- BREAKING NEWS UPDATES
- GET NEWS YOUR WAY
- Receive news updates to your inbox or mobile device
- TIMES-PICAYUNE PHOTOS
-
- Mandeville vs Pontchatoula
- Mandeville vs Pontchatoula
- TIMES-PICAYUNE VIDEO
- The One: Family film earns the spotlight
- TIMES-PICAYUNE MULTIMEDIA
- AP LOUISIANA NEWS
-
• Rare gold coin to be on display at old mint 10/12/2008, 10:19 a.m. CDT
• Analysis: Splintered vote helps Jefferson survive 10/12/2008, 10:17 a.m. CDT
• 1 big winner for La. Lotto; no Powerball winner 10/12/2008, 10:04 a.m. CDT
- AP VIDEO
-
Jefferson describes hostile questioning
by Washington bureau
Thursday January 17, 2008, 2:31 PM
By Bill Walsh
Washington bureau
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Congressman William Jefferson accused FBI agents Thursday of lying in court and yelling at him during what he said was a hostile interrogation in his New Orleans home in August 2005.
It marked Jefferson's first statements in open court since he pleaded not guilty in his arraignment in June of last year.
Jefferson, who is facing 16 bribery-related charges in federal court, also denied testimony by FBI agents that the nine-term Democrat had asked them to cover up a video tape of him receiving $100,000 in cash in order to protect his reputation.
During an hour and 22 minutes of testimony in a pretrial hearing in U.S. District Court, Jefferson described a scene of agents hovering over his every move as they questioned him about his business dealings in West Africa. Two agents earlier testified that they were welcomed into Jefferson's Marengo Street home where they interviewed the congressman and searched his home without incident.
But Jefferson said his every movement was closely scrutinized. He said at one point he asked to go to the bathroom and was followed closely by an FBI agent.
"I said are you going to follow me to the bathroom," Jefferson said. "And he said 'Yes.' He walked behind me close to my shoulder. I tried to reach (to close) the door, but he was in the door. I said are you going to watch me pee and he said 'yes.'"
Jefferson acknowledged that when agents showed up at his door at 7 a.m. Aug. 3, 2005, he invited them in.
"I never thought I had done anything wrong I should worry about talking to these agents about," he said. "I wanted to be cooperative."
Jefferson is seeking to suppress statements he made to the agents during that two-hour interview and some documents they seized during the search of his home. He said in testimony he didn't feel free to leave his home or make phone calls during the questioning.
Jefferson's attorney has argued that the congressman should have been read his rights under those circumstances. The defense team also said that agents went beyond the scope of the search warrant in seizing or copying some documents.
FBI agent Tim Thibault testified Wednesday that Jefferson received three phone calls and made one while the agents were there. Thibault produced phone records showing the time and length of the calls.
Jefferson, however, said he didn't make any calls and that his Blackberry phone was in his bedroom and turned off the entire time he met with the agents.
For the first time in the high-profile case, Jefferson was confronted in court about the $100,000 in cash the FBI says he received from government informant Lori Mody.
In questioning by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Lytle, Jefferson admitted accepting the brief case in the parking lot of the Ritz Carlton hotel days before the August 2005 search. But Judge T.S. Ellis III cut off questioning before Jefferson could explain why he took the money, $90,000 of which the FBI found in the freezer of his Capitol Hill home.
Jefferson said the money also was a topic during the FBI interview in his home.
He said Thibault yelled at him. "Where's my goddam money?"
Jefferson said that's when he decided to end the interview and stopped answering questions.
Pending Judge Ellis' ruling on the search and interview and other issues, Jefferson is scheduled to go to trial Feb. 25.
Now rap master Willie J. sounds more guilty than I thought. He just got his feelings hurt because they caught him and made him cry like a baby. Those meanie FBI agents! They even had proof about phone calls which he denied getting to make. And this Hawvard law student says they should have read him his rights because he didn't know he was caught!!1
Oh, Boo Hoo!!! Your Honor, they even yelled at me!! Can you believe it? Punish them and exclude ALL the evidence, please... Pretty please... And those meanies keep bringing my family members into this mess. Oh, wait, that was me that did that. My Bad. Anywhoo, do you see what I have to deal with here? Oh, and that $90,000 in my freezer; I have an honorable explanation for that. I was conducting my own investigation. Yeah, that's the ticket, my own investigation. And see, it worked!
Astrid, I'm disappointed in your comment. They yelled in the former Soviet Union. Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard "yelled." They probably yelled at Abu Graib. They generally yell where there are no rights.
