Democratic Congressman William Jefferson Finally Indicted - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-04-2007, 10:53 AM

Finally, a democratic party member in congress is being indicted. I hope, that if Jefferson is found guilty, he is punished to the full extent of the law for his crimes, or at least as harshly as Scooter Libby is gonna be, for his crimes.

I do not believe that Jefferson has committed crimes that rise to the same level as those committed by Randy Cunningham were, since no funds that the DOD could have used to "support the troops", were diverted by Jefferson, as in Cunningham's case.

I do not believe that Jefferson committed crimes that rise to the same level as those that Tom Delay is accused of, or Bob Ney was convicted for. I predict that there will be renewed cries that "both parties" are equally corrupt, but I don't see much evidence to justify that opinion, do you?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060400683.html
Indictment Sought Against Rep. Jefferson
FBI Probes Allegations Lawmaker Took Bribes to Promote Business Ventures

By Jerry Markon and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 4, 2007; 12:46 PM

Federal prosecutors are seeking an indictment today against Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) in a longstanding FBI corruption probe centering on allegations that he took bribes to promote high-tech business ventures in Africa, sources familiar with the investigation said.

Prosecutors are presenting the case to grand jurors in Alexandria today, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because no charges have yet been filed.

If filed, the indictment would cap a long and tumultuous investigation that was stalled for months because of a legal battle over the constitutionality of an FBI raid on Jefferson's office last May. The raid came after the FBI found $90,000 in the freezer of his Capitol Hill home.

A political and legal maelstrom followed the raid, prompting President Bush to intervene and seal the seized documents for 45 days. In July, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who had signed the search warrant, ruled that the raid was constitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the matter.

Jefferson, 60, is a potential political embarrassment for Democrats, just months after they took over control of Congress. Democrats had campaigned last year on the theme that Republicans had created a culture of corruption. In July, the House officially expelled Jefferson from the prestigious Ways and Means Committee.

At the time, then House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the allegations against Jefferson were too egregious to wait for a legal resolution.

"This isn't about proof in the court or law; this is about an ethical standard," she said.

News of the FBI probe hurt Jefferson in his reelection bid last fall, but he managed to win in a runoff, garnering 30 percent of the vote in a crowded primary field of 12 candidates. His campaign ads emphasized that he had not been charged with any crime.

The investigation began in March 2005 when Virginia investor Lori Mody, went to the FBI to complain that Jefferson and her business associate were trying to scam her in a high-tech business venture in Africa in which a copper wire technology would be used to deliver the Internet and cable television.

Mody agreed to wear a listening device for federal authorities, previously issued court documents said.

During an undercover sting, on July 21, 2005, Jefferson told Mody that he needed to give Nigerian Vice President Atikua Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts.

Mody eventually agreed to give Jefferson $100,000 -- in marked bills from the FBI, court records have indicated. A few days later, $90,000 was found in Jefferson's freezer.

Eventually, Mody's business associate Brett Pfeffer and Vernon L. Jackson, the president of iGate, a Louisville based high tech firm, pleaded guilty to bribing Jefferson to use his political influence to push through a lucrative contract in Africa to sell technology for the Internet and cable television. Both are serving time in prison.

Rekna · 06-04-2007, 11:04 AM

Good get him out of there. I've thought for a while that he needed to step down. Corruption is bad regardless of who does it.

flstf · 06-04-2007, 11:23 AM

IMHO, this guy is not a very smart corrupt polititian as well as the others you mentioned. I believe that most of our corrupt polititians know how to play the game and we will never catch them. Those that we catch are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Willravel · 06-04-2007, 11:36 AM

Lock him up, but for God's sake don't let this take any attention away from the bigger corrupt politicians.

It'd be funny if he was actually responding to a nigerian scammer...

tecoyah · 06-04-2007, 01:49 PM

It's about freakin' time

Estevez · 06-04-2007, 03:33 PM

The real crime was that he got re-elected.

Elphaba · 06-04-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estevez

The real crime was that he got re-elected.

