complaining about him or Rove (who serves at the pleasure of the president) is like pissing in the wind.
Isn't that talking out both sides of your mouth????
The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
By contrast, one Democrat, Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV), is reportedly the subject of an FBI investigation."
You seem to have forgotten about Congressman Mel Reynolds Democrat convicted of 12 charges, including sex with 16-year-old Beverly Heard and asking her to take pornographic photographs of a 15-year old,
And
Former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance, a North Carolina Democrat, was sentenced to four years in prison on Oct. 12 for conspiring to divert taxpayer money to his friends and family through the charitable organization he founded in 1985.
And
Clarence Norman Jr., the leader of one of the largest Democratic Party organizations in the nation, was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions
And
Ohio Democratic U.S. Rep James Traficant, Jr, now convicted on 10 federal charges of bribery, tax evasion and racketeering
And
Daniel David "Dan" Rostenkowski indicted on corruption charges for his key role in the House Post Office scandal.
I guess we will have to cut you some slack for forgetting these guys because they certainly do not support your point.
Yep, yep, yep, the Repubs want us to damn them all. "They" are all crooks. "They" all do the bidding of corporate masters. It's bullshit.
Yeah, they are politicians, and politicians do a lot of sucking up to contributors and public opinion, but they are also human beings, and many are well aware of the stranglehold the Hyper-wealthy and their chosen neocon henchmen have on this country. You serve their interests every time you lump the whole shebang together. You comfort and aid your enemy by buying into the mantra of "hang 'em all". Mr. Rove is smiling on you.
Quit doing the easy thing, it's going to screw up our only chance.
Can you tell me your thoughts on why Berger still hasn't compleated his plea agreement from stealing documents?"
I have no idea. Ask your DOJ. I can't figure this out, either, nor do I have any clue as to why it took 2 years to bring indictments against Jefferson. It's almost as if somebody has destroyed the integrity and competence of the DOJ for political purposes or something.
Isn't that talking out both sides of your mouth????"
Using DeLay as an example was perfectly legitimate. While he was under indictment, republicans in congress scrambled to change house ethics rules, so that he could remain in power. Now, those republicans are howling to have Jefferson resign over his indictments. We call that "hypocrisy." Try to keep up.
" And Clark Let us not forget Mr. Clinton"
Yeah, but Clinton..."
Thanks. Haven't heard that one for a while! I needed the chuckle! That pathetic line ALWAYS REALLY bolstered you wingnut's case in favor of criminal republicans! Nice going, sport!
" Clark you said
By contrast, one Democrat, Rep. Alan Mollohan (WV), is reportedly the subject of an FBI investigation."
You seem to have forgotten about Congressman Mel Reynolds Democrat convicted of 12 charges, including sex with 16-year-old Beverly Heard and asking her to take pornographic photographs of a 15-year old,
And
Former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance, a North Carolina Democrat, was sentenced to four years in prison on Oct. 12 for conspiring to divert taxpayer money to his friends and family through the charitable organization he founded in 1985.
And
Clarence Norman Jr., the leader of one of the largest Democratic Party organizations in the nation, was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions
And
Ohio Democratic U.S. Rep James Traficant, Jr, now convicted on 10 federal charges of bribery, tax evasion and racketeering
And
Daniel David "Dan" Rostenkowski indicted on corruption charges for his key role in the House Post Office scandal.
I guess we will have to cut you some slack for forgetting these guys because they certainly do not support your point."
Are you SURE you want to go down the ENTIRE list of corrupt politicians, in order to "prove" to me that your guys are misunderstood angels of mercy? You REALLY think it's helping to convince ANYONE that republican corruption is fine and dandy, as long as there are corrupt democrats lying around?
Do you not realize that not everyone around here is a blind ideologue, as you appear to be? Do you not realize that we're not ALL married to an idiotic political party? Your hypocrisy is showing, and it's really embarrassing for us all to have to see. Please, at least make a feigned effort to cover it up once in a while.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/gopcorruption-1.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Republican+pedophiles
Can't wait to see you reply with another witty "Yeah, but Clinton..." LMAO!!!
Indicted in 1994.
"Frank Ballance"
Indicted in 2004
"Clarence Norman Jr"
Convicted in 2005, acquitted on all but one count, and appeal awaiting on that.
"James Traficant, Jr,"
Indicted in 2002 and serving a prison sentence until 2010.
"Daniel David "Dan" Rostenkowski"
Indicted in 1994.
Is this all you've got to "prove" that your republicans are pure as the driven snow? This is truly pathetic. The article that I referenced was discussing CURRENT scandals. Got it?
