It appears that certain members of Congress are forgetting that the laws apply to them -- and are willing to make illegitimate use of the Constitution to harrass members of the other two co-equal branches of government for doing their constiutionally mandated duty in the William Jefferson case.

Let's start with Rep. Darrell Issa.

One lawmaker on the Judiciary Committee said GonzalesÂ’ refusal to explain why he authorized the search may be grounds for impeachment by Congress.

“All options have to be left open,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told reporters after the hearing. Gonzales must “explain to our satisfaction how this is not going to happen again or how it was somehow justified.”

Issa said at the hearing that Congress has the power to impeach Gonzales and U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who issued the search warrant. He said that if Sensenbrenner had raised the impeachment possibility, “more members would quickly be here.”

So, Darrell, let's look at this closely. The Constitution requires that an individual be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors to merit impeachment and removal from office. Where is that standard met?

Does the issuance of a valid search warrant, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, constitute a high crime or misdemeanor? If not, then there is no basis for impeaching Judge Hogan.

Furthermore, doing so would be, to borrow the words of Speaker Hastert, "in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers. . . and the practice of the last 219 years." Even if one accepts the argument that the issuance of the warrant was wrong (and I do not), it has never been the practice that judges are impeached and removed because Congress disagrees with their official actions or decisions. John Marshall was not impeached after Marbury v. Madison, despite near universal opposition by Congress. Roger Taney was not impeached for the horrendous decision in the Dred Scot case, even though it led the United States into the Civil War. For all the talk of impeaching Earl Warren and other members of the Warren Court, no reasonable individual took such calls seriously or saw them as more than grandstanding. Harry Blackmun and William Brennan remained on the Court despite the constitutional attrocity that is Roe v. Wade, and no justice was removed for the decisions in the Kelo case, Roper v. Simmons, or Lawrence v. Texas, all of which are clearly decided wrongly and are much more clearly in opposition to the text of the Constitution. No lower court judge has ever been removed for a wrongly decided case or a warrant later found to be based upon incorrect principles -- why start with this one, unless it is to intimidate the Judicial Branch and inhibit it from the full and free exercise of its constitutionally derived powers -- in other words, to tamper with the separation of powers?

And as for the impeachment of Attorney General Gonzales, I again ask for a constitutioanl basis for such actions? Is the request for a warrant after ten months of stone-walling by Congressman Jefferson truly a high crime or midemenaor? After all, let's consider the situation.

The videotaped $100,000 bribery happened in July 2005—fully ten months ago.

Of that cash, $90,000 was seized from Jefferson's freezer on August 3, 2005. (And as my Corner post last night noted, the Justice department revealed on Tuesday that there is evidence Jefferson tried to obstruct that search).

On the same day, August 3, 2005, the Justice Department served a grand-jury subpoena on Jefferson. It is reasonable to infer, since Justice got the search warrant for the residence at the same time, that Justice appreciated the significant difference between searching a congressman’s home and searching his congressional office—even though, in truth, a legitimate speech-and-debate claim could apply to either equally. Plainly, out of deference to Congress, Justice proceeded by subpoena as to evidentiary items in Jefferson’s office in hopes that it would be unnecessary to take the more provocative step of seeking a judicial search warrant.

Other subpoenas apparently followed in the late summer of 2005, to both Jefferson and his chief of staff. Speaker Hastert, according to a memorandum filed by the Justice department on Tuesday, was notified about the subpoenas by Jefferson on September 15, 2005, and again on November 18, 2005. The Justice department has been trying to get production on those subpoenas ever since—to no avail.

Meanwhile, in January 2006—five months ago—Brent Pfeffer, once a congressional aide of Jefferson’s, publicly pled guilty in federal court to bribing and conspiring to bribe Jefferson. While this does not seem to have stirred Congress, a federal judge just last week thought it was sufficiently serious to merit a sentence of eight years in federal prison.

And just a few weeks ago, in early May, Vernon Jackson, the president and CEO of the company at the heart of the bribery scheme, pled guilty to paying Jefferson $400,000 in bribes. He has yet to be sentenced (and, like Pfeffer, is said to be cooperating in the investigation).

Seems to me that there has been a great deal of deference shown to Jefferson as a member of the House of Representatives -- deference that would not be accorded to any citizen, and deference which is clearly not required by the Constitution. Why then impeach Gonzales, unless one wishes to contend that the ordinary function of the law and the Constitution does not apply to members of the Legislative Branch, and that diligent and even-handed enforcement of the law is therefore an impeachable offense. That would, of course, also intrude upon Executive Branch prerogatives under the Constitution -- and violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

As for Congressman James Sensenbrenner, who I usually respect, his hearings and proposals are clearly over the top.

The chairman, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, called the search "profoundly disturbing."

Mr. Sensenbrenner also said he planned a legislative response to the search on May 20 of the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana. The bill would be patterned on a law limiting searches of news media offices.

"I think this law will help the Justice Department get it right next time because they didn't get it right this time," Mr. Sensenbrenner said as his committee heard from legal experts and a former lawmaker.

Excuse me, sir, but they did get it right -- they applied to a federal judge for a warrant and executed teh warrant as they would any other. They even set up special procedures, monitored by the court, for ensuring that no privileged material was used in the investigation. In short, the joint effort of the two other constitutional branches of government have determined that the search was within the scope of the Constitution, and any legislation would be a gross violation of constitutional principle of the separation of powers, which you claim to be concerned about.

Oh, and there is this little matter.

The House intends to summon Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, before the Judiciary Committee to justify its search of a Congressional office, the panel chairman said Tuesday.

By all means, subpoena them. I'm sure they will be more than willing to appear -- in 10 months, which is the amount of time that Congresman Jefferson has refused to turn over subpoenaed documents to the FBI. After all, we wouldn't want to make it appear that you folks believe that the legislative branch is tampering witht he separation of powers or trying to impose its supremacy on a co-equal branch of government, would we?

Ultimately, this mess is headed for the Supreme Court because members of Congress are seeking to establish a principle that does not exist anywhere in the Constitution -- the freedom from subpoena, search warrants, and criminal investigation.

And when they lose, with these congresscritters start mouthing off about impeaching Supreme Court justices for decisions they dislike -- again, upsetting the Constitutional principle of separation of powers and overturning 219 years of practice?

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1362 words, total size 9 kb.

It seems that a Canadian university is conducting a Star Chamber proceeding against one of its professors -- because of what he has posted on his personal website hosted on a non-university server. Why? Because a homosexual activist does not like it.

A Cape Breton University (CBU) professor is the target of a human rights complaint by a homosexual student. Comments posted by the professor at his private web site critical of the Anglican Church of Canada for its permissive and condoning stand in relation to same-sex "marriage" are the cause of the complaint.

History Professor David Mullan wrote to his local Anglican bishop in 2004, criticizing the trend: "When Anglicanism in some manner recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate 'lifestyle' for Christians, it will become a church in schism," he charged.

On February 20, homosexual CBU student Shane Wallis, who also co-ordinates the campus' Sexual Diversity Office, lodged a formal human rights complaint with the University. In an e-mail response to Wallis' charge of a human rights offence, Wallis stated in his complaint that Mullan responded that "homosexuality is a repudiation of nature and the apotheosis of unbridled desire."

Please note that in this instance, "sexual diversity" means "anything except monogamous heterosexuality" -- and that while Shane Wallis may believe in "sexual diversity", he does not believe in intellectual diversity. After all, his complaint is based upon the expression of views and beliefs that contradict his own.

What is more, the university has adopted a procedure that repudiates basic human and civil rights.

From Professor Mullan's web site it can be seen that, because the University has acknowledged that the proceedings of a CBU human rights tribunal may be used against him in a court of law, he has declined to participate in complaint hearings. He has, however, challenged both Wallis and the University to acknowledge his free speech rights as a Canadian.

"I have a Human Rights complaint against me, as a result of two letters to my former Anglican bishop placed on my private website and a reply I sent Shane Wallis in response to an unsolicited email," Professor Mullan explains on his web site.

"I met yesterday morning (in April) with the Human Rights Officer. At that time I asked her whether anything I said in the process might be used against me in court. Today, after legal consultation, she replied that yes, it could be. I immediately told her that I would not participate in the process. I told her also in our meeting that I find that the requirement that I give evidence, effectively incriminating myself (rather like the Tudor Court of Star Chamber and the ex officio oath) when asked for it is in my judgement a violation of the common law, and of my rights as a free-born Englishman. The procedure is a farce, and if pushed I will sue the institution for violating my civil rights."

"The process can never be fair until these conditions are altered, and until the complainant stands under potential judgement for entering a frivolous complaint," he adds. "No one in his right mind would participate in this without incurring the fees of a solicitor, and when found innocent, someone needs to re-imburse the defendant."

What is more, Wallis filed a second complaint because Mullan had the integrity to go public with this attempt to suppress his fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would appear that the recently discovered right to not be offended, right to not be challenged in one's beliefs, and right to screw anything you want are being used to trump those rights. The complaint about breaking confidentiality is apparantly based upon the newly discovered "right to do secretly what no one would stand for publicly" -- for the proceeding has no right to remain silent, and any and all involuntarily coerced statements made in the proceedings may be used against the speaker in a court of law. Again, basic human rights are not a consideration at Cape Breton University.

When i was young, Canada was a free country -- or so it appeared when I visited there. When did that change?

Oh, and by the way, I wrote Shane Wallis the following email. I hope he is man enough to respond.

Shane--

How is it that you have come to the conclusion that your own personal weaknesses and inadequacies are a legitimate basis for suppressing the human rights of individuals to hold religious beliefs and to express them publicly?

Did your university teach you the fascist view that only government-approved thoughts, beliefs, and opinions may be expressed in public, or was did you learn that elsewhere?

Why do you fear views which differ from your own? Is it a fear of diversity, or a recognition of the weakness and inadequacies of your own beliefs?

By the way, my questions have nothing to do with your sexual practices or personal relationships -- they have to do with fundamental questions of human rights enshrined in the founding charters of free societies. I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Regards
Greg
AKA Rhymes With Right
www.rhymeswithright.mu.nu

To Dr. Mullan, I offer my prayers and best wishes as he fights the good fight for freedom in Canada. And I remind him that America is still free -- though the sodomy lobby is would certainly like to make it less so.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

More on the raid on William Jefferson's Congressional office.

