Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Cold Hard CashFollow

#1 May 22 2006 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Bureau of Partisan Fairness in Reporting Corruption wrote:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), the target of a 14-month corruption probe, was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from a Northern Virginia investor who was wearing an FBI wire, according to a search warrant affidavit released Sunday.

A few days later, on Aug. 3, 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen food containers, the document said.

The 83-page affidavit, used to raid Jefferson's Capitol Hill office Saturday night, portrays him as a money-hungry man who freely solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, discussed payoffs to African officials, had a history of involvement in numerous bribery schemes and used his family to hide his interest in high-tech business ventures he promoted in Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon.
Story

I'll start off by saying the same thing I'd be saying about the guy if he was a Pubbie -- throw the book at him. Regardless of affiliation, I'd rather see an honest man in office than a crook. Feel free to pontificate now on how all politicans are crooks, etc.

That said, the idea of ninety grand in foil wrapped bundles shoved into Jolly Green Giant asparagus boxes cracks me up. I suppose that might have kept it from being stolen by a neighborhood burgular but if you're engaged in high levels of federal corruption, you need a better hiding place for your swag than the Frigidaire.

I also liked the Nigeria connection. He should have been sending spam e-mails to Nigeria!

Hello, I am Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) of the United States government. I trust I can deal discreetly with you as I need your help wiring $90,000 out of the United States...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 May 22 2006 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
the idea of ninety grand in foil wrapped bundles shoved into Jolly Green Giant asparagus boxes cracks me up


I also found that highly ammusing. What ever happend to stuffing it under your mattress?
#3 May 22 2006 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
While that evil ******* Dubya killed all those innocent poor people in New Orleans with his evil hurricane, it's comforting to know that Louisiana has some good honest Democrats working tirelessly and selflessly for those unfortunate people.

God bless the Dems and their culture of compassion.








Edited, Mon May 22 16:59:45 2006 by Jawbox
#4 May 22 2006 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
S'what I'm sayin', yo.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 May 22 2006 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm shocked, shocked, to see bribery involved in US politics. Round up the usual suspects.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 May 22 2006 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
TheDraaken wrote:
Quote:
the idea of ninety grand in foil wrapped bundles shoved into Jolly Green Giant asparagus boxes cracks me up


I also found that highly ammusing. What ever happend to stuffing it under your mattress?


He should have keistered it.
#7 May 22 2006 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Frozen Asparagus? Smiley: oyvey

String the ******* up!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#8 May 22 2006 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
He should have keistered it.


True, but 90 grand? Thats a lot to put up the ol **** shute.
#9 May 22 2006 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
I don't think cash becomes rigid in cold temperatures. It probably stays in a pretty flexible state.
Just saying.
#10 May 22 2006 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
TheDraaken wrote:
Quote:
He should have keistered it.


True, but 90 grand? Thats a lot to put up the ol **** shute.


Not when you've been doing back door deals for the last decade. Badum bum ching!
#11 May 22 2006 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
***
3,908 posts
You'd think you could just hide it in the couch cushions, deniability that way, oh it must have fallin out of some visiting friends pocket as well as these 2 quarters.
#12 May 22 2006 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I just heard a report on this on NPR. Very interesting, cloak-and-dagger stuff. You'd think that this is the way most government business is handled.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#13 May 22 2006 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
*****
19,369 posts
Why would you waste freezer space on anything other than ice cream? Smiley: confused
#14 May 22 2006 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Seeing as we are talking about Lousiana politics, with this incident proving his bonifides, Mr. Jefferson is lock to be re-elected in the next election. All he's done in the eyes of his constituents is to separate himself from all the other amateurs who will be running against him.

Bon temp rollez! (sp)

Totem
#15 May 23 2006 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
As if anyone's surprised that a Louisiana politician is corrupt. I'm just amazed at the weakness of his argument:
Carl Hulse of the NY Times wrote:
"There are two sides to every story," Jefferson said, without providing any details.


I'm also kind of disturbed at this:
Quote:
For all the intense partisanship that has surrounded the wave of legal and ethical cases on Capitol Hill, the Jefferson case brought some Democrats and Republicans together on one point: that the all-night search conducted by the FBI raised questions about whether the executive branch had violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by carrying out a raid on the official office of a member of Congress.

Smiley: dubious This was no Watergate-like raid. A legitimate suspicion of crime existed, and the fact that he is a Congressman doesn't (or shouldn't) exempt him from both local and federal laws.

Edited, Tue May 23 10:32:27 2006 by Atomicflea
#16 May 23 2006 at 9:35 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

This was no Watergate-like raid. A legitimate suspicion of crime existed, and the fact that he is a Congressman doesn't (or shouldn't) exempt him from both local and federal laws.


Well, except for the part that's written into the Constitution about exempting him from thos laws in certain situations, right?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 May 23 2006 at 9:54 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Well, except for the part that's written into the Constitution about exempting him from thos laws in certain situations, right?