There's another one for you, Brucie
*snicker*
You small minded left wing hack.
You brought up DeLay I only pointed out your hypocrisy. Notice how you twist it back to talking about the republicans, never mentioning that your own words contradict. Or is that an indictment is all it takes for a republican to be slammed, but you need a conviction for a democrat. That is what you meant Clark, Right.
Why not go down the entire list, you seem to have very selective memory. Only corrupt Republicans fall into your sphere of knowledge, so typical of your left wing bias.
Anyone who reads your above post can see you trying to mislead. Are you sure you are not employed by the main stream media.
My apologies Clark I did not know there was a time limit on when Dems were corrupt. So what you are saying is that as of right now they are pure as the driven snow, right???
Woops except of course Jefferson, oh My bad I cannot name him as he has not been convicted.
Damn Clark you Libs have too many "but ifs" for me…..
"My apologies Clark I did not know there was a time limit on when Dems were corrupt"
Well, Mr. Team Spirit, there is this special "thing" about the present. It has this profound causal effect on our futures. It's kinda special.
Your "party" is in deep shit for major ethics scandals, and that ought to concern REAL Republicans, but not you. You wish to blather on as though it's all a game, and you are serving your party, and nation, by intentionally getting people to forget the nature of what has been going on for the last six years. What a sick joke. And you call Clark "small minded" ? The man routinely wipes the floor with your blustering nonsense.
The fact of the matter is that Jefferson is a crook and should be kick out on his ass, just like all the republican crooks before him.
This is a very simple matter, a crook is a crook, it does not matter if they are republican or democrat. They should go period, and if you disagree with that Johnny boy then you are one doing a disservice to this country not me.
You small minded left wing hack."
Yes, your hypocrisy, you dickless, mindless, neocon, wingnut ass cookie.
"You brought up DeLay I only pointed out your hypocrisy. "
I don't have a side, moron. I'm not a hypocrite, because I'm no ideologue. Life is good here. I can beat up both sides of corrupt assholes. You should remove the blinders and give it a try sometime.
"You brought up DeLay I only pointed out your hypocrisy."
You don't read and comprehend terribly well, do you? Why don't you give it another shot, sport?
"Why not go down the entire list, you seem to have very selective memory. Only corrupt Republicans fall into your sphere of knowledge, so typical of your left wing bias. "
You don't get it, do you? I don't have "a side," sparky. You will never win an argument of hypocrisy against me, because you are a foolishly blind, ignorant ideologue, and I am not. This is one that you will never, ever win against me. Deal with it.
"Anyone who reads your above post can see you trying to mislead."
I'm not misleading anyone. I don't have an agenda, except to expose hypocrisy with healthy doses of facts and reality. Sucks, donut?
"My apologies Clark I did not know there was a time limit on when Dems were corrupt."
You missed it again. What a shock. The article that I posted a link to was pertaining to CURRENT political scandals. You chose to DEFEND your precious corrupt republicans by bringing up OLD democratic scandals. If you REALLY want to go down that road, I'm all for it. Shall we start with the Grant presidency, or do you want to go back further?
In the end, you'll still end up looking like a fool, because you'll still be twisting and spinning to try to defend your party's rampant corruption, while I'll be condemning BOTH side's "morality and ethics issues." I don't have a side. Remember? You will never, ever win this argument, specifically because you are married to a failed ideology and collapsed political party, and I am not. Sorry.
"Damn Clark you Libs have too many "but ifs" for me"
You mean like "Yeah, but Clinton..." No wait...that's republicrites. How about "Yeah, but democrats..." No wait...that was you as well. Well, how about "He never committed treason, so he shouldn't go to jail for being convicted of lying and obstructing justice..." No...that's your guys as well. Do I smell the stench of hypocrisy once again? Methinkso!
" It is not hard to wipe the floor with misleading half truths and outright lies"
Knock yourself out, sweetie. Wipe the floor with the "misleading half truths and outright lies" that I've told you here.
"The fact of the matter is that Jefferson is a crook and should be kick out on his ass, just like all the republican crooks before him. "
That's not fact. That's here say. When and if he's convicted, you may issue this statement. Until then, it's nothing more than a misleading half truth or outright lie.
"This is a very simple matter, a crook is a crook, it does not matter if they are republican or democrat."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This is HILARIOUS, coming from you! How do you feel about Scooter Libby going to prison for lying and obstructing justice, and how do you feel about your fellow republican chorus bellering and howling that he should be allowed to go free, because he was able to successfully lie and obstruct justice to the point that no treason charges were brought forth?
