CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics

I know it's not a popular thing to say, but the blogs should cut Pelosi a little slack.  This is just awful behavior on the part of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Furious black lawmakers, rallying behind Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), were pulled back from the brink of open revolt against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in an emergency meeting with her yesterday.

The meeting with a handful of CBC members was called after Pelosi wrote the embattled lawmaker, who is at the center of a massive bribery scandal, a curt note requesting his immediate resignation from the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

Outraged that one of its members was being picked on even though he has not been charged with a crime, the Congressional Black Caucus had intended to issue a defiant statement against their leader but agreed after the meeting to pause, at least briefly, for reflection.

Earlier this week, Pelosi approached Jefferson and told him that she thought he should resign, according to a Democratic aide. Later, at the Democratic caucus meeting yesterday morning, she took him into a side room and told him that she had prepared a letter calling on him to resign the committee seat and that she would allow him one hour to withdraw gracefully before she sent it, according to the aide. In both instances, Jefferson remained defiant.

Pelosi's one-sentence missive to Jefferson called on him to vacate his committee seat "in the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus."

Jefferson promptly refused, calling her request "discriminatory" and "unprecedented," and suggested that she was employing a double standard by failing to ask other lawmakers facing ethics questions to relinquish their committee assignments. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) has come under fire for earmarks he secured through his seat on the Appropriations Committee.

"I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain political strategy," Jefferson said.

The Jefferson scandal, which after more than a year of investigation blew open Saturday with an FBI raid at his congressional office, has brought into glaring public light long-standing resentments felt by black lawmakers toward the Democratic leadership in the House.

The CBC's chairman, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), engaged in a heated argument with Pelosi on the House floor Tuesday afternoon after Watt heard reports that Pelosi was considering calling for Jefferson's ouster, according to one witness.

Members of the CBC are expected to confront Pelosi today in a meeting that was previously scheduled to address separate concerns about Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). That meeting is now likely to focus more on Jefferson, a Democratic aide said.

With 43 members, the CBC is a formidable force in the 202-member Democratic caucus and one Pelosi is unusually reluctant to antagonize. Should Democrats take the House, the CBC would control four, and possibly five, committee chairmanships.

Jefferson has been the subject of a wide-ranging bribery investigation by the Department of Justice. Pelosi's call for his ouster came several days after a newly filed court document offered more details on Jefferson's alleged acceptance of $100,000 from an FBI informant in a sting operation. Days after that purported exchange, the document said, the FBI found $90,000 in Jefferson's freezer.

The search of his Capitol Hill office has prompted a storm of criticism from congressional leaders from both parties, including Pelosi, who charged that the executive branch had overstepped the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Yesterday's CBC meeting with Jefferson was well-attended, drawing nearly all of the caucus's heavyweights -- Ways and Means ranking Democrat Charles Rangel (N.Y.), Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn (S.C.).

Most lawmakers would not comment afterwards, but a CBC aide summed up some members' frustration, saying, "Congresswoman Pelosi, by preemption without any legal justification, has now created a new precedent for how members are going to be treated. Unfortunately, she's chosen to single out an African-American for this honor."

Then the aide added an electoral threat, saying, "The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader."

Pelosi is attempting to discipline Democrats in the House for unethical behavior.  That's a big deal.  And CBC Democrats are of course resisting because of turf battles.  My guess here is that Pelosi isn't doing the politics that well, but she's taking a stand and taking on an entrenched and extremely powerful interest.  



Display:


Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

The CBC has a point if she didn't ask Mollahan to resign his post, too.  She needs to establish that corruption in the democratic caucus is unacceptable.  Not only is it the right thing to do, its also the only way to ensure this remains a strong campaign issue for the democrats.  


by JJCPA on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:20:25 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

No - that is utterly wrong. The way it remains an issue is that if the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, don't protect corrupt members so that we can say to the American people- that at least with us- our leadership isn't about business as usual. The CBC is utterly wrong on this issue. This guy needs to do the right thing and resign. I know there are those who are trying to say this about race- it's not- it's about the 90k found in his freezer.


