Did anyone catch what William Jefferson said about the money in his freezer??? at his press

[in_cog_ni_to]

conference? He said that money was not HIS money. It was money the FBI gave him to give to the Nigerian official...which he did not do. Do you think the FBI set up Jefferson?

[atreides1]

1. That's one theory

Or he could be lying???

[LSK]

2. nevermind

I see what you are saying.

[maddezmom]

4. good question, but remember the FBI or someone was investigating

Halliburton or KBR for Nigerian bribes. Can't remember which...will go look for a link.

[maddezmom]

14. Probe into KBR role in Nigeria bribe case

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/13ff267a-264e-11db-afa1-0000779e2340.html

Halliburton faces probe over Nigerian 'bribery'
FOREIGN STAFF

NIGERIA ordered an investigation yesterday into allegations that a subsidiary of the US-based firm Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to win a natural gas project contract in the African nation.

The US justice department and a French magistrate are looking into the alleged bribes, which occurred when the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was head of Halliburton.

more:http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=149932004

Dick Cheney’s Nigerian nightmare
Investigators in three countries are probing an alleged $180 million bribe involving Halliburton. How long can the veep keep this tale of international sleaze from dominating the news?
BY DAN KENNEDY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE PERILOUS times for Halliburton, the Houston-based energy-services-and-engineering giant once headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney. The beneficiary of lucrative contracts to provide support services to the US military and to rebuild much of the Iraqi economy, Halliburton — whose 2003 revenues exceeded $16 billion — has been accused of corruption, cronyism, and profiteering. "At a time when Halliburton is defrauding the federal government and facing serious allegations of bribery, we look forward to taking this debate to George Bush," said Massachusetts senator John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, in a statement issued by his campaign earlier this month

more:http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/03633501.asp

[nonconformist]

3. Wow, that is interesting to say the least.

If that is the case, I certainly hope he can prove it somehow.

[Mz Pip]

5. If that's true

why didn't he follow through? Taking 90,000 from the FBI and keeping it sounds like a pretty dumb move on Jefferson's part. If that's what happened, the investigation and subsequent indictment are hardly a set up.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Didn't Katrina hit at that time? I remember a story about him using the National Guard

to go back to his house to clear things out after the storm and the money was one of the things he put in a suit case.

[yankeeinlouisiana]

69. No one kept their refrigerator after Katrina.

If I had money in their I would of taken it out too!

[MNDemNY]

11. They gave him 100,000. Where is the other ten?

Commission????

[napi21]

17. It's an interesting theory, but if that's the case, WHY didn't he

say that MONTHS AGO? All I remember hearing was him saying I'm not guilty of any wrongdoing. I could even accept it if he had said "That money was not mine!", but he didn't!!!!

It's very difficult for me to accept his excuses NOW, after he has let this fester for MONTHS, hurting not only HIM but the ALL the Dems too!

[originalpckelly]

23. Of course ask a more common sense question:

Why even accept the FBI money?

[JDPriestly]

29. Unlikely story, but assuming it is true, he would not have said anything

earlier -- maybe on the advice of his lawyer. It is surprising that he, rather than his lawyer, would discuss his defense in public now.

[napi21]

35. Maybe, but to me and most people, if you're accused of doing

something that you didn't do, the FIRST response is to defend yourself! Hell, even if you're gulity, you do THAT! As I said, if this story about it being FBI $$ is true, I can understand why he wouldn't want to tip THAT hand, but at the very least, he could have said "That's not mine!"

[Festivito]

73. I recall the bribe-money story from early on. On DU, not MSM of course.

Rather than saying it was the FBI, I recall it was a business arrangement for a friend. Perhaps he did not know he could reveal FBI involvement at that time. If so, his story was sketchy and would have sounded as such.

I have not followed this well, but it does have the smell of a RW hit job for use in using the word Democrat alongside a visual scandal.

[frogcycle]

54. depends why he kept it; what he was planning

after all, it was in the freezer - like maybe the "sting" was still in play???

[coco77]

6. Yes, time for him to step down ,,,

and face the consequences.

[MNDemNY]

7. Of course,

and Alberto can't remember anything. STINK STINK STINK He should "Man up" and resign

[ClassWarrior]

8. The CBC is supporting him, and they aren't fools. Plus, what do we know...

...about the U.S. Attorney in this case? Rove-appointed GOP hack? Anyone know?