First, it appears that Jefferson was not merely refusing to cooperate, but was actively covering up evidence of criminal conduct.

The Justice Department yesterday vigorously defended the recent weekend raid of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office as part of a bribery investigation, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last August.

The government questioned in a 34-page motion filed in U.S. District Court here whether it could have obtained all the materials it had sought in a subpoena if it had not launched the surprise raid on Jefferson's congressional office May 20. According to the government filing, an FBI agent caught Jefferson slipping documents into a blue bag in the living room of his New Orleans home during a search.

"It is my belief that when Congressman Jefferson placed documents into the blue bag, he was attempting to conceal documents that were relevant to the investigation," FBI agent Stacey E. Kent of New Orleans stated in an affidavit that was part of the government's court submission. The document was filed in response to Jefferson's lawsuit demanding that the government return to him documents seized during the raid on his Capitol Hill office 11 days ago.

* * *

Last Aug. 3, FBI agents searched Jefferson's New Orleans home while the congressman and family members were present. Kent said she was assigned to watch Jefferson and his family during the search, according to her affidavit accompanying the government motion yesterday.

She said she observed him looking at several pieces of paper on a table. At one point, she said, he asked to see a copy of the subpoena.

"After a copy had been brought to him and he reviewed it, I observed Congressman Jefferson then take the subpoena and the documents he had been reading earlier and place them together under his elbow on the kitchen table."

At one point, she said, he moved to the living room, which had just been searched, and sat on a recliner. While sitting, he slipped the subpoena and the documents into a blue bag that he knew had already been searched, Kent's affidavit said.

"After several minutes, I approached Congressman Jefferson and told him that I needed to look at the documents that he had placed into the bag," the agent stated. "Congressman Jefferson told me the documents were subpoenas."

He finally pulled out the documents that were from a B.K. Son. The search warrant had asked for all communications between Jefferson and Son, the affidavit said. Son is the chief technology officer of iGate.

is it any wonder that Jefferson was not notified, and that those who might help with his obstruction of the investigation were not allowed in the office during the search?

And another group has weighed in on the legality of the search. And once again, the smart money is with the Justice Department in holding that the Speech and Debate Clause is not an absolute shield for criminal congresscritters.

A legal watchdog group insists that the FBI's recent raid of Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson's office was perfectly legal, despite the subsequent complaints about the raid by both Republican and Democratic leaders of the House.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is there immunity from investigation for members of Congress. It just isn't there," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. "There is nothing there that says that they can't be subject to the same type of investigatory processes as every other American. They're American citizens."

* * *

... Boehm accused Hastert and Pelosi of "making an argument that they know does not exist."

"They can't point to a single court case. They can't point to any section or clause of the Constitution. And so when I say they're making the argument in bad faith, it's in bad faith because it's not there," Boehm told Cybercast News Service.

* * *

... Boehm argued that members of Congress deserve to be treated in the same manner as anyone else who might have broken the law.

"I think the American public is entitled to know that members of Congress who break the law are going to be investigated and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said. "And when Republican and Democratic leaders try to stop that they're sending a message and the message is: we're above the law. And that's the wrong message."

Well said!

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS -- I WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T LINK THIS POST INSTEAD

Back in 2000, we were told that Repulicans had "rioted" when they banged on doors in a successful attempt to make sure that all valid presidential ballots were accurately and publicly counted, as required by Florida law. Liberals said this was a bad thing.

Now we have liberals attempting to interfere with the transport of military equipment to a combat zone during time of war. I find this situation and the response quite disturbing.

Police fired pepper spray as about 150 anti-war protesters tried to enter the Port of Olympia as part of ongoing demonstrations against the shipment of Army equipment to Iraq.

Protesters chanted "Out of Olympia, Out of Iraq" as they rocked a chain-link gate to the port late Monday, and at least three tried to use wooden boards to pry the gate open, The Olympian newspaper reported. A 50-ton piece of equipment was moved to reinforce the gate on the other side.

Police and sheriff's deputies clad in riot gear fired at least four rounds of pepper spray in an hour after asking the demonstrators several times to stop, authorities said. No one was arrested, but paramedics were dispatched to treat some activists.

By the definition promulgated by liberals, this was not a non-violent demonstration -- it was a riot. Furthermore, it was an act of sedition, if not outright treason.

But I would like to express my disappointment with the use of pepper spray against these "activists". It was an inappropriate choice.

The better choice would have been M-16s -- as befits any enemy of America.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 3 kb.

Whatever will the folks from MoveOn and other hard-Left groups have to say about this development?

DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary.

Perhaps such developments explain the left-wing attacks on folks like Joe Lieberman -- if they can remove leading Democrats with a sane view of foreign policy in favor of those supported by KOSsacks and DUmmies, this movement can be stopped.

But if the neo-con movement in the Democrat party succeeds, it could be the beginning of the next great party reallignement in American politics.

Posted by: Greg at 05:21 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

You've got to love it when Democrats excuse behavior in themselves that they wouldn't accept in their political opponents.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

He defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.

"I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

So tell me, Senator, how these tickets differ from the golf trips that the Democrats have called part of a "culture of corruption" when Republicans accepted them.

And we cannot, of course, overlook the different courses of action taken by teh two Republicans who accepted tickets.

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

In other words, you took the tickets, McCain paid for them, and Ensign had already taken himself out of the debate becasue of family connections. Whose behavior was most ethical, Senator ?

And whose clients were you meeting with and doing favors for?

In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.

"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.

Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.

Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said.

One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.

Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.

And strikingly enough, what did they get in return?

A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.

Certainly looks like a quid pro quo to me -- and what do Senate rules say about appearances?

Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.

In other words, under Senate rules you are DIRTY! After all, it sure looks like there was a connection between your official actions and the fundraising event and donations. What would you be saying -- indeed, what have you said -- about Republicans in precisely that situation? I think we all know the answer.

Posted by: Greg at 05:05 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 5 kb.

I never realized what a sleazy character William Jefferson is -- I've been so busy focussing on the current dust-up over bribe-taking that I never looked into his background. Interestingly enough, no less than the New York Times has trotted out a litany of dirt stretching back a couple of decades. And the sad thing is that Jefferson, had he stuck to an ethical path, would be a superb role model to hold up to my students coming out of a poor background.

Representative William J. Jefferson has always liked to talk about growing up in an impoverished farm community, picking cotton for $3 a day and hitting the books hard enough to win his ticket out — a scholarship to Harvard Law School.

* * *

Mr. Jefferson was raised, along with eight brothers and sisters, on a small farm in northeast Louisiana, where, he said earlier this year, "our whole life revolved around that cotton field." His father left school after second grade, and his mother attended only through eighth grade.

As a child, Mr. Jefferson was such a good shot, his father once said, that when it came time to bag dinner, "if I wanted one rabbit, I'd give him one shell; and if I needed two rabbits, I'd give him two."

After he graduated from Southern University in Baton Rouge in 1969, Mr. Jefferson has said, he won his mother's blessing to go to Harvard Law School — she had never heard of it — only by explaining that it had been John F. Kennedy's college.

I've got kids who come from families like that -- kids whose families do migrant farm work during the summer, kids who work after school to make sure there is food on the table for the rest of the family. William Jefferson ought to be an example to them of how to succeed -- except he fell into stuff like this.

His rental business — which leased television sets and other appliances to people who could not afford to buy them — appeared on the delinquent list in a city sales-tax scandal in the 1980's. And a day after he was elected to Congress in 1990, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was trying to clean up the mess from the collapse of savings institutions, sued him for $160,000 over an apartment-building loan on which he had quit making payments. He later settled the suit, with friends saying his investments had been hurt by a faltering economy.

Tax-cheat, gouger of the poor, slum-lord, deadbeat -- I suppose even some of that could be forgiven, overlooked, or explained. He was trying to serve his community, and he got in over his head. Not that anyone would buy such an argument if he were a Republican -- look at how the Democrats have gone after Michael Steele over personal financial issues not nearly so severe.

And then we get this, after he became the go-to guy for doing business in Africa during the Clinton administration. From that point forward, his dealings with companies seeking business opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa became more convoluted -- and much more shady.

Mr. Jefferson also became known as a strong advocate of freer trade and made at least nine trips to Africa to promote it, including one with President Clinton. He championed a 2000 law that extended trade benefits to sub-Saharan Africa. "Africa is a reservoir of opportunities for American businesses," he said then.

Over the years, Mr. Jefferson has received campaign contributions and free travel from individuals and companies seeking business in Africa, including iGate.

Campaign finance records show he received a $1,000 contribution as early as 2001 from Vernon L. Jackson, the chief executive of iGate, which makes technology to transmit high-speed Internet service across the wires used in some African nations. Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty this month to bribing Mr. Jefferson with more than $400,000 in cash and millions of shares of iGate stock.

Government documents show that Mr. Jackson told the F.B.I. that when he met Mr. Jefferson in late 2000, the congressman voluntarily helped promote iGate's products — a normal and legitimate action for a government official involved in trade issues. But according to the F.B.I. documents, in early 2001, the congressman's actions became improper when he said he would continue to use his influence on iGate's behalf only if Mr. Jackson made payments to a company, the ANJ Group, run by the Jefferson family. The iGate payments were disguised as consulting fees, the F.B.I. said.

Mr. Jefferson says these were private business dealings that had nothing to do with his work on the House committee.

But as part of a 2003 deal to distribute iGate's products, a Nigerian company, Netlink Digital Television, agreed to pay the congressman $5 per subscriber, the F.B.I. affidavit said, "in return for Jefferson's official assistance if the deal was successful."

House records show that in February 2004, Mr. Jefferson led a business delegation to Nigeria and Cameroon as a co-chairman of the Congressional Nigeria Caucus and the Africa Trade and Investment Caucus. The trip, which cost $16,313, according to the records, was paid for in part by iGate.

In 2005, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson wrote to the vice presidents of Nigeria and Ghana, and traveled to Ghana, seeking approval for iGate projects. Within a week after returning, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson used his influence to help a Virginia woman, Lori Modi, who had invested $3.5 million in the Nigeria project. He introduced her to officials at the Export-Import Bank of the United States and urged them to provide financing for the project.

