What with the Murtha attempted appointment by Pelosi -- and the current Murtha/Pelosi masquereding as military expertise -- I think that Nancy Pelosi's frame of reference is revealed as being set in sand at the low-tide level.

Also, as to that "(Pelosi) commitment to fighting the 'Culture of Corruption'," there was a lengthy piece I found several months ago on the internet that I since cannot, unfortunately, about the actual history of the experience of living in Baltimore during Pelosi's infamous father's "rule" there. The gist of it is that there was a lot of corruption by her father and his city government, and that most locals weren't happy with it. Thus, it appears just before November 6, 2006 to have been removed from the internet.

...that I since cannot LOCATE, unfortunately...(^^)

The egos cannot quit..one thing we can count on is that at some point in time..Jefferson will enter a rehab clinic just like that gay Republican..what's his name who was in of the committee concerning net predators..that solicited male interns..
Anyway..it just shows..on some levels each Party covers their own..
even more than his pay-off BS is Jefferson's failure to pursue Katrina..the Dems are hypocrites..but no surprise there..

The GOP certainly bungled the whole Mark Foley affair (pun intended), but they didn't waste much time throwing Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney overboard once evidence of corruption came out against them.

Not only was Jefferson not thrown to the wolves, but several Congressional Black Caucus members, including new Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, actually donated money to his campaign AFTER the whole story of his videotaped felony and the freezer cash were public knowledge.

To my mind, ignoring a potential abuse is bad, but rewarding a known felon is worse. The reader may judge for himself, of course.

I don't get this whole Jefferson thing....

First off, Jim Addison refers to him as a known felon. Cleary, that's not the case. Jefferson must get his day in court. It's not up to us to decide.

What I don't get is the cash was found (or as they say alegedly found) 18 months ago.

But no indictment. No charges filed.

It couldn't be the dems covering up for him that well, is it? The investigation is not being held by a political party - it's the justice department. The Executive branch. Regardless, for most of those 18 months the Republicans were in charge in congress, and still are in the exec.

So my point is, I don't get it. Honestly. I couldn't get on a jury honestly, because I pretty much have my mind made up. I think it's a bit odd to keep 90K in your freezer. All I have is some Stoli and a couple apple pies...

So what's everybody think about the delay? Any theories?

John, I must have missed your expressions on "presumption of innocence" regarding accused Republicans like DeLay and Libby - or does your new-found concern only apply to Democrats?

I stand by my remarks. I didn't say Jefferson was a "convicted" felon, just a felon. He's on video taking a bribe. This isn't a courtroom. If you want to imagine some scenario under which him accepting a $100,000 cash bribe is perfectly innocent, do share your fantasy with us. John Jenrette tried the "I was conducting my own investigation" line in ABSCAM, but he got 8 years, I think . . .

As to the length of time it's taking to indict, you should ask the US Attorney. Perhaps Jefferson's resistance to subpoenas is slowing things down. If there are multiple targets of the investigation, prosecutions wouldn't typically begin until it is completed for all suspects. The Grand Jury may be confounded by witnesses who, like Hillary Clinton, answer "I don't recall" 147 times.

Federal cases in general tend to take a longer time to get to trial than most state prosecutions.

Picking a jury for an eventual trial will indeed be difficult. It may be difficult to find a pool of potential jurors who didn't hear about the videotaped bribe or the $90,000 in the freezer. But there were similar problems with the ABSCAM trials, since the videos of most of the "accused" officials taking the cash had been shown or described on the news, and they managed convictions or guilty pleas, if I remember correctly, on everyone charged in that case anyway. (Would have been more of them if Griffin Bell hadn't shut the investigation down).

liberal democrat here and i think dollar bill should be canned. whether or not he is actually guilty is irrelevant, in political terms, to the appeatrance of utterly base corruption. however, as for him being reelected, in a democracy it is up to the voters, for better or worse.