Is that what you're condoning?
Div: LAST TIME I LOOKED THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NOT BE YELLED AT!!! Oops, I was yelling. Pardon me.
I'm not singling just you out, Astrid. The other two posters so far seem to think yelling is within their purview. I just can't believe how many people are so eager to relinquish their civil liberties - as long as they're represented in the form of someone's else's.
This is scary, no matter what you think of the congressman. I could have esily mentioned Apartheid South Africa, Syria, Chinese repression and a host of others. Unlike those countries, the FBI is governed by a constituion, unless you're ready to forfeit that also.
I hope you all are ready for the uncovering of the most corrupt, civil liberties denying administration in the history of the United States.
You know, critterhead, I would even fight to see that your constitutional rights were protected.
Div: I appreciate that. Nonetheless, the "yelling" is not the constitutional issue, here. The question is did the Congressman have a reasonable belief that he was being detained and not allowed to leave, in which case he should have had his Miranda rights read to him and any evidence collected as a result of questioning should be excluded ("fruit of the poisonous tree"). Along that line the Congressman's lawyers are arguing his 4th Amendment rights were violated because they agents seized evidence beyond that which was specified in the search warrant.
This is not South Africa, Syria, the USSR, or anything else like that. You should be pleased because what your are looking at is our constitution at work as due process plays out.
FBI agent Tim Thibault testified Wednesday that Jefferson received three phone calls and made one while the agents were there. Thibault produced phone records showing the time and length of the calls.
Jefferson, however, said he didn't make any calls and that his Blackberry phone was in his bedroom and turned off the entire time he met with the agents
Now, who are you going to believe: Written phone records or a guy who accepted a briefcase full of money and proceeded to put 90% of it in a freezer? I don't know about you, but that seems like an odd place to put cash. That is -- unless you were trying to hide it because you shouldn't have had it in the first place.
Once a liar, always a liar. Give it up, Dollar Bill. Your prison cell awaits.
I got a feeling that the first time they asked him about the money, he said, I don't know. You got to read between the lines. Then upon re-questioning, it got a little jacked up, c'mon, where is my damn money man?(like stop BSing us). Then they did the search and found the money. They knew it was there, somebody rolled on ole Dollar. Thieves are so indignant because there is never a valid reason, just bad character.
He did not say they yelled so loudly it injured his ears. So I would guess it injured his feelings. He did not say they yelled obsenities or used hurtful words, he said they yelled.
Yelling I believe, unless you are verballizing threats or falsely screaming fire is still freedom of speech even if you are an FBI man who is having difficulty getting a suspect to obey what he is telling you to do. And I believe that is why they screamed - and we are going by his definition of "scream".
Div: Allow me to chime in. Please do not play that slippery slope heartsong. Yelling, if it ever happened, will NEVER be a worthwhile consideration when determining duress in this case. He gave statements that he wish he hadn't...period! Harvard Law. What a reach to suggest that he felt he couldn't leave. Harvard Law. When he felt that way the question became; "Am I under arrest?" Harvard Law. THE ONLY WAY TO SUPPRESS HIS STATEMENTS MADE DURING THAT INTERVIEW IS TO CLAIM DURESS. He's a 10-term Congressman, Harvard Law Grad who had 90 large in his freezer. But he wants to exclude statements HE made because he was yelled at. As if there is any wonder New Orleans is in such a mess!!!
Yelling is how law enforcement, from cops writing tickets to FBI agents, deals with arrogant and unresponsive - and I have no doubt the Jefferson was both - interrogatees. I am shocked Jefferson even mentioned it; he looks such the weenie. Makes you wonder if that is all he has to go with.
Also, what a liar - they have records of his phone calls, yet he said he didn't make any. Why would he think people are going to just take his word for it and not officical records (its the arrogance again). And why would he lie about that anyway . . . sounds fishy. (oops rds21275, I now see you beat me to it)
If BJefferson says they yelled, that means they didn't yell, because he is nothing but a crooked liar.
"I never thought I had done anything wrong I should worry about talking to these agents about," he said. "I wanted to be cooperative."
If you did nothing wrong, why are you trying to suppress statements you made while doing no wrong?
Scoot over Ollie, your new cellmate is arriving soon. Another innocent politician!
@divovid - you are insane. im all about protecting civil rights, and i support the ACLU. but cops "yelling" at a suspect is not giving up civil rights. its not a right to not-be-yelled-at. plain & simple.
dont misuse the banner of protecting civil rights. save it for a real example, not this jefferson BS.