But by then, Ms. Modi had asked the F.B.I. to investigate the deal.

Investigators said that in negotiating the deals, Mr. Jefferson had often cited his desire to provide for his five daughters, three of whom also have degrees from Harvard Law School.

From December 2004 through June 2005, the F.B.I. said in its affidavit, Mr. Jefferson increased his demands for equity in one Nigerian company, to 30 percent, to be split among his daughters. He also told an investor that one of his daughters had to be retained to do legal work, according to documents in the case.

Then, on July 30, 2005, when Mr. Jefferson met Ms. Modi at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, the F.B.I. said it supplied her with a briefcase with $100,000 in marked bills. Mr. Jefferson had told her the money would be needed to bribe Nigerian officials, the affidavit said.

As the F.B.I.'s video cameras zoomed in on him, the bureau said, Mr. Jefferson drove off with the briefcase on the seat of his Lincoln Town Car. And when agents raided his home four days later, $90,000 of the money turned up again, in the kitchen freezer.

Which leads us, of course, to the current crisis, sparked by Jefferson's refusal to cooperate with investigators or to turn over subpoenaed documents. From a position of great promise, Jefferson has fallen prey to his own baser instincts. I cannot help but see similarities to Duke Cunningham in Jefferson's fall.

Ed Lasky of American Thinker sees this article very differently.

* * *

I would also like to point to the interesting work of two bloggers -- A.J. Strata and Mac Ranger. Both have looked at this case and found another interesting angle -- the Clinton Administration connection to Jefferson. Who seems to be the prominent individual who may have played a major role in the development of Jefferson's African connections and portfolio? Joe Wilson -- Bush-basher and proven liar. Maybe his dishonesty goes even further.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Sed Vitae, Mark My Words, Stop the ACLU, Stuck on Stupid, Basil's Blog, Committe of Correspondence, NIF, Right Wing Nation

Posted by: Greg at 02:47 AM | Comments (116) | Add Comment
Post contains 1298 words, total size 9 kb.

At last -- a GOP leader willing to come out and state the obvious (updated) about the search of William Jefferson's office!

In a break with his counterparts in the House, the Senate's leader said today the FBI was within its right to search the office of a congressman under investigation in a bribery case.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

* * *

"I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday.

"I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced."

Even Dick Durbin came close to stating a similar conclusion.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said there needs to be "hard look" at whether the FBI violated the Constitution. But he said the FBI has raided judge's chambers before, so there is precedent for crossing branches of government for searches.

He also said he wasn't sure the "speech and debate" protections in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution were violated, as some of have argued.

That section states that members of Congress "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."

"I'm not sure that you can stretch it to apply to this situation," Durbin said. "In the next several weeks, we ought to take a hard look at it. I'm not going to rule it in or out at this moment."

Yeah, he wants to keep it around as a possible election year issue if the focus groups indicate that it might make a difference in November -- but since he notes that law enforcement has historically used search warrants to search the offices of judges, he can't really make the case for a violation of separation of powers. -- and his words effectively concede that.

So it is time for the leadership of the House of Representatives to quit demagoguing this issue -- and for the Presidnet to rescind his sequestration of the evidence against Jefferson and end the obstruction of the investigation of this crooked congressman.

UPDATE: Looks like Wyoming Congresswoman Barbara Cubin has broken with House leadership on this matter.

“Nobody in this country is above the law, especially those elected to create our laws,” she said. “They should, if anything, be held to a higher standard. They should not expect their congressional offices to be treated as a safe haven to store incriminating documents or illegal products such as drugs or stolen goods."

"With all due respect to my colleagues, criticizing the executive and judicial branches of our government for fully investigating a member of Congress suspected of criminal wrongdoing sends the wrong message and reflects poorly upon all of Congress,” she added. “Alleged corruption and crimes in both the private and public sector must be fully investigated, and those found guilty must face a fitting punishment. Members of Congress are no exception.”

In an interview, Cubin also disagreed with the calls for the government to immediately return all documents.

"As long as the constituents’ privacy is protected, I think that they ought to be able to look at whatever evidence there is in his office that he may have broken the law,” she said.

She explained that the leadershipÂ’s protests could further erode the publicÂ’s already skeptical view of Congress.

“What isn’t acceptable is that there’s a perception out in the country that members of Congress think that they are above the law, because they’re not above the law,” she said. “I think for the most part they don’t believe they are either. But just the perception that that is so, is not acceptable.”

She added that lawmakers do need to protect constituentsÂ’ private communications with their offices.

“They ought to be assured their private information will be kept private, but to think that the authorities shouldn’t be able to go into our offices in the pursuit of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing, I think it just sets us apart, and we ought not to be set apart,” she added.

Cubin acknowledged the significance of the fact that such a raid has never happened in U.S. history.

“I think we have to guard overzealous prosecution,” she said. “But members of Congress have to know that they have to abide by the laws of this land just like anyone else.”

And furthermore, the Wyoming Republican notes that the particular facts of this case make it clear that the warrant and search were appropriate.

Also, I came across this article by Robert F. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.

But as the Supreme Court observed in the 1972 case of U.S. v. Brewster, the clause was never intended to immunize corrupt legislators who violate felony bribery statutes--laws that have expressly applied to members of Congress for more than 150 years. In Brewster, the court noted the clause was not written "to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility," adding: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator."

Such behavior is therefore not protected by the Constitution. The purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause was to protect the integrity of the legislative process, and the court noted that bribery, "perhaps even more than Executive power," would "gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation."

A dozen years ago, I testified before the House Committee on Administration on this same basic issue. Newt Gingrich and other reformers were trying to bring Congress under the same ethics laws it had imposed upon the rest of the country, and some indignant legislators seemed confident that the laws were not supposed to apply to them. The hearing was held in a small room in a part of the Capitol Building off-limits to the public, with exactly enough chairs for members, staff and the three witnesses.

Two members of the public who managed to make their way to the room were turned away on the grounds that there was "no room" for public observers.

Critics of the Gingrich proposal did not hear what they wanted. Some seemed genuinely shocked when I informed them that, in Federalist No. 57, James Madison noted one of the constraints in the Constitution to prevent legislators from enacting "oppressive measures" was that "they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Indeed. Let's get away from the notion of Congressional Aristocracy.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1191 words, total size 8 kb.

It looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, along with a number of their senior aides, made the president back down from a criminally stupid decision this week -- even though he still made the wrong one.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.

Unfortunately, even the decision to seal the evidence pending "negotiations" was the wrong one, and indicates the fundamental weakness of George W. Bush at this time.Bush surrendered the authority of two branches of government at the invocation of a non-existant privilege of the third. And unfiortunately, this has only emboldened Congressional leaders in both houses to be more defiant.

On Friday, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.

"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."

But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."

So much for cooling down the situation so that sides did not become entrenched. Lott is implicitly denying the clear constitutional mandates of the the Executive Brabch to see that the laws are faithfully executed and the Judicial Branch to issue warrants for searches under the Fourth Amendment. In effect, the Congressional position is that, unlike the rest of America and contrary to the clear language of the Constitution, it will decide when and if valid subpoenas and warrants may be executed. Seems to me that these clowns are looking at them selves as the Imperial Legislative Branch.

It seems, though, that the obscene obstruction of justice ordered by the President was motivated by politics.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

However, Lott's position makes it clear that the corrosive situation still exists. And having rewarded Hastert, who now concedes that the warrant was lawfully issued and that the FBI therefore had the authority to conduct the search of Jefferson's office.

House leaders conceded Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week.

* * *

In an editorial in USA Today on Friday, Hastert said he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have directed House lawyers "to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally execute a search warrant."

So even though there is consensus on the fact that the Jefferson search was legal, the FBI and Justice Department are to be shackled for totally speciousreasons -- just to save the working relationship between Congress and the White House.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 5 kb.

Unless we start seeing a sharp reversal in conduct, I'm done with George W. Bush. This isn't about politics -- it is about the proper stewardship of the laws and the Constitution. I'm disgusted by his intervention in the Jefferson case.

President Bush personally ordered the Justice Department today to seal records seized from the Capitol Hill office of a Democratic congressman, marking a remarkable intervention by the nation's chief executive into an ongoing criminal probe of alleged corruption.

The order culminates an escalating constitutional confrontation between the Justice Department and the House of Representatives, where lawmakers have demanded that the FBI return items seized during a Saturday night raid of the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

In a six-paragraph statement, Bush said he issued the order to give the Justice Department and angry lawmakers more time to work out an agreement on how to resolve the conflict. The materials, which have been described in court filings as two boxes of documents and copies of computer files, will be held by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is not involved in the Jefferson probe, Bush's statement said.

"Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries," Bush said. "Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out."

I'm willing to forgive policy differences --but this is a case of allowing a spurious claim of Congressional privilege to trump the enforcement of a duly issued search warrant in a felony case. There is nothing here to negotiate and mediate, and this decision indicates that we have a Chief Executive too weak-kneed to allow the Executive and Judicial branches to carry out their Constitutional perogatives lest it imperil his chances of legislative success --even at the cost of permitting public corruption to continue unabated. This is not to say that I will not side with George W. Bush when I believe him to be right, but rather that I will no longer extend to him the presumption that he is right, nor the level of support that I would ordinarily extend to a president of my party. I think this is that big a deal.

Is our existance as a Constitutional Republic firmly rooted in the rule of law at an end?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Pro Cynic, The Anchoress, Webloggin, Blue Crab Boulevard, Strata-Sphere, Kitty Litter, GOPBloggers, Blogs for Bush, Irish Pennants

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, the Courts have spoken on this matter a number of times, and the Washington Post does an excellent job of summing the matter up for us.

The Speech and Debate Clause, contained in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, says that members of the House and Senate "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."

It was meant to safeguard the independence of Congress against executive branch intimidation, of the kind the Founders had witnessed under King George III's colonial governors, and harassment from private lawsuits.

Over the years, however, some lawmakers invoked the clause to shield corrupt activities. Given the clause's exception for serious crimes, the Supreme Court has had to define the scope of its protections.