NGU.

[MadBadger]

13. Foolish enough to support Fox and their little debate

[ClassWarrior]

18. Listen to the Ring of Fire podcast from this past weekend.

The fiery and fierce Rep. Maxine Waters opposes the Faux debate vehemently. That tells me that there's more to that story too.

But why are we surprised that news coverage of prominent African Americans is flawed and incomplete?

NGU.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. And lets not forget their supposed 'mistake' they made showing a video of John Conyers

while talking about William Jefferson. I think the CBC will probably tell FAUX NEWS to go to hell.

[windy252]

70. I hadn't heard about this.

What was Fox's "mistake?"

[ecstatic]

67. wow. you would judge the CBC for that? I suspect they are only

trying to get the views of the Dem frontrunners out as much as possible. That the candidates would suddenly grow a conscience about FNC is laughable at best. You want to talk about foolish... then that involves everyone in there except the CBC and possibly Kucinich, IMO.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Y'know, I convicted him long ago in my mind. Even made some

bad jokes about his assets being frozen. But it will be very interesting if he can mount a good defense here.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Nobody can tell me much of anything about the case beyond the...

...fable news network soundbite, "The FBI found $90K in his freezer."

I'm not sayin'... Just wonderin'...

NGU.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. 90 thou in

cold cash.
Heh.

[originalpckelly]

10. While I think it may very well be possible that Jefferson's sting...

was conducted with questionable motives on the part of the individuals conducting it, it is still true that Jefferson should not have accepted bribe money.

So the original motivation for the sting may have been political, but that does not mean Jefferson is innocent, he still accepted the bribe money, and as long as he made the choice to accept it, then it does fall into the category of conspiring to bribe foreign officials.

[L. Coyote]

59. Political motivations in the sting interesting indeed, given current DoJ. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Gonna be an interesting summer all the way around.

Between the Jefferson trial & the Congressional circus, it may be as much fun as Sam Ervin's Watergate Summer.

[robcon]

15. Ridiculous defense - but expected, I suppose.

I don't believe it at all.

[joanski0]

21. I missed what Jefferson said the reason was

for the FBI giving him the money. But I did hear him say that he didn't do what they told him to do with it.

I thought he sounded very convincing. He said he would fight this with every cent they have. I hope he is innocent and can prove that the FBI set him up.

[originalpckelly]

22. Even if you accept the money, that's a problem, it shows the intent in and of itself.

Of course he sounds very convincing, he's on our side, we want to believe him, but I don't trust him and nor should you. The DOJ still has to prove this case to a jury, and he is still presumed innocent by the court system until proven guilty.

If this guy was really honest, he would not have accepted the money at all. If he had done that, no money story on the news.

He didn't even explain from his perspective as to why he accepted the sting money. Why did he? His defense so far is to restate the facts of the case and act as if they are totally surprising.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Right. He said they gave him the money to give to the Nigerian official, but (and he made THIS an

important point) HE DIDN'T DO THAT. Maybe he caught on to this as a set up and decided to not play?

What I want to know is what he did with the money after he went back to his house with the National Guard and took it out of the freezer and put it in a suit case? Did the FBI go after him at that point because they knew he wasn't giving the money to the Nigerians like he was suppose to, so they knew their gig was up, that he figured out he was being set up? Did he go to them to give the money back? Was he really trying to steal money from the FBI...that would be IMPOSSIBLE. OR, is he guilty and did what they say he did? How did that all go down? Does anyone know? I know NOTHING about this story except he had $90,000 in his freezer and after Katrina he went back to his home to get it with the help of the National Guard.

[originalpckelly]

25. You don't even know what you're talking about. This wasn't in New Orleans...

the place where the FBI found the money was Jefferson's Washington D.C. residence. If you don't even know the basic details of the investigation, I don't think you're qualified to make a good estimate of Jefferson's guilt or lack thereof.

Maybe you ought to take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson#FBI_investigation_of_bribery_and_fraud

[ClassWarrior]

27. Thank you. Finally some background.

If he's found guilty, he should face the consequences. But if he was set up, the people responsible should face their own consequences too.