"They should go period, and if you disagree with that Johnny boy then you are one doing a disservice to this country not me."
And, let me guess...it should be up to a partisan, highly corrupt, highly politicized DOJ, the republican echo machine, and YOU to decide who should stay and who should go, right? No need for courts. No need for justice. All we need is the GOP to set everything "right." Perfect.
You're a hoot, Mr. B. I have to say, I truly do enjoy watching your twisting, spinning, and nonsensical blatherings of hypocrisy and absurdities.
Yes, a crook IS a crook, and that INCLUDES Poindexter, Nixon, Negroponte, Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Pearle, North, Liddy, Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the filthy corrupt GOP fascists that you deem worthy of hero status.
Which leads me back to my initial point. You people are the LAST people on the earth to make demands of justice for corrupt politicians. You have as much credibility in making this demand that Jefferson be removed as you do on providing national security, having fiscal responsibility, taking personal accountability, being "Christian," having family values, or any of the other ridiculous rightwing myths that abound these days.
Your party has become a disease on the face of this country, and I sincerely pray to God almighty that SOMEBODY within that party, a Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel, perhaps. FINALLY rises up and demands that the party abandon this idiotic neocon lunacy and return to TRUE conservative values. Until then, your party is a goner. You will continue to bleed support as long as you allow lying propagandists to cover up and make excuses for your politician's failures, like it or not.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060607V.shtml
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Mr. Jefferson has been stripped of ALL committee assignments. He has simply no real way to cause any harm to much of anything at this point. Kicking him out of Congress would certainly be a violation of his rights, the same rights we all depend on when things get nasty. There really is nothing more that can be done till some sort of investigation or court decision occurs. The Dems have acted perfectly fine as a party, in this matter.
Throw no stones, and work for the redemption of you party's honor. The country NEEDS that. The country is in deep trouble.
Yes, the democratic leadership has acted perfectly fine, in terms of their technical obligations in this matter. They immediately stripped him of his positions of power within congress the moment it became known that he was under serious investigation. That was absolutely the correct thing to do, and the exact opposite of what the republicans did when Mr. DeLay was brought under indictment.
However, as you can see from this thread and others, as well as what the echo chamber is currently saying about this, it would be viewed quite favorably for him to step down at this time, if nothing else than to remove this as an issue from the GOP quiver. This really is all that they have at the moment. It seems a shame to just hand it to them, when it doesn't really seem necessary.
As much as we all want to believe that he's innocent until proven guilty, the fact is that there appears to be a significant amount of evidence against him, and as long as he remains in congress, he'll be stamped as the poster boy for democratic corruption, and probably even as congressional corruption altogether. As long as there is an appearance of guilt, and he remains in congress, this will be an issue for the democrats, undoubtedly.
It is rather humorous to see the "right" suddenly find their moral and ethical values though, isn't it?
Now don't get me riled up here . . . ; ) . Do you see anyplace I said this fellow ought not resign? . . . Of course it would be best for his party, and Congress as a whole to "disappear". But there is of course the seemingly small chance that he is guilty of nothing truly serious. I have yet to hear any explanation from him about that money, and it is possible there is some sort of entrapment or con game going on, in which case he might wish to defend his position.
Am I holding my breath to see if he is innocent? . . . guess.
If you cannot imagine a situation where someone could have tricked a person to accept money through various cons, you have no imagination.
The most obvious possibilities involve simply telling Mr. Jefferson he is being recruited to help entrap a bribery suspect.
I've stayed out of this one and merely watched, but I just couldn't take it any more, and here's the straw that broke the camel's back :
I don't have a side, moron. I'm not a hypocrite, because I'm no ideologue. Life is good here. I can beat up both sides of corrupt assholes. You should remove the blinders and give it a try sometime.
Come on man, everyone who knows you knows what side of the fence you fall on. And if they didn't, you've made it obvious in this thread.
Retract your feeble attempt at balance and unbiased thought or I'll have to snap your ass with my wet towel.
I have no idea when you were born, but it's hard to imagine it was more than a few days ago. I will play along, but it really seems too obvious to actually have to speak of;
Being a member of the FBI is not actually a guarantee that one is totally honest. Yes, I realize that is a shocking concept for some, but believe it or not, it is rather common for people in law enforcement to be discovered doing illegal things. Further, it is actually possible for someone in the FBI to act in ways that the FBI as a whole would never condone. Again, shocking but true. These guys are not a part of a vast mind-meld, and actually clash with each other in all sorts of ways quite often.