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:00:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mollohan is Off (none / 0)

She was slow on the uptake - but Nancy is finally getting it. Nancy did the right thing.

Mollohan resigned his post. Jefferson should be next.

These guys represent us - not each other.


by zappatero on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

So why isn't Pelosi asking Mollohan to resign from Appropriations?


by dwbh on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:21:14 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Well $90,000 in cash didn't turn up in Mollohan's freezer. :)

Peace.


by Lakid1995 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Mollohan is only guilty of investing his money wisely in the real estate market, while Jefferson was taped exchanging large sums of money that later appeared in his freezer.  I guess one can say that the evidence against Jefferson is incontrovertible, while the evidence against Mollohan is flimsy at best.


by illinois062006 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:35:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

We don't know that.  Both are under investigation for the same thing - user their office to enrich themselves.  It could turn out Mollohan was just more sophisticated than Jefferson.  That is why Pelosi should be asking Mollohan to resign from Appropriations as well.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:05:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huge difference!! (none / 0)

There is concern about Mollohan possibly leveraging his position to enrich himself (this actually appears to be just a good market).

There is a friggin tape recording of Jefferson plus there are marked bills he was given by agents!!

Jefferson is dead in the water.  He is going to be charged and he is going to be found guilty.  

Mollohan most likely will not even be censured, let alone indicted.


by jcjcjc on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No There Is Not (none / 0)

Until Jefferson is indicted, they are in the exact same boat - under investigation for using their office to enrich themselves.  The big difference is that the FBI leaked a video tape of Jefferson taking money.

You are assuming that Mollohan is being wrongly investigated but we have no idea if that is true.  We do not know whether or not Mollohan made his money because of a good real estate market or because he was skimming money from these organizations in sophisticated manner.  You are making a huge leap here that Mollohan is going to be cleared.  He may well be.

However, the crime these two members of Congress are under investigation for is the same - selling your office regardless of the methods.  Pelosi should be treating them exactly the same and because she isn't she has run into political problems.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No There Is Not (none / 0)

whats nto an assumption is that he did step down- which jefferson has not done. at the end of the day- the cbc doesnt have a leg to stand on- no matter you parse the facts to make what they did make sense. b/c even in comparision- the other did step down.


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 04:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No There Is Not (none / 0)

I am not defending the CBC or Jefferson and I think Pelosi is right on the merits.  However, she should have proposed a rule change that required all members under indictment to give up their committee assignments (see my diary).  That would have dealt with Jefferson in short order since he is sure to be indicted and addressed Mollohan should something come of his situation.  

By singling out Jefferson when he has yet to be indicted regardless of the leaked info and having another member under investigation for abusing his office, she has put herself in an unnecessary position.  Just saying it could have been handled better.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No There Is Not (none / 0)

but the point is that she isn't singling him out. she did the same with the other guy. singling jefferson out cuts both ways- she could have singled him out by ignoring it too- which would have also been different based on what I have heard of how she treated the otehr guy. she's just treating him exactly the same- that's why this isn't racial


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No There Is Not (none / 0)

Well, Mollohan did step down as co-chair of the Ethics panel, but he's still on the Appropriations Committee.  Pelosi didn't ask him to leave that.  So she did treat Jefferson differently.


by adoubleplusgood on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No There Is Not (none / 0)

Exactly.  And since most members hate serving on Ethics and do it to curry favor with the leadership, I don't image Mollohan was all that upset.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No There Is Not (none / 0)

i have to be honest i dont really care- i think 90 k in the fridge pretty much ends the what if and comparisons for me. so you can go and forth


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

If evidence shows up against Mollohan (which is quite possible), then we'll talk.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

"The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader."

I don't understand why they're making this threat. Should the democrats retake the House, members of the CBC will control 4 to 5 committee chairmanships, as already mentioned. Would those guys enjoy being in the minority again?


by JRyan on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:38:30 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

again? I'm pretty sure they've always been in the minority.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:05:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

For another two years, was my point. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they withheld support from the democrats in 2006.