NGU.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. I've never said one way or another if I think he's guilty or not! I said I know NOTHING about this

case. I don't know if the man is guilty or not and neither do you. I just read an article and see the money was in a freezer in his WASHINGTON home. I thought he had it in NOLA....SORRY! My original question was only about whether this was an FBI set up or not. The guy sounded convincing during his press conference. IF he's guilty, he should fucking resign. So, take your snarkiness elsewhere..OK?

[onenote]

26. uh..isn't that exactly what the fBI said too?

On July 30, 2005, the FBI videotaped Jefferson receiving $100,000 from an informant that Jefferson was supposed to pass on to a Nigerian official. Four days later, the FBI found $90,000 of the money in Jefferson's freezer.

I don't think it was ever claimed that the money was "his". Its been known all along that this was a sting operation conducted by the FBI. The problem with Jefferson is that he took the money.

[maddezmom]

37. thanks for the reminder, do you have a link to the cite?

Here is the quote from today:

Jefferson also said the now-notorious $90,000 the FBI found in his freezer during a raid of his home did not amount to evidence of a bribe because he never gave it to the Nigerian vice president, for whom the FBI alleges it was intended.

“The $90,000 was the FBI’s money,” he said. “The FBI gave it to me as part of their plan that I would give it to the Nigerian vice president. But I did not do that. When all the facts are understood, I trust I will be vindicated.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/jefferson-vows-to-fight-his-heart-out-to-clear-name-2007-06-08.html

[onenote]

38. here is one

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100167.html

[maddezmom]

39. thanks, looks like the defense in this case is weak

He wasn't working with the FBI, he was caught in a sting operation. I'll wait for the trial to see how this plays out, but I have to admit it doesn't look good. I really hope he resigns.

[ClassWarrior]

46. The point is, it looks WORSE for the GOP Justice Department & FBI.

NGU.

[onenote]

48. based on what specific evidence?

[stirlingsliver]

28. Powerful Black Man. Racist FBI. Do The Math

Do I think the FBI set up Jefferson??!!

Here's a powerful Black elected by poor folks to serve their interests in the US Congress.

On the other side, we have a racist pResident who serves the interests of his uber rich masters.

Do the math.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. SEE? That's in the back of my mind. I don't trust the FBI, this administration, the CIA, or

any other agency connected to this regime. We all know this regime is corrupt from the top down. I don't trust any of them.

[ClassWarrior]

32. Bingo. Zero credibility in responsibly carrying out justice.

NGU.

[stirlingsliver]

33. Don't Forget This

Don't foget this, either.

The FBI is part of the Justice Department.

That's the department that is laden with people from Pat Robertson University.

And is headed by Alberto Gonzalez.

Why would anyone doubt that the FBI is being used to set up an "uppity" Black Member of Congress??

[Nikki Stone1]

44. I don't either

I wouldn't put it past them to set up a political opponent

[Orsino]

34. "I was crooked enough to take the bribe AND not follow through."

If he's going to claim to have been doing deep cover work for the FBI, well, that excuse doesn't even work in sitcoms.

But he's welcome to support this frankly dubious story. I'd like to hear why he thought he should be accepting cash.

[RB TexLa]

36. All that matters is if he were able to stay even a hair on the legal side of the law

and/or what can and can not be proven within the restraints of the court and the constitution. I'm really getting tired of this "ethics, ethics, ethics are so so, oh so lovely," bullshit.

[Peace Patriot]

40. Look, we need to realize some things about our so-called justice system, and

about the state of our government right now, and try not to evaluate a situation like this primarily on a partisan basis. Some people want to condemn Jefferson and rid the Democratic Party of him--because the headlines are bad. It's understandable, but this superficial partisan view could lead us astray. I have been suspicious--or have tried to keep my mind open--on a number of prosecutions that we, as Democrats, have approved of--for instance, the Abramoff, Cunningham, Noe and Libby prosecutions. My reasons for not automatically accepting our war profiteering corporate news monopoly reports on these events are obvious: a) they have proven to be COMPLETELY unreliable on vital public issues, and have engaged in CONCERTED lies and propaganda--24/7 bullshit, all channels, all the time--on the Iraq war and other matters such as election fraud; and b) the Bush Junta is COMPLETELY unreliable on literally anything you could name, and THEY control the Justice Dept. and the FBI.

