Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:43:00
William Jefferson indicted
16 counts, including wire fraud, bribery and obstruction. Nice. Now I wonder if those Democrats that talked about this being the most ethical congress ever will remove him from the Homeland Security committee? Will Michael Moore ever keep his promise to go after corrupt Democrats?
By the way, as I mentioned in that Moorewatch post, there is absolutely no doubt as to Jefferson’s guilt on at least one count. Feds taped him taking the cash then recovered it later when they searched his house. 100% guilty on at least one count of bribery.
Will Pelosi keep her promise? Who’s watching the Democrats and their culture of corruption while they watch the Republicans being corrupt? Anyone? Beuller?
Posted by JimK at 08:43 PM on June 04, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: Michael Moore(on), News, Politics, Crime and Criminals, The Federal Government
Tags:
Comments:
#2 Posted by Drumwaster
on 06/07 at 02:31 AM -
I wrote about this a few weeks back, but it bears repeating…
The examples that he gave were fairly clear, and define the stasis by how the response to an assertion is phrased. The original assertion in each of the examples will be exactly the same, but the stasis is defined by how what kind of response is given to the original assertion, that of being approached by someone in the street, who then asserts, “You stole my car!”
The stasis of conjecture - whether or not I actually stole the car - would be defined by responded, “I couldn’t have possibly have stolen your car because I never had your car.” In essence, I would be defining the stasis by saying the act never actually took place.
The stasis of definition - whether or not the act could be defined as “theft” - would be defined by responding, “I didn’t steal your car, I only borrowed it.” However, by using this, I am implicitly conceding the stasis of conjecture (whether or not I ever had the car in the first place).
The stasis of quality - whether the act made for a better outcome - would be defined by responding, “Yes, I took your car, and it’s a good thing that I did because this lady was walking along your sidewalk and tripped and broke her hip and if I hadn’t taken your car to get her to the hospital, she would have sued you, and so it’s a better outcome for all concerned.” However, I would be implicitly conceding both the stasis of conjecture, as well as that of definition (I did have the car, and I did take it without permission). As I pointed out, this is most often expressed as a justification or excuse.
Jefferson has apparently settled on the stasis of quality, when the prosecution only has to prove the part about conjecture.
Which Jefferson has already implicitly admitted to by saying he was “entrapped”: ”Yes, I did it, and yes, I knew it was illegal when I did it, but you shouldn’t punish me because I managed to expose the evil government’s scheme to sucker poor innocent law-abiding citizens - like me - into breaking the law.”
You’ll be sure to let us know when Bela Pelosi decides to request him to resign, and Moore gets off his fat ass (’cause he’s fat, see?) and opts to expose his corruption, won’t you?

#1 Posted by Sean Galbraith
on 06/05 at 03:31 PM -
Over at the Washington Monthly blog Kevin Drum is soliciting people’s best other reasons why Jefferson might have had that money in the fridge. Some hilarious stuff there.