In a series of cases during the 1960s and '70s, the court drew a protective line around papers, speeches and activities that are "essential" to legislative acts or the motives behind them, such as floor statements or committee reports. But it declined to protect anything not closely connected to legislative work, such as remarks to the press or constituent newsletters.

In 1972, for example, the court ruled that the Speech and Debate Clause could not shield Sen. Daniel B. Brewster (D-Md.) from prosecution for accepting a bribe in exchange for his promise to vote a certain way on postage rate legislation. (Brewster pleaded no contest to the charge.)

That same year, the court ruled that a Senate aide, though covered by the Speech and Debate Clause, had to respond to a grand jury subpoena to answer questions about whether Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) had violated federal law by arranging for a private book publisher to print the Pentagon Papers. (The Justice Department later dropped the case.)

In 1979, the court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) could be sued for defamation by a scientist whose work he had mocked in a news release and newsletter.

But it also ruled in a separate case that the government could not use a House member's past votes or speeches as evidence of his motive for committing an alleged offense.

And a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that the Justice Department was not entitled to look through the telephone records of a member of Congress.

So generally speaking, the protections afforded Congress by the Speech and Debate clause are pretty narrow -- and do not extend to shielding corruption from investigation and prosecution.

A ccouple of law professors also weigh in on the matter.

"An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that" is not covered by the constitutional provision that shields Congress from executive and judicial branch interference, said Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who teaches at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The precise materials sought in the raid were blacked out in a publicly released copy of the search warrant, but Jefferson (D-La.) said in a court filing yesterday that FBI agents took two boxes of documents and copied computer hard drives.

Both the search warrant for Jefferson's office and the raid to execute it were unprecedented in the 219-year history of the Constitution. In that sense, they violated an interbranch understanding rooted in the separation of powers -- and, indeed, in the events of 1642, when King Charles I burst into Parliament and attempted to arrest five members of the House of Commons, triggering the English Civil War.

But the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law.

"It's really a matter of etiquette," said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "I don't see any constitutional principle here."

But that is precisely teh issue here -- there is no violation of the Constitution. Custom has decreed that the Executive branch take a less confrontational appoach to such investigations -- but in this case, there has been teh violation of another custom, namely that a member cooperate with the investigation, which Jeferson and his lawyers have refused to do. Thus the Judicial Branch has weighed in and found probable cause for a warrant to be issued -- and left open room for Jefferson to challenge the search of the office and the seizure of any and all materials, exactly as is the right of any other citizen.

And I'd like to comment upon the responses of Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement.

As noted above, they are clearly wrong in their characterization of the actions of the Justice Department. There is clearly no basis for demanding the return of these materials to Jefferson on the basis of any Constitutional provision, nor does "custom" constitute a basis for the laws not being enforced.

Furthermore, I am appalled by the weakness of this portion of their statement.

Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

Unfortunately, that assertion ignores the history of this case. Sure, he "can and should" cooperate. But the reality is that he has not cooperated, and is unlikely to do so in the future if the past is truly prologue in this case. And Hastert and Pelosi have no means to enforce Jefferson's cooperation with the investigation -- that power only lies in the hands of the Executive and Judicial branches working together in the request for and issuance of a search warrant and its execution, which we saw over the weekend.

I applaud the position of the justice Department on this matter.

A Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said after the Hastert-Pelosi joint statement was released that "the department will not agree to any arrangement or demand that would harm or hurt an ongoing law enforcement investigation."

"We are in discussions with them on something that would preserve law enforcement interests while also allaying their institutional concerns," the official said. "But our position is that we did it legally and we did it lawfully, and we're not going to back away from that."

In other words, compliance with the mandates of the Constitution are sufficient safeguard, and claims of some sort of Congressional immunity from the Constitution are rejected.

By the way, the Congresscrook in question, Louisiana Representative William Jefferson (D-$90,000 in the freezer) is making use of the one legitimate remedy available to him -- he is challenging the warrant in court.

Jefferson challenged the weekend raid in a motion filed yesterday in federal court. The motion sought the return of the documents and "immediate relief," including that the FBI and Justice Department stop reviewing seized items; that the materials be sequestered in a locked, secure place; and that the FBI raid team file a report with the court detailing which documents were reviewed and what was done to sequester the documents.

The motion was filed with Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who signed the Saturday-night search warrant.

This is the appropriate venue for resolving the issue at hand, not the political arena or a congressional hearing room.

I paricularly like the summary of the case history contained in the Washington Post article. Be sure to read it.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1329 words, total size 9 kb.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

To read this article, that is precisely the claim that is being put forward by members of both bodies from both sides of the aisle.

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

"There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker.

The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

So what is the problem that some folks are pointing to here? Is there one at all? IÂ’ll let some of them tell you. Some are elected officials, some are former staffers, and some are legal scholars.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

* * *

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Well, if we were going to deal with issues of historical precedent, then Jefferson would be cooperating with the investigation. He isn't, prompting the more adversarial approach.

Legal experts are divided on the issue.

Many legal experts and defense lawyers agreed with Gingrich. Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years, called the raid "an intimidating tactic that has never before been used against the legislative branch."

"The Framers, who were familiar with King George III's disdain for their colonial legislatures, would turn over in their graves," Tiefer said.

Washington defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel for the House who has represented numerous lawmakers accused of wrongdoing, also questioned the government's strategy.

"This is really an over-the-top move, and it could create some real blow-back problems for them in the courts," he said.

But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue."

The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office."

So what constitutional provision are they referring to that they believe gives Jefferson immunity from the same laws that apply to every other American? It is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause i.

Article I, Section 6, Clause i 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. (italics added)

Now letÂ’s break this down.

The FBI had a valid warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate, authorizing the search under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The limits placed upon the agents conducting the search were meticulously designed to keep from interfering with any privileged materials. So far, we are seeing actions in conformity with the Constitution, and special deference being given based upon the respect due a co-equal branch of government.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked about the search, said he understands the concerns raised about FBI agents raiding a congressional office.
"I will admit that these were unusual steps that were taken in response to an unusual set of circumstances," Gonzales said.

The search warrant affidavit spells out special procedures put in place to ensure the search did not infringe on privileged material. The procedures include use of a "filter team" of prosecutors and FBI agents unconnected to the investigation. They would review any seized items or documents and determine whether the documents are privileged and therefore immune from the search warrant.

If the status of a document is in doubt, the filter team will give the documents to a judge for a definitive ruling before giving them to case prosecutors, according to the affidavit.

There is the question of whether these charges can be brought while Congress is in session. In light of the fact that the matter at hand (accepting bribes) is a felony, Representative Jefferson is subject to indictment, arrest, and trial while Congress is in session. Such charges and arrest are therefore clearly contemplated and permitted by the Founders – and therefore an investigation is equally permissible. And in light of historical precedent, the investigation and bringing of charges are accepted practice.

What is more, the search is for materials related to an alleged felony, not words in a speech or a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is not JeffersonÂ’s words, but his actions, that led to this search, and a search of his offices is a legitimate exercise of police powers to the degree that his action (accepting a bribe) may have impacted the operations of his Congressional office. Again, given the meticulous procedures put in place when the warrant was issued, there can be no legitimate question regarding the respect shown for the co-equal legislative branch. Not only is this not a case of the Executive and legislative branches operating outside of their proper spheres, it is a case of them operating within those spheres to serve as a check and balance upon Congress.

Nothing in Article I, Section 6, Clause i can be legitimately interpreted to apply to the current situation – nor can this provision of the Constitution be held to exempt the criminal conduct of a lawmaker from the ordinary operation of the law in this situation. I therefore find the outrage expressed at this search to be specious in nature, premised not upon the text of the Constitution itself but rather upon the belief that the separation of powers confers a degree of immunity beyond that which the blueprint of American government provides.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1390 words, total size 9 kb.

The Houston area was shocked yesterday by the loss of one of its more colorful characters. County Treasurer Jack Cato passed away during heart surgery at the age of 70.

Harris County Treasurer Jack Cato, a former award-winning newsman and Houston police spokesman, died Monday of heart failure while undergoing tests at St. Luke's Hospital for a heart condition. He was 70.

Cato had served as county treasurer since 1999 and had defeated former city councilman and mayoral candidate Orlando Sanchez in the Republican primary in March.

He was expected to breeze into a third term as county treasurer in the November general election.

As he had in every venture he had sought, his friends said, Cato endeared himself to those around him.

Jack Cato is survived by his wife, Shirley; his sons, Chris and John; and seven grandchildren. They have my prayers and deepest sympathies at this time.

His is an obituary filled with colorful stories of his days as a reporter and editor here in Houston. Let me offer some samples.

As famous for his news scoops as his idiosyncrasies, Cato reigned in the world populated by cops and cop reporters — the once dark and dirty underbelly of Houston.

He was stabbed in the back while covering the 1978 Moody Park riot and then gave an interview while being examined in a hospital shortly afterward.

Cato was as famous for showing the scar from his stab wound — he once auctioned off a look at a fundraiser — as he was for the actual stabbing.

Mass murderer Elmer Wayne Henley confessed in a call to his mother on Cato's car phone.

He once stopped a fleeing drug suspect with a gun-shaped hand and a firm shout to halt.

When he was refused the name of a heart-transplant patient, he donned surgical scrubs and took a look at the man's medical chart. In 1976, he tried to get one of his employees at Houston News Service to sneak into a Harris County morgue and get a picture of Howard Hughes.

"He was more concerned with getting the story than anything else — that was Cato," said Phil Archer, a KPRC reporter who got his start in the news business from Cato. "Cato was the last of that era, the two-fisted, cigar-smoking cop beat reporter."

He got into politics in the late 1990s, and was elected to two terms as county treasurer. He faced a strong challenger in this year's primary, and beat him handily. I'll concede I endorsed that challenger, but only because I had been hearing rumors of health probmems for some time and had become concerned about whether or not Jack was still up to the job. Sadly, it appears that he was not, though his death yesterday did come as a bolt out of the blue to many of us involved in Harris County politics.

Cato's death leaves a vacant office to be filled and a new candidate to be named for the November election.

The Harris County Commissioners Court will meet to appoint Cato's successor through the November general election. The Harris County Republican executive committee will then name a replacement for the November ballot.