I also failed to mention that Clyburn of SC would be in line for the Majority Whip position if the dems retook the House.


by JRyan on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Gotta look at it from their perspective.  A blck man from Louisiana is gonna raise some tempers regardless of the circumstances.  Especially since Democrats refuse to go after Republicans who have been doing the same if not worse.  Like Talib Kweli said- "You try to vote and participate in the government and the muh'fuckin' Democrats is actin like Republicans."


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:27:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

anyone using this kind of logic is an idiot- sorry but there is no nice way to put it. this isn't a democrat or republican thing, or race thing, it's a 90 k in the freezer thing


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I'm not trying to justify the position, but I can certainly see how, in a Congress THIS corrupt, it would ruffle a few feathers in the CBC that it's only the black guy that people are going after.  He should certainly resign and the CBC should be the ones leading the charge, but how many corrupt Republicans has Pelosi gone after?


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

its been stated else where but apparently the other guy voluntarily steped down after being asked to do so. this guy isn't voluntarily steping down, and pelosi's hand was forced. also, if the CBC makes this about race, then its harder in the other things of which race really is a factor than protecting a corrupt member


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I wonder, fairly or not, whether anything the CBC does can NOT be about race.  Since the group is a racial group at its core, I think all of their actions have to be taken in a racial context, at least to some degree.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 25, 2006 at 03:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

No- because then it makes issues about race meaningless. if everything is about race- then nothing is about race. And that's not true. Some things are- capital allocation, education distribution, penalty for criminal acts (I am a hard nose on crime, but I do believe that the sentencing guidelines need to be race neutral which they are not right now), and multiple other real race issues are about race. This is about them protecting one of their own, and it's not about protecting their constituency. If I even remotely thought this was about race- I would support them. but this is just crass manipulation of the race issue to cover up unethical behavior- ie, say black and racism and we are suppose to forget the 90 k in the fridge. Sorry, but I am not going to do that- and neither should Pelosi. What they are doing is indefensible. if they want to show solidarity- do it in a way that helps us out here not in congress. This is as dumb as the no snitching attitude that now exists in parts of the black community. It doesn't allow for the reality that somethings are about safety, right and wrong, and otehr issues outside of race. It makes it seem like one is crying wolf or the sky is falling so when it really happens- even some potential allies may not believe you. This, as I have said, isn't Katrina. Well- actually it is- in the case katrinca - that was a no brainer racial situation. this is a non brainer non race situation


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 03:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

It's a group that derives its identity from its racial makeup.  I think that inherently requires that their actions be viewed in the context of race.    If it were women coming together and saying "because we're women, we've come together, and this is what we think" wouldn't it be a gender issue? If it were all poor people coming together for an issue and saying "we're joined together because we're poor, as this is what we think," wouldn't it be a class issue?  I'm not saying that this SHOULD be a racial issue.  It shouldn't be an issue period, but it is.

I'm not disagreeing with your point that it may very well be crass manipulation of racial issues or that they shouldn't be doing this, but when the CBC does something officially, as a group, how can the racial part be ignored?


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Please don't make this about race. Why is it that we in the African American community can only come out in strong support of people who, if are not criminals, are unethical to say the least. This isn't the sort of issue of which we should be making it about race. Katrina, yes. This, no. It's simply comes across to me as bullshit. I am a black guy. I care deeply what happens in my community. This glorification of idiots like this guy- defending the indensible as- well others did it too- is just wrong. We need better examples of leadership- and this guy ain't it.


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

I don't believe it is a black thing or based on race.  

I believe it's a videotape and $90,000 in MARKED bills in a freezer thing.  (dude, you are soooo busted!)

So why is the CBC defending this guy and trying to play the race card? That's what I don't get.


by NvDem on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:47:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

I don't either. Well, actually I do. it's the circle the wagon theory of race. I have seen this with other situations in pop culture, ie, with whether OJ was guilty or not, etc. Anytime some who is black is being attacked, it's the feeling that we are all being attacked. That somehow the treatment is happening because they are singling out black folk for this treatment alone regardless of whether this is actually the case.


