Okay, I'm getting a weird feeling about the investigations of Congress.

[Pacifist Patriot]

Up front, I think corruption anywhere and everywhere should be uncovered and prosecuted. But considered me jaded because I'm a wee bit suspicious about the timing. Put this together with a unitary executive (especially a corrupt one that should have been imprisoned eons ago) and it reeks of emasculating the legislature. Damn I hope I'm wrong. I hate feeling this way.

[leesa]

1. Of course that's what they're doing. Their voting behavior clearly

indicates this trend.

[Lexingtonian]

2. Why?

There's no changing the timing on Bill Jefferson, if that's the one that gets to you. The slew of Abramoff stuff begins in early/mid 2004 with the investigation of DeLay's TRMPAC, following the re-redistricting of Texas in October 2003. The Cunningham stuff began last summer and in local circles in San Diego. The Mollohan stuff was retaliation for the Cunningham exposure, though, that one's political.

It's basically that the judges feel ever more free in the political climate to pursue the crap vigorously, because they now believe it's going to be productive rather than stonewalled. It's that this Republican spike in popular support and lack of scrutiny from 2002 to 2004 really created a mountain of corruption which in early and middle 2005 was still too dangerous to touch.

As for the larger picture- the House of Representatives simply attracts and induces corruption since its job is primarily fiscal (setting taxes, providing exemptions, deciding spending) and relatively concerned with the details. There's always been corruption there and there will be corruption in it for the foreseeable future. The Senate's job is bigger picture, generally- to decide whether the House has gotten the priorities right.

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. Oh, no rational reasons. Just pathological distrust of Bush & Co.

[hiley]

4. Your feeling is right, it is about Bush setting a new precedent

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=212877&mesg_id=212882

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. *shudder*

[hiley]

6. frightening

i know.

[WiseButAngrySara]

10. Potent and portent observation! ....n/t

[Generic Brad]

7. It's tit for tat

Jefferson is a tit. Get ready for some tat.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Don't Forget To Also Put It Together With The Threats Of Prosecution &

spying on the media as well.

I'm uneasy about every damn thing going on right now, to be honest.

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. You should have a weird feeling. I know I do. Pitt wrote about this

yesterday, and it was posted by kpete. The thread is now locked, as it turned into a major flamefest with abundant Will haters. Hardly anything of worth was noted wrspt. his original article, tough some gallantly attempted it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1268033

Just Don't Tell 'Em You Know Me
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

much more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052306R.shtml

/snip/

Over the last several years, the Bush administration and their Republican congressional allies have moved mountains to make sure that the myriad national security catastrophes we have endured are blamed on someone else. Their favorite whipping post has been the intelligence community - the CIA in particular. 9/11 happened because of intelligence failures. The fact that no WMD were found in Iraq was due to intelligence failures. Not our fault, folks. The bad spies lied to me. They're probably Democrats, too.

/snip/

It is terribly convenient timing. And lest we forget, the raid was undertaken with the full knowledge of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "It would appear," said Hastert in his statement, "that the Attorney General himself was aware that Separation of Powers concerns existed." Given the ham-fisted, politically-motivated power plays that have been the hallmark of this administration, it is not too far a stretch to imagine that the actions of the FBI on Saturday night were undertaken to change the subject in Washington.

Yet even if Jefferson is guilty, and even if the actions of the FBI come to be deemed acceptable - why not, since we appear to be collectively bent on trashing most of our constitutional protections these days - the question asked above still stands. If Jefferson took bribes, he did so to help a Virginia business install phone and Internet lines in Africa. This is a far, far cry from the kind of frontal attacks upon our intelligence branches that corrupt Republicans like Cunningham and his friends have profited from.