He said in testimony he didn't feel free to leave his home or make phone calls during the questioning.
Being a lawyer, at the first hint that you could possible be the target, some one tell me how is it his first question isn't, "I'm I in custudy?" And if not, the scecond question should have been, "Am I free to leave?"
Jefferson should now better than to talk with the feds. Does he really have a law degree.
oldmetrymrs quotes: "What a liar!" and "Why would he lie?" Why? Because its in his genes. His back to the wall the worst in him comes to the surface. This is one crook I'm going to enjoy seeing locked up for several years. Next!
With proper credit to critterhead...Apparently Dollar Bill paid attention to Chris Rock...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
unlike the Folsom woman....Bill just got yelled at.
yerboynunez, oh I know he is a crook. I just didn't think he was stupid. I asked why would he lie about making phone calls, knowing that there are records proving otherwise. I am not sure about the legalities of purjuring oneself during a pre-trial hearing, but it sure does look bad.
oops, typo. before the spelling cops "yell" at me, I meant perjuring
Perhaps Divovid should seek a revision of the Miranda rights, to wit:
You have the right to remain silent
You have right to an attorney
You have the right to NOT BE YELLED AT by any officer of the law.
Who knows - it could happen.
I said, "Drop the Gun" pssst, I said "drop the gun". I SAID 'DROP THAT GUN!!!"
Billy's reaction is typical of a guilty scum bag who got caught...throw up a smoke screen to divert the attention. Who do we believe, the FBI or a professional liar? I'm with yerboynunez. I'll delight in seeing Billy join Ollie at the country club prison.
They yelled at him?
I'm shocked to hear that the FBI, whose funding Bill had to vote for, treats suspects like criminals.
Bill, welcome to the world you fund and helped create.
Guilty until found Not Guilty - IF you can afford to fight the power of the Feds.
Otherwise just plead out or hope you know something you can trade for a bigger fish the FBI wants.
But YOU are a pretty big fish, aren't you Bill?
From the high profile cases we usually read about the FBI does not talk to a suspect until they already have the goods on him/her, collected via wire taps and squealers. So if you are questioned its time to shutup and call a lawyer already.
Dollar Bill is a lying criminal-scumbag. As an attorney, he should have been smart enough to not invite the FBI into his home or entertain any discussions.
His defense of his interview is total BS - and it will backfire on him.
Graybar hotel is ready and waiting for him - and eventually his crooked family too !!!!!!!
"I never thought I had done anything wrong I should worry about talking to these agents about," he said. "I wanted to be cooperative."
Ummmm, then why seek to have your statements excluded now?
Oh, I guess maybe during the interrogation/interview you suddenly realized, gee, maybe that stuff *was* illegal. That's easy to understand, coming from an uneducated man, ignorant of the law, I suppose.
JEFFERSON IS AS GUILTY AS ALL OF THE OTHER CORRUPT LOUISIANA POLITICIANS CAUGHT WITH THEIR GRUBBY LITTLE HANDS IN THE COOKIE JARS. DO LIKE THEY DO IN SAUDI TO THIEVES, CUT OFF THEIR HAND.
He was not in custody. Therefore, there was no reason for the FBI to read him his Miranda rights. In any case, I doubt that there is anyone in this country who can habla englais and who has two brain cells to rub together that has not heard the Miranda rights read 100's of times on TV shows. Of course he knows his Miranda rights. He's a freakin' lawyer himself! To claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. Typical amoral lawyer move to try to get off on a technicality.
Blacks are treated much harsher when questioned by law enforcement, and they will take anything they want from you or your home whether they have a search warrant or not. This has always been the case. The Republican Politician who got caught with his "pants down" on the toilet was treated nicer and more fair than any Black politician in the USA.
Sugarpye, I don't disagree that African-Americans have been treated harshly by law enforcement, often unfairly. But I fail to see what that has to do with this case. Are you suggesting that the FBI did not have a search warrant? Or that they stole items from him house?
Actually NOLAATTORNEY makes the best point. If he had nothing to worry about and was just having an innocent conversation with the FBI, what is he going to court to suppress.
Only a moron or Dollar Bill would think that the FBI would show up at your doorstep at 7AM to have a cup of coffee and a friendly conversation.
This guy went to Harvard Law School? Did they teach him anything? He should have said, "Sorry guys I am not talking to anyone....you can speak to my attorney."
But fortunately for us, he IS an idiot full of hubris. He talked...now they got him. He is such a deserving individual. Can't wait till Feb 25...its going to be very entertaining.
