Decision ‘08

The Culture Of Corruption Redux

Unfortunately, corruption is a bipartisan vice, and it’s with much disgust that I note that William Jefferson, subject of a bribery probe, was just returned to Congress:

Jefferson, Louisiana’s first black congressman since Reconstruction, has been the target of a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that he took bribes — including $90,000 allegedly found in his freezer during an FBI raid — from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

Yes, yes, he’s innocent, all right - we ALL keep $90,000 in cash in our freezers, don’t we?

On a related note (not really about corruption, but about honesty), Rahm Emanuel has been outed as a complete liar on the Mark Foley affair. As Glenn Greenwald says (yes, I’m non-snarkily quoting Greenwald with approval on this one):

At the height of the Mark Foley scandal in October — when Democrats were pounding Denny Hastert and company on a daily basis for having taken no action despite knowing about the emails sent by Foley to at least one page (and for lying about their past knowledge) — Democratic Congressman (and DCCC Chair) Rahm Emanuel went on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos (along with GOP Rep. Adam Putnam). I haven’t been able to find a full transcript, but the full video is here, and this article provides an account of the segment.

All week long, Republicans had been insisting that the Foley scandal was a Democratic “dirty trick,” speculating that Democrats — specifically the DCCC of which Emanuel was the Chair — were just as aware of the Foley e-mails as various GOP House Leaders were, and they accused Democrats (with no evidence) of being responsible for engineering the story.

Stephanopoulos explicitly asked Emanuel: “I just want to ask you plainly — did you or your staff know anything about these emails or instant messages before they came out?”

Emanuel interrupted the question with an emphatic “no.” Then, once Stephanopoulos was done with the question, this is what Emanuel replied: “George, never saw ‘em . . . . “

After that answer, Putnam interjected this question: “Were you aware of them?” Emanuel replied: “Never saw them.” A moment later, Stephanopoulos said to Emanuel: “So you were not aware of them, had no involvement?” Emanuel replied: “No. Never saw them. No involvement. . . .” Putnam again asked: “Was there an awareness?” Emanuel replied: “No. Never saw them. The first time I ever saw these things, right here was when Brian Ross broke the story.”

…It is now being reported by CNN that not only was the DCCC’s Burton aware of the e-mails in 2005, but so, too, was Emanuel:

The head of the House Democrats’ campaign committee, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, had heard of former Rep. Mark Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to a former male page a year before they became public, a campaign committee aide told CNN. . . .

Emanuel’s campaign committee aide said Friday that the Illinois Democrat was informed in 2005, but never saw the correspondence and did not have enough information to raise concerns. The aide said Emanuel took “no action” because his knowledge was “cursory” and little more than “rumor.”

Did Rahm Emanuel explicitly and clearly lie during his October appearance on ABC?

Emanuel would likely say that he did not “lie,” because each time he was asked whether he was “aware” of the e-mails — which he plainly was — he never denied being “aware” of them. Instead — he would likely argue — he changed the subject by denying that he ever “saw” the e-mails, a fact which appears (based on what we know) to be true (or at least not demonstrably false). Therefore, in the narrowest and most technical way, an argument could be constructed that Emanuel did not actually “lie” in his responses.

But that argument, ultimately, is nonsense. If you listen to the video, there is little doubt that Emanuel was lying in every meaningful sense of that word. He not only denied having “seen” the e-mails, but also interrupted Stephanapolous’s first question about whether he was “aware” of the e-mails with an emphatic “no,” and at least on one other occasion, denied not only having seen the e-mails, but also having been aware of them. Those denials were just outright false (i.e., “lies”).

Now, ‘progressives’ have their own problems with Emanuel, but that’s beside the point. What is the point? I guess the point is this: changing control of the House and Senate won’t remove corruption from politics; nothing will. There are dishonest, corrupt individuals on both sides of the aisle. Nothing we do can remove corruption from Washington, because corruption will always seek out the seat of power.

We can do things to alleviate corruption, however; we can get rid of earmarks, for one thing. For another, we can hold dishonest and corrupt politicians to account.

What a shame that the voters of Louisiana chose to send the opposite signal: corruption is A-OK! Pity…

3 Responses to “The Culture Of Corruption Redux”

1 Scrapiron Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
It sure makes me happy that I tore up the thousand dollar check for Katrina relief when Je$$ie Jack$son showed up and started running his racist mouth. Now i’m watching a NFL football game on the LCD TV I bought with the thousand dollars.

Never again will I even consider a donation to anything involving La, and they will get hit again. They made their bed, let them sleep in it.
2 The American Mind / Democrats Knew About Foley E-Mails Before They Said They Didn’t Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
[…] “The Culture Of Corruption Redux” Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
3 JB Says:
December 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
it’s not Louisianna’s fault. They’re just trying to keep up with New Jersey as leaders in the ‘most corrupt’ category.