William Jefferson Retains La. House Seat

Congressman Defeats Fellow Democrat Despite Ongoing Bribery Investigation

(AP)  U.S. Congressman William Jefferson easily defeated his fellow Democratic opponent in a runoff vote despite an ongoing federal bribery investigation.

In complete but unofficial returns, Jefferson — Louisiana's first black congressman since Reconstruction — received 57 percent of the vote over state Rep. Karen Carter, who had 43 percent.

Carter was unable to capitalize on a scandal that included allegations the FBI found $90,000 in bribe money in Jefferson's freezer.

In a concession speech, Carter embraced family members and pledged to work with Jefferson, especially on the area's recovery from last year's Hurricane Katrina.

"I guess the people are happy with the status-quo," she said.

Jefferson described his win as "a great moment and I thank almighty God for making it possible." He called for regional unity to focus on the hurricane recovery and in bringing back evacuees who are still scattered across the country.

The runoff election does not affect the balance of power in the House, which Democrats won control of in the Nov. 7 elections, ending the Republicans' 12-year run. The Democrats also won control of the Senate, and they will begin the new session in both chambers in January.

Jefferson was forced into the runoff against Carter when he failed to win 50 percent of the vote in a crowded open multiparty primary. Carter had sought to become the first black woman from Louisiana elected to Congress.

Jefferson, 59, was accused of taking bribes from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

Before the bribery scandal erupted, Jefferson had climbed to the pinnacle of the Democratic Party. He was a confidant of former President Bill Clinton and held a seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

[firststate]

antoniorego's comments prove the adage that some people can keep silent and have people think they're fools or open their mouths and remove all doubt. Rascist garbage is one of the things that proves people can be fools and proud of it.

[firststate]

I am one of the dems who doesn't support criminals from any party, end of story. Jefferson is so apparently guilty, according to the reports from the investigation (the reports they don't make during an investigation) and is not charged with a crime. If they don't have the evidence they should have kept quiet, if they have the evidence lock his sorry a$$ up.

Can it be like the Olympic Park bomber suspect in Atlanta who was so obviously guilty, but turned out to be innocent? How about the "person of interest" from the biological lab in the anthrax mailings, he's not been charged either? Jefferson looks guilty as sin but he's not guilty until a court says so.

If the A.G. the US Attys and the FBI in a solidly entrenched republican administration can't even manage to get an indictment, something's wrong. We have a crooked politician, incompetent investigators or prosecutorial misconduct, or all of the above.

[tejasdemo]

I'm a proud Democrat but re electing this crook to office is really bad and the voters in LA have only themselves to blame.

[frankly6]

"To the jefferson supporters..."


janem4

Again, who are these supporters you keep talking about?

[frankly6]

perception5

Your post lacks any real information. You make some very vague acusations about several Democrats but what exactly are you talking about?

[pghlady3]

it is true,this story is one of the very, very, very few stories run on this site about a crooked democrat. Try to stay on task folks, this is about one of your own. He is a crook and the members of your party voted him back in. That's it.
But you have to look at the entire picture.
Jefferson already took the money and is being watched over like a hawk. If Karen Carter...never mind, lets just say that Jefferson is very much the lesser of two evils.

[teddebare]

There is nothing any of us can do about the
re-election of Mr. Jefferson. The people have spoken.

To Janem and other of her ilk: The Clinton's are a poor example or comparison to this episode. The mad dog republicans spent millions of dollars chasing a moral indiscretion while the people's business was being ignored.

Let him without sin throw the first stone. Meanwhile let's get on with this country's business. Such as, Healthcare, Employment/Unemployment, Security, Iraq, Veteran's rights and on and on. Those and others of this nature is what we need to demand our political representatives be about resolving.

The courts in time will take care of Mr. Jefferson's guilt or not guilty in spite of what his constituents declared. He will be exonerated or expunged. Let's get this nation back on stream.

[perception5]

frankly6 -"Is your point so hard to support that you have to reach back 70 years and be intentionaly vague to make it?"

...... frankly6 not sure what you mean by 70 years ago......... all the these Democrats will be in the new congress.............. but probably shouldn't be......... but their protected by their "enablers" ..... our liberal MSM wolfpack.....

[frankly6]

perception5

Is your point so hard to support that you have to reach back 70 years and be intentionaly vague to make it?

What are you talking about?

Are you just ranting?

[frankly6]

perception5

What are you talking about?

[perception5]

Interesting isn't it how when Republicans do something wrong they resign or get beated at the voting booth........ but not our DEMS .....here's a list of the crooks:
Ted, Mary Jo, Kennedy
Robert, KKK, Byrd
John,give me some money, Murtha
Harry, sell some land, Reid
Mayor, I didn't evacuate Orleans, Naygan
William, cold cash, Jefferson
Nancy, I'm so rich, Pelosi
Representive, impeached judge, Hasings

[bluestardad]

I will chip in on a crate of chickens for thess politicians to fornicate with if you will. It seems that with Mark Foley and these criminals they can do anything.

