Yesterday, we discussed how voters in Chicago reelected Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. despite his appearance for months without any explanation and criminal investigation into his alleged misuse of campaign funds and alleged effort to buy a Senate seat. While Jackson thanked his voters for keeping him in office and pledged to work for them in Washington, reports now indicate that Jackson has been negotiating a plea bargain on the criminal charges with prosecutors.
Jackson has been out of contact at Mayo Clinic where he is being treated for depression and bipolar disorder.
Jackson is being investigated not only for allegedly using campaign funds to decorate his Washington home but also may have used campaign funds to buy a $40,000 Rolex watch for a female friend.
He is also under ethical investigation for allegedly discussing the payment of campaign money to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in return for an appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Obama.
Democratic politicians, including President Obama, have refused to call for Jackson’s departure from Congress so not to anger his powerful father. Moreover, his wife holds a seat on the City Council in Chicago as part of a political dynasty for the Jackson family. The family has many critics in Chicago for their amassed wealth and power.
While I am sympathetic with anyone suffering from mental illness and I do believe that such individuals should be allowed to seek treatment without loss of their positions, Jackson’s dismal record began long ago and his constituents have gone without a representative in Congress for many months. If it is true that he has been negotiating a plea bargain while running for reelection (without actually showing up to campaign), those concerns are only magnified.
Source: Sun Times
40 thoughts on “Jesse Jackson Jr. Reportedly Engaged In Plea Negotiations With Prosecutors”
“At which…point…you are
too tiredunable to point out how he was wrong. And GeneH wins by submission of boredombecause you are unable to compose a rational evidence based counterargument.”
You can always count on GeneH to find the long way around getting to his point.
At which…point…you are too tired to point out how he was wrong. And GeneH wins by submission of boredom.
Yikes. Anways just checking in to see how my little Marxists were handling the loss of one of their own.
My favorite over-the-top reaction was BettyKath’s ramble against the white man. That is some major denial girl.
PatricParamedic’s beatdown response should shut her up…one would think.
“Beam me up, Scotty.”
““Bad actors” isn’t germane to “The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed”. That statement doesn’t mean “bad actors in government” it means government, no distinction between “bad” and “good” within.”
If that’s what you want to think, sure, but personally I think there is a manifest case that anyone who wants to keep the populace ignorant so as to better control them is a bad actor.
“So it doesn’t make the distinction you claim I underestimate.”
If that makes you feel better? Whatever.
“My response was to the exact meaning of that statement, not the interpretation of “bad actors in government”. But if we have to go there, Woodrow Wilson and FDR are icons in the Democratic mythos, yet Wilson with his Sedition Laws was near fascist (he had tendencies in his economic theories prior to Mussolini), and FDR is the man responsible for J. E. Hoover’s domestic spying on political dissidents (c. 1937 by directive to Hoover). Still the quote I addressed was “The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed”, not the interpretation “the bad actors in government are happy to…”.”
Look! There’s a giant gorilla climbing up that red herring. And it’s carrying some argument by verbosity! Or is that Fay Raye?
““You underestimate the bad actors in government” is thus a non sequitur in context. BTW, and at odds with your perception, I don’t.”
Argument by non-sequitur. That’s close to logically cogent defense, but not quite. Too bad close isn’t the same thing as is, Ariel. For the fallacy of argument by non-sequitur there must be a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. Having a premise that you don’t agree with, namely that bad actors will try to keep you ignorant and lie to you for the purpose of manipulation, is not a disconnect between my premise and conclusion.
“My point was that we do not get our information from government, other than when our real sources of information swallow what government says. In general, we have historians, journalists, and lay people who try their very best to keep us informed, but often fail when they swallow the government version. That the government is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed doesn’t mean that it does keep us that way or that we are. That would only be true if the government was the only source of information. It isn’t, and fails when it tries to be.”
Okay, but that in no way invalidates my point, namely that bad actors in government will try to keep you ignorant and lie to you to control you. This evidence bolsters what my argument, not dismantle it. Why? You have a disconnect between my premise and conclusion and your conclusion base on them,. My argument was:
Explicit: The government likes a stupid populace but that doesn’t preclude them using spin as a control mechanism.
Explicit: One enhances the other, i.e. ignorance makes it easier to lie to you and manipulate you and a primary way to keep you ignorant is by lying to you.
Implicit: Those who would lie to you and keep you ignorant for the purposes of manipulation are bad actors.
Conclusion – You underestimate the bad actors in government when you said, ““The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed”.
The government doesn’t do that. It misinforms, it spins, it even hides information, but it doesn’t keep us dumb and misinformed except for the very last.”. They will and does use both – forced ignorance and deception – against the populace.
“It’s other institutions that do” is a valid observation but it is not relevant to the fact that bad actors in government will and do use both – forced ignorance and deception – against the populace. It’s a weak form of straw man as I never asserted that government was the sole provider of information or disinformation.
Your conclusion was that my statement was logically fallacious when it was not so simply because you disagreed with a premise of it. Disagreement with a premise is not prime facie disproval of a premise and in your attempt to disprove my premises you revealed the very kind of disjunction your logical process that you accused me of – argument by non-sequitur – coupled with a straw man with a dash of red herring for spice..
That was a much better counterargument than your one about the word “Eskimo”, but it still fails and ironically enough for being partially itself a non-sequitur. You at least left the argument from emotion out this time. Arguing against the argument of another is not simply further arguing that you are correct. That is insufficient. You must also invalidate the oppositions logic and evidence.
Much better show this time though.
Leaving off the argument from emotion is a serious improvement.
UPDATE: Former U.S. Prosecutor Negotiating Plea Deal For Jackson Jr.