Anyone who's ever been married has probably been yelled at. Big deal.
Speaking as someone who has had the FBI come knocking at his door, I can tell you dealing with them is nothing nice. They curse at you, try to intimidate you, yell, scream, you name it... They keep reminding you if anything you say to them is false you are going to jail for at least 5 years (they also like to remind you that this is how they got Uncle Eddie.) They don't bother with reading you your rights.
My advice to you - guilty or not - is if the FBI shows up at your door, tell them you won't talk to them unless your lawyer is present. If you can't afford a lawyer go ahead and let them arrest you (they're going to do it any way if that's what they're there to do) and then you'll have a lawyer. Better than nothing.
This is not a witch hunt - he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and does not want to be punished. Has he pulled the race card yet? I haven't seen it recently and was just wondering if he has...
Harvard Law School should ask for its law degree back.
I know Dollar Bill will try to squirm out of THIS one, but the REAL CRIME is all the damage he's done to ALL of us in this City!! His corrupt political dealings and buddies he protecs (Cleo, Eddie, Edwin M.) have made it COMMON in New Orleans for politicians to take bribes.
I hope his attorneys and the court fines wipe out all the money he weaseled out of all of us! He should learn what it is like to EARN a dollar!!
Oooo did they have to say that soooo loud!.I'm innocent til proven guilty...save the yelling til then please!
>>"Where's my goddam money?" Jefferson said that's when he decided to end the interview and stopped answering questions.<<
Well, that's about all there is to the exclusion of statements issue. If you invite officers into your home, and a reasonable person in your shoes would think that they could terminate the encounter, then your statements are admissible. Dollar Bill says that he in fact terminated the encounter, even in the teeth of the mean yellings of the FBI officer.
NOLAMoCity:
The only slippery slope is our civil liberties and right to the presumption of innocence. Lose that and kiss it goodbye.
right divovid, you're so worried about Jefferson's civil liberties, but you got all your panties in a wad about a peaceful protestation against the murder rate when Silence the Violence held a rally, exercising their civil liberties. Whats the difference? I wonder.....
divoid
I bet you weren't worried about Civil Liberties when the Clinton Adminstration was stepping all over the Constitution singing
Soyuz nerushimy respublik svobodnykh
Splotila naveki velikaya Rus'!
Da zdravstvuyet sozdanny voley narodov
Yediny, moguchy Sovetsky Soyuz!
CHORUS:
Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby narodov nadyozhny oplot!
Partiya Lenina — sila narodnaya
Nas k torzhestvu kommunizma vedyot!
2.
Say good-bye Peachy Majete to you and all your crimyies don't forget to say hi !!! to little Eddie!!!!
kibbles:
I just love it when I drive posters to the gutter the way I have with you. It always proves my point.
By the way, insane is a badge of honor. I've been called far worse by the likes of you.
olmanfred, I didn't get upset at anyone holding a rally. I only challenged them not to be so selective in which victims to highlight. I particularly cited one victim who has been lost in the statistics. I also challenged the impetus for the group's organization. Again, I could NOT care less (I hope you're watching olmetrymrs)who rallies. But I'm not going to stand by idle while the murder rate becomes a cause only when the wrong person gets murdered.
You should go back and read what was said, not what you want to believe.
I stand by every thing I've posted.
By the way, some of you need to view the YouTube video of the drunk and angry LSU fans. They are representative of the prevailing sentiment in this city, region and state.
praetorian:
Please say you're kidding. If you're not, please Google Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, just to name a few. Report back when you understand the trouncing of civil liberties.
divoid,
See? You had no problem with the Clinton Administration trouncing civil liberites. Good , gawd, man, you leftists are so predictable.
divovid
Our civil liberties are slowly being stripped away at our request. The war on terror is a hoax to influence us to acquiesce to searches, wire-tapping, etc. Dollar Bill making self-incriminating statements to later seek to suppressing them is NOT a violation of anyone's civil rights. READ MY LIPS..."HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A STING! THE MONEY WAS IN HIS FREEZER! I understand the presumption of innocence. But please understand that only matters in court. You can never get it to matter to the people who have been watching you for a year, monitoring your actions, tracking your movements, and ORCHESTRATING the sting/investigation. Get real!
praetorian:
I see what you've done with my screen name. Nice try. I'll never step to your level.
Actually, if you knew anything about me, you would know I had serious problems with the Clinton administration.
Or maybe it was just a typo on your part. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt.
She sits above all, garbed in a shining white robe and bathed in the glow of righteousness. She wears an arrow studded halo above her head.