[firststate]

janem4:

Yes, this is about jefferson and his doings, and he sure seems guilty. I wouldn%u2019t vote for him and if convicted, he will find that prison separates all the criminals, of both parties, from the rest of us. You can%u2019t justify crimes by saying someone else committed the same crime. That%u2019s true no matter what crime we%u2019re talking about. Cunningham doesn%u2019t excuse Jefferson. Studs doesn%u2019t excuse Foley. Lock the criminals up, if they happen to be politicians, Oh well.

Like most news stories, this one is contemporary. When other criminal actions by politicians come up they become news. They seem to feel that their main job is news, and turn to history only seldom.

For better or worse the majority of all those voting in that district put him back in, so That%u2019s it. I wouldn%u2019t have chosen him, but I don%u2019t live in his district. I can%u2019t presume to say that I know whether or not he%u2019s guilty, but it seems bizarre that the US Attorney has been unable to charge him after they found the cold cash.

An observation, the Us agin%u2019 Them attitude doesn%u2019t sell with the general population. Most sane people know that party doesn%u2019t indicate purity. Unless the goal is the sainthood of the martyrs, reason brings less ridicule.

[frankly6]

wsamuel

Well said.

[frankly6]

janem4

You are severely lacking the objectivity it would take to have an honest intelligent exchange. You just throw things at the wall to see what will stick. You offer few if any facts to substantiate your possitions. The most possitive thing I can say about you is that you have passion. You should put your passion to constructive use instead of feeding the my team vs. your team madness that has taken hold of you.

You say Dems are defending this guy and that that is a double standard. Who exactly is defending him? You said yourself that Pelosi asked him to step down. Get over it. If he is as guilty as he apears to be, he will most likely be convicted and have to step down.

You, of course, have to bring up Clinton. Well if you have something new bring it forward. Truth is that after over 50 million in taxpayer dollars were spent, thousands of hours in testimony taken and 8 long years of investigations done, the most they could pin on him was a extramarital *******. Get over it. He was the most ivestigated President in U.S. history. It was a complete abuse of the justice system and tax dollars from the beginning.

Perhaps seeking out some non-partisan sources of information instead of only relying on pundits to confirm what you allready believe to be true could be helpful to you. Maybe switching to decaf would be equally beneficial. If this doesn't work, and I know I'm not the first or the last to recomemend this, seek the counsel of a qualified mental health professional.

[lawmantoo]

Um, last time I checked, both the FBI and the Attorney Generals office work for the Bush adminstration. It has been nearly a year since this story surfaced. Ya reackon they could make a charge in that period of time? Maybe they don't actually have what we heard?

[wsamuel]

Two people pled guilty to bribing Rep. Jefferson. The FBI videotaped accepting $100,000 from an undercover agent, and later found $90,000 of that in his freezer.

Yes, he has not been convicted or even indicted yet. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming of his guilt. While for judicial purposes he is innocent until proven guilty, for purposes of considering his suitability for public office the available evidence should have led constituents not to vote for his re-election. Unfortunately, they re-elected him, and will probably face a special election before his term is out.

In considering candidates, one should consider their character. This has to be done based on available evidence. The available evidence is overwhelming regarding Rep. Jefferson.

[nynative1340]

"In considering candidates, one should consider their character. This has to be done based on available evidence."

I agree. But does your reasoning also apply to Bush? After all, the evidence was overwhelming in 2000, and again in 2004. The man couldn't speak understandable English, especially for a Yale graduate. Rove had to tutor him in the English language.

What kind of character does a man have who stays drunk for twenty years? Or commits insider trading? Or challenges his father to "mano-a-mano" while drunk? Or avoids service in Vietnam by using his family's influence to get into the elite Texas Guard?

Although it didn't take a genius to know Bush's character in 2000 and 2004, we generally don't learn much about a congressional candidate's character until that candidate is confronted with the temptations that money and power present in politics. Those who fail the test usually make headlines.

Although the jury has yet to decide, Jefferson apparently failed the test because he took the money. Bush also failed the test because he abused his power. Both made headlines...

[wsamuel]

Two people pled guilty to bribing Rep. Jefferson. The FBI videotaped accepting $100,000 from an undercover agent, and later found $90,000 of that in his freezer.

Yes, he has not been convicted or even indicted yet. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming of his guilt. While for judicial purposes he is innocent until proven guilty, for purposes of considering his suitability for public office the available evidence should have led constituents not to vote for his re-election. Unfortunately, they re-elected him, and will probably face a special election before his term is out.

In considering candidates, one should consider their character. This has to be done based on available evidence. The available evidence is overwhelming regarding Rep. Jefferson.

[wsamuel]

Two people pled guilty to bribing Rep. Jefferson. The FBI videotaped accepting $100,000 from an undercover agent, and later found $90,000 of that in his freezer.

Yes, he has not been convicted or even indicted yet. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming of his guilt. While for judicial purposes he is innocent until proven guilty, for purposes of considering his suitability for public office the available evidence should have led constituents not to vote for his re-election. Unfortunately, they re-elected him, and will probably face a special election before his term is out.

In considering candidates, one should consider their character. This has to be done based on available evidence. The available evidence is overwhelming regarding Rep. Jefferson.