House Republicans will attempt to block Jefferson's assignment

[rodeodance]

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/022807/jefferson2.html


February 28, 2007

House Republicans will attempt to block Jefferson's assignment

By Susan Crabtree and Jackie Kucinich

House Republicans plan to break recent precedent and attempt to block a resolution appointing Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) to a spot on the Homeland Security Committee when it comes to the floor for a vote, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) indicated today.

Blunt blasted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her endorsement of Jefferson for the Homeland Security Committee, calling the selection "ludicrous."

"I won't support that - it's such a contradiction of what the Speaker said," Blunt told reporters, referring to Pelosi's promise to run the most ethical Congress in history.

The FBI found $90,000 in cash in Jefferson's freezer when they raided his home last year as part of an investigation into whether he accepted bribes related to a telecommunications deal in Africa. Although the FBI probe is ongoing and the congressman has not been indicted, the ethics cloud hanging over Jefferson's head has caused headaches for Pelosi...

[BOSSHOG]

1. Excellent

The gop going on record opposing someone who has not been charged with a crime. Outstanding. It will backfire on them (very soon relative to the criminals in their midst) just like the 22nd amendment.

[Ian David]

6. OOoooh... that's pure genius! Jefferson is a Stalking Horse? n/t

[hughee99]

17. Yes, great...

now Democrats will either have to support him (and look bad IF he turns out to be guilty) or let him twist in the wind (and make it look like a repuke victory). Jefferson is under investigation for accepting bribes, and I don't think it will backfire on the repukes if they are seen to take this into account.

It seems to me like this is sort of along the lines of the Curt Weldon investigation that was leaked before the election. While Weldon was running, he was under investigation but hadn't been charged with any crime. Some here argued that the people should be able to use that information to make their decisions. I don't really see how this is much different.

[BOSSHOG]

23. Republicans aren't taking this action

because they are concerned with the integrity of congress. Its in their playbook to be assholes. If Jefferson is guilty of whatever relative to money in the freezer, republicans will want to debrief him to figure out how to get away with it.

Yes Jefferson is under investigation (since before Katrina.)

It won't backfire if they support similar action against their own, which, if recent history serves, they have not done.

[hughee99]

27. I realize they're probably not doing this

because of any concerns that they may have about Jefferson personally, and they wouldn't know integrity if it bit them in the ass, so that's certainly not it, but whenever they talk about this issue in public, they're not going to actually admit that this is all about scoring political points. They're going to talk about blah, blah, blah bribery investigation... blah, blah, trusted with the nation's most secret information on national security... blah, blah potential security risk. They did it with Alcee Hastings as well. While this may not resonate with many people, I don't see it backfiring in the short term. In the long term, those who pay attention to this sort of stuff, like DUers, see right through it, but most people will forget about it by the time the repukes are protecting one of their own. Personally, I don't believe that this is a fight worth taking up.

The flip side of course is that if the Democrats rally around him in support, would it backfire if they were to later oppose a repuke under similar circumstances? Again, those who are paying attention already know what this is all about, but with a little time, the general public would forget about that as well.

[DBoon]

44. The concept of "backfire" is unknown to republicans

They have no sense that THEY might ever be held accountable for their actions.

In their minds, laws only apply to other people for purposes of furthering the republican agenda

[Sammy Pepys]

2. I actually don't have a big problem with this.

I don't think Jefferson should've been appointed in the first place. I wish Pelosi had just passed him by, but she didn't.

[marshall]

40. What's the problem?

Jefferson is as honest as anyone else walking the halls of Congress!

[toopers]

42. That's true, but at least the others . . .

are smart enough to get away with it.

[Atman]

3. And we should take a lesson from it:

They even admit that they don't have the votes to do it, but they feel they need to try. Dems, otoh, when told they don't have votes to stop The Crawford Madman, slink away into the shadows and say, "Oh, sorry we bothered you. My bad." Sometimes the fight is about the principal, not about the winning. Dems just can't seem to figure this out.