I'm sure I'll start hearing about potential replacements soon, since my job as precinct chair makes me part of the executive committee. I hope that the potential candidates at least wait until after the funeral before they start seeking to take Jack's place.

But I knw that whoever follows him in office and on the ballot will be no where near the stuff of legends that Jack Cato was.

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.

Now here's a shocker for you!

Elections Are Crux Of GOP's Strategy

Elections are always the first consideration for a political party -- they are the very reason they exist. Even more than governmance, political parties are concerned with achieving and maintaing power so that they can hold and exercise teh power of governance.

Confronting the worst poll numbers seen in the West Wing since his father went down to defeat, President Bush and his team are focusing on the fall midterm elections as the best chance to salvage his presidency and are building a campaign strategy around tax cuts, immigration and national security.

Modern history offers no precedent of a president climbing from a hole as deep as the one Bush finds himself in, and White House strategists have concluded that no staff shake-up or other quick fix will alter their trajectory. In the sixth year of his tenure, they said, Bush cannot easily change the minds of voters whose impressions are fully formed.

And so short of some event outside their direct control -- such as a dramatic turnaround in Iraq or the capture of Osama bin Laden -- Bush advisers have turned to the election as the most important chance to rewrite the troubled narrative of his presidency and allow him to recover enough to govern his last two years, Republican strategists said. With that in mind, Bush last week called on the National Guard to help stop illegal immigrants, signed tax-cut legislation and headlined three party fundraisers.

In other words, the President and other political leaders int he GOP are doing what politicians do -- keeping an eye firmly on the elections so that they can continue to wield the powers of elective office.

Duh.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

But if this were, for example, Tom DeLay and not Democrat Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), it would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper in america as more evidence of a "culture of corruption" in the GOP.

But it is just business as usual for a Louisiana Democrat.

More than a dozen FBI agents raided the Capitol Hill office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) last night, searching for documents related to an ongoing public corruption investigation, a government official said.

As many as 15 agents wearing business suits began searching the office in the Rayburn House Office Building about 7:15 p.m. and were expected to continue possibly into the afternoon today, the official said shortly before 4 a.m.

Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman, said that "the search was conducted this evening in conjunction with an ongoing FBI public corruption investigation."

Portions of the search warrant are expected to be unsealed later today.

Jefferson's lawyer is, in typical defense attorney form, outraged.

Robert Trout, Jefferson's attorney, complained that FBI agents refused to allow him or the general counsel of the House to witness the search.

"The government's actions in obtaining a search warrant to search the offices of a United States Congressman were outrageous," Trout said in a statement, the Associated Press reported. "There were no exigent circumstances necessitating this action. The government knew that the documents were being appropriately preserved while proper procedures were being followed. We are dismayed by this action. The documents weren't going anywhere and the prosecutors knew it."

Yeah. Sure. Isn't this the guy who got a rescue craft and emergency personnel to take him to his home in the days following Hurricane Katrina to remove material from his home -- material that included a laptop computer, briefcases, and boxes of documents that may well be related to the case? Do you want to assure us again that nothing would have happened to the material sought in the warrant if it had not been immediately executed?

And let's not forget this little tidbit from teh end of the story.

The investigation became public on Aug. 3 when FBI agents raided Jefferson's homes in New Orleans and Northeast Washington, where they found about $90,000 in cash in his freezer, law enforcement sources have said.

They also raided five other locations, including the Kentucky and New Jersey offices of iGate Inc., which has become central to the investigation.

I say again -- why isn't this story getting the play that DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham get> Because William Jefferson is black, Democrat, and from teh corrupt state of Louisiana, so nothing better is expected of him. Ethics rules and laws apply to Republicns only.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU, Expose the Left, and No Agenda.

UPDATE: GatewayPundit notes that the FBI caught Jefferson on tape taking a $100,000 bribe. Instapundit reminds us of an earlier Jefferson indiscretion -- is the cash linked to the bribe in question? Additional news coverage at these sites.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

Proof positive that not only is New Orleans the dumbest place to build a city in the United States, but that it is also the dumbest city in the United States.

Voters here endorsed the leadership of incumbent Mayor C. Ray Nagin Saturday, narrowly approving his reelection bid even though his term was marked by the apocalyptic chaos of Hurricane Katrina, his controversial "chocolate city" remarks and the stalled recovery.

Nagin overcame a strong challenge by Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, the scion of a politically powerful clan, who outspent him by large margins.

Many here, such as City Council President Oliver Thomas, considered Nagin's victory the "biggest upset ever." With all precincts reporting, Nagin had 52.3 percent, or 59,460 votes, to Landrieu's 47.7 percent, or 54,131 votes.

The vote split largely along racial lines. Nagin won by getting the support of about 80 percent of black voters and about 20 percent of white votes, according to election analyst Greg Rigamer.

Many here called the election a pivotal moment in city history. Scores of voters arrived after a five-hour bus trip from Houston. Some emerged from cramped FEMA trailers parked in otherwise abandoned neighborhoods. And even those who came from the comfort of houses untouched by the flooding said the only issues that mattered were the hurricane and its aftermath.

Let's remember some simple facts. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order an evacuation. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order those school buses to be used for evacuation purposes. And it was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who decided the SuperDome and Convention Center would be fantastic places to keep folks for the duration of the storm and beyond. But for some reason, the people of New Orleans want to keep their incompetent mayor around for another term. No doubt we will soon hear that this is george Bush's fault, just like all the failures of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco.

As far as this Houston area resident is concerned, I hope that all those folks who traveled by bus from our area stay in New Orleans -- the crime rate in the area dropped significantly as they crossed the county line, and the collective IQ of texas was raised when they crossed they crossed the Sabine River into Louisiana.

Here's hoping that the people of the "chocolate city" realize that they will be getting it up the "Hershey highway" as long as they continue to select the sort of corrupt and incompetent officials that are legion in Louisiana.

More At Stop the ACLU">Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 06:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

Debates can turn ugly during a hotly contested campaign -- and so can other joint appearances by candidates. When such things happen within a party, that can be a sign that there will be difficulty rallying the troops around the eventual nominee.

That may be the case in Virginia.

The two men vying for the Democratic nomination in Virginia's U.S. Senate race angrily accused each other of being disloyal to their party in a bitter exchange Friday during their first face-to-face meeting of the primary campaign.

Former lobbyist Harris Miller and former Navy secretary James Webb clashed during the taping of what was billed as a casual conversation for "On the Record," a Norfolk television show that will air Sunday morning. The exchange started calmly, with both taking potshots at the man each wants to face in the fall, incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen.

But the conversation quickly turned nasty, with Miller questioning Webb's partisan "values" and Webb noting that Miller had been called by some people "the antichrist of outsourcing." It ended at an impromptu news conference after the taping, with a visibly frustrated Webb telling Miller to "shut your mouth."

The two went after each other on questions of party loyalty -- Webb's support for Republicans in 2000 and Miller's history of campaign contributions to senior Republicans.

The antipathy that had until Friday been reserved for news releases and quiet remarks by campaign aides became personal slams moments into the taping as Miller questioned Webb's support for Republicans during the 2000 election.

"When we were fighting in the trenches to defeat George Bush and George Allen in 2000, you weren't just voting for them, you were endorsing them," Miller said, ignoring the question of the show's host, Joel Rubin.

Webb quickly accused Miller of making inappropriate campaign contributions to senior Republicans in the Congress.

"Why did you donate money to [U.S. House of Representatives Speaker] Dennis Hastert? I've never given money to a Republican in my life," Webb said.

They both claim they will support the other in the general election. But you have to wonder -- will it be an active support? Or will we see the loser retire from the field and offer nothing beyond a few polite words of endorsement at the state convention?

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

That is my reaction to the vote in the House of Representative to keep the ban on off-shore drilling for oil during this time of shortage.

The House late Thursday rejected an attempt to end the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling that has been in effect for 85 percent of the country's coastal waters from Alaska to New England despite arguments that new supplies are needed to lower energy costs.

Lawmakers from Florida and California, who led the fight to continue the drilling moratorium, said they feared energy projects as close as three miles from shore could jeopardize multibillion-dollar tourism industries in their states.
"People don't go to visit the coasts of Florida or the coast of California to watch oil wells," Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said.

Down here in Texas, we have plenty of wells off-shore – wells that contribute to the current supply of oil. If California, Florida, and other coastal states refuse to help the US establish energy independence, then they clearly have no moral right to the oil produced by the very sort of well they reject along their own coast lines.

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm curious -- has this twerp ever objected to any other vote being held in this location? Or are we seeing a simple case of grandstanding by a wannabe presidential candidate fromt he far left? I doubt it -- but Russ Feingold is better known for his publicity seeking than his fidelity to the Constitution (see McCain Feingold for the classic example of his infidelity to our nation's founding document).

Certainly his confrontation with Arlen Specter is a classic.

A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Frankly, I can't believe in the arrogance expressed by Feingold, whose lack of fidelity to the Constitution may only be matched by his lack of fidelity to his marriage vows.

Specter noted that the choice of locations was realy a side issue.

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Specter later said he would have been willing to hold the session in the usual room had he thought doing so would change votes.

In addition, Specter noted that he voted to send the proposed amendment to the floor because it deserves debate, not because he supports it -- in fact, he does not. I guess he just has the intellectual honesty to allow people to discuss the issues -- something Feingold's previous opposition to unfettered political speech proves he fears.

And what is the text of the amendment?

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," reads the measure, which would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In other words, it recognizes the cultural beliefs and practices of the overwhelming majority of Americans and makes them a part of our Constitutional system, preserving them from renegade judges imposing their will in place of the will of the people.

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

Chris over at Texas Safety Forum notes these two open-to-the-public candidate events in Fort Bend County as we prepare for the June 9 resignation of Tom DeLay.

The first is on May 25.

Sugar Land - The Fort Bend Republican Club and the Spirit of Freedom Republican Women's Club are pleased to co-sponsor a forum for Fort Bend voters that will feature the candidates seeking the Republican Party nomination for the Congressional District 22 position in the November election.

Congressional District 22 voters who want to learn more about the individuals seeking to represent them as the Republican nominee for CD 22 will be able to hear the candidates discuss their reasons for seeking the nomination and can learn more about the candidates as they answer questions on issues in a moderated panel format.