She watches and waits like a spider to pierce the statements of ignorant bloggers that she catches trying to violate any one's civil rights. No blogger is safe. No one immune. She is tireless and determined to rid life of racists vermin.
Liars, thieves, scammers, shift the blamers,murderers, well they're okay. But you others better watch out.
so so TRUE Kabel. except for one thing. She is the biggest racist of all.
@divovid - driven me to the "gutter"?? er, how do you mean? all i said what you were insane. thats pretty standard conversation lingo, even often heard between friends.
stop romantizing your victimhood.
further, lets stop this red herring sidetrack. you STILL havent addressed how you feel being *yelled at* is a civil liberties violation. address that, specifically.
She never addresses the topic only the people's shortcomings in their posts.
You can tell she's a liberal, she has no sense of humor.
It is amazing that ANYONE thinks that the FBI in your home is not a case of custody. Would anyone feel free to leave if the FBI were in your house questioning you? The law is the law. Miranda rights and the presumption of innocence exist to protect citizens and even right wing fanatics from the tendency of a powerful, well funded government to abuse its power.
If you don't agree with the law, then change it through legislative action! Introduce new laws. Change the Constitution so that those who are arrested or indicted or questioned by government are presumed GUILTY until they're found guilty. Then, cry as the Government moves to sweep away your civil liberties and freedoms, as is the case in North Korea and in other totalitarian states.
For now, the interpretation, by learned judges, of the Constitution of the United States is that one who is detained is entitled to be read his Miranda Rights. Period.
Who here thinks that questioning by FBI agents in your home is not the same as your being held in custody? Give me your address, and I'll have them come by one morning.
NOLAMoCity, unfortunately you might be right. Not all of us are naive. The FBI orchestrates and goes wild in its attempt to get someone whom they have convicted in advance. When they're after you, principles be damned.
It is the judicial system's job to hold the FBI and other powerful agencies in check, in the name of liberty and justice. Therefore, much of the evidence, obtained while the interrogated was in custody and not advised of his Miranda rights, must be thrown out. Get ready. It will be.
I like what this country stands for. The LANGUAGE of the U.S. Constitution is inspiring. Unfortunately, right wingers many times can't read ... or, amazingly, have never attempted to read or understand the document that governs interaction between individuals and the powerful, often unforgiving government.
Hey, how about that national economy thing! 'Heading toward recession. Go, righties! We can prop up the Iraqi economy, but we can't ... nevermind.
It is amazing that ANYONE thinks that the FBI in your home is not a case of custody. Would anyone feel free to leave if the FBI were in your house questioning you? The law is the law. Miranda rights and the presumption of innocence exist to protect citizens and even right wing fanatics from the tendency of a powerful, well funded government to abuse its power.
If you don't agree with the law, then change it through legislative action! Introduce new laws. Change the Constitution so that those who are arrested or indicted or questioned by government are presumed GUILTY until they're found guilty. Then, cry as the Government moves to sweep away your civil liberties and freedoms, as is the case in North Korea and in other totalitarian states.
For now, the interpretation, by learned judges, of the Constitution of the United States is that one who is detained is entitled to be read his Miranda Rights. Period.
Who here thinks that questioning by FBI agents in your home is not the same as your being held in custody? Give me your address, and I'll have them come by one morning.
NOLAMoCity, unfortunately you might be right. Not all of us are naive. The FBI orchestrates and goes wild in its attempt to get someone whom they have convicted in advance. When they're after you, principles be damned.
It is the judicial system's job to hold the FBI and other powerful agencies in check, in the name of liberty and justice. Therefore, much of the evidence, obtained while the interrogated was in custody and not advised of his Miranda rights, must be thrown out. Get ready. It will be.
I like what this country stands for. The LANGUAGE of the U.S. Constitution is inspiring. Unfortunately, right wingers many times can't read ... or, amazingly, have never attempted to read or understand the document that governs interaction between individuals and the powerful, often unforgiving government.
Hey, how about that national economy thing! 'Heading toward recession. Go, righties! We can prop up the Iraqi economy, but we can't ... nevermind.
Miranda rights and the presumption of innocence exist to protect citizens and even right wing fanatics from the tendency of a powerful, well funded government to abuse its power.
____________
Where were you people when the Clinton Administration violated the constitution for 8 years?
Hey, how about that national economy thing! 'Heading toward recession. Go, righties! We can prop up the Iraqi economy, but we can't ... nevermind.
____
Billary is gonna solve all your problems and the world will be roses.....
Now back to this arseclown putting 900,000 grand in a freezer. Is he simple?