I will give you a for instance, regarding how these corporate news monopolies frame things, and how this framing supports the Bush Junta and our political establishment in general: the torture at Abu Ghraib, and the torture and indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, and the secret prisons and rendition God knows where. The framing has been legalistic: Do these policies violate the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ? And questions like that. But beneath the surface lay even more important questions? WHAT is the Bush Junta using these illegal powers FOR? WHAT is behind their excessive secrecy with regard to them? I strongly suspect that, at the heart of it, the Bush Junta is LYING about their purposes in these things--and that they are using the jingoistic excuse of "keeping us safe"--and possibly also using "roundups" of random individuals who are guilty of nothing at all--as COVER for nefarious goals, such as hiding the tracks of their even worse crimes (say, their money trail to Al Qaeda, or Cheney arms dealings).

We need to probe deeper. We need to resist--and hold in suspicion--how the corporate news monopolies and our political establishment frames things. We know they lie. But do we see ALL the WAYS that they lie?

Back to Jefferson. In this country, the Bush Junta's pervasive domestic spying has been exposed, but not, so far as we know, stopped. Their excessive secrecy about THIS is also suspect. Why don't they want to take their spying to a FISA court for review, when the rules permit them to go to the court AFTER the spying, in cases of necessity (i.e., a terrorist plot)? Suspicion: They are spying on the political opposition.

They also now control all the levers, and secret programs, and secret funds, of our government. God knows what their capabilities are for domestic 'black ops' and 'stings'! We just don't know. But, given their secretiveness, and deviousness, on all other matters, we can rationally suspect the worst, that, a) they are spying on Democrats and sussing out who is vulnerable, who is weak, who needs money, who is engaging in embarrassing behavior, who can be blackmailed, etc., and b) using that information to set people up, to bully, bribe and blackmail them.

The massive thievery that they permitted the lower echelon Republicans to engage in, with impunity--the Abramoff bribes, etc.--may have been deliberate, for instance. It is a way of controlling votes, and controlling people. They let their people run amok, they get the goods on them, and thus control their votes. We don't know the full story on Jefferson, but, say he was weak and in need of funds, and agreed to the Nigerian thing for a relatively (in Bushite terms) small payoff for his services; or, say, they put it to him that this was a way to get in good with powers in DC, and he fell for it.

It seems quite plausible to me. The Bush Junta acts like a gangster mob in so many other ways. Why not this? They WANT corruptible people in office. They recruit them FOR office. They hold the reins of power in so many ways, including the ability to directly determine many election outcomes, with their Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" code. And if they can ALSO find corruptible Democrats (beyond the standard "military-industrial complex" corruption that stinks up DC), that is a great plus.

It may be that Jefferson is only PARTIALLY guilty. Some DU posters seem to want an easy Yes/No: Is he guilty? What if he was both vulnerable--willing to commit a relatively small crime--AND set up? It's a rather naive view to ask merely, 'Is he guilty?', because it presumes that justice is blind, and that justice is in good hands, when we KNOW that neither thing is true, with the Bush Junta in charge of justice.

Another thing we need to evaluate is, What headlines does Karl Rove need, to manipulate the newsstream in favor of fascist Bushite power, and to keep the biggest criminals out of jail?

A nice juicy scandal with a Democratic having illicit funds in a refrigerator fills the bill nicely, in many ways, for Rove & cabal.

I urge DUers to try to keep their thinking caps on, when they read/see/hear corporate news mononpoly-framed "news." Watch out for the framing, try to look into the black holes where many facts are hidden, and don't trust ANYTHING that a person in the employ of the Bush Junta is quoted as saying unless you personally know that person and would trust your life to him or her, and EVEN THEN, I would be skeptical. We DO NOT HAVE an honest, trustworthy government any more. ANY government requires some skepticism and citizen efforts at accountability. But THIS government requires--and deserves--to be held guilty until proven innocent.

And when you think of the potential 'David and Goliath' situation in this case--if Jefferson is entirely innocent--holding 'Goliath' guilty until proven innocent, and holding the opposite for 'David'--that he is innocent until proven guilty by the BUSHITE GOVERNMENT (and even then, we can't know with any certainty), is the best attitude. And that is probably the best attitude even if we suspect Jefferson of SOMETHING--some kind of actual crime. It is the Goliath Bushites against a lowly Democrat, and a black one at that. The one has little power to defend himself against the Bushites, their echo chamber of the corporate news monopolies, and the too often obsequious Democrats, who are afraid of their shadows. What chance does he have of proving his innocence, or proving that he is guilty of something relatively small-time, or proving that he was set up, with all these forces against him?