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I'm not sure why this is a response to me, since I didn't make the issue about race. I just quoted the article.


by JRyan on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I misread your comment


by bruh21 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (3.00 / 2)

Pelosi is doing the correct thing to protect the party. Representative Jefferson is doing the opposite.

Jefferson promptly refused, calling her request "discriminatory" and "unprecedented," and suggested that she was employing a double standard by failing to ask other lawmakers facing ethics questions to relinquish their committee assignments. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) has come under fire for earmarks he secured through his seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Let's review. Jefferson is on tape accepting tens of thousands of dollars and that money ends up hidden in his freezer. Mollohan on the other hand, although he may be guilty, still can plausibly claim innocence.

If Mollohan had $90,000 in his freezer then no one in America would believe he was innocent either. It is entirely proper for Pelosi to discriminate between the two cases on the basis of the facts at hand. It should be clear to just about anyone that the discrimination is based on the evidence at hand and not on the race of the two men.

Charges of racism by Pelosi here ring very hollow.


by Curt Matlock on Thu May 25, 2006 at 09:42:28 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (3.00 / 0)

What's missing in all of this is the failure by the Justice Dept to take action against Jefferson based on the supposedly strong evidence that they have from the undercover sting operation and freezer raid.  Isn't that enough to justify arrest and prosecution?  But because they are not taking timely action, this leaves everyone in the Democratic Caucus (including the CBC) in an awkward position.  The fact is that $90K in marked bills in the freezer is pretty damning as well as a public perception nightmare for Democrats.  If this is strong evidence, then the Justice Department needs to get off its ass and do something.  That would end much of the debate about whether the allegations (and they are that for right now) are true or not.


by Phonatic on Fri May 26, 2006 at 01:24:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the only screwy thing about the case! (none / 0)

I agree - the more we find out about this case, the less it seems we know.

I diarized about the FBI affidavit for the search which, to say the least, poses more questions than it answers.


by skeptic06 on Fri May 26, 2006 at 08:08:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

It was probably more important that Mollohan resigned his seat on the Ethics Committee.  There's no way he could have kept that position while under investigation.


by KimPossible on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:00:24 AM EST

Uh oh... (none / 0)

I'd just penned a diary on the CBC and the party generally - and find that, meanwhile, Matt has made my point for me! (To some extent, at least - let's not get carried away...)

The Watt outburst on the House floor had completely escaped me - diabolically bad.

The anonymouse I hope she enjoys being minority leader crack - surely an authorized statement! - shows not idiocy but seriousness on the part of CBC honchos.

They would actually prefer to preserve their hold on the machine by the Dems failing to get House control in November rather than suffer a dilution of their influence in a Dem 110th.

Classic machine politics!

Only, usually, it was the Irish seeking to retain control of the machine, rather than just influencing it. Better to see a fusion ticket win rather that have to dole out patronage to Poles, Italians and Jews who will want to stick around and dilute the Irishness of the machine in better times when the Irish could win on their own.

Except - if the Dems lose, Pelosi will no doubt go. Perhaps the CBC think that one of their number should get the top job. Or at least second banana...


by skeptic06 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:00:41 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I agree with Matt that Pelosi should be cut a little slack.  I am completely opposed to public corruption and believe members of Congress and other elected officials should adhere to the highest ethical standards.

I didn't realize Jefferson had not been indicted yet.  Pelosi is right on the merits but does appears to have jumped the gun which is creating a political problem.  The Dems should hold an immediate Caucus meeting and amend their rules to require leadership members, committee chairs/ranking members and those serving on the big 4 House committees - Appropriations, Ways and Means, Rules and Energy and Commerce - to temporarily give up their positions until the completion of legal proceedings.  This would be a much cleaner way to handle the problem and it would not appear to the CBC or anyone else that a certain member is being singled out.  