Nah, the real crime was that the Fed's overstepped in confiscating his House records and that delayed his formal charges. That's the only thing that kept this criminal from being indicted nearly a year ago. I expect Nancy to suspend his involvement on any committee (she gave him a mini-job) and work toward replacing the bum asap.

If this creep has any honor toward his position at all, he will resign NOW!.

filtherton · 06-04-2007, 08:56 PM

Sure is refreshing to see such generally partisan people acknowledge the illegality of the illegal activities of the certain members of their own political party.

dc_dux · 06-04-2007, 09:34 PM

He should absolutely resign immediately.

But one partisan question still remains....and that is, with all the evidence they had against him, why did Gonzales feel it was necessary to raid his House office (the first time in the history of Congress) and did not feel that same necessity in the Cunningham or Ney investigations?

shakran · 06-04-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Sure is refreshing to see such generally partisan people acknowledge the illegality of the illegal activities of the certain members of their own political party.

Let's keep in mind that he has been indicted. He has not been found guilty, and he claims innocent. He is therefore innocent - at least until he is proven not to be. That's how the laws of this country are supposed to work.

That said, I think he's guilty as hell, and the minute the jury comes back with that verdict he should resign or be kicked out. There's no excuse for that crap, no matter what party commits the offense.

dc_dux · 06-04-2007, 10:04 PM

Shakran...you are absolutely right.

Just for the record, Duke Cunningham did not resign at the time of his indictment. It was only after he pleaded guilty to taking more than $2 million in bribes - link

Bob Ney did not resign at the time of his indictment, but waited until weeks after he pleaded guilty to multiple crimes of corruption (it took the judge 9 minutes to read through all of the corrupt activites Ney engaged in from 2000 through 2004 -link)

Its a bit hypocritical for the House Repub leader to call for an immediate expulsion order for Jefferson, when he took no such action on Cunninghamd and Ney - link

/end of my partisan observations.

But Jefferson should still do the honorable thing and step down now.

ubertuber · 06-05-2007, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Let's keep in mind that he has been indicted. He has not been found guilty, and he claims innocent. He is therefore innocent - at least until he is proven not to be. That's how the laws of this country are supposed to work.

That said, I think he's guilty as hell, and the minute the jury comes back with that verdict he should resign or be kicked out. There's no excuse for that crap, no matter what party commits the offense.

That's a good point.

However, if he knows he's guilty, he ought to have the balls to resign.

reconmike · 06-05-2007, 07:24 AM

Yeah he is innocent,

with over $90k in tin foil in his freezer.
Its ok though dont fret Dems, he will serve his 250 years and when he gets out his constituents will reelect him, just like Marion Barry.

shakran · 06-05-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

That's a good point.

However, if he knows he's guilty, he ought to have the balls to resign.

Agreed, but corrupt assholes are the same no matter what side of the aisle they sit on. If he's innocent, he shouldn't resign. If he's guilty, he's almost certainly a big enough asshole that he'll try to beat the rap and keep his seat.

seretogis · 06-05-2007, 09:18 AM

Why are some of you expecting "balls" and "honor" from career politicians?

He'll do what the rest of them do, wait until he is convicted to resign, even if he knows that he is 100% guilty.

tecoyah · 06-06-2007, 01:53 AM

Well, it would seem the Congress is taking this more seriously than in the past. Even Jefferson may have found one of his balls....tiny though it may be:

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The House ordered a speedy internal investigation that could oust indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson from Congress before his bribery trial.

Mindful of anti-corruption sentiment among voters last November, the House passed two resolutions Tuesday that require the ethics committee to investigate charges more quickly than in the past.

Jefferson, meanwhile, resigned his seat on the Small Business Committee in response to his indictment on federal charges of taking more than $500,000 in bribes. Democrats already had moved to take that seat from him. Jefferson admitted no wrongdoing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/...JJep_aqJ.s0NUE

Maybe there is one small L.E.D. at the end of this dark tunnel.

dc_dux · 06-06-2007, 06:01 AM

At the same time that the House passed the rule for the Ethics Committee to investigate if Jefferson should be expelled (as Tecoyah's article notes, a recommendation for explusion would be a first by the House), it passed a concurrent rule that directs the Ethics Committee to respond to the indictment of any House member by empaneling an investigative committee within 30 days.

