Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribing (Dem) Congressman's Family

[papau]

Note the accusation is not bribing the Congressman, and indeed the Dem Congressman is described as cooperating with the investigation. The Congressman's family has not been charged with anything. Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.)hasn't been charged and maintains his innocence. The "briber" paid Jefferson's wife and daughters $7,500 per month and 5% of his company's sales over $5 million. The congressman helped arrange U.S. government contracts and set up an Internet service venture in Nigeria for the "briber". So was there a legal "bribe"

United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses,":a person commits bribery if he directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity , with intent to influence any official act. So Jackson's plea agreement is understandable.

But bribery is a crime implying a sum or gift given alters the behaviour of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person. Politicians receive campaign contributions and other payoffs from powerful corporations or individuals when making choices in the interests of those parties, or in anticipation of favorable policy. However, such a relationship doesn't meet the legal standards for bribery without evidence of a quid pro quo.

Was there a quid pro quo in Jefferson's performance of his duties as a Congressman?

??? - It sure smells, but is the Dem Congressman guilty of a crime? Is Jefferson's role of meeting directly with high-level Nigerian officials to promote Jackson's company and then helping smooth the deal with the U.S. Export-Import Bank a crime? It does look like he will be indicted. Should he resign if indicted?


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-corrupt4may04,0,3457764.story?track=tottext

From the Los Angeles Times
Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribing Congressman's Family
By Ralph Vartabedian
Times Staff Writer

May 4, 2006

The chief executive of a high-tech company in Kentucky pleaded guilty Wednesday to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to the family of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), a prominent Africa trade expert in the House who remains under investigation for allegedly taking the payoffs.<snip>

But according to the plea agreements of Jackson and former staff aide Brett M. Pfeffer, the congressman helped arrange U.S. government contracts and set up an Internet service venture in Nigeria. In exchange, Jackson, 53, said he agreed to pay Jefferson's wife and daughters $7,500 per month and 5% of his company's sales over $5 million. Jackson is chief executive and owner of iGate, a small company based in Louisville.<snip>

Jefferson, 59, a Harvard Law School graduate elected to the House in 1990, is co-chairman of the Congressional Africa Trade and Investment Caucus. His office released a statement Wednesday proclaiming his innocence: "I was surprised and disappointed to learn of Vernon Jackson's guilty plea and of his characterization of our relationship," Jefferson's statement said. "As I have previously stated, I have never over all the years of my public service accepted payment from anyone for the performance of any act or duty for which I have been elected. I am innocent in the matter to which Vernon Jackson has guilty."<snip>

[elehhhhna]

1. Please. 400K to the family of the expert on African Trade,

and a convenient assist? Plus he paid the family COMMISSIONS! jeez, yeah, do you think it's a crime or another AMAZING COINCIDENCE?

[MrModerate]

2. I'm not following your comment. Say what? n/t

[papau]

3. Was there a quid pro quo in Jefferson's performance of his duties as a Con

Was there a quid pro quo in Jefferson's performance of his duties as a Congressman?

?

[elehhhhna]

4. no of course not it's a coincidence that his family gets a commission on

the whole deal. duh.

[papau]

5. It'll be tough to prove - no votes-only a trip to Nigeria and a phone call

to see how the approval of a standard import/export license was going.

It will be an interesting case to follow. My bet at this point is that it stinks but no law was broken - and that even if it goes to an indictment a major government motive to do so is to get a Dem offset to all the GOP corruption stories for November's election.

But it does stink - and indeed explains how Congresspersons get wealthy on a not that large a salary. Does not differ much from getting PAC contributions to your campaign fund from those you help while in office, and then converting that money to personal assets when you leave office.

[elehhhhna]

6. I remember when there was this little idea called CONFLICT OF INTEREST...

Back then, people tasked with fiduciary duties did not mix their personal interests with their public responsibilities, so as to avoid the appearance of a conflict.

[papau]

7. I believe Congressional ethics are like business ethics - sadly

an oxymoron.

:-(

[elehhhhna]

8. I think biz ethics, due to Sarbannes-Oxley for example, are not generally

as sleazy as political "ethics". In biz everyone knows the purpose is to MAKE THE MONEY. In politics that's the unspoken motive and you have to be really sneaky to get around it.

[papau]

9. true- "I want to serve my country via public office" is rarely the main

reason.

Sarbannes-Oxley did end the excuse that top management did not know what was being done in their company. Indeed there is a GOP push to "improve" Sarbannes-Oxley so it is "not so burdensome" :-)