I can't believe the bipartisan leadership is actually protecting crooks in their own body. Don't they realize that this isn't going to fool anyone for very long?

Remember that this probe of Rep. Jefferson is in the context of a broader investigation targeting “several” House members, including the chairman of the House appropriations commiteee.

Remember that the Republican leadership is now claiming special privilege from a search under a duly obtained judicial warrant, because they are aware that many House members in leadership are vulnerable to prosecution if an investigation is allowed to continue.

Remember also that the House Republican leaders now claiming some sort of special privilege are the same ones who said that warrantless searches of the telephone records of private American citizens should be allowed.

Pot, kettle, black.

I’m only wondering how compromised the Democratic leadership is by financial improprieties that we don't know about, and guess we’ll know by how they handle this scandal. If they back Hastert we’ll know they’ve got too many skeletons to hide. If that’s the case, they’re expendable, too.

I propose a new standard for Congressional ethics, and one that's blind to party labels. Let the investigators in, come clean, and if you're crooked, you go to jail or into retirement where you can sell used cars. Whoever you are.

I appreciate Josh's including this excerpt from Barney Frank’s floor speech, and it seems ol’ Barney is at least one honest person still in the House: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008589.phphttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008589.php

What we have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress.

I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.

So I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think what they did, they ought to be able to do in every case where they can get a warrant from a judge. I think, in particular, for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate.

I want to hear our leadership joint in Frank's call for a full and complete investigation of Congressional connections to any and all financial dealings with lobbyists and quid-pro-quo vote trading. The normal requirements for obtaining a valid search warrant ought to be good enough for members of Congress, even though they think we don't deserve the same consideration. 

All of them, even members of the democratic caucus and leadership.

I want them to say that this needs to be done to begin to restore some measure of trust in Congress by the American people. Anything short of this is going to look like weaseling by people who have something to hide. I’d like to hear them say this tomorrow. Enough is enough.

As far as I’m concerned, the FBI ought to pursue investigations into public corruption wherever they lead. Let the chips fall where they may, Republican or Democrat. I don’t care any more. I’d much rather have an honest conservative in office than a crooked Democrat, and so should we all. If evidence exists that they were part of the corruption so pervasive in national politics, we ought to know about it. If evidence exists to justify indictments and convictions, it ought to be the fervent wish of every American citizen of any party that we learn all we can and then let the criminal justice system place blame and impose accountability. Throw the worst of them in jail, and let the voters sort out the fate of the rest.

We’ve just gone through a huge voter revolt here in Pennsylvania, where many incumbents who backed a middle-of-the-night pay raise for themselves, and then stonewalled a growing tide of voter anger were tossed, including some who’d been in office for 30 years. It’s not over yet, and my hope is that other states will catch the disgust we have for the arrogant SOB’s who steal and then laugh at us about it all. They really think we’re stupid, don’t they?

What we have now is akin to a football game where the players are taking kickbacks to do point shaving, the refs have been bought off, and the coaches are on the sidelines partying with the cheerleaders. It’s disgusting, and each one of us should be ready to kick butt and take names.

But it shouldn't stop with prosecution. We need to insist on some real reforms in the fundamental ways in which elections are funded. Without that, nothing else good can happen and we'll be back where we are now in a short time.

TV advertising is the biggest budget item. What ever happened to the concept of preserving a portion of the ‘public airwaves’ for the public's non-commerical, civic dialogue? Who's bright idea was it to let cable outlets be exempt from the old broadcast rules? We should address the current system that lets big money control whose message can be heard. I’d like to see this huge loophole closed, and both broadcast outlets and their networks, and all cable TV operators, be forced to provide a significant amount of free air time in all local markets for coverage of any national election: House, Senate and President.

Second, I would like to see public financing of all Federal elections be one of the first reform bills (right after the civic television free time one above) introduced by the next Congress, after all the crooks, trimmers and sleazeballs have been either dismissed or jailed. How can we trust that the Congress is working in our interests unless we get the big money out of the picture?