The CBC has a point if she didn't ask Mollahan to resign his post, too.  She needs to establish that corruption in the democratic caucus is unacceptable.  Not only is it the right thing to do, its also the only way to ensure this remains a strong campaign issue for the democrats.  

So why isn't Pelosi asking Mollohan to resign from Appropriations?

"The African-American community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly. I hope she enjoys being minority leader."

I don't understand why they're making this threat. Should the democrats retake the House, members of the CBC will control 4 to 5 committee chairmanships, as already mentioned. Would those guys enjoy being in the minority again?

Pelosi is doing the correct thing to protect the party. Representative Jefferson is doing the opposite.

Jefferson promptly refused, calling her request "discriminatory" and "unprecedented," and suggested that she was employing a double standard by failing to ask other lawmakers facing ethics questions to relinquish their committee assignments. Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) has come under fire for earmarks he secured through his seat on the Appropriations Committee.

Let's review. Jefferson is on tape accepting tens of thousands of dollars and that money ends up hidden in his freezer. Mollohan on the other hand, although he may be guilty, still can plausibly claim innocence.

If Mollohan had $90,000 in his freezer then no one in America would believe he was innocent either. It is entirely proper for Pelosi to discriminate between the two cases on the basis of the facts at hand. It should be clear to just about anyone that the discrimination is based on the evidence at hand and not on the race of the two men.

Charges of racism by Pelosi here ring very hollow.

It was probably more important that Mollohan resigned his seat on the Ethics Committee.  There's no way he could have kept that position while under investigation.

I'd just penned a diary on the CBC and the party generally - and find that, meanwhile, Matt has made my point for me! (To some extent, at least - let's not get carried away...)

The Watt outburst on the House floor had completely escaped me - diabolically bad.

The anonymouse I hope she enjoys being minority leader crack - surely an authorized statement! - shows not idiocy but seriousness on the part of CBC honchos.

They would actually prefer to preserve their hold on the machine by the Dems failing to get House control in November rather than suffer a dilution of their influence in a Dem 110th.

Classic machine politics!

Only, usually, it was the Irish seeking to retain control of the machine, rather than just influencing it. Better to see a fusion ticket win rather that have to dole out patronage to Poles, Italians and Jews who will want to stick around and dilute the Irishness of the machine in better times when the Irish could win on their own.

Except - if the Dems lose, Pelosi will no doubt go. Perhaps the CBC think that one of their number should get the top job. Or at least second banana...

I agree with Matt that Pelosi should be cut a little slack.  I am completely opposed to public corruption and believe members of Congress and other elected officials should adhere to the highest ethical standards.

I didn't realize Jefferson had not been indicted yet.  Pelosi is right on the merits but does appears to have jumped the gun which is creating a political problem.  The Dems should hold an immediate Caucus meeting and amend their rules to require leadership members, committee chairs/ranking members and those serving on the big 4 House committees - Appropriations, Ways and Means, Rules and Energy and Commerce - to temporarily give up their positions until the completion of legal proceedings.  This would be a much cleaner way to handle the problem and it would not appear to the CBC or anyone else that a certain member is being singled out.  

It would also address this issue going forward so Pelosi or any other Dem leader is not put in the position of singling out one member.  One other advantage is that it could be used to the Dems political advantage to show that they believe in rules that do not tolerate corruption.

the guy has $90,000 in his freezer and the congressional black caucus wants him to stay on a committee?  and they think Pelosi's action is racist?  this is the kind of crap the Democrats pull that just turns off a huge percentage of people in this country.

liberal blogs are attacking Pelosi for this?  you're gonna go to the mat for this sleazebag?

i am as liberal as they come but i don't appreciate when absurd intranacine warfare sabotages our party.

For another two years, was my point. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they withheld support from the democrats in 2006.

I also failed to mention that Clyburn of SC would be in line for the Majority Whip position if the dems retook the House.

This is Nuts. A committee chairmanship does not depend on due process, it depends on perception.  

I say strip Jefferson of his chairmanship, if he is found innocent, restore it.  There is enough public disclosure of evidence to warrant this.  A chair serves at the pleasure of the Leadership.

If Dems are going to be perceived as fighting corruption it must not be tolerated or condoned.  Send a clear message, don't back down.  