It would also address this issue going forward so Pelosi or any other Dem leader is not put in the position of singling out one member.  One other advantage is that it could be used to the Dems political advantage to show that they believe in rules that do not tolerate corruption.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:15:39 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

This would also address the Mollohan issue should he be indicted.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I have a feeling - nothing more - that Pelosi would have thought of doing some like that a good while ago, but didn't because she knew it wouldn't pass.

And the reason it wouldn't pass? Not necessarily that these committees are full of crooks. But because they resented the implication, and being under a sort of probation, and because it was an accretion of power to the leadership.


by skeptic06 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:28:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

If you specifically drafted the rule to say a member under indictment must give up his/her position in the leadership or seat on a committee I think it would be hard for members to vote against it.  I am not comfortable with forcing people off committees, with the exception of Ethics, for being under investigation.  Prosecutors do investigate and sometimes not indict.  Rudy Giuliani was famous during his days as US Attorney for leaking on slow news days that people/institutions were under investigation and then issuing releases months later that they had been cleared.  He did it for the press hit and he is not the only prosecutor to have done this type of thing.  There is a reason people are tried in a court of law not the press.

Jefferson sounds on the verge of indictment so it probably would have been prudent for Pelosi to wait until it actually happened.  I am not defending the CBC because I think they are wrong but waiting would have strengthened her hand.  She is right on the merits but she has played the politics badly and that is part of her job as Minority Leader.  


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is pathetic (3.00 / 2)

the guy has $90,000 in his freezer and the congressional black caucus wants him to stay on a committee?  and they think Pelosi's action is racist?  this is the kind of crap the Democrats pull that just turns off a huge percentage of people in this country.

liberal blogs are attacking Pelosi for this?  you're gonna go to the mat for this sleazebag?

i am as liberal as they come but i don't appreciate when absurd intranacine warfare sabotages our party.


by snaktime on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:22:32 AM EST

Pelosi on Ethics & Leadership (3.00 / 1)

This is Nuts. A committee chairmanship does not depend on due process, it depends on perception.  

I say strip Jefferson of his chairmanship, if he is found innocent, restore it.  There is enough public disclosure of evidence to warrant this.  A chair serves at the pleasure of the Leadership.

If Dems are going to be perceived as fighting corruption it must not be tolerated or condoned.  Send a clear message, don't back down.  

The Republicans have geared up their message machine (it seems like Jefferson has had more media coverage than DeLay when he was indited), trying to paint Dems as 'just like or as bad as Republicans.'  They want to blur the difference.  They are succeeding

The CBC is playing into Republican game.  If they continue, they should be threatened with zero appointments should the dems retake the house (what are they all going to do, turn Republican).  

However, with this game the CBC is playing the Dems won't be able to take back the house.  

Lead by example. Make an example of the guy caught with $90,000 in MARKED bills in his freezer.


by NvDem on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:37:28 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

I think Matt nailed this one. The CBC seems pretty wrong-headed about Jefferson.

I am confused about the justification for protecting Jefferson, considering the situation.


Karl in Drexel Hill, PA
by KB on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:41:01 AM EST

Race (none / 0)

...is the justification.

However, regionalism may have something to do with it as well. And I'm sure friendship is a large factor for some members.


TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gosh talk about a bunch of assholes (none / 0)

I swear I sometimes wonder if the Democratic party can go with folks like Met Watt in the party. I mean..who's playing the race card here? Jefferson is a corrupt selfish bastard and he needs to be hung out to dry period! If I were Pelosi I'd call Mel Watt's bluff and have the whole caucus fire Jefferson and any of his ilk. I mean caught taking cash red handed is like Marion Barry caught with cocaine and hookers!! These so called "black progressives" like Jefferson are the same "brothas" who go around making shady deals with African dictators who turn around and repress their own people. How many black voters even know what the CBC is or does? Zippo..its nothing but an inside the beltway creature led by old school anti-reform spendthrifts..Pelosi is not only right but smart to do this...Mollahan may be just as bad as Jeffersonm, but at least he wasn't as brazen as this idiot.


by dantata on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:44:24 AM EST

Re: Gosh talk about a bunch of assholes (none / 0)

Well said. If we want a fighting ground to prove at least one part of what the Democratic Party stands for this could be it.