The forum will be held on May 25th at the Comfort Suites Conference Center, located at 4820 Techniplex Drive in Stafford, Texas (South side of Hwy 59 in Stafford). A reception will be held from 6:30 - 7:00 PM prior to the event and the forum will last from 7:00- 8:30 PM.

For information, please contact Fort Bend Republican Club President, Dean Hrbacek, at 281-240-2424.

The second is on June 8.

Republican Party of Fort Bend County CandidateÂ’s Forum

Save the date! On June 8th the Republican Party of Fort Bend County will hold a CandidateÂ’s Forum for candidates to the 22nd Congressional District race. Because the list of candidates is fluid right now, please forward this notice to anyone interested in the race.

The forum will be open to any Precinct Chair from Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris County and will be open to the public. Candidates will be interviewed by local media representatives.

The location will be announced soon. Candidates are encouraged to contact Gary Gillen, Chairman of the Republican Party of Fort Bend County for further details. Contact Gary at chairman@fortbendgop.org

I echo Chris in wondering if David Wallace has been personally notified and invided, since he and his staff obviously are unfamiliar with the internet and the wealth of political resources -- including blogs -- that exist on the world wide web (and which include CD22 blogs like this one).

Interestingly enough, I got a big envelope from the Wallace campaign today -- containing the candidate survey from the Harris County event, signed and dated May 8. I'm betting the "prior committment" that kept him from coming to that event was a ruse, and the real problem is that he couldn't answer the questions in a timely fashion.

Posted by: Greg at 03:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

I wonder who this could be.

The US Senate is looking into allegations that a former US senator urged Baghdad to give a US company lucrative contracts under the much-criticised United Nations oil-for-food programme.

This is the first time that a leading US lawmaker has been linked to the controversial UN programme, whose shortcomings have been an important element of the Bush administration's critique of the UN.

No name, no party, no state. I wonder why the omission?

The investigation involves one of the most vivid figures in US east coast politics, former senator Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who was forced to pull out of the 2002 election after being "severely admonished" by the Senate ethics committee for accepting expensive gifts from David Chang, a campaign contributor. Mr Chang, a Korean-American businessman, was found guilty in 2002 of conspiring to violate federal campaign laws and was jailed for 15 months.

Oh, that explains it -- a Democrat. Bury the pertinent details as deep as possible.

I just have to ask -- French Socialists, British ultra-Lefty Galloway, and now a liberal Dem. What is it about Saddam that drew the Left to him like moths to a flame?

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Being married to a Democrat, I have to agree with George Will on this one.

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

My Darling Democrat has values – some of which I disagree with, others of which I simply prioritize differently. To imply that she doesn’t is condescending – and cuts off any chance of the GOP ever getting her and others who fall into the center-left to ever move our direction in terms of setting the direction of this country politically and socially. They are our family members, neighbors, co-workers and fellow church-members, and they often are not that far away from those of us in the conservative movement in terms of the values they hold dear.

After all –one’s position on civil rights is values based. So is one’s position on education. I cannot think of a single aspect of belief or ideology that is not, in the end, based upon the moral values one holds dear. The trick is often not to change the values that others hold, but to influence how they prioritize them and how they should be implemented.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

You don't mean to tell me that the much-vaunted Democrat machine of my youth is still pulling the strings, taking kickbacks and giving out patronage jobs in the city run by Boss Daley's son, do you?

When Mary Jo Falcon started work as personnel director in the Chicago Sewers Department in 1994, she picked up some stern advice from her predecessor, who told Falcon that her real boss worked in a faraway office in City Hall.

The powerful man was Robert Sorich, and she could expect instructions from him on whom to hire, Falcon was told, according to court documents describing the scene. But his name was never to be penned on any documents. If questioned, she was to "deny everything. Deny, deny, deny."

Sorich, who worked in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, was Mayor Richard M. Daley's patronage chief until a federal grand jury indicted him last year on charges of rigging city hiring to favor campaign workers and others with notable political connections. In court this week, he will be fighting for his own reputation and, in a way, his boss's.

Prosecutors aim to persuade 12 jurors that Sorich and his associates made sure their favorites, whatever their qualifications, got secure jobs as building inspectors and bricklayers, tree trimmers and truck drivers, in a city heavily perfumed with government corruption.

That Sorich's office was right down the hall from the famously micromanaging mayor's is the tantalizing subtext of a case expected to open a window onto the way business is conducted in Daley's City Hall.

Prosecutors are not saying whether they think Daley is pulling levers behind the curtain. The five-term Democratic mayor has been questioned, but not implicated and not charged. His public response: "I don't play any role in hiring; no, I don't. I never have."

Not that Illinois politics have ever been clean -- rewarding political allies with public largesse is an old custom. And I'll be honest about it, my grandfather's connections to Democrat Senator Paul Douglas was the key to my grandmother scoring college scholarship for all four of her children back in the in the early 1950s. Those party ties also explain how my grandfather managed to score a plum job as a state policeman in the late 1930s, at a time when the department was noted as much for its patronage as for its professionalism.

Not, of course, that the GOP hasn't been involved in such shennanigans as well -- former Gov. George Ryan was recently convicted of using his office for personal gain.

This could be interesting -- showing once again that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

I doubt we'll be hearing the name Abramoff prominently from the Democrats this year. That is because any attempt to accuse the GOP of systemic corruption will only lead back to the ethical cess-pool that is the Democrat Party. Take this senior Democrat.

Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.

Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid.

Mollohan used his seat on the House Appropriations Committee to secure more than $150 million for five nonprofit groups. One of the groups is headed by a former aide with whom Mollohan bought $2 million worth of property on Bald Head Island, N.C.

Controversy over this blending of commerce and legislation has triggered a federal probe, cost Mollohan his position on the House ethics committee and undermined the Democrats' effort to portray the GOP as the party of corruption because of the Jack Abramoff scandal. As early as today, the 12-term congressman will admit that he misstated some transactions in his congressional filings, according to Mollohan staffers.

"Mollohan has earmarked tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners. That immediately raises the question whether these funds were allocated to promote the public good or to promote his interests and the interests of his partners," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group. "He also got very rich very quick, and that suggests a relationship that is suspect if not corrupt."

How bad is it? Take a look at this little tidbit.

Mollohan, 63, faces a widening federal investigation. The FBI has notified his nonprofit organizations that they will be subpoenaed soon and, according to Mollohan, a subpoena has already been served on a D.C. real estate company in which he has invested. In addition, Mollohan plans to divulge that he misstated on House financial disclosure forms the amount of loans and income from some of his real estate holdings.

I love that term, "misstated". Could you imagine the Democrats allowing a senior GOP congressman get by with that? The entire situation reeks of corruption -- yet the Democrats were more than willing to let him sit on the Ethics COmmittee and pass judgement on Tom DeLay, whose alleged lapses have everything to do with politics and not personal enrichment.

Now maybe there is some reasonable explanation for all this, but remember what the Democrats kept telling us -- the appearance of impropriety is itself an impropriety.

Posted by: Greg at 04:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't trust John McCain. And I've never been a huge fan of Jerry Falwell, though I do root for Liberty University in the NCAA tourney each year. So I guess that this pronouncement doesn't really do much for me.

If yesterday's teaming up of Sen. John McCain and the Rev. Jerry Falwell seems like a marriage of political convenience, Falwell is quick to say who drove him toward McCain.

Who else? Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton seems to be the political matchmaker for all kinds of conservatives and McCain, who didn't win any friends six years ago when he blasted Falwell as an agent of intolerance.

Now a lot of people are letting bygones be bygones for a simple reason: They think McCain looks like a Hillary-stopper.

"He's consistently beat Hillary in every poll," Falwell said last week. "Others could beat her. But I think McCain, barring health problems or a Howard Dean [style] explosion, is going to beat Hillary."

And that's part of the reason Falwell sounds a lot like a McCain supporter, even though he's officially uncommitted now. He said that while Bill Clinton was a populist, Hillary is "an ideologue. I think Hillary would be the worst thing that would ever happen to America."

But he also says Republicans can't beat her with just anyone. "Anybody who sells her short is not wise," Falwell said.

You know what -- i don't believe that John McCain can get the nomination in the GOP. He has alienatd too many of us who make up the base. Campaign finance "reform" makes a mockery of the Frst Amendment, and McCain has indicated his preference for eliminating its protections completely in the name of "getting money out of politics."

I honor the man's military service -- but if he were on fire, I still couldn't bring myself to spare the water to urinate on him.

Falwell must be in teh grips of senile dementia if he believes mcCain is the answer to the threat of "President Hillary".

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

Hugh Hewitt notes that Andrew Sullivan wants to lump the conservative Christians in with Taliban and al-Qaeda.

What does the term "Christianist" mean and why is Time peddling it?

Time columnist Andrew Sullivan uses the term to describe evangelicals with whom he disagrees. He says his goal is to "take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist."

He explains further, "Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike."

Most pundits have rejected "Christianist" because it obviously tries to link Islamists and those evangelicals Mr. Sullivan loathes. He is attempting to dress up hate speech as simple precision, but given the vast spectrum of political opinions among believers on the center-right, "Christianist" is a howler. Still, no one should be laughing when a once-respected newsweekly defines a huge portion of the American mainstream as the equivalent of the Islamists who attacked the country on 9/11. Be prepared as others pick up Time's term.

Such crap coming from Sullivan and Time couldn't be a sign of the continuing War on Christianity, which teh Left steadfastly assures us is a figment of our our own imaginations and our desire to illegitiamtely manipulate the debate on cultural and political issues.

But two can play that game. Let's just engage in a little bit of substitution with Sullivan's own words.

"Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Homosexualist is in no way designed to label people in the homosexual rights movement as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Homosexualist the view that homosexuality is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that sexual orientation dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, homosexual and non-homosexual alike."

The description probably fits the so-called "gay rights" movement better than it fits the religious right. And we can certainly see plenty of developments over the last several years in which the undeniable rights of hristians (and other religious believers) to live their lives according to their faith have been trampled by the questionable claims of the homosexualists.