Law School 101...
Custody (i.e. arrest) + Interrogation = Miranda Rights
The ruling will be in favor of the Feds.
Kudos, wakeupfriend.
I do have one problem with what you stated. Being detained does not rise to the level of being in custody. If so, everyone stopped by the police any time for any reason, would be entitled to be Mirandized. And that would be unduly burdensome. Here's the thing. The FBI were there asking Jeff questions about activity that they obviously had intimate details about. A first year law student would have had the presence of mind to seek counsel but not a Harvard Law grad?
I find it a bit disturbing that the Constitution could be so misused. I submit that Jeff's defense attorney filed any and all standard pretrial motions and came up with the argument later. The Constitution seeks to protect the innocent, which he is so far. But here's how I see it...
At the moment he felt detained, he should have invoked his sixth amendment right to counsel. I would venture so far as to say he should have felt that immediately upon their arrival. Or maybe he's smart enough to know that he would later seek to suppress his statements. Hmm
Daski Commrade praetorian
__
Hardly, that's more your schtick.
Now, you gonna answer my question about those 8 years or change names to appear you have a network of basement blogger supporters to shore up a big-nothing of concern about some coneheaded politician getting yelled at for hiding 90,000 in a deep freezer?
NOLAMoCity,
You're gracious in your comments. However ... change the law if you wish for the assumption to be that the suspect should be required to invoke the Sixth Amendment. Call for the right to counsel to be amended out of our jurisprudence. The law is, however, through interpretation by courts, that once a suspect is in custody, he must be READ ... or GIVEN, I guess, his Miranda rights.
The FBI wasn't asking about the price of tea in China. They were accumulating evidence from a suspect in custody. This could have been done in the presence of a lawyer.
Hey, the trial is going to be the final forum. However, really. If you're in your house and the FBI comes to the door ... you're in custody. What, are you going to leave them in the house while you leave? You're in custody. You're detained. You're not free to leave.
The FBI could have probably read Jefferson his Miranda rights and obtained all of the evidence that they needed by questioning him under oath at some time in the future. They'd been listening in on his conversationsfor a pretty long time.
That wasn't enough? No, they didn't have what they wanted, so they used deception. No problem. Just don't violate the Constitution in doing so.
Millions of people are convicted in this country each year, and over one million are in jail or on probation. Government is not hampered by the requirement to issue Miranda rights warnings to suspects in custody.
Jefferson is a citizen of a country that believes - on paper - in probable cause, search warrants, Miranda rights, presumption of innocence,fair trials, juries, and principles of justice. Follow the law, or move to a totalitarian country where the government rules with an iron fist.
blablabla, who cares so they yelled at u ,u thief, u still going to jail with the rest of ya scum bag family
I do not want corrupt public officals... period. Their pay and their retirement is their reward, plus the honor of being an elected offical...
I was so happy to see Edwin Edwards put behind bars as I will be to see WJ...
I hope all comes out about the shakedowns and the personal deals for him and hios family.
WE don't need this type of person representing us.. and I voted for him....
I am white and have always voted for him.. I thought he was honest and true and fair... he is black.. I voted for Thomas also.. I never voted for Nagin, I voted for Paulette Irons who had done so much for her district while in Baton Rouge... I vote who I think is best qualified only... If I do not know enough about the canidates, I don't vote... I cross party lines.. simple.. vote for the best and hopefully you will get the best... too many people cast their vote uniformed... that is why we are in the mess that we are in.. I think I'm going to stop voting...
Erda:
You've been watching too many episodes of Law & Order.
There is one poster, however, who.....
Nah. I'll just pray for them.
Dollar Bill, Dollar Bill, DollAR BILL, Come on Man, Stop the BS ing, and do the Right Thing, and tell the Truth. if You pis* the Feds off, they are going to nail your wife, daughters, and your son-in-law. it doesn't matter wheather he has a PHD, BS, Associates, or a GED. they already have your ass, HOOKED, LINED, and SINKER. you greedy, crum snatching bottom feeder.
I do this not out of victimhood but to show many of you the absurdity of some of your postings and to let you know your fraternity of wrongs won't always get an Amen.
Deep down inside, I know I could never change any of your minds. In fact, I'm quite content to allow you to keep the minds you have. It just never ceases to amaze me, however, how intolerant so many of you are toward differences - different looks, different thoughts, different attitudes, different tastes different voices.
And almost without fail, some of you attack out of what sounds like raw, pure and unadulterated hatred. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to keep being the reasonable and logical voice in the wilderness.