The Republicans have geared up their message machine (it seems like Jefferson has had more media coverage than DeLay when he was indited), trying to paint Dems as 'just like or as bad as Republicans.'  They want to blur the difference.  They are succeeding

The CBC is playing into Republican game.  If they continue, they should be threatened with zero appointments should the dems retake the house (what are they all going to do, turn Republican).  

However, with this game the CBC is playing the Dems won't be able to take back the house.  

Lead by example. Make an example of the guy caught with $90,000 in MARKED bills in his freezer.

I think Matt nailed this one. The CBC seems pretty wrong-headed about Jefferson.

I am confused about the justification for protecting Jefferson, considering the situation.

I swear I sometimes wonder if the Democratic party can go with folks like Met Watt in the party. I mean..who's playing the race card here? Jefferson is a corrupt selfish bastard and he needs to be hung out to dry period! If I were Pelosi I'd call Mel Watt's bluff and have the whole caucus fire Jefferson and any of his ilk. I mean caught taking cash red handed is like Marion Barry caught with cocaine and hookers!! These so called "black progressives" like Jefferson are the same "brothas" who go around making shady deals with African dictators who turn around and repress their own people. How many black voters even know what the CBC is or does? Zippo..its nothing but an inside the beltway creature led by old school anti-reform spendthrifts..Pelosi is not only right but smart to do this...Mollahan may be just as bad as Jeffersonm, but at least he wasn't as brazen as this idiot.

Jefferson's actions are indefensible and it does not matter how the FBI discovered the cash.

Someone ask these CBC members what innocent explanation there could possibly be for $90K in the freezer.  And while they're tripping over their tongues trying not to sound too stupid, lets get the ball rolling on some primary challenges.  

Does anyone know a site where we can look at the CBC members' positions and votes?  I know Bobby Rush is the telcoms' go-to guy for net non-neutrality, but overall I don't know where they stand on things.

"My guess here is that Pelosi isn't doing the politics that well, but she's taking a stand and taking on an entrenched and extremely powerful interest."  

Matt hit on the nose here.  By singling out Jefferson before his indictment and not addressing the Mollohan investigation, she has actually played into Jefferson's hand regardless of the details of both cases.  He can now play the persecutted minority regardless of the truth.  Pelosi should have addressed this in a broad, systematic way with a rules change that would have addressed corruption and treated both situations equally.

Pathetic.....CBC needs to slow their roll on this race issue.  It's not got nothing to do with it.  And for that idiot aide, how has the Republican Party been treating African Americans lately??  No votes are a given but Democrats fight for the rights of minorities.  Know who brings home the bacon.  

I certainly hope that Pelosi sticks to her guns on this issue.  Demcrates need to show force on this issue and even if it means kicking someboy off while they are under investigation, then fine.  The man was caught on video taking money that ends up in his freezer.

There are reasons to be unhappy with Pelosi's leadership, but in this situation she is in the right.

The Jefferson and Mollohan situations are not comparable for two reasons. (1) The evidence against Jefferson is much stronger than that against Mollohan and (2) Mollohan has already resigned from his position on the Ethics Committee. So Nancy's call for Jefferson to step down is a call for equivalence.

Apparently Pelosi tried to get Jefferson to step down in a private discussion with him. Going public with this was not her first choice. For all we know she may have had a similar "for the good of the caucus" meeting with Mollohan.

Pelosi had no choice but to make this move if the "Culture of Corruption" attack is to have any value this Fall. That CBC representatives would be threatening the potential for a Democratic majority over this is not just reprehensible, it is stupid. By denying Pelosi the speakership they would also be blocking 4-5 of their own members from gaining the leadership of important House committees.

Stupidity knows no race.

anyone using this kind of logic is an idiot- sorry but there is no nice way to put it. this isn't a democrat or republican thing, or race thing, it's a 90 k in the freezer thing

The CBC is the most out touch caucus out there.  How many African-Americans are clammering for a repeal of the estate tax?  Having the telecos regulate the internet? Allowing soft money to determine elections? Allow obvious criminals enjoy powerful positions? The answer to all of those is very very few if any.

Yet that is what the CBC stands for,  protecting their own.  The average margin these guys win by must be around 70-80% to 30-20%.  They haven't campaigned in decades and any time someone tried to make their district competitive for the sake of the party, they screamed racism.  They love their little ghetto-ized districts because all they need to do is raise money and that's pretty easy when you are a sure bet to win.