.

[Benhurst]

7. We've got to keep our powder dry at all costs.

[Nite Owl]

13. I just sent a fax to Reid's

office saying that. I asked him what I was supposed to tell people when I did my rounds for the dem committee when they said 'they are all the same'. Told him that even without a cloture vote they need to show strength and try, to be on record as the ones that are listening to the people who voted them a majority or they would lose it in '08.

[T Wolf]

19. Odds are the Dems will back down because they REFUSE TO FIGHT.

There are too many instances that show that the Democratic Party just does not want to win.

[Parisle]

4. It's nice to be loyal,....... but

--- But $90,000 cash hidden in a freezer DOES invite a certain amount of suspicion. "Plausible deniability" is Rove's invention, and democrats should want nothing of it. Democrats must resolve to be "squeaky clean," ... no matter how it affects their individual "incomes." (Steny Hoyer take note) I'm sick of the political class behaving in the fashion they do,... meaning to reap the opportunistic rewards attendant to their office.

--- Maybe Jefferson is innocent. I don't know. But we all know that, if found guilty of taking a $90,000 bribe, he'll get soft treatment,... a reprimand,.. whatever. Even expulsion would not be enough. If he took even a hundred bucks, I'd have him shot,... just as I would for ANY politician. I want our elected officials to be AFRAID of us at all times.

[Ian David]

5. I hate to say it, but I think the Republickers are right on this one.

I think I threw-up in my mouth a little.

[ShortnFiery]

9. I hate it when they're right but Pelosi needs to REMEMBER that she serves the people

before returning political back-scratches and tummy rubs.

Let's hope The House doesn't turn into the Gridlock Country Club that The Senate is proving to be.

Damn, I'm going to support a whole lotta Democratic Challengers in the next Primaries if our Leadership doesn't stop playing "tit for tat" leadership grab ass. :grr:

You know sometimes ... sort of like, IN ADDITION - Senator Reid remaining Our Senate Majority leader with his wife racking in the Corporate dough lobbying :thumbsdown: .... I wonder, IF other than being more moral, and just perhaps, more POLITICALLY SANE, that our (Democratic) Leaders are any LESS SPOILED and CORRUPT than theirs (Republicans)?

[Purveyor]

8. Sad to say but Blunt is correct, the selection of Jefferson is "ludicrous." n/t

[trashcanistanista]

11. I believe Pelosi

said something about the $90,000 in the freezer on Larry King and that it wasn't a good thing or something to that effect. No surpirse here.

[HooptieWagon]

10. I don't have a problem with it (blocking appointment)

pending a resolution of the charges, if filed. Dems should have set an example, IMO. If Jefferson is cleared (it doesn't look good), he can be appointed to the committee then. With the strong possibility of charges being filed, he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.

[Iwasthere]

12. If I had $90,000.00 in my house, that's exactly where I would keep it...

In case there was a fire. As far as bridery,... NOT PROVEN! I repeat NOT PROVEN!!! Jesus Christ!

[ShortnFiery]

15. Not proven but given to him by agents of the FBI.

:wtf: Sometimes, we need to tell even our beloved leaders (and I love Pelosi being Speaker), to CUT THE ABSURDITY! Gawd, I hope upon hope she changes her mind on this. :shrug:

[tritsofme]

21. Accusations against Tom Delay...NOT PROVEN! NOT PROVEN!

Sounds like the same rhetoric to me...

[gratuitous]

14. Jefferson was re-elected by the voters of his district

There's been no indictment, he's not accused of anything, and yet the Democrats are supposed to . . . well, what exactly? Certainly it doesn't look good, but the people of Jefferson's Louisiana district are entitled to representation, and they voted in William Jefferson, even knowing about the ethics cloud hanging over him.

The people of Texas returned Tom DeLay, the people of Ohio returned Bob Ney, and the people of California returned Duke Cunningham, too. And none of those three suffered any loss of appointments and the people of their districts were not deprived of representation in Congress, despite the ethics monsoons hanging over those distinguished (and need I say white?) heads. And the Republicans running Congress didn't seem to have any trouble at all with those three men on various committees or occupying powerful seats.