Jim Addison snarks:

John, I must have missed your expressions on "presumption of innocence" regarding accused Republicans like DeLay and Libby - or does your new-found concern only apply to Democrats?

I stand by my remarks. I didn't say Jefferson was a "convicted" felon, just a felon.

Jim, I think you hear what you want to hear. Delay was gone before I happened on this delightful little site. The only thing I said about Libby, is we should wait for the trial to end.

I think you also missed the part about my belief as to his guilt.

Anyway, we learned something new today....

You can be innocient. Or you can be convicted. You've created a new designation. The guilty but not convicted.

You can now be a convicted felon, or if you are lucky an unconvicted felon.

That's way cool, and I imagine it might make sense (in some other country).

Let me try to explain in another way.

O.J. Simpson. Is he a murderer, or not?

Our legal system is designed to err on the side of freeing the guilty as opposed to convicting the innocent. However, being a guilty person who was freed only makes one "not guilty" in the legal sense. If you did it, you did it.

When someone's image is captured on video accepting a bribe, one might possibly beat the rap on a technicality, or get a favorable jury verdict, in which case one becomes "not guilty" under the law. But unless one argues the video - and, in this case, also the $90,000 in marked bills found in one's possession - are faked or planted, it's hard to claim "innocence."

OJ as you know was found innocent of the murder of Smith and Brown in his criminal trial. He was found responsible in the civil trial with has a lower standard of guilt.

I think that's crazy too. Eiether you is, or you ain't I should think.

I have another story about a guy that was found innocent of trafficking in stolen goods, but guilty of wire fraud, becaused he used the phone to do it.

In Jefferson's case, he's not charged, he's not indicted. So far the government is not even officialy accusing him of anything. I think the worst you can say is he's a "person of interest" or "subject of a probe".

I'm honestly curious about that. It seems pretty obvious he's up to something, and I don't know what's taking so long. But to say Felon... At this point we can't even really say accused felon...

O.J. was most certainly NOT "found innocent" at all, but rather "not guilty." The latter only means the prosecution failed, in the opinion of the jury, to meet the standard of proof. The civil case had nothing to do with "murder;" it involved civil liability, not the criminal statutes. One need not be guilty of a crime to be subject to tort law. His second victim's name was Goldman, by the way.

By your logic, it would be incorrect to say that Nixon obstructed justice. He was neither charged nor convicted, and his pardon was a general one. Is it not the case that any number of "felons" walk the streets undisturbed, whether because their crimes are undetected, or the evidence against them is insufficient for conviction in court?

Jefferson became a "felon" the moment he solicited a bribe. He will become an "accused felon" when and if charged, and a "convicted felon" when and if found guilty in court. The status of his prosecution has to do with the legal evidence against him, irrespective of whether or not he committed the crime.

I doubt you will get many attorneys to argee with you on that, but as long as you're there, you might ask them about what constitutes libel.

Now I just get to laugh at you.

Do you know how many successful libel cases are brought in the United States? They are far scarcer than Democrats for the Iraq War.

With a public official as the plaintiff, they almost never happen. The last one I'm aware of was the DA who sued Al Sharpton over the Tawana Brawley case. He won, but never collected a dime. That verdict came in over ten years after the original incident, btw.

Sharpton didn't have the key defense to all libel: truth. He also failed the second tier defense of malicious intent. Of course, he didn't qualify under the fair comment or criticism exemption, either.

So if your crooked congressman wants to sue me for libel, in the immortal words of John Kerry, "Bring - It - On!" But I expect his attorneys would advise him differently. His video performance and freezer full o' cash make any such action frivolous and subject to sanction. In 23 years in the newspaper business, my employers were threatened with libel suits several hundreds of times. Five, I recollect, were actually filed. One made it to trial (we won, of course).

To reiterate the point for the slow of wit: just as not every murderer is a convicted murderer, and not every burglar is a convicted burglar, and not every highway speeder is a convicted speeder, so too is not every felon a convicted felon.

I believe the word you are hunting for is Alleged.