Why did Pelosi appoint Jefferson to Homeland Security panel?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

I thought we Dems were going to set the bar higher. In June of 2006, then minority leader Nancy Pelosi was right to strip Rep. William Jefferson of his seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee upon learning

...Jefferson (had) accepted bribes in exchange for using his office to facilitate business ventures in Africa.

In court documents, prosecutors said Jefferson accepted a $100,000 bribe in June 2005 from an informant and that during a search of the legislator's Washington home in August, federal agents found $90,000 stashed in his freezer.

The House vote to remove him from the committee was unanimous.

Pelosi -- who vowed to pursue Jefferson's ouster after he rebuffed her request to step down from the committee -- said the severity of the allegations warrant Jefferson's removal.

There already have been two guilty pleas in the case, one from a former Jefferson aide, and the huge sum of money found in Jefferson's freezer didn't help his case, she said.

"I told all of my colleagues, anybody with $90,000 in your freezer, you have a problem with this caucus," she said.

That was June 16, 2006

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/16/jefferson.caucus/index.html

Fast forward to February 16, 2007. (Seems I'm a bit behind on this one.)

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?"

What am I missing here? I shutter to say that the GOP is right. This looks horrible. And, in my opinion aggregiously inexplicable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_go_co/congress_jefferson

Your comments would be helpful as I am saddened and at a loss for words.

[Buzz Clik]

1. You want someone to put a freeze on spending?

Who better to choose than someone who put large sums of money in a freezer.

[kegler14]

2. I hate to admit it, but I agree with King.

What could she be thinking? Or was she?

[Ian David]

3. She wants the Repukes to go on the record as opposing someone accused, but not convicted, of a crime

Jefferson is a stalking horse that she's using to set the precedent necessary to remove Republickers from committees who are being investigated (or are indicted) but not convicted.

What she's doing to Jefferson is extraordinarily cruel, but probably necessary-- and the asshole deserves it for refusing to resign.

Edited to add: Hat Tip to BossHog for suggesting this!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2750088&mesg_id=2750090

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. I see...

I hope she plays her hand right.

[danalytical]

6. What?

That's backwards, it's completely illogical. The Democrats are supposed to be the ones with high morals, that gets cut down with this appointment. Whatever small benefit we might get by claiming Republicans are hypocrites for their railing against Jefferson is absolutely trivial and childish. This is wrong, and you are wrong. Something else is happening here, and I am not liking it one damn bit. This guy should be shunned. He wasn't framed.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Thank you for your concern.

NGU.

[danalytical]

8. What is NGU?

Are you being smug, do you disagree, or do you have something that could help enlighten me?

[Zodiak]

9. No, that person is calling you a concern troll

in an off-handed way. It is a way to signal to others that you are not out in the interest of the Democratic party and are only here to cause trouble by feigning "concern" over a mis-step that a Democrat makes. Calling someone a troll overtly is against the rules, so this poster is simply practicing an exercise in brinksmanship. And no, it isn't considered nice.

I happen to agree with you....appointing Jefferson to that committee is pretty stupid and I do not see it as a brilliant strategy that will pay off down the line.

Why? Because we have been told that pablum for six years. "Oh don't worry about Democrat X voting with the Republicans, acting like Republicans, or being as corrupt as Republicans. It is really a rope-a-dope strategy that will eventually win the day for us".

It has never happened. We saved the filibuster so the Republicans can use it against us (we stopped using it after that) and still got the right-wing judges we were opposing, plus Alito, of course. Bush continues unchecked. People are still dying of war and neglect. As a result, I have taken a "believe it when I see it" approach to these things.

Some have passed that test, like Al Gore, Howard Dean, Kucinich etc.
Many have not.

Party loyalists demand absolute purity of loyalty to the Democratic party (my party can do no wrong). Idealists want purity of morals and principle. I'm sure the best course is somewhere in the middle, but if I were to say I was an advocate of one or the other, I would definitely say I am of the latter. I will take an idealist any time over a loyalist.

[danalytical]

11. I want the best for the country

and I believe that means Democrats being in control, however I don't subscribe to cronyism and backroom dealing that borders on criminal. Jefferson is a scab that needs to be picked off, and Pelosi just nominted him for Homeland Security? I mean, I really thought we were better than that. In this case I am an Idealist, because I would gladly lose Jefferson to a republican if it meant cleansing his crooked ass out of the Democratic party. The Senate, that's a different story. Right now I'm loyalist, because we NEED Liebermans vote on most issues.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

4. Would those be plantation shutters? English country cottage? (n/t)

[VOX]

10. Jefferson is a hot potato right now; his H.S. Panel appointment is a clear demotion...

from where he was on the House Ways and Means Committee. As far it's as known at the moment, things look very bad for Jefferson.

However, Jefferson remains quite a popular figure in post-Katrina Louisiana, and thus the perceived need by Pelosi and many Democrats to not toss him out altogether, but rather to place him somewhere in a little corner of the organizational chart, where he can save face without doing any further damage to the Democratic Party(particularly as it relates to Louisiana votes next year).

The strategy (theoretically, anyway) is sound -- it visibly reveals to all areas of the political spectrum that being "on the take" is more taboo than it ever was, and that those who persist in these endeavors will receive some form of censure and demotion.

[danalytical]

12. It's really not enough in my opinion

Imagine if you were bribed with $80,000 for anything at all. Do you think the your company would allow you to keep working for them, or that you would be in a public position somewhere? The guy was bribed by Nigerian oil companies. He is the ANTIdemocrat! Bribed by oil companies and selling official acts is hardly in the interest of Louisiana's citizens. Why should he get anything other than a ticket striaght to prison?