And most shocking of all . . . such entrapment has actually been conducted numerous times by unscrupulous members of the FBI !! There are even many rules and limitations in place because of this, and cases are routinely tossed out for this very reason !!!
As for what's holding up the show, who knows. I'm not a member of the DoJ, and therefore don't have access to all the details. My guess is that the prosecutor is taking his time because he wants to be sure all his ducks are in order for such a high profile case.
"Because she wasn't covert.
Bill Scooter Libby never outed Plame it was Richard Armitage."
Let's see Valerie Plame could not be outed because she was never covert, yet, she was OUTED by Richard Armitage?
Jumping Jehoshaphat, logic has been banished...stomped upon...chattered to smithereens.
Penny, of course, Congress is taking actions...but, let's keep it a secret. You know...for the sake of argument.
Bush lie? Now that's just out and out slander...Dubya's the truthfullest President we've ever had. Whatever comes out his blessed lips has the seal of indisputable truth. Like...Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Need I say more. The very thought of impugning this truthfullest of truthsayers.
This is what I responded to;
"John, you can't be serious. If the FBI tricked Mr. Jefferson into accepting the money because he was helping them, there wouldn't be a case"
Your proper response after what I said about this is "Oh yeah, I forgot about that", or some such thing.
What you are doing instead, is called "bait and switch". This is how it works:
You ask a shallow and patently easy to answer question, which causes the respondent to say some very basic truths. Then; You come back with statements and questions that attempt to make the person who answered the "bait" question appear silly, for saying the very obvious truths your original question so clearly made necessary. That is why I said I would "play along". So I could later (now) point to how tacky and obfuscating the entire affair was. OK ?
Now, in the little game, I'm supposed to engage you in some discussion about the nature of "norms" and "exceptions", so you can continue to sound like you're actually capable of carrying on a rational debate with someone who could easily cut you to pieces without even breaking a sweat. Sorry, It's just too boring.
So was Valerie Plame covert or not? Just a simple YES or NO, thanks.
I'm happy to just follow along with this Jefferson slapstick until the very end. His press release today on CNN was absolutely hilarious.
He was just "holding the FBI's money", and was supposed to use it to bribe the VP of Nigeria. But instead he just kept it. Frozen. Hidden in a freezer. Ooooops!
Even Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty (normally Blitzer's a humorless Liberal, and Cafferty's a grumpy Leftist) made fun of him.
This is high entertainment watching this guy try to weasel his way out. I predict even more comedy in the coming weeks and months.
Some are just easy to amuse. What a blessing in disguise
(Halloween style)
You really get off on others suffering, don't you ?
(This maroon is actually preening himself for repeating his own judgmental, juvenile hoots. What a pathetic little triumph. Simply amazing)
If you don't know the answer to that...you'll get no help from me.
Every intelligence agency in the world, minus the French in the 11th hour, said Saddam had WMDs. That's one hell of a conspiracy. And for Bush to have lied, everyone advising him would have to have said that there were none, but the President went out and said Saddam had them anyway.
Unfortunately, that's not the way it happened. Or did you not see Tenet, who was a principal adviser on WMD, on 60 Minutes saying "We believed he had them." It's not like the president is personally collecting intelligence or checking for weapons. He relies on advisers to give him the information needed to make a decision.
Sorry, but the "He lied about WMD" argument doesn't hold up.
Some are just easy to amuse. What a blessing in disguise
(Halloween style)
You really get off on others suffering, don't you ?
(This maroon is actually preening himself for repeating his own judgmental, juvenile hoots. What a pathetic little triumph. Simply amazing)
John, let's not let this degenerate into chaos. This is really a very simple situation : a Congressman was caught with a bunch of FBI bribe money in his freezer. It's been months since that happened, and I don't think anyone has heard a good excuse for the existence of the money in his possession. However, you are right about one thing – I do enjoy watching someone like this suffer. It's humorous. I also enjoyed watching Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham squirm in their absurd situations. I think they should squirm, and I think ridicule and shame are underused weapons to use on such people.
I'm a firm believer in the theory of Ockam's Razor – "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."
The simplest solution seems to be that a shady Congressman took $90k in bribe money and kept it.
I just wonder what outrageous excuses he's going to come up with in the coming months to justify the unjustifiable. It should be fun to watch.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't actually KNOW if Valerie Plame was covert or not?
If that's the case, then you're unqualified to judge if other theories on the Plame scandal are valid or not. Either that, or you're just using the discussion to play both ends of the spectrum against each other.
If she actually was covert, and Dick Armitage outed her………..don't you think HE should be charged with that?
