NYT/AP: GOP Objects to Jefferson Appointment to Homeland Security Committee

[DeepModem Mom]

GOP Objects to Jefferson Appointment
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 16, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who stripped embattled Rep. William Jefferson of his seat on a powerful tax committee last year, has decided to put him on the Homeland Security panel, infuriating some Republicans who charge he may be a security risk.

Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, was kicked off the Ways and Means Committee amid a federal bribery probe, yet still won re-election to a ninth term.

Pelosi is giving him a seat on the panel after Jefferson was outspoken in his criticism of the homeland security agencies that responded to Hurricane Katrina. His appointment must still be formally approved by the rest of the House Democrats.

The decision immediately came under fire from the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Peter King.

''It sends a terrible message,'' King, R-N.Y., said Friday. ''They couldn't trust him to write tax policy, so why should he be given access to our nation's top secrets or making policy for national defense?''...

***

Jefferson, 59, is the subject of a federal investigation into whether he accepted bribes related to a telecommunications deal in Africa. The FBI's evidence against him includes $90,000 found in his freezer -- fodder for late-night talk show jokes -- but not funny to Pelosi, who had promised to run the most ethical Congress in history....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Jefferson.html

[Kagemusha]

1. I'm no great fan of it either.

I'd like to know what great national secrets King thinks that Homeland Security protects here.. I mean Lieb chairs the Senate committee for it for god sakes - but it's still kinda noxious.

I'm sure the congressional black caucus has been pushing for this nonstop since the elections though.

[UpInArms]

2. when did the pukes object to Cunningham, Delay,

Foley, et al for any of their crapweaseal ways?

nuff said.

[williesgirl]

3. For the 1st time ever, I agree with them. Disgusting

[struggle4progress]

4. After two years of investigating, you think they'd either charge him or STFU

[keopeli]

5. 1. He has not been indicted. 2. He was re-elected. 3. He's not new to Congress.

Look, I've read all the stuff and I've heard all the complaints. There is an ongoing probe.

The FBI took the historically UNPRECEDENTED move to actually invade his private office in Congress. This was almost a year ago now.

Since then, there has been an election that Jefferson won and, to date, no indictment.

The man was removed from the Ways and Means Committee to show that Dems are tough on their members. The Repubs coddle their members. The Repubs also play dirty politics.

At some point, one has to simply give more credence to the notion that these charges are not manifesting into an indictment.

What would Bush say in a case like this? I'll tell you what he'd say - he'd say "we don't comment on ongoing investigations, even after indictments - and possibly after convictions"

My new position is my old position: I smell a rat. The Republicans are up to something. They LOVE manipulating the courts.

[booley]

6. Gods I hate it when i am forced to agree with cons

But until jefferson is cleared of any wrong doing, his responsibilities should be limited.

Corruption is one of the big issues that gave dems control of the senate. They need to recognize that.