It is interesting to note that one member who voted against both resolutions was repub Cong. John Doolittle (possibly the next House member to be indicted?). Doolittle’s home was searched by the FBI in April as part of the investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-05.html

Even more promising is a proposal that a panel of four congressional outsiders be set up to decide which complaints merit investigation by the Ethics Committee. Since Congress has rarely shown the balls to investigate one of their own (The committee’s historical data show that just one complaint has been filed by a member in the past six years, and just two have been filed since 1997.) This would allow outside groups to call for investigating a House member's conduct and this new indepedent would decide to proceed or not.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002524230.html

The_Dunedan · 06-07-2007, 01:51 AM

Now THIS is what I'm talkin' about!

Thanks for the good news, Host.

Elphaba · 06-08-2007, 04:46 PM

I needed to pick myself off the floor when I heard Jefferson's attorney comment today. The "defense" is that Jefferson was a willing participant in a FBI sting of an illegal Nigerian operation. *That's* why he had $90K in his freezer!

Wouldn't that suggest that the FBI and DOJ do not coordinate their investigations? Oh, wait. That has been a problem.

aceventura3 · 06-11-2007, 07:48 AM

I have a problem when our Federal government engages in "sting" operations. I also think there is something wrong when the government encourages people to do things that would normally be illegal or things that would put them at risk to entrap a person who may have had no intent on violating any law.

When it comes to "white collar",financial crimes. I think almost everyone has a "price" or a point where they would do something they would not ordinarilly do, even if it is illegal. So to me it seems that the Federal government could target any person, set-up a sting with a high enough potential reward and entrap that person and that they could do that all day every-day to millions of people.

I find it interesting that some who are very vocal about the Bush administration's use of phone records to track the communications of terrorists at war with us, say nothing about the potential abuse of "sting" operations.

Jefferson may be guilty, but this may prove to be an interesting case on a number of levels as the facts come out.

joshbaumgartner · 06-12-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Why are some of you expecting "balls" and "honor" from career politicians?

It is not incidental that the sentiment that noone can be a career politician without going corrupt is so widespread. It that very sentiment that is pushed by the corrupted.

If integrity is rare in the field, then it is all the more important that we emphasize standards and act strongly to enforce them. There are polititians who have courage and honor and who act on them. They are by and large sidelined. The media doesn't get any ratings by reporting on honorable behaviour of representatives. When they do get press it is ridicule of their "extremist" positions--one who stands firm on principle must be an extremist, right?

I expect high standards of those who serve me at the high levels of the Federal Government. That I am routinely dissappointed by their actions is not going to cause me to lower my standards, but merely encourage me to be all the more insistant that those who seek such jobs meet those standards and are held accountable when they don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have a problem when our Federal government engages in "sting" operations.

An excellent concern. Sting operations have their place, but in my view, they should only be used to target those which the police have specific reason to believe are already engaging in illegal activities. The purpose of the sting is to therefore verify that suspicion while collecting the evidence to that effect.

In the case of a bribery situation, if the police had collected reports, tips, or whatever to lead them to believe there was a significant chance that an individual was taking bribes, then yes, a sting may be warranted to try and replicate a similar opportunity, and see if indeed that person was going to participate. But if they don't have specific information that the person is actively involved in real bribery, they have no business setting up the sting.

I don't have enough details to say one way or the other in regard to the Jefferson case, so don't take any of this as an indication of my feelings on his case in particular. But in general, I share your concern about stings. I do want police to have tools to catch criminals, and am eager to see our law enforcement agencies tackling our government officials when they break the law. But at the same time, the purpose of law enforcement is to deter and prevent crime, not to encourage it just so they can arrest people.