Your logic and reason on the WMD topic is sound and well-presented. This "Bush Lied about WMDs" nonsense is so full of holes that its just untenable any more.
Greg, where's the WMD's?
"The simplest solution seems to be that a shady Congressman took $90k in bribe money and kept it."
Yeah, real simple. But there is this little twist; Someone in the FBI gave him that money. According to Occam's bizarre little platitude; Someone in the FBI is guilty of bribery.
I guess old Occam's razor only cuts the ones you like to see bleed, huh?
"Every intelligence agency in the world, minus the French in the 11th hour, said Saddam had WMDs"
Um . . . NO. Our very own intell agencies repeatedly told the Administration that they could find no credible evidence that Saddam had WMD or ties to Al-qaeda. And that makes perfect sense, for now, years later, no one can point to any such credible evidence. ¿Where did it go ? There simply never was any. You been had.
As for the comment about "there simply never was any": What about the Kurds in Halabja? How about asking the Iranian soldiers who were gassed by Saddam? Maybe it was all in their, and our, imagination.
The million dollar question, and to answer Felix, is what happened to them? Did the programs just degrade over time with enforcement of sanctions? Did they go to Syria? No one is really sure, but that doesn't mean that they never existed at all.
Final Report: Iraq Had No WMDs
From staff and wire reports
WASHINGTON — When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday.
The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration's case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.
Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.
"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.
The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."
...The report resolves disputes about allegations made prior to the U.S. invasion:
• Aluminum tubes that the Bush administration alleged were for nuclear weapons production were, in fact, for making conventional artillery rockets.
• Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas.
• The team found no evidence that Iraq was developing biological weapons trailers or rail cars. Two trailers found after the war were for producing hydrogen gas for weather balloons.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm
'resolves disputes about allegations' in plain English...resolves disputes about the lies Bush told.
"What about the Kurds in Halabja? How about asking the Iranian soldiers who were gassed by Saddam? Maybe it was all in their, and our, imagination."
No, not imagination, memory. Are we not talking about the lead up to the supposedly urgent need to invade Iraq in 2003 ? At that time, EVERY intelligence agency was consistently warning that the Intel about WMD and ties to Al Qaeda was unreliable at best, forgeries at worst.
All you need do to prove I'm wrong is cite any evidence that existed which has not proven to be bullshit. If it was wrong or right is no longer a question, of course, but what you can't do is point to any credible evidence of any sort. If you think the very capable people in our vast intelligence system didn't notice this lack, you are indeed delusional.
Do some damn research and quit spouting neocon talking points. Others who have, are trying to tell you what they've found, but you keep thinking they're making it up. Only one way to find out; DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF. Till then, you are simply reciting rumors you like.
As for the Duelfer report, here's the issue: if Saddam destroyed all his stockpiles and dismantled his programs, why did he continue to obstruct inspectors, claim he had them, then let inspectors in, then kick them out, then let them in, then kick them out, then claim he had no WMD, then claim he did. Do you see a pattern here?
If Saddam was bluffing, he made a bad choice. Period. But again, you say EVERY (to put it in caps like you did) intelligence agency: what about Tenet saying the CIA was convinced that Saddam had them. Hell, the CIA is the PRIMARY agency for intelligence.
Yet, rather than recognize the possibility that the president received faulty intelligence and faulty information from the advisers within his administration, and then acted on that intelligence and information, you would rather just say that everybody told him the WMD didn't exist and then he lied to the nation about it.
That's just not factual. Look, there is plenty to fault with the Bush administration, and there have been glaring incompetencies with regard to the war. But that's not a qualification for saying the president lied about WMD.
And as for proving that the evidence was "bullshit," that goes back to the intel argument. Tenet admitted that the CIA got it wrong. How does that make Bush a liar if the CIA is telling him in 2002 and early 2003 that they were convinced Saddam had WMD?
The people in the intelligence system you talk about reported to Tenet, who, again, to beat a dead horse, said he was convinced (his word, not mine) about the WMD. It's not like the president is personally gathering and analyzing the intelligence. That's what he has guys like Tenet for.
So quit with the 'damn research' crap and put your partisanship aside. I'm not reciting rumors when I watch the damned head of the CIA say on national television, just a couple of weeks ago, that the CIA was, again, convinced, and that's what he advised the president.
Where's the EVIDENCE dude ? There really ought to be SOMETHING you can point to which makes Mr. Tenets appraisal sound like something more than a "slam dunk" piece of worthless opinion. Without such EVIDENCE, you are simply espousing authoritarian obedience. The man was DEAD WRONG about the matter, remember?