Are the courts impartial--after six years of Bush appointing toady judges? Are the prosecutors impartial, after two years of Rove/Gonzo purges? Will a jury ever get to hear the whole story? Will WE ever get to hear the whole story? What axes might they be holding over Jefferson's head? What propaganda methods will be used to stifle the facts?

Skeptical and suspicious, that's where we must stand. In cases like the Cunningham case, we also don't know. Could be an honest prosecutor--somebody who wouldn't toady to Rove (Carol Lam)--went after him, and was stopped from pursuing another Republican thief, Jerry Lewis. Could be something deeper, though--that, having gone after Cunningham, he has been bribed into silence with lesser penalties, or other proffers to mitigate his problems. This is the gangster-like power that the Bush Junta has created, by encouraging corruption in their own ranks. Corrupt people are people who can be intimidated and silenced.

[chimpymustgo]

49. Spot on, Peace Patriot. This deserves its own thread: the modus operandi of the BFEE.

Thanks for exposing and explaining it. It's so important to see the big picture. I hope you'll post this as it's own thread. Thanks!

:hi:

[frogcycle]

55. the main thing that lends credence to the conspiracy theory

is the absurdity of the facts as presented. If he were truly as dirty as, say, Duke Cunningham, why in the hell would he store the money in his frigging freezer? That is so dumb as to smack of someone without a guilty conscience. Same with his claims of innocence but lack of defense until this statement.

I'm not saying I assume the rovist-setup theory is true, but there is a lot about this case that rings false.

[onenote]

62. are you saying he didn't put the money in his freezer? Who did?

[frogcycle]

64. I'm not saying anything

I don't know how it got there. I expect he probably put it there. But I am not about to say he disd or he did not - I have no actual knowledge of it whatsoever. But if he did, then he must have been really dumb, or else maybe, just maybe, didn't have a guilty conscience about it. I'm just saying it seems so bad it is hard to believe - like a caricature of a dirty pol. And that makes the conspiracy theory have maybe a percentage point or two of credibility. Or at least raise an eyebrow.

[Catherine Vincent]

42. Yes, I did.

I'm very curious. He said it was the FBI's money. He's very forceful about his innocence. Now I'm wondering if he was set up. :shrug:

[Xenotime]

43. * will do anything to bring the Dems down

[rec_report]

45. K&R. n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

47. ...

:kick:

[Gman]

50. Jefferson is an AA, he's from New Orleans

duh...

[rug]

51. I've seen that explanation in an email title.

[zanne]

52. If you're stupid enough to keep stolen money in your freezer....

You deserve what you get.

[w4rma]

53. Jefferson is likely playing his supporters for suckers. (nt)

[originalpckelly]

56. Yes, very much indeed, and the supporters are making the rest of us...

look like a bunch of idiots.

[loudsue]

57. Suppose, for one minute, that Jefferson is RIGHT. Talk about GOP BLOWBACK.

This could, if true, EASILY show more GOP corruption in trying to bribe foreign government officials. If this, instead of proving corruption by a DEMOCRAT, instead shows MORE republican corruption from the DOJ, it could be really nasty for the GOP.

If true, Jefferson needs to stay away from small airplanes and tall buildings.... if he can prove his case.

:kick::kick::kick:

[thethinker]

58. Please . . .

The man is innocent until proven guilty.

It troubles me a lot that DU posters and Democratic members of congress are so quick to assume he is guilty. None of us have really heard his side of the story yet. The only thing we have is news reports, and we know how often they are wrong and intentionally misleading. We also know who owns the press.

The best thing to do is keep an open mind.

[tritsofme]

66. Lets back up about a year ago

and replace Jefferson with DeLay and see if you still agree with that statement.

I don't give corrupt politicians a pass because they are in my party.

[thethinker]

71. How do you know he is a corrupt politician?

I said we should keep an open mind. I did not say he was innocent. I don't like seeing democrats throw their own under the bus before there is a trial.