If you're corrupt...you're gone!


...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Thu May 25, 2006 at 03:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time for some House cleaning (3.00 / 0)

Jefferson's actions are indefensible and it does not matter how the FBI discovered the cash.

Someone ask these CBC members what innocent explanation there could possibly be for $90K in the freezer.  And while they're tripping over their tongues trying not to sound too stupid, lets get the ball rolling on some primary challenges.  


by ChgoSteve on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:48:37 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Does anyone know a site where we can look at the CBC members' positions and votes?  I know Bobby Rush is the telcoms' go-to guy for net non-neutrality, but overall I don't know where they stand on things.


by drlimerick on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:56:41 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

"My guess here is that Pelosi isn't doing the politics that well, but she's taking a stand and taking on an entrenched and extremely powerful interest."  

Matt hit on the nose here.  By singling out Jefferson before his indictment and not addressing the Mollohan investigation, she has actually played into Jefferson's hand regardless of the details of both cases.  He can now play the persecutted minority regardless of the truth.  Pelosi should have addressed this in a broad, systematic way with a rules change that would have addressed corruption and treated both situations equally.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:03:48 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Pathetic.....CBC needs to slow their roll on this race issue.  It's not got nothing to do with it.  And for that idiot aide, how has the Republican Party been treating African Americans lately??  No votes are a given but Democrats fight for the rights of minorities.  Know who brings home the bacon.  

I certainly hope that Pelosi sticks to her guns on this issue.  Demcrates need to show force on this issue and even if it means kicking someboy off while they are under investigation, then fine.  The man was caught on video taking money that ends up in his freezer.


by Chavez100 on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:05:30 AM EST

I agree with Matt (3.00 / 1)

There are reasons to be unhappy with Pelosi's leadership, but in this situation she is in the right.

The Jefferson and Mollohan situations are not comparable for two reasons. (1) The evidence against Jefferson is much stronger than that against Mollohan and (2) Mollohan has already resigned from his position on the Ethics Committee. So Nancy's call for Jefferson to step down is a call for equivalence.

Apparently Pelosi tried to get Jefferson to step down in a private discussion with him. Going public with this was not her first choice. For all we know she may have had a similar "for the good of the caucus" meeting with Mollohan.

Pelosi had no choice but to make this move if the "Culture of Corruption" attack is to have any value this Fall. That CBC representatives would be threatening the potential for a Democratic majority over this is not just reprehensible, it is stupid. By denying Pelosi the speakership they would also be blocking 4-5 of their own members from gaining the leadership of important House committees.

Stupidity knows no race.


by Chris Andersen on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:21:45 AM EST

Clarifying Mollohan (3.00 / 1)

Mollohan stepped down from the Ethics Committee which most members are happy NOT to serve on.  Mollohan has NOT stepped down from the Appropriations Committee and he is under investigation for using his seat on this committee to enrich himself.  

Pelosi's big mistake in this matter was not calling on Mollohan to step down from Appropriations like she is asking Jefferson to do at Ways and Means.  Both may be indicted, neither may be indicted.  However, both are under investigation for the same thing - using their office to enrich themselves.  Their may or may not be something with Mollohan.  Hell Mollohan may just have been more sophisticated than Jefferson.  We don't know right now.  But treating them differently because the FBI leaked a video tape and evidence found in Jefferson's house is a mistake and it is causing a political problem for Pelosi.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarifying Mollohan (none / 0)

Thanks. I didn't know about the Appropriations Committee situation.

