posted on June 7, 2007 11:46:08 AM new
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 06, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - House Democrats who heralded a new age of ethics after winning a majority were slow to investigate one of their own, according to their Republican critics.
Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) - re-elected to a ninth term even after an FBI raid allegedly found $90,000 in his freezer during a large-scale corruption scandal - faces a prison sentence of more than 200 years if convicted on 16 counts including charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money laundering.
He was indicted this week, but allegations had been looming for well over a year.
Even while Jefferson maintains his innocence, the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution asking the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, better known as the ethics committee, to probe Jefferson's case and report whether the facts warrant his expulsion from Congress.
However, on the House floor, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) pointed out that Republicans had already taken steps to investigate the charges against Jefferson dating back to last year before the Democrats won control of Congress.
"We've gone almost the first half of the year without any action taking place," Dreier said. "The decision to empanel a group on the majority side was made today after we got the news yesterday of the indictment. My inquiry to my friend is why in fact did it take so long to take action even after so much action was taken in the 109th Congress?"
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) responded, "Well, I don't have a specific answer for that."
Democratic candidates for Congress last year ran against what they called the Republican "culture of corruption" as 2006 saw two Republican House members convicted on corruption charges, while Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay resigned amid corruption allegations.
But Jefferson is the first member of Congress this year to face criminal charges, and Republican leaders don't appear ready to let up on what they regard as the Democratic Party's soft treatment of Jefferson.
In February, even as criminal charges seemed likely, the Democratic Caucus voted unanimously to appoint Jefferson to the House Homeland Security Committee, a decision that stirred some controversy because the post provides access to top secret information.
The Republican-controlled House last year formed an investigative subcommittee to look at Jefferson, but the probe expired at the end of the 109th Congress.
In a statement, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was ready to appoint minority members to the investigative subcommittee in January, but as a courtesy wanted to allow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to appoint her members first.
However, Boehner decided to appoint 10 members anyway on May 1, and no action was taken by Pelosi, the statement said.
It was Boehner who, after the indictment, asked the ethics committee to consider if the facts warranted Jefferson's removal from Congress. If Jefferson is expelled, he will be the second member this decade to face such a penalty, as Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio) was ousted by his colleagues in 2002 after being convicted on federal corruption charges.
However, it's unusual that the full House authorizes the ethics committee to report on whether an action warrants removal. Ethics committee chairwoman Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) declared that "it is inappropriate for any other member (outside of the ethics panel) to impose on these proceedings."
"Under normal circumstances, a statement would not be issued concerning this matter, because ethics issues are non-partisan," she continued in a statement. "But because Republicans have attempted to politicize this process, I was compelled to issue this statement."
This prompted a response from Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the ranking Republican on the ethics committee.
"It has been my repeatedly expressed desire since the beginning of this Congress for the committee to empanel a subcommittee to investigate Rep. Jefferson, but one has yet to be named," Hastings said Tuesday in a statement.
"I have believed long before yesterday's indictment that the committee's May 2006 decision to empanel an investigative subcommittee was correct and should have already been authorized," he added.
A Pelosi spokesman could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
However, in a statement, Pelosi said, "While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of trust and power."
In a statement, Jefferson maintained that "I am innocent of these allegations and confident members of the ethics committee will arrive at the same conclusion through investigation."
The federal criminal probe of Jefferson centered on accusations that he accepted a bribe of $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman. FBI officials said they videotaped the congressman taking the cash and later found $90,000 in a box in the freezer of his Louisiana home in August 2005. (See Related Story)
Two of his associates have already reached plea bargains and have been sentenced. Former congressional aide Brett Pfeffer admitted soliciting bribes on the congressman's behalf and was ordered to spend eight years behind bars.
Another Jefferson associate, Louisville, Ky., telecommunications executive Vernon Jackson, pleaded guilty to paying between $400,000 and $1 million in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations. Jackson was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on June 7, 2007 12:02:55 PM new
Yep, imo, they've got him with the evidence AND his 'cohorts' admissions.
pelosi is going slowly with this because she's at odds with the Black Caucus and they're pissed at her.
Plus jefferson really had NO important job that he was doing for the dem party....the only thing he did was on one committee. lol
He's almost not necessary to their party anyway. lol
BEFORE the election....they didn't want the public, who they were pretending to that they were going to end these lack of ethic issues, was right in their own home. Can't admit THAT during any election cycle. lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 7, 2007 12:06 PM ]