As far as Delay goes, the republicans supported him to the bitter end and beyond. You can still see him on the talk shows. I live in Delay's district and have bren voting against the scum and supporting his opponents for years.

[Peace Patriot]

72. Agreed. But what if one is stealing $10,000 and the other is stealing $10 million,

and only the one who steals the small amount gets prosecuted, because he's a Democrat?

How much has Dick Cheney stolen--in enhancement of his "golden parachute" by massive no-bid contracts to Halliburton? Tens of millions, I would guess. And they go after Jefferson? The scales of justice are broken, in that comparison.

Things are not so easily black and white, as to justice, ESPECIALLY with this fascist junta in charge of justice.

As for DeLay, I put him in a category with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and other big operators of the Bush gang. He's a major player, and a major culprit in unconscionable crimes--the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, the hijacking of our government by a fascist minority, the near destruction of Congress as an equal branch of government, and the shredding of our Constitution, in ADDITION to financial crimes he has been convicted of. So I don't waste much time feeling sorry for Delay, or thinking that he might have been just a manipulated toady--although I hold some reservations on that, because that is the M.O. of the Bush Junta honchos. I'm not quite sure where he fits in, in the bigger picture of major crime--war crimes, treason--that I believe this regime is guilty of.

I do have more inclination to wonder about Cunningham, Abramoff and others. Were they PERMITTED to run amok? Was it part of a pattern of creating corrupt and corruptible lower rung people, to control them? I'm inclined to think that they ARE guilty of corruption, but, well, I just have reservations, given my opinion of the Bush regime, its control over the FBI, etc., and its resemblance to a crime gang.

With the Democrats, I don't see that. I see some sort of long term systemic corruption, having to do with their buying into the war, and "trade secret" vote counting, and other things (the Patriot Act). But I don't see a crime gang. So if Jefferson got caught up in something, and committed a crime, it's because he was playing games with Bushites or the Bushite FBI. But BECAUSE he's a Democrat, I'm more inclined to believe that he was set up.

And yes, of course, I would prefer that there be NO corruption in government, in our party, or in their party. I'm just urging caution, especially in the lower rung political cases.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

60. I hope that he has something to back up this claim. Video, a signed agreement, something. eom

[nashville_brook]

61. whoa.

[Senator]

63. Folks Might Want To Learn A Bit About Jefferson's "Accuser" -- Lori Mody

And keep in mind that "accusations" can arise from business partners who feel cheated and/or people trying to get out from under when they've been caught themselves.

But who knows if Mody, or her (sorta)Ex-hubby, are that type of person:

It was there that he and his wife learned that many companies lacked basic commercial publishing abilities. They founded Signal in 1987, borrowing $5,000 on a credit card for a down payment on three computers and two laser printers. They had no business background, so they often relied on Lori's father, a former International Business Machines Corp. executive, for guidance.

"I could go to him with any question," Lori Mody said. "He did a lot to mold my mind to the business world."

Roger and Lori Mody are divorced, but she kept 45 percent of the company. She is Signal's executive vice president, corporate secretary and treasurer.

...Signal executives are intensely loyal in part because they don't want to be on Mody's bad side; he is a good friend but is all business when it comes to making deals, they said.

Lori Mody said: "He was the harsh one, I had the smooth edges. Together we made a whole."

That makes for a high-intensity work environment and a high turnover rate, some company executives said. "Signal isn't for everyone. It's a high-risk, high-reward type of place," said Robert B. Smith, Signal's chief administrative officer since 1998 and second in command. The firm can be "bare-knuckled," he said.

... Mody talks proudly about the company's growth, but won't volunteer information about its troubles.

Last year, Keane Federal Systems Inc. complained that Signal, which had a Federal Highway Administration contract, unfairly fired it from a subcontract to keep more of the profit, then hired 22 former Keane employees to finish the job.

Signal lost the case before the American Arbitration Association and was ordered to pay Keane $7 million. "Signal violated community standards of decency, fairness and reasonableness," the arbitrator wrote. Signal appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Did someone say something about a "powerful congressman"?

Compared to what, exactly?

It's not like the Modys have any power in DC, right?

------

[Warren DeMontague]

65. He said he hates warm money? nt

[GETPLANING]

68. The only people more dishonest

than the mob are the cops.