MORE AT: Outside the Beltway, Eunomia, Don Singleton, Fides et Veritas, Civil Commotion, Hugh Hewitt (twice), ChronWatch

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Third World Country, Sed Vitae, TMH Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Is It Just Me?, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop The ACLU, Leaning Straight Up

Posted by: Greg at 05:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 6 kb.

I've got to ask -- what is it about Alabama Democrats? First you had the idiot legislative candidate/teacher showing profane anti-Bush material to students in his science classes. Now you have this candidate for attorney general denying the Holocaust.

Democratic candidate for Alabama attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend in New Jersey to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

* * *

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.

Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

And not only is he a Holocaust denier and white supremacist, he also stakes out some other interesting positions.

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

Tyson said aside from his views on race and the Holocaust, Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants.

In the defense of the Alabama Democrats, their party chairman had this to say.

The state Democratic chairman, Joe Turnham, said the party became aware of some of Darby's views only days ago and was considering what to do about his candidacy.

"Any type of hatred toward groups of people, especially for political gain, is completely unacceptable in the Alabama Democratic Party," said Turnham.

* * *

Turnham said the party began an investigation last week after hearing about some of Darby's comments in a television interview. While the party supports the free-speech rights of any candidate, Turnham said some of Darby's views appear to be in "a realm of thought that is unacceptable.

But you have to wonder -- what is it about the Democrat Party that attracts individuals of this calibre?

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

The Democrats are signaling their intent to filibuster the Kavanaugh nomination.

While Democrats on the committee acknowledged Mr. Kavanaugh has "top-flight credentials," they said his background is overtly political.

"While his academic credentials are undeniably top-notch, he has largely devoted his legal talent to helping notch political victories for his party," Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said yesterday.

Which means, of course, that this is a qualified nominee, but the Democrats donÂ’t like his politics. There exists no legitimate reason -- and certainly no "extraordianry circumstance" -- for delaying or denying this nominee.

Time to restore the Constitution by laying the filibuster to rest in the case of judicial nominees – first by making the Democrats actually hold the floor continuously while preventing all other business from taking place, and then by getting a ruling from the parliamentarian that such a filibuster is not in order when the GOP is ready for the vote – preferably during prime time.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, Tom DeLay has finally informed us of his intended resignation date -- and I am unhappy about it.

He won't resign until June 9, 2006 -- and presumably will not render himself ineligible to be on the ballot until the same time.

Rep. Tom DeLay, the once-powerful majority leader whose career was undermined by scandal, said Thursday he would resign from the House on June 9.

"As you are aware," the Texas Republican wrote House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "I have recently made the decision to pursue new opportunities to engage in the important cultural and political battles of our day from an arena outside of the U.S. House of Representatives."

He told Hastert he would resign at the close of business on June 9.

The combative conservative last month stated his intention to resign in June, saying he did not want to allow Democrats to turn the next election in his district near Houston into a negative personal campaign.

Why am I unhappy? Because the resignation will not take place before the Texas GOP convention on June 2-3 -- when I had hoped to see the party's new standard-bearer announced and given a rousing launch to his/her campaign. Instead, the formal selection process cannot even begin for a week after convention ends.

Assuming, of course, that the man doesn't dally about switching his residency and notifying the party here in Texas.

Once that takes place, state law sets the following process for selecting a replacement candidate.

1) State GOP Chair declares DeLay ineligible for reelection.

2) Precinct chairs from the district caucus by county and select one of their number to form a committee to select a new candidate.

3) Committee meets to select a new candidate.

4) If no candidate is selected by 70 days prior to the election, the State Republican Election Committee may select a candidate.

5) General election takes place in November -- in this case, in tandem with a free-for-all special election to complete the last two months of Delay's term of office.

Nick Lampson's folks are still not willing to admit that state law permits the removal of DeLay and the naming of a replacement.

Many have speculated that LampsonÂ’s campaign or the Democratic Party would challenge DeLayÂ’s ability to drop off the ballot merely by changing residency.

“We have never conceded that Tom DeLay can legally remove his name from the ballot simply because he saw he was going to lose and wanted the chance to choose his successor,” Malaise said two weeks ago.

This despite the fact that state law has specific provisions allowing for exactly such a process to take place if a candidate becomes ineligible -- and Constitutionally, Tom DeLay becomes ineligible the minute he establishes residency in another state by doing something like registering to vote there.

There is, of course, another candidate in the race besides Nick Lampson.

Former Rep. Steve Stockman has collected enough voter signatures to run as an independent candidate in the race to replace former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, his spokesman said Wednesday.

Stockman, a former Republican, has collected more than the 500 signatures needed, said campaign spokesman Jason Posey, though he didn't immediately know the total amount.

Most of us are quite unhappy about this, given that Stockman's candidacy can only hurt the eventual GOP nominee.

I'll say it loud and clear -- I wish that Delay were leaving office TODAY, so we could hasten the process along. Actually, havign been nominated, I wish he would have stuck it out no matter what the polls said on his reelection chances. Better yet, I wish he had not sought the nomination, since there is every indication that he had been seriously considering a withdrawal from the general election as early as the day he filed for reelection.

It is going to be a long month for me and the rest of the precinct chairs in CD22.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 4 kb.

They got their second hearing – time for the Democrats to stand aside and allow this superbly qualified judicial nominee to be confirmed by the majority that supports him.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved White House aide Brett Kavanaugh for an appeals-court seat on Thursday, clearing the way for a likely confirmation vote by the full Senate.

Kavanaugh won approval from the committee on a 10-8 party-line vote as Democrats said he was too partisan and inexperienced for the job.

Democratic senators had asked for an unusual second hearing on his nomination to question his involvement in White House policies on like eavesdropping on U.S. citizens' telephone calls without obtaining warrants and torture of detainees.

* * *

Kavanaugh must be approved by the full Senate, where Republicans hold 55 of 100 seats, before joining the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Democrats are unlikely to muster the 60 votes necessary to block his nomination. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he intends to schedule a vote before the late-May Memorial Day recess.

Should he be filibustered, it is time for the Constitutional option to be invoked, eliminating the ability of a minority to impose an unconstitutional requirement of a super-majority for confirmation.

I cannot help but note the laughable comments of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal), father of Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Pills & Liquor).

He failed to win over committee Democrats. "This nomination is a triumph of cronyism over credentials," Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said. Kavanaugh, 41, has been a White House aide since 2001.

Let’s see – this is the same guy who got elected to the Senate at age 30 with the sole qualification that his brother was the sitting president. His son was first elected to office at age 21 with no particular qualification other than his name. He has no more place criticizing a nominee for lack of credentials than he does criticizing them for their driving skills.

HereÂ’s hoping that certain spineless republicans do not interfere in the deployment of the GOP nukes if there is any Democrat funny business.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, the Constitution certainly appears to limit actual voting representation to states. How can this legislation meet that challenge?

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is teaming up with U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) to introduce a bill that would for the first time give the District a full vote in Congress, a sign of bipartisan cooperation that advocates of D.C. voting rights hailed as a breakthrough.

The legislation, set to be unveiled at a news conference today, would expand the House from 435 to 437 seats, giving a vote to the District as well as a fourth seat to Utah, the state next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation based on the 2000 Census.

Davis first introduced a version of the bill two years ago, but he struggled to persuade Norton and House Democrats to support it. Through a spokeswoman, Norton declined yesterday to discuss her change of heart, promising to explain all at today's news conference.

"We have an agreement in principle with our Democrats, and that's a significant development," said Davis spokesman David Marin. "It's no secret that legislation to give the District a vote wasn't going to go too far without Eleanor Holmes Norton on board."

Given that the District is all territory carved from the state of Maryland, I would prefer to see the city lumped in with Maryland for representation purposes. It would finesse the issue of giving representation to anything other than states. Look for a challenge to the first law on which the DC delegate casts the deciding vote.

And then there is the Utah question, which raises another Constitutional issue in my book.

The first would address Democratic concerns by making Utah's new seat a statewide position, rather than creating another congressional district. Utah now has three House members, including one Democrat, Jim Matheson. House Democrats had worried that Utah Republicans, who control the statehouse, would use the extra seat to reconfigure the congressional districts and push Matheson out of his job. By making the fourth seat an at-large position, the three existing districts would remain intact.

Now hold on here -- once seats are apportioned among the states, it is the business of the state legislatures to take care of districting issues. This provision seems to usurp the function of the state legislature. As such it seems certain to meet a stiff Constitutional challenge.

Also, does the "at-large" mandate disappear after the 2010 census?

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Even if my computer had not crashed last Friday, I had no intention on commenting the CD22 Candidate Screening meeting held by Harris County Precinct Chairs. It was SUPPOSED to be a private meeting, and my understanding was that it was supposed to be private at this point. After all, Tom DeLay has taken no action to get off the ballot or out of Congress, so everything is informal and preliminary.

That said, our “on private property so we can keep it private” meeting had a reporter in the lobby, being gabbed to by an individual who I thought was sensible enough to know better. Interesting, isn’t it, that she is the establishment candidate for the Harris County Elector? And It appears her comments went beyond that single reporter, too, giving the establishment line.

And then there is this reflection from another participant, one whose views are clearly those of one of the establishment. Chris seems to think the author is a Harris County chair, and I have no reason to dispute this conclusion. Here is what this blogger thinks.

If I had to pick in terms of sheer performance on Saturday, I would go with the candidates in the following order:

1. Charlie Howard
2. Robert Talton
3. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs
4. Mike Jackson
(Gibbs & Jackson could really be a tie)
5. Tom Campbell
6. Andy Meyers
7. Tim Turner

David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but didn't show up, so I'm not considering either of them. Actually, I don't think I will consider anyone who hadn't already gotten their crap together enough to be prepared for this particular event. I can't commit to saying for sure that I definitely won't, but I don't think I will. This is going to be a sprint campaign and people will have to be ready.

Now, remember, gentle YPS readers, the above ranking is based upon Saturday' performance alone. Here are my candidate choices in rank order based on all factors. This is how I will position myself within the caucus, take this as if we were voting tomorrow.

1. Charlie Howard - I had never met or had any contact with Mr. Howard, but he really knocked my socks off on Saturday. I was really impressed with him. I had previously looked up his voting record in the State House and he puts his vote in the right place too. His questionnaire was spot on, his background is impressive and he is solid. There is a difference between a party conservative and a true conservative. You can learn which you have just by listening to them. Trust me folks, Howard is a true conservative. He's wow and ready.

