You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Jefferson Won't Resign From House Panel Amid Bribery Scandal
2006-05-25
Photo courtesy Michelle Malkin.
WASHINGTON — Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson said Wednesday that he won’t submit to calls for his resignation from a House panel while he is under investigation in a federal bribery case.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sent Jefferson a letter asking him to step down from his seat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. "In the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus, I am writing to request your immediate resignation from the Ways and Means Committee," Pelosi wrote.
Pelosi acting responsible -- will wonders never cease?
Jefferson responded in a written statement, saying he will not resign. Jefferson has not been indicted and has denied wrongdoing. "None of the matters reported to be under scrutiny involve issues under jurisdiction of the Ways and Means committee. Therefore, such a request would be even more perplexing and unreasonable. If I agreed, it would unfairly punish the people of the 2nd District and I will not stand for that," Jefferson said.

"Further, such a request would be discriminatory, in as much as no other member currently under federal investigation has been asked to step down from a relevant committee assignment. Therefore, I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political strategy," he added.

Officials say Pelosi is working behind the scenes to get Jefferson off the committee. The letter is the latest attempt to urge Jefferson to step down until the legal situation is addressed. Jefferson did attend a House Democratic Caucus meeting Wednesday morning, but the issue surrounding the latest controversy did not come up, said caucus chairman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Meanwhile, lawmakers have engaged in a constitutional battle with federal officials, blasting a raid of Jefferson's congressional office last weekend. FBI agents searched Jefferson's office in pursuit of evidence related to the bribery investigation.
Which not only is correct and responsible, but has happened before.
The search warrant, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan, was based on an affidavit that said agents found $90,000 in cash wrapped and stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's home. The money is said to have the same serial numbers as the $100 bills given to Jefferson through an FBI informant last year.
I'm not a forensics expert, but I have to think that's going to be hard to explain.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans have come to Jefferson's defense, saying the FBI should surrender documents and other items that were seized during the raid. "I think those materials ought to be returned," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, adding that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that [case] for the sake of the Constitution."
Just when you think the Repubs have no feet left to shoot ...
Hastert met with Pelosi on Wednesday and the two released a joint statement following their meeting. "No person is above the law, neither the one being investigated nor those conducting the investigation," the statement reads. "The Justice Department must immediately return the papers its unconstitutionally seized. Once that is done, Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights."

The Department of Justice responded to Hastert on Wednesday, saying federal officials must fully pursue investigations and take necessary steps to obtain evidence. "As the attorney general said yesterday there is tremendous respect for Congress' important, independent role but the department has an obligation to the American people to fully pursue corruption cases wherever the trail of evidence goes," said Tasia Scolinos, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department.

"We are optimistic that continuing talks with the Congress can produce a result that meets law enforcement's needs and also allays any institutional concerns that Congress may have."

But Hastert and Pelosi say the seizure violates the Constitution. "The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," says the statement.
I sure hope some legal beagle can explain this one, because as I see it, a warrant, sworn by the executive and granted by the judiciary, served to check the legislative branch of government. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Posted by:mcsegeek1

#9  The money is said to have the same serial numbers as the $100 bills given to Jefferson through an FBI informant last year.

Recover the money and put JEFFERSON in the freezer and forget about it.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-05-25 17:10  

#8  ha,,ha,,,ha,,,,,,hahaha
Posted by: Captain America   2006-05-25 17:07  

#7  All gottem ancient top loaders in they basements.
Posted by: 6   2006-05-25 17:00  

#6   I don't see the Congressional Black Caucus rushing to his defense on this one.

Black Caucus turns on Pelosi over Jefferson scandal
House Minority Leader (D-CA) is facing a minor insurrection from members of the Black Caucus after asking Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) to step down from his post on the Ways and Means Committee, according to today's Roll Call.

Excerpts from the Roll Call story follow:

But hours after Pelosi sent her letter to Jefferson on Wednesday, a members-only CBC lunch meeting produced an emotional consensus that Pelosi had overreached, since Jefferson has not been charged with any crimes. One after another, CBC members rallied behind their colleague, arguing that he was being singled out. Some noted that another Democrat recently entangled in an ethics controversy, Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), was forced to step aside as the ranking member of the ethics committee but permitted to keep his coveted Appropriations Committee perch.

“There’s no precedent for doing this to someone who has not been indicted,” Rep. Al Wynn (Md.) said afterward. Said Clyburn, also a CBC member: “I would say that the people who spoke were very vehement in their opposition.”

Late in the day on Wednesday, Watt led a delegation of six senior CBC members — including Reps. Rangel, John Conyers (Mich.) and John Lewis (Ga.) — to a private meeting with Pelosi to inform the Leader that the CBC will publicly oppose her effort.

“I think she’s taking us down to the point where on Nov. 8 she’ll still be the Minority Leader,” an aide to a CBC member said. “Why act now and split the Caucus when there’s no precedent for it? Why not wait until there’s an indictment, when you could have unanimity behind you?”
Posted by: Steve   2006-05-25 15:36  

#5  said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, adding that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that [case] for the sake of the Constitution."

NB: Over at the Corner, one of the commentors noted that the agents who actually went into the office were not assigned to the case. Furthermore, the items they seized were then examined by ANOTHER set of agents and lawyers to make sure they were relevant. Only after passing through two teams of uninvolved agents did the agents on the case get the material.

Congress needs an enema so they can see the light. They're not kings.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-05-25 12:22  

#4  You're right Deacon. If the system ensures 3 co-equal branches of government, then it stands to reason that each branch has some jurisdiction over the other two. Congress seems to think they are totally independent.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-05-25 11:32  

#3  The members of Congress claim this violates the debate clause of the Constitution which states that members of Congress can't be arrested while Congress is in session and debating issues. This is stretching waaaaaay to thin. Jefferson wasn't arrested. What it boils down to is the members of Congress have decided they are above the other two branches and no one can investigate them but Congress themselves. So much for checks and balances. There has always been a certain ammount of elitism in Congress but this goes beyond the pale.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-05-25 11:10  

#2  "Further, such a request would be discriminatory..."

Don't tell me he's already playing a subtle race card. I don't see the Congressional Black Caucus rushing to his defense on this one.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-05-25 10:43  

#1  Jeff, you 'unfairly punished the people of the 2nd District' the minute you took office, scumbag.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-05-25 10:43  

00:00