Is this a great country or what?
livingpo asked "I still want to know why the freezer of all places."
I guess Jefferson wanted to give proper meaning to the term 'cold hard cash'.
Since the FBI yelled at him, the case should be thrown out?
What an icon for the Dems culture of corruption.
In case you are reading WJ--
"Oh Gee... Poor YOU. Get over it... You and many of the rest of your family are crooks. Too bad".
divovid
"And almost without fail, some of you attack out of what sounds like raw, pure and unadulterated hatred."........ Sorta like the monsterous thugs going around murdering,robbing,stealing selling drugs & whatever else. Maybe a lot of this crime happening is really stressing folks out,Huh?. Maybe with the good folks trying to get their lives back in order,like that's not enough stress...they've been having to deal with criminals every where & that could be a major problem for some hatred i would think. I know my good attitude before 2005 has gone down the drain. Don't know if & when it'll ever return. Was 1st christmas past that it barely meant anything to me,where that used to be my favorite time of the year. Hopefully things will get better. Have a great day!
Does anyone believe that the FBI would not fabricate to get a conviction? Just because an FBI guy has the record of the length of a call does not mean that two parties spoke to each other. Messages left by others on a cell phone voice mail are recorded as time used for the owner.
However, EVEN IF Jefferson used the phone in his own home, HE... WAS ... IN ... Custody ... !!! In this country ... and not in North Korea ... .
I understand, latrgator. And to the chagrin of some, I actually agree.
Now watch the vitriol that follows that comment.
Gee - sounds a lot like what happens at a Congressional hearing - acusatory questions and being mean to the witnesses. Welcome to the world of mortal men, Mr. J!
hurtem,
Yea. Where's the outrage over Baroni? A former Kenner City Councilman steals over $ 120,000 from the military at a time when this country is at war, and there is no outrage! Maybe this money stolen could have been used to armor part of a vehicle.
The FBI is composed of ambitions, and sometimes power drunk, men and women. Why do some insist on giving mythical, "G-men" fatasy like attention to the FBI? The agents can lie on the stand as would anyone trying to win.
Who will police the FBI?
Still ... the FBI in your house is constructive custody. End of story. If you wouldn't feel free to leave, you're in custody. A rights warning is in order. It's what separates us from the dictatorships.
The FBI says that he used the phone. He says that he did not, because his phone was not in his possession. There's a perjurer amiss. If it's the FBI, then we should all be concerned.
Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Other people guilty of unrelated crimes are completely irrelevant. This story is about our friendly incumbent United States Congressman William Jefferson.
Somehow I have trouble feeling sorry for someone who has made a family business out of selling ex officio favors. Perhaps the government should put the kid gloves on before subjecting him to such mean questions in Federal Court again? I hear an extraordinarily small violin playing a tune for him right now.
Caught in a lie himself while on the witness stand ?
..."If I got up from that sofa, may my children and grandchildren be struck dead. I never moved from that sofa," Jefferson said ...
...Within 10 minutes of the start of the discussion with FBI agents, Jefferson said he felt under duress. He said that when he rose and told the two agents he had to go to the bathroom, Evans sprung to his feet, too.
"I said, 'Are you going to follow me to the bathroom?' " Jefferson said. "And he said 'Yes.' He walked behind me, close to my shoulder. I tried to reach (to close) the door, but he was in the door. I said, 'Are you going to watch me pee?' And he said, 'Yes.' "...
wakeupfriend
I agree with most of what you say. Really. He should never have answered any questions, never let the interrogation continue. Instead, he makes it seem as though he felt under duress. There's the phone record of a call he didn't make. He never left the couch but was followed to the bathroom. It's all very sad.
FearYeEvil,
In fairness, I'm sure that Jefferson meant that he didn't get up from the couch for some general purpose such as to answer a phone. No one denies that he went to the bathroom, as he said so himself ... followed by an FBI agent. I'm sure that there's a word or two missing from the article.
Still. Come on. If an FBI agent admits that he did follow you to the bathroom, then you were in custody. Really. Stop the games. When people are in custody, read them their Miranda rights and then move forward.
How many cases are lost because the government over does it? In this case, even if Congressman Jefferson used the phone on a couple of occasions (which he says that he did not), he couldn't go up into his own room and take care of his personal affairs in private. He could not just walk into his back yard to water the flowers while alone. He couldn't head to the grocery alone for a drink. He couldn't even head back upstairs to engage in a private conversation with his wife.