I don't hold any brief for Jefferson, but the stink of the Republican hypocrisy is damned near overpowering in this instance. If Jefferson is guilty of something, then charge him, try him and convict if you can. Then we'll talk about appropriate congressional sanctions.

[tritsofme]

22. The Republicans certainly didn't have any problems with those men in power

But judging from the results of the last election, voters sure did.

[Kagemusha]

25. Is a committee assignment a right owed to the district's voters?

Here I was thinking it was a privilege assigned by the caucus.

[gratuitous]

28. Any particular assignment? Probably not

But every other congressman is assigned to committees by the caucus, and like I said, no charges have been brought against Mr. Jefferson, he's not been accused of anything, and he hasn't been convicted of anything. By Republican standards, that makes him so clean he squeaks.

And by American standards of jurisprudence, he remains innocent until proven guilty, so he's every bit as eligible to serve as any other member of the House.

[Kagemusha]

29. Love it when Republican standards are what we abide by.

By choice, to boot.

[gratuitous]

32. But what can you say or do?

If the Democratic caucus deprives Jefferson of committee assignments based on an FBI raid of his office and allegations of wrongdoing with no charges brought, it sets a rather bad precedent. After all, neither you nor I know whether Jefferson is guilty of anything at this point, though there have certainly been some bad things said about him.

I'd prefer that everyone in Congress was above ethical reproach, but for now we are kind of stuck with that presumption of innocence system.

[Kagemusha]

33. I'll skip the blunt, literal answer to your question

and wait and see if this bites good Democrats in the rear end.

[gratuitous]

35. If credible charges are brought

Then, yes, Jefferson should probably be stripped of his committee assignments and sent to the appropriate time out chair for his sins. But he hasn't even been indicted at this point; charges haven't been brought. From what I've seen and read, he's probably crooked, but "probably" is a very poor way to make final adjudications.

[ShortnFiery]

36. No, it would be a win-win for the Democratic Representatives.

If the Democratic Leadership in the Caucus show some MORAL COURAGE and Speaker Pelosi stood by her original ruling and stated: Until this situation is cleared up, WE, the Democratic Leadership do not believe it APPROPRIATE for Rep. Jefferson to be assigned to this Committee.

I guarantee you that "us little people" would cheer, "YES, our Democratic Representatives WALK THE WALK."

Again, any hint of impropriety (we know Jefferson took the money from the FBI so it's cheesy to say the least) and half step measures (Senator Reid thinking it's appropriate for HIS spouse to continue to get filthy rich lobbying because she's Grandfathered in).

We are addressing Committee Assignments and OUR LEADERSHIP demonstrating, not only moral courage of their convictions but also setting the example when it comes to their family member's lobbying. THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP sets the example.

Our Leaders need to *&%#$ LEAD! That means making the tough, but morally sound decisions when it comes to fellow Representatives and family members on the dole.

Yes, I'm disgusted, NOT with Jefferson, but Pelosi for not standing her ground as Speaker and enforcing the MORAL CLIMATE of Democratic Representatives without the HINT of impropriety. Just because "the other guy" (The Republican Representatives) cut corners MORALLY, does NOT give us permission to do so. That puts us all at the same smarmy political cesspool. :thumbsdown:

[gratuitous]

37. Yeah? Well, I heard . . .

I heard that Henry Waxman might soon be indicted for various unspecified illegal activities. He should be stripped of all his committee assignments until such time as everyone is satisfied that he's clean.

See the way that can work?

And I don't know how you "know Jefferson took the money from the FBI." Is this like we all "know" that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks or that we "know" all the guys being held at Guantanamo are guilty enemy combatants?

I don't trust this administration for one second and I don't believe anything they say without corroborating evidence. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If they have a case to make against Jefferson, then they should make it. Absent that, it's rumors and innuendo and if the administration can do this to Jefferson and deprive his district of its representative, they can do it to anyone for any reason.