I'm still not convinced the situations are equivalent, but I agree that their requested "punishment" has not been the same.


by Chris Andersen on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarifying Mollohan (none / 0)

There may be nothing there with Mollohan - I have no idea but he and Jefferson are essentially in the same boat right now - under investigation but not indicted.  The House Dem Caucus should enact a rule to deal with this going forward so Pelosi and successive leaders do not have to deal with this on an individual basis.


by John Mills on Thu May 25, 2006 at 12:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

The CBC is the most out touch caucus out there.  How many African-Americans are clammering for a repeal of the estate tax?  Having the telecos regulate the internet? Allowing soft money to determine elections? Allow obvious criminals enjoy powerful positions? The answer to all of those is very very few if any.

Yet that is what the CBC stands for,  protecting their own.  The average margin these guys win by must be around 70-80% to 30-20%.  They haven't campaigned in decades and any time someone tried to make their district competitive for the sake of the party, they screamed racism.  They love their little ghetto-ized districts because all they need to do is raise money and that's pretty easy when you are a sure bet to win.

The thought of the CBC threatening Pelosi with convincing black folks not to vote in swingable districts is laughable. I say take away all of Jefferson's committee assignments and then ask the Dem causus to vote in closed session on whether to expell Jefferson from their caucus. Invite the CBC to defend him and that $90K.  And all the indicted folks that have pointed their finger at Jefferson, and the tape of Jefferson taking bribes.  


by DaveB on Thu May 25, 2006 at 11:49:09 AM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

Let's see:

1. Person plead guilty to giving Jefferson bribes of $400,000 cash.

  1. 2nd person wears wire and gives Jefferson a bribe of 100,000 of which the FBI recover at his home in his freezer $90,000.
  2. He's been under investigation for months.

And Pelosi is out of line asking him to get off the most powerful committee in the House?

Whether there are charges pending or not a person, #1, doesn't plead guilty to a felony $400,00 bribe of a Congressman without actually doing the bribe.

Jefferson should be thrown off the committee, if there is a way to do such a thing, for his apparent actions. Unless, of course, you think people go to Federal prison or let the FBI pressure them into wearing wires while giving Jefferson yet another bribe for fun.

Jefferson's dust. The CBC was way out of line and gives the Party a less than steller image. If there are others with as compelling evidence...if not conviction....include them too and send them to the least important committee on the Hill until Justice runs it's course.

Do I want a person for sale...outright sale...on the Ways and Means Committee? No.


...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Thu May 25, 2006 at 03:25:50 PM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (3.00 / 0)

Wow, talk about a Sista Souljah moment. This gives Pelosi a perfect opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade.  She can argue that she's demonstrated a willingness to take on one of the biggest interest groups in the Democratic Party for the sake of the Congress and the nation.  That's why Democratic leadership should be trusted to lead the House and the Congress.  The Republicans didn't do it.  We did.  Period.  What's the next question?


by VizierVic on Thu May 25, 2006 at 04:22:10 PM EST

Re: CBC in Revolt Against Pelosi on Ethics (none / 0)

FGK1 FGK2 FGK3 FGK4 FGK5 FGK6 FGK7 FGK8 FGK9 FGK10 FGK11 FGK12 FGK13 FGK14 FGK15 FGK16 FGK17 FGK18 FGK19 FGK20 FGK21 FGK22 FGK23 FGK24 FGK25 FGK26 FGK27 FGK28 FGK29 FGK30 FGK31 FGK32 FGK33 FGK34 FGK35 FGK36 FGK37 FGK38 FGK39 FGK40 FGK41 FGK42 FGK43 FGK44 FGK45 FGK46 FGK47 FGK48 FGK49 FGK50 FGK51 FGK52 FGK53 FGK54 FGK55 FGK56 FGK57 FGK58 FGK59 FGK60 FGK61 FGK62 FGK63 FGK64 FGK65 FGK66 FGK67 FGK68 FGK69 FGK70 FGK71 FGK72 FGK73 FGK74 FGK75 FGK76 FGK77 FGK78 FGK79 FGK80 FGK81 FGK82 FGK83 FGK84 FGK85 FGK86 FGK87 FGK88 FGK89 FGK90 FGK91 FGK92 FGK93 FGK94 FGK95


by jlaye on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 10:59:34 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.