He was followed to the bathroom! He couldn't close the door! The FBI didn't think that Jefferson would have gotten something to hurt them. Did they search the bathroom? He was in CUSTODY, and they didn't want him to do anything to hurt the case that they were building.
Either follow the laws or change them.
all you goobers -- if he wasnt *arrested*, he wasnt in "custody". it was only an interview. cops do them all the time. miranda rights are for *arrests*, not questioning.
y'all need to watch more Law & Order.
C'mon people, Custody? I don't think so?
Damn, the mindset of some of my fellow New Orleans; this isn't about protecting rights, it's about protecting a culture of corruption.
I've read the above posts and have to agree mostly with NOLAMoCity, you others are reaching because you are creating a new definition of custody that previously didn't exist. Unless you are cuffed, cuffed and put in a car, or cuffed and put in car/and or taken to a holding place (typically called a "jail" or "lock-up"), your behind is probably not in custody. The man was in his house and he could have gotten dressed and walked out, ran out, skipped out, perambulated out, etc., whatever, and who knows what the FBI would have done at that point, but in reading the details of this story, it looks as though they (the FBI) showed up to ask some questions, to conduct police work.
Where in all this did the FBI say anything or act in anyway that would indicate Jefferson was in such custody? Jefferson merely says he was yelled at. Yelled at?
The bottom line is that he was not supposed to be interrogated without being read his rights. That did not happen, therefore his conversation with the agents should be inadmissable.
THE LAW IS THE LAW.
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT PROTECTING RIGHTS!
It doesn't seem like he could have gotten dressed and leave the house if he couldn't use the bathroom alone.
Posted by wakeupfriend on 01/18/08 at 10:52AM
"Come on. If an FBI agent admits that he did follow you to the bathroom, then you were in custody."
Well, ESPECIALLY with "Cold Cash" Jefferson being a LONG-TIME **LAW MAKER** that he should have very well known that the investigators had a duty to preserve the premises while they executed their Court-issued warrant. Had they not, they risked the search being compromised.
Further, you do not have to be under arrest for an investigator to question you, it happens in probably most cases that someone whom is under investigation is questioned before they are indicted or arrested and only after you are indicted or arrested are they then required to read you your Miranda Rights.
Jefferson could have almost assuredly left the premises any time he pleased and simply not answered any questions, which, he elected on his own to do neither, therefore, I say it is all admissible.
And as far as the Agent being upset about the $100,000 in money the Government provided the cooperating witness to give to Jefferson, I think I can understand why they would be a bit upset about it's whereabouts given what they had previously documented on video and what they had been told by an informant.
I think "Cold Cash" is fighting a losing battle and he might be careful with himself as he just might end up with a superceding indictment charging him with more crimes and possibly even multiple members of his family whom appear, in my opinion, to be deeply involved in multiple quid pro-quo schemes.
Why are people defending this man?
This is EXACTLY what is wrong with this place and why it will be very hard to ever change, Jindal and his anti-corruption crusade/propaganda or not...
THE PEOPLE, not the politicians, need to DEMAND change and not relent nor compromise in ANY manner regarding corruption, compromise or inappropriate activities by their public servants.
wjhenfield,
Thanks. I think everyone is losing sight and arguing semantics. JEFFERSON WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO TALK! HE IS THE ONE WHO ENDED THE CONVERSATION WHEN HE WAS READY! All this custody argument is stupid. Manipulating the law to suit the needs of a few is exactly where many of our problems lie. Even if everything he said during this so-called custody is suppressed, he is still on tape receiving cash from a GOVERNMENT informant. He will still go down in flames. Period. He's a criminal and that's it. And to whomever suggested to watch more Law & Order. Stop it. Law & Order is entertainment. This is not and these arguments on both sides are compelling.
And to FearYeEvil,
I agree about why would anyone defend him on this blog. And although I detest his conduct, I can appreciate the defense of the Constitution and what it is supposed to stand for. But I cannot lose sight of "what it is supposed to stand for."
Anyone who has ever watched "Law and Order" knows that the police can question you out the wazoo without placing you under arrest, and will do so UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU ASK THEM IF YOU ARE UNDER ARREST. Then you're free to leave! Surely Mr. Jefferson knew that...
It is terreble yelling at poor Bill.
I'm going to my freezer to see if it made some money.
God knows all about it Mr. Jefferson
he should have testified he was afraid of being lynched
• SHEPHERD PLEADS GUILTY, RESIGNS
• Jefferson trial date may be delayed
• Tax break to boost historic projects
• Parish unveils budget plan for 2009
• 'C-Murder' defense seeks delay