[ShortnFiery]

38. I don't hold the FBI in high esteem but Jefferson did take this money

from one of their agents.

Show me a media site reference where Henry Waxman is concerned? Otherwise, all of what you claim is pure conjecture. :(

Jefferson took the money and will be indicted. Then our illustrious leaders will PROVE be just like the crones on the other side, i.e. corrupt up to their corporate enabling eyeballs. :grr:

Nope, I don't buy it. Show me evidence and I'll modify my position. Otherwise, it's the onus on our Democratic Leaders who have sworn to clean up the place ... well, to set the example.

[gratuitous]

39. The Waxman allegation IS pure conjecture

I just made it up, and freely admit the same.

Did Jefferson take any money? I don't know that for a fact, and frankly neither do you. But if he's indicted, then I'll be more than happy to see the Democratic leadership strip him of committee assignments and make him persona non grata.

But, and I'll say this again because my reading of your posts makes me think it has eluded you: No charges have been filed against Jefferson, and he hasn't been indicted. There are stories and rumors, which to this point are just that as far as I'm concerned. Until there is some concrete court proceeding (And if all this dandy evidence has been gathered against Jefferson, why hasn't one been instituted?), I don't think it's in the best interest of the government generally, Congress in this situation, or the running of the nation to disable its leadership based on allegations alone.

For a parallel, I look to the DeLay model. Sure, I thought he was as crooked as a dog's hind leg and I would have loved to see him run out of Congress and out of town a lot sooner than it actually happened. But until specific charges were filed by the DA down in Texas and an indictment issued, there wasn't a way through the mechanisms in place to strip him of his position as Majority Leader. Before he had been indicted and the legal machinery was moving forward, calls for his ouster were properly seen as mere political maneuvering. Once the force of the legal system got behind that maneuvering, though, DeLay was out of the Majority Leader's office tout de suite. And he should have been.

Jefferson, even with the stories swirling around him in the 2006 election, was re-elected by the voters of his district and returned to Congress. The will of the people of his district deserve deference, in my opinion, until the legal mechanism gets behind the political call for his ouster. Why hasn't Jefferson been indicted to this point? And if the legal system is dragging its feet, Congress still has a duty to govern, and the people of Jefferson's district are still entitled to representation, even if they elected a crook.

Until charges are brought, though, it's not Congress' job to do the work of the Executive and bring charges or do the work of the Judiciary and hand down an indictment. Congress still has to legislate, Jefferson is a duly elected member of Congress, and has to take on all the responsibilities of his position until the Executive and the Judicial branches do their jobs.

[ShortnFiery]

41. I respectfully disagree, our Congressional Leaders need to LEAD and restrict those

representatives who have questionable activities. Again, the FBI states categorically that it is their money that Jefferson had in his freezer. That fact is not in dispute. Because the Democratic Leadership PROMISED the people to clean up the corruption in Congress, Pelosi should not allow Jefferson to sit on any committees until this situation is cleared up.

I honestly believe that he will be charged sooner rather than later. Shame on the Democratic Leadership for practicing the same kind of political cronyism that they accused the republicans of playing when THEY were in the majority.

Granted, Delay is far more corrupt in comparison, but WRONG is WRONG. Because their PLATFORM was mostly about *cleaning up the corruption within Our Congress* the Democratic Leadership has the responsibility to take charge and avoid the hint of impropriety when providing committee assignments.

Pelosi will live to regret this call. I only hope that she learns from it. :shrug:

[KingFlorez]

16. Give me a break

Why didn't they throw fits when their own were pulling stunts? They don't give a darn about corruption, they are still angry about the election and want to cause problems.

I don't think Pelosi could deny Jefferson committee assignments altogether, seeing as he is an elected Representative. He's hardly in a position of authority, it's just a committee assignment.

