Jefferson indicted

For quite a while, Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) has been rumored to have engaged in some dubious conduct, but he maintained some tepid support — right up until a year ago. Jefferson was caught, on film, taking $100,000 in alleged bribe money out of an FBI informant’s car, only to have the FBI find that same money in his freezer.

Today, Jefferson was indicted on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes, and money-laundering.

The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years, according to a Justice Department official who has seen the document.

Among the charges listed in the indictment, said the official, are racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case.

Jefferson is accused of soliciting bribes for himself and his family, and also for bribing a Nigerian official.

I have no qualms at all about Dems disassociating themselves with Jefferson entirely. The sooner the better.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have a certain tendency to show tolerance for the indicted. When Tom DeLay was about to be indicted, the House GOP changed the rules to protect him. When Duke Cunningham was indicted, the House GOP made excuses for him. When Bob Ney was indicted, the House GOP pretended it was no big deal.

Dems have already shown that they’re willing to take a no-nonsense attitude on corruption, and I hope today’s indictment encourages them to do even more.

Of course there’s a presumption of innocence, but it’s fair to say the evidence looks really, really bad for Jefferson. If the bribery charges have merit, and it appears they do, I don’t want him in our caucus; I don’t want him in our party; and I don’t expect him to get any support from Democrats anywhere.

There are some options. When former Rep. Jim Trafficant (D-Ohio), another obvious crook, won re-election a few cycles ago, Dems refused to acknowledge his existence, and wouldn’t give him any committee assignments. There’s no reason Jefferson can’t receive the same treatment.

For that matter, as Marl Kleiman noted a while back, expulsion should be at the top of the list of possibilities.

[T]here is Constitutional authority to expel a member, by a two-thirds vote. Jefferson, along with several of the not-yet-indicted Abramoff/MZM crooks, ought to be called before the Ethics Committee and asked under oath where the money came from. He would have the right to plead his Fifth Amendment privilege againt self-incrimination, on which the Committee would have the right to draw the appropriate inference and recommend his expulsion.

No, this isn’t a violation of the principle “innocent until proven guilty.” The question isn’t criminal guilt, it’s fitness to serve in the House. Whether Jefferson, Doolittle, et al. go to prison is up to the prosecutors and the courts. Whether they continue to make our laws is up to the House of Representatives.

Sounds good to me.

Speaking as a Democrats who is originally from NOLA – about damn time.

  • What, we shouldn’t change the rules so that an indicted member can keep his position?

    Kicking Jefferson out should have been the Democrats’ first act, to set the tone of zero tolerance.

  • it is really important that the democrats set the proper tone here and show the country that they are the honest party, and the republicans are the crooks.

  • Took them long enough. I don’t know how this guy managed to win the last election.

  • Rian – from what I heard it was because Harry Lee (Jefferson Parish sherrif and very, very powerful political figure for those of you who don’t know) got the vote out for him because his opponent was making a bid deal out of that whole Miss. River. Bridge incident during Katrina and Harry Lee didn’t appreciate it.

  • I don’t know. I do believe that innocent until proven guilty is one of those really, really important principles contained in our Constitution. Like habeas corpus. And supported by the text/meaning of the original Constitution and not just the Bill of Rights. So I have a hard time jumping immediately to state he should be expelled from the House. Especially when his constituents voted him back into office knowing this cloud was hanging over his head. Because he is not yet guilty I question whether his counterparts in the House should remove him from the House against the wishes of those who voted for him–which could be considered disenfranchisement of sorts, and as voting rights are also one of those really, really important principles as contained in our original Constitution.

    Shunned yes. Kicked off all committees definitely. This should happen immediately. And then the House (and LA) Dems should try and convince him to resign–I wonder what the rules are in LA for replaceing someone due to death or resignation?

  • Corruption knows no party lines though it seems to dominate the Republican party lately. At least the Democrats aren’t out there trying to cover for him and that’s good. He definitely should be out of the House immediately.

    What happens if an official lies to a congressional committee and is later found guilty? Does he have to pay back his salary

  • It’s Monday afternoon. Pelosi should give him 48 hours to resign and get the F*** out of Washington—while simultaneously having the Ethics Committee begin expulsion procedures. If he’s still there when the sun comes up on Thursday, then open the day’s session with a call to vote him out, and end the day by having the word “Vacancy” painted on his office door. I’ll pay for a nice can of bright yellow paint to do the job with, too!

  • Pelosi should give him 48 hours to resign and get the F*** out of Washington — Steve, @8

    Steve, I expect he’d have been advised not to leave town, even if he’s let go on bail 🙂

    I’m glad they’ve finally handed in the indictment; it’s been like waiting for the other shoe to drop, all these months. Now there can be a trial and we’ll see what we’ll see from it, instead of the half-dodges on Pelosi’s part and endless speculations on everyone else’s.

  • Dems have already shown that they’re willing to take a no-nonsense attitude on corruption

    I had no idea this was April 1st. You were joking when you said this, right?

  • Comments are closed.