The thought of the CBC threatening Pelosi with convincing black folks not to vote in swingable districts is laughable. I say take away all of Jefferson's committee assignments and then ask the Dem causus to vote in closed session on whether to expell Jefferson from their caucus. Invite the CBC to defend him and that $90K.  And all the indicted folks that have pointed their finger at Jefferson, and the tape of Jefferson taking bribes.  

its been stated else where but apparently the other guy voluntarily steped down after being asked to do so. this guy isn't voluntarily steping down, and pelosi's hand was forced. also, if the CBC makes this about race, then its harder in the other things of which race really is a factor than protecting a corrupt member

Let's see:

1. Person plead guilty to giving Jefferson bribes of $400,000 cash.

2. 2nd person wears wire and gives Jefferson a bribe of 100,000 of which the FBI recover at his home in his freezer $90,000.
   
3. He's been under investigation for months.

And Pelosi is out of line asking him to get off the most powerful committee in the House?

Whether there are charges pending or not a person, #1, doesn't plead guilty to a felony $400,00 bribe of a Congressman without actually doing the bribe.

Jefferson should be thrown off the committee, if there is a way to do such a thing, for his apparent actions. Unless, of course, you think people go to Federal prison or let the FBI pressure them into wearing wires while giving Jefferson yet another bribe for fun.

Jefferson's dust. The CBC was way out of line and gives the Party a less than steller image. If there are others with as compelling evidence...if not conviction....include them too and send them to the least important committee on the Hill until Justice runs it's course.

Do I want a person for sale...outright sale...on the Ways and Means Committee? No.

No- because then it makes issues about race meaningless. if everything is about race- then nothing is about race. And that's not true. Some things are- capital allocation, education distribution, penalty for criminal acts (I am a hard nose on crime, but I do believe that the sentencing guidelines need to be race neutral which they are not right now), and multiple other real race issues are about race. This is about them protecting one of their own, and it's not about protecting their constituency. If I even remotely thought this was about race- I would support them. but this is just crass manipulation of the race issue to cover up unethical behavior- ie, say black and racism and we are suppose to forget the 90 k in the fridge. Sorry, but I am not going to do that- and neither should Pelosi. What they are doing is indefensible. if they want to show solidarity- do it in a way that helps us out here not in congress. This is as dumb as the no snitching attitude that now exists in parts of the black community. It doesn't allow for the reality that somethings are about safety, right and wrong, and otehr issues outside of race. It makes it seem like one is crying wolf or the sky is falling so when it really happens- even some potential allies may not believe you. This, as I have said, isn't Katrina. Well- actually it is- in the case katrinca - that was a no brainer racial situation. this is a non brainer non race situation

Wow, talk about a Sista Souljah moment. This gives Pelosi a perfect opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade.  She can argue that she's demonstrated a willingness to take on one of the biggest interest groups in the Democratic Party for the sake of the Congress and the nation.  That's why Democratic leadership should be trusted to lead the House and the Congress.  The Republicans didn't do it.  We did.  Period.  What's the next question?

FGK1 FGK2 FGK3 FGK4 FGK5 FGK6 FGK7 FGK8 FGK9 FGK10 FGK11 FGK12 FGK13 FGK14 FGK15 FGK16 FGK17 FGK18 FGK19 FGK20 FGK21 FGK22 FGK23 FGK24 FGK25 FGK26 FGK27 FGK28 FGK29 FGK30 FGK31 FGK32 FGK33 FGK34 FGK35 FGK36 FGK37 FGK38 FGK39 FGK40 FGK41 FGK42 FGK43 FGK44 FGK45 FGK46 FGK47 FGK48 FGK49 FGK50 FGK51 FGK52 FGK53 FGK54 FGK55 FGK56 FGK57 FGK58 FGK59 FGK60 FGK61 FGK62 FGK63 FGK64 FGK65 FGK66 FGK67 FGK68 FGK69 FGK70 FGK71 FGK72 FGK73 FGK74 FGK75 FGK76 FGK77 FGK78 FGK79 FGK80 FGK81 FGK82 FGK83 FGK84 FGK85 FGK86 FGK87 FGK88 FGK89 FGK90 FGK91 FGK92 FGK93 FGK94 FGK95