Which part? I'm unaware of it, but would go looking if you gave me a better idea of what you were referring to.

I worked very closely with folks on the Hill, and from what they told me, while they were on Federal property, all federal laws applied, and this raid was done by the FBI. However, if driving down the streets of DC, then they could be given a ticket or pulled over like anyone else (unless they're a Kennedy, of course).

The fact that an officer might let a traffic violation slide a time or two doesn't mean it's an exemption accross the board. The FBI supposedly was investigating this for a while now with the help of an informant, and this was just the final act.

Edit: Were you referring to this?
Quote:
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
He wasn't arrested during a Session, and I see nothing prohibiting search of his office.





Edited, Tue May 23 11:00:19 2006 by Atomicflea
#18 May 23 2006 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
My understanding of the trickiness of this situation stems from the FBI being under the auspices of the Executive Branch, thus making it an action of one arm of the government being taken against another one, checks and balances et al, blah blahblah.

Whether this is or not politically motivated-- which, on the surface of it if the details of this story are correct to this point it wouldn't seem to be --is the crux of the tension that is causing <gasp!> both sides of the Congressional aisle to laager their wagons around a corrupt member of the House. The sad thing is is that by defending him in principle the rest of Congress looks guilty for seeming to be protecting what we may or may not correctly assume is normal behavior for these gentlemen.

It comes across as ironic that the issue which makes Democrats and Republicans join forces together is one which makes them all look bad by sticking to the good-ol'-boy routine. The whole "culture of corruption" shtick is fine when applied to past and present presidents, but when one of their own is threatened, whoa, stand back!

Totem
#19 May 23 2006 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Send the fu[Aqua][/Aqua]cker over here.

He sounds cleaner than any of the knighthood-selling crooks we elected. We'll take him.


Edited for S@#r Filter


Edited, Tue May 23 11:58:16 2006 by Nobby
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#20 May 23 2006 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Totem wrote:
My understanding of the trickiness of this situation stems from the FBI being under the auspices of the Executive Branch, thus making it an action of one arm of the government being taken against another one, checks and balances et al, blah blahblah.

I guess I just don't see it that way. I assume that when the FBI got involved, it was because it was a crime that spread itself across more than one state. It's the intimation that the legitimate investigation of a crime reduces itself down to a constitutional violation that seems flawed. Of course the different branches of the government oppose and act against one another, but they are within their rights and are, in fact, supposed to do so. Isn't that what checks and balances are about?
#21 May 23 2006 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Except that the Director of the FBI reports directly to the President, Flea. That's what makes it potentially a situation where one branch is taking direct action against another.

The other aspect to this is that this search is unprecedented in that it took place on government grounds, not on private property. In light of some of the charges that this president has played fast and loose with established rules of conduct, both foreign and domestic, the nature of this investgation and how it was conducted is perhaps making it more of a political lightning rod, rather than a straight-forward criminal investigation that used unconventional means.

In a perfect world Congress would be self-policing, but in this instance it appears Jefferson's peers seem to be more concerned with protecting their turf rather than eliminating corruption from their ranks.

Totem
#22 May 23 2006 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Totem wrote:
Except that the Director of the FBI reports directly to the President, Flea. That's what makes it potentially a situation where one branch is taking direct action against another.

I hear that and intellectually I understand that it could be argued, but I suppose I'm Moeing out and saying that for me, personally, it doesn't hold any water. Again, my personal emphasis is more on the fact that his rights weren't violated as a citizen, and he was held to the same standards as any person suspected of a crime in that his workplace wasn't automatically withdrawn from a warranted search due to the nature of his job.

Quote:
In a perfect world Congress would be self-policing, but in this instance it appears Jefferson's peers seem to be more concerned with protecting their turf rather than eliminating corruption from their ranks.

/nod
#23 May 23 2006 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Tall tree, short rope. Who cares what party he's affiliated with? Hang the *******!
#24 May 23 2006 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
/Whew

I just re-read that first paragraph I wrote this morning in that last post-- talk about an abomination! The use of the word direct or Director three times in two short sentences, ow.

I can tell I just came off a night shift with 1 hour's sleep.

Totem
#25 May 23 2006 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Again, my personal emphasis is more on the fact that his rights weren't violated as a citizen, and he was held to the same standards as any person suspected of a crime in that his workplace wasn't automatically withdrawn from a warranted search due to the nature of his job.


The concern is really more that there were probably 40 other congresspeple who could have been targeted in the same, but apparently weren't. It sets the perception that administration is doing something about the rampant corruption in congress, driven at the moment, largely by their own supporters by stinging a marginal figure in the opposition party.

Yes, congresspeople shouldn't take bribes, but offeringa toekn example of enforcing that law isn't the same as actually doing anything about it.

Of course he should be prosecuted, but if the executive branch is going to prosecute this type of operation it better be extensive and equally targeted.

K?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 May 23 2006 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
It's all an elaborate Republican setup. Honest. Smiley: sly
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 194 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (194)