2. Mike Jackson - This is the individual I went in favoring. Saturday he was very flat, uninspiring and unprepared. He acknowledged that his work in the Senate over the special session really didn't give him time to “brush up” on federal issues; however, I'm thinking that if you don't know where you stand on most of these issues by now, you deserve the job you have, and not much more. Both Talton and Howard are also in special session and gave much more solid presentations. Honestly, I am afraid that Lampson might out shine him in a debate if he can't get his crap together.. He stays my second choice, however, because I know that he's a good conservative and will vote the right way.

3. Robert Talton - I could not place Talton as my #1 or 2 for personal reasons, although he would keep a fairly solid conservative voting record. He put his friends ahead of principle once regarding a purely non-politics issue, and I can't put my trust in anyone who might have a shot at becoming “friends” with Sheila Jackson Lee or Nancy Pelosi. Plus, he makes me nervous because he stated that he doesn't support zero-based budgeting.

4. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs - I post the most about her because it seems as if she has positioned herself the most strongly amongst the precinct chairs. Or maybe her contingent is the most outspoken/annoying. Gibbs was very energetic and charismatic, but I still hold that she doesn't have the temperament for this office. She was almost too immature/girly. I didn't like in her opening statement on Saturday, how she evoked the memory of her late husband (who was a local news anchor/celebrity). As previously posted by me, she didn't take on her married name until she started running for office, so it comes off as sheer opportunism. Her worst habit, however is that nobody likes to be told how much “smarter I am than you”. And she just keeps doing that, it is very condescending. She says things like “well you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor.” It might be cool in Clear Lake, but that crap isn't going to fly with the industrial guys in the area where we live because it is very blue collar. Plus, quite simply, she's a “nanny stater”. She actually bragged because she was the force behind the “no smoking in Houston restaurants” ordinance. Now, don't get me wrong, I quit smoking about 3 years ago and don't like it much, but I can't get behind anyone who will tell a private property/business owner how he or she can conduct his or her business. It all comes back to that “I'm smarter than you and I know what's best for you mentality”. Thank you, Hillary Clinton. Further, she can't seem to get a grip on any issue outside the health care/medical side of it because of her royal doctorness, I guess. Her questionnaire answers were strong, but when she provided additional comments, she killed herself. We deserve more than her; she's too liberal.

And such is my assessment. The remainder of the pack aren't worth mentioning, in my opinion. Bless their hearts. They were outclassed, either too emotional or unprepared, and just not suitable for this particular office.

IÂ’d have to rank the candidates differently in terms of performance at the forum.

1) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs
2) Charlie Howard
3) Andy Meyers
4) Mike Jackson
5) Robert Talton
6) Tim Turner
7) Tom Campbell

As he points out, David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but missed them, so I place them at the bottom of the list.

My ranking of the candidates, based upon my personal preference, also differs. These are subject to revision, based upon future developments.

1) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs – Let’s say it flat out – this lady has been campaigning like she really wants this nomination and this office. That counts for something – and the fact that the candidate and her supporters are active and enthusiastic should not be seen as “annoying” – unless one considers support for anyone other than one of the three “good old boy” members of the legislature to be an annoyance. Shelley is intelligent (which frightens the blogger in question) articulate, and passionate, all of which are generally considered plusses in a candidate. And yes, she is conservative – though I personally disagree with her on the smoking ban issue. Oh, by the way, she did make the “you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor” comment – but it was in relationship to a particular law that impacts medical care. That law, EMTALA, may as well be called “The Anchor Baby Creation Act”, as it requires that an illegal alien in labor be allowed to deliver her child in the US, even if transferring her back across the border to a hospital in Mexico would in no way endanger her life or health or that of her child. I didn’t know about that law before I first met Dr. Sekula-Gibbs a month ago, and I suspect the same was true of many of those in attendance. Also, I like the brash pledge to be our congresswoman for at least six terms – it radiates a confidence and optimism that I like.

2) Charlie Howard – Here is a hard-working legislator who is well-spoken and conservative. He is a strong conservative, and I cannot say I heard anything that I disagree with. He would make a great candidate for Congressman. He has not made much of an effort to contact precinct chairs. My only issue is his age – even though Charlie is in good health, I have to ask how many terms we are likely to have him around. Will we be looking for a new candidate in four or six years? I would rather we were not.

3) Mike Jackson – My state senator has a lot of CD22 in his district, and he always does well. He is reasonably conservative, but I think he hurt himself with his vote last week on the tax bill, though he explained his reasoning well. I’m just worried how much compromising he would be willing to do in Washington. Mike's nomination will also set off a scramble to take his place in the state senate – and probably for at least one state representative district. I’m uncomfortable with the notion so many positions being filled by precinct chairs in the weeks prior to the general election.

4) Andy Meyers – Is he simply a surrogate for Robert Eckels and Paul Bettencourt? He is close to both and didn’t enter the race until they decided not to run. Does he have the desire to win on his own merits? I don’t care how right he is on the issues, I don’t want to settle for third best.

5) Robert Talton – There seems to be too maneuvering and scheming on the part of the Harris County GOP hierarchy to get this nomination for Talton. He also couldn’t clearly answer some questions about his votes on certain issues in the current special session. Add to that the reality that his major legislative priority in the last regular session was to keep homosexuals from adopting or being foster parents – and would have actually prohibited all single people, regardless of sexual orientation, from adopting or fostering. Besides having out-of-whack priorities, he is, at best, a pale shadow of Charlie Howard.

6) Tim Turner – Never won an election. He would not be a bad choice to replace Shelley or Mike, given his experience in appointed positions and business.

7) Tom Campbell – still asserts that his second-place finish in the primary was the result of disaffected Republicans, not cross-over Democrats. We don’t need a candidate who is delusional.

David Wallace – Probably the only candidate whose nomination would lead me to not vote GOP in this race in November. Stood us up after requesting inclusion after missing the deadline. We don’t need a candidate who is stupid.

9) Brad Wright – No name recognition.

Well, that is my take on the candidates. It should be fun over the next few weeks to see how this whole thing works out. And anyone in CD22, please feel free to let me know what you think about candidates.

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1855 words, total size 11 kb.

What other possible interpretation could there be of this statement?

Dean took a swipe at the Republican Party, saying the Democratic Party is one of inclusion and religious freedom.

"I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties," Dean said. "When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews."

The problem is that you will never find a more philo-Semitic group of people than those assembled at a Republican event. On the other hand, when one considers the rhetoric o the Left with regard to Israel and the values of religious (as opposed to ethnic) Jews, one cannot help but be struck by the level of contempt for Jews and Judaism.

Dean’s comments come the day after his host group, the American Jewish Committee, was addressed by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman – a Jew.

But this statement should be no surprise to anyone. It is just more of the same Howard Dean rhetoric – sowing division among the American people by stirring up racial, ethnic, and religious hatred for partisan political gain.

And I wonder -- were the medical diagnoses of Dr. Dean this far off when he was in private practice?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, if every guilty plea or indictment related to Jack Abramoff is indicative of a GOP culture of corruption, as claimed by Democrat leaders, then surely the same can be said about this plea involving accusations of malfeasance against William Jefferson, (D-LA).

A Kentucky businessman pleaded guilty in federal court this morning to giving Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) more than $400,000 in bribes to promote his high-tech business ventures in Africa.

Vernon L. Jackson, owner of Louisville-based iGate Inc., declined to comment after his appearance in the Washington courtroom of U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III. He pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery.

Jackson is the second person to plead guilty in theinquiry of the New Orleans congressman. In January, Brett M. Pfeffer, 37, a former Jefferson aide, pleaded guilty to bribing his ex-boss. Pfeffer worked for a wealthy Northern Virginia woman who invested in Jackson's company, iGate, which was trying to sell Internet and cable television service to Nigeria and Ghana. Pfeffer told a federal judge that Jefferson demanded a stake in the business in exchange for using his influence in Africa to promote iGate's technology.

Jefferson, 58, has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, a federal public defender who is representing Jackson, declined to comment last night, as did Jefferson's press secretary, Melanie Roussell.

As you may recall, Jefferson is the corrupt Democrat who commandeered a rescue craft to remove personal possessions – including materials that could be related to this case – from his home in the days immediately after Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

My state senator, Mike Jackson, nearly stopped the passage of the ill-conceived goss receipts tax on businesses in the state of texas. But then, even though he planned on voting against the legislation as bad for texas, he cast the vote to let it reach the Senate floor, where it passed and has been sent on to the governor.

The Senate voted 16-14 Tuesday to send a business tax bill to the governor, after a Houston-area senator jeopardized passage of the bill with last-minute opposition.

Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, ended up casting the key vote that allowed Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to bring the bill up for a final vote. Four hours earlier he had stalled action by voting against bringing the bill to the floor.

At issue was a Senate rule requiring two-thirds of senators present to allow a bill to be debated. The rule is designed to get bipartisan consensus on legislation being brought before the Senate.

Jackson said he has had hundreds of calls from his district and decided to vote against bringing up the tax bill for debate because he thought it would have little permanent impact on reducing property taxes while raising new taxes on businesses.

"I started looking at calculating how little people would receive from the first stage of this property tax cut," Jackson said. "If school districts were able to raise their property tax rate 6 cents without a vote and then we have appraisal creep ... you come out with a wash in the first year."

Jackson said he used his ability to block the bill to gain "concessions" from Gov. Rick Perry and Dewhurst on having language to limit growth in school district spending put into another bill.

He said the restriction should limit the growth in property taxes unless a school district holds a vote of the people.

Jackson voted against final passage of the bill.

Passage means that the state's Republican leadership may finally have come to a school finance agreement that has eluded them in four attempts over the past two years.

Unfortunately, neither Mike nor the Houston Chronicle are all that clear about the "concessions" he got out of the bill's supporters. That concerns me deeply.

And i'll be honest -- Mike Jackson probably just shot himself in the foot if he was ever serious about getting the nimination to succeed Tom DeLay. Most GOP activists found this tax plan unacceptable, and his decision to support bringing it to a vote will not please any of us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.