06-04-2007, 09:34 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	He should absolutely resign immediately. But one partisan question still remains....and that is, with all the evidence they had against him, why did Gonzales feel it was necessary to raid his House office (the first time in the history of Congress) and did not feel that same necessity in the Cunningham or Ney investigations? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-04-2007, 10:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Shakran...you are absolutely right. Just for the record, Duke Cunningham did not resign at the time of his indictment. It was only after he pleaded guilty to taking more than $2 million in bribes - link Bob Ney did not resign at the time of his indictment, but waited until weeks after he pleaded guilty to multiple crimes of corruption (it took the judge 9 minutes to read through all of the corrupt activites Ney engaged in from 2000 through 2004 -link) Its a bit hypocritical for the House Repub leader to call for an immediate expulsion order for Jefferson, when he took no such action on Cunninghamd and Ney - link /end of my partisan observations. But Jefferson should still do the honorable thing and step down now. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-05-2007, 07:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Yeah he is innocent, with over $90k in tin foil in his freezer. Its ok though dont fret Dems, he will serve his 250 years and when he gets out his constituents will reelect him, just like Marion Barry. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

06-05-2007, 09:18 AM	#15 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Why are some of you expecting "balls" and "honor" from career politicians? He'll do what the rest of them do, wait until he is convicted to resign, even if he knows that he is 100% guilty. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-06-2007, 06:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	At the same time that the House passed the rule for the Ethics Committee to investigate if Jefferson should be expelled (as Tecoyah's article notes, a recommendation for explusion would be a first by the House), it passed a concurrent rule that directs the Ethics Committee to respond to the indictment of any House member by empaneling an investigative committee within 30 days. It is interesting to note that one member who voted against both resolutions was repub Cong. John Doolittle (possibly the next House member to be indicted?). Doolittle’s home was searched by the FBI in April as part of the investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-05.html Even more promising is a proposal that a panel of four congressional outsiders be set up to decide which complaints merit investigation by the Ethics Committee. Since Congress has rarely shown the balls to investigate one of their own (The committee’s historical data show that just one complaint has been filed by a member in the past six years, and just two have been filed since 1997.) This would allow outside groups to call for investigating a House member's conduct and this new indepedent would decide to proceed or not. http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002524230.html __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-06-2007 at 06:05 AM..

06-04-2007, 11:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Good get him out of there. I've thought for a while that he needed to step down. Corruption is bad regardless of who does it.

06-04-2007, 11:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	IMHO, this guy is not a very smart corrupt polititian as well as the others you mentioned. I believe that most of our corrupt polititians know how to play the game and we will never catch them. Those that we catch are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

06-04-2007, 11:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Lock him up, but for God's sake don't let this take any attention away from the bigger corrupt politicians. It'd be funny if he was actually responding to a nigerian scammer...

06-04-2007, 01:49 PM	#5 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	It's about freakin' time

06-04-2007, 03:33 PM	#6 (permalink)
Estevez Upright Location: Central Illinois	The real crime was that he got re-elected.

06-04-2007, 08:56 PM	#8 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Sure is refreshing to see such generally partisan people acknowledge the illegality of the illegal activities of the certain members of their own political party.

06-07-2007, 01:51 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Now THIS is what I'm talkin' about! Thanks for the good news, Host.

06-08-2007, 04:46 PM	#19 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I needed to pick myself off the floor when I heard Jefferson's attorney comment today. The "defense" is that Jefferson was a willing participant in a FBI sting of an illegal Nigerian operation. That's why he had $90K in his freezer! Wouldn't that suggest that the FBI and DOJ do not coordinate their investigations? Oh, wait. That has been a problem. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

06-11-2007, 07:48 AM	#20 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I have a problem when our Federal government engages in "sting" operations. I also think there is something wrong when the government encourages people to do things that would normally be illegal or things that would put them at risk to entrap a person who may have had no intent on violating any law. When it comes to "white collar",financial crimes. I think almost everyone has a "price" or a point where they would do something they would not ordinarilly do, even if it is illegal. So to me it seems that the Federal government could target any person, set-up a sting with a high enough potential reward and entrap that person and that they could do that all day every-day to millions of people. I find it interesting that some who are very vocal about the Bush administration's use of phone records to track the communications of terrorists at war with us, say nothing about the potential abuse of "sting" operations. Jefferson may be guilty, but this may prove to be an interesting case on a number of levels as the facts come out. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."