[Parisle]

18. Did it occur to any of you?

--- In this conspiracy-minded atmosphere,...... the failure of official charges to be forthcoming against Jefferson may actually reflect a behind-the-scenes effort to protect that "African telecommunications company," ... and hardly a legal repudiation of the charges, themselves. Strange bedfellows is the rule, eh?

[Jacobin]

20. Good. They should. And we shouldn't be putting him in that

position.

[MGKrebs]

24. Hey, Peter King is on that committee.

He voted to allow Delay to remain LEADER OF THE PARTY even if he were indicted. So, this is an improvement on that anyway.

[sidwill]

26. Not only shouldn't Nancy have appointed him but

She should have demanded his resignation due to the appearance of misconduct.

I HATED it when we saw all those Repukes get away with being slimy behavior during Republican control of the House, we havew to do better and a good start would be to clean up our own house first so that when we go after the Rs we will be doing so from the moral high ground.

Jefferson, that guy from West Virginia, they have to be made public examples and excised from the party, even if it costs us a few seats.

[puerco-bellies]

30. Hmmm, stalking horse..

What if she plans to pull him under "pressure" and inserts someone they REALLY don't want on that committee. They would be stuck with that person..
Just wondering.

[DemKR]

31. Wow, I guess I disagree

Like I have asid in my other threads, Jefferson IS entitled to the presumption of innocence. Do I like him? NO! The way he attacked Karen Carter was awful, just like a Republican. He's a DINO as far as I'm concerned, but the people elected him, and he voted for Pelosi for speaker...his constituents deserve to have him on a oommittee. Think of the constituents and then maybe some of you will understand where I'm coming from.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Just because the people of his District took a stupid pill does NOT entitle

Jefferson to hold a committee position.

Gee, I thought we were going to "clean up" the corruption in Congress? In order to do that OUR REPRESENTATIVES must place themselves above any *hint* of impropriety.

Speaker Pelosi should rescind his assignment to this committee.

While we are talking about FAVORS and "hints of impropriety" Senator Reid's wife should cease and desist with lobbying albeit she's conveniently Grandfathered in as OK.

The above is Bullshit! Which is it fellow Democrats, are we truly going to demand that our Representatives and Senators CLEAN UP The Congress OR are we going to fold like a cheap suit by accepting these half measures and slight of hand for the already "connected" Reps, Senators and their families getting bloated and richer via lobbying? ---> "Oh, Jefferson's not been indicted so it's OK to assign him a committee" NO! & "Senator Reid's wife was lobbying at the corporate trough before the new reform bills, so it's alright for The Majority Leader's family to do it. <wink wink> :puke:

Words can NOT describe how disgusted I am with the LACK of TRUE leadership so far by our Democratic Representatives. :grr:

Hello? Democratic Representatives, do your damn jobs or be prepared to be voted out on your next Primary by your future Democratic Challenger. :grr: :nuke:

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy! http://voidnow.org/

[randycrow]

43. Blowing up Levees, drowning people, is not nice either

It may come down to voters in New Orleans saying in effect they would rather support the first Black elected to the US House from Louisiana since Reconstruction who may have taken bribes than a corrupt Little George Administration which played a role in deliberately flooding N O. What Jefferson has done may be bad but what the comrade Little George Administration has done to New Orleans is beyond horrible.

[ShortnFiery]

45. "who may have taken bribes than a corrupt Little George Administration"

So if it is "less corrupt" it's alright? That's a dangerous rationalization that the republicans have seemingly become experts at perfecting. :(

[madville]

46. I don't blame them for making a stink about it

Pelosi is throwing this right in their laps and now every Democrat is going to have to go on record with a vote next week about this assignment. The FBI has him on video tape accepting the same money from his freezer from the agent, doesn't look good. Who knows, he may beat it, remember Murtha got caught up in that bribery sting in the 1980s and he is still around. This is still a gift to the Republicans from a PR standpoint, not really seeing the upside at this point.

[Supersedeas]

47. that's about all they have left to hitch their lil red wagons too -- pathetic lil Repigs