There's Something About William Jefferson...

... and that something seems to be corruption. Obviously, it would be a good thing if Democrats could get him out of the House. Mike Crowley does some noodling on ways to use his pension as a leverage point to get him to resign. And, look, if he resigns, goes to trial, gets a not guilty verdict, and then wants to run again I'll donate to his campaign.

Comments

you're not just relying on your "own grasp of his corruptibility", are you?

oh right, the 90k in his freezer.

fair enough.

Posted by josh bivens | June 5, 2007 1:48 PM

"And, look, if he resigns, goes to trial, gets a not guilty verdict, and then wants to run again I'll donate to his campaign."

Really? Even if he gets an OJ jury of his voters?

Posted by Fred | June 5, 2007 2:26 PM

Can I put you down on the list as a Ranger?
Or only a Pioneer?

Posted by sangfroid826 | June 5, 2007 3:16 PM

What Crowley is suggesting would probably be ruled as a Bill of Attainder (more properly a Bill of Pains and Penalties) and hence Unconstitutional.

Look we have had enough extra-Constitutional activity over the last six and a half years, can we just let something called Due Process work?

What we knew from the very first moment is that the FBI had a firm handle on this and that indictment and probable conviction was just a matter of time. Would I have been happier if Jefferson's constituents had not reelected him? Sure. But the fact is that they showed they would put a lot more weight on Innocent until Proven Guilty than you or I might and they have every right to do so.

In any event you can't pass a bill that targets a single individual.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html

"In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.'' 1701 The phrase ''bill of attainder,'' as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. 1702

The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept. 1703 The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ''no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial."

Posted by Bruce Webb | June 5, 2007 3:43 PM

I'll donate to his campaign

One lousy book advance and you consider yourself part of the donortariat.

Posted by otto | June 5, 2007 5:27 PM

And he looks like John Conyers -- or at least Fox News thinks so. The YouTube clip is at TPM, but my middle-aged computer skills aren't up to linking.

Posted by CJColucci | June 5, 2007 6:28 PM