“CHICAGO (CBS) – A former U.S. attorney representing embattled Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is negotiating a plea deal with the federal government, CBS 2 has learned.
CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine has the exclusive details.
The plea deal would end Jackson’s 17-year career as a congressman representing Chicago’s South Side and suburbs.”
“Bad actors” isn’t germane to “The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed”. That statement doesn’t mean “bad actors in government” it means government, no distinction between “bad” and “good” within. So it doesn’t make the distinction you claim I underestimate. My response was to the exact meaning of that statement, not the interpretation of “bad actors in government”. But if we have to go there, Woodrow Wilson and FDR are icons in the Democratic mythos, yet Wilson with his Sedition Laws was near fascist (he had tendencies in his economic theories prior to Mussolini), and FDR is the man responsible for J. E. Hoover’s domestic spying on political dissidents (c. 1937 by directive to Hoover). Still the quote I addressed was “The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed”, not the interpretation “the bad actors in government are happy to…”.
“You underestimate the bad actors in government” is thus a non sequitur in context. BTW, and at odds with your perception, I don’t. Neglecting the usual lies and misrepresentations from Congress and the President (Bush starts with a “B” and Obama with an “O”, the difference regarding truth diminishes rapidly from there), I’m familiar with the Maine fraud, the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment (patterned after a much earlier Norwegian experiment), the Atomic Radiation experiments, the 2nd Gulf of Tonkin fraud, and the latest revelation on Cold War aerosol tests over the mid-West. It’s like he wrote: the “State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people”.
My point was that we do not get our information from government, other than when our real sources of information swallow what government says. In general, we have historians, journalists, and lay people who try their very best to keep us informed, but often fail when they swallow the government version. That the government is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed doesn’t mean that it does keep us that way or that we are. That would only be true if the government was the only source of information. It isn’t, and fails when it tries to be.
However, government statistics are great, often contradicting the latest government stance.
You underestimate the bad actors in government. They like a stupid populace but that doesn’t preclude them using spin as a control mechanism too. One enhances the other.
“The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed”.
The government doesn’t do that. It misinforms, it spins, it even hides information, but it doesn’t keep us dumb and misinformed except for the very last. It’s other institutions that do, and Pogo is right, it’s us.
Ever read a newspaper report on a police incident then watched the video? How many of your fellow citizens take a policeman’s word as unassailable? Even when they’re faced with their lying eyes? (I separated the two questions because juries often go with their lying eyes, but the general populace on blogs often find excuses or make up crap wholesale, such as “he called them names” when the video shows otherwise). Even when testilying is a known among police yet seldom covered in the news, any news other than bloggers?
Damn, being devoid of logic and reason, I am dumbfounded that I agree with Gene H as should he be. /snark
The original purpose of the public school system was to make good citizens, not high wage earners. A “standard test”, as determined within a State, on history/civics is necessary to achieve that goal. Without it, you don’t understand this country and you are simply a transferable citizen, you could live anywhere culturally similar.
As for my public education, I couldn’t graduate elementary school without passing an essay test on basic Constitutional questions, including clearly identifying the gist of each of the first 10 Amendments. I had rigorous history/civics teachers until the late 60s, when it began to fall apart (by rigorous I mean both detailed specifics and the broad sweep of meaning).In the 7th grade I had to write a detailed test essay regarding the Treaty of Versailles which included lands transferred, resource tonnage transferred, industrial output transferred, all restrictions on Axis production, and it’s social impact; the production restrictions especially leading to the BMW motorcycle; that’s a joke except that the Treaty actually did lead to the BMW motorcycle). I wish I could remember her name but I can only remember that she had a brown eye and a blue eye.
In the 11th grade I had my first taste of social historian and that has stuck with me for context. I’m excoriated on conservative blogs when I point out how war weary Americans were by early ’45; neither blockade nor Operation Downfall just wasn’t politically acceptable once we had the Bomb). My 12th year, rigorous American civics leaving me with no misunderstanding about the “Freedom of the Press” nor the extant of “Freedom of Speech”. Religion we can quibble.
Lastly, this is way OT from Professor Turley’s post on J. Jackson Jr., yet I didn’t hijack the thread.
The govt. is happy to keep it’s citizens dumb and uninformed, akin to “keeping them barefoot and pregnant.” It’s up to individual social studies teachers to work it into the curriculum. I did it, and a few others I know did also. Most just kept to the script like good union workers.
I’m in total agreement over the uselessness of standardized testing in general, but I think there is a difference between the kind of standardized testing of your example (and Elaine’s many examples on the subject) and a “standard test”. Part of the function of schools is to prepare students to be good citizens. Making the citizenship test a standard part of the curriculum seems to be just good sense and for the reasons you note. If we expect naturalized citizens to have that base knowledge as a predicate for their citizenship, it only makes sense we demand the same of natural citizens. Unless the government wants the bulk of the citizens to be ignorant of civics for some reason . . . hmmmm . . . kinda makes one think someone(s) may have a nefarious agenda out there. 😉 I was really lucky in high school and junior high. I had two excellent teachers on the subject: Mrs. Conn (7th grade Civics) and Mr. Black (12th grade American Government). I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say both made an impression on me and without standardized testing.
I suspect that I would do better than the average guy on the street on the citizenship test. I also suspect that I would be greatly embarrassed by my score compared to the average immigrant taking the test.
I am totally opposed to Federally mandated tests in Grade Schools and High Schools in the U.S. My older brother and his wife are retired teachers and their two daughters are now teachers in the Chicago Public Schools. None of them ever needed to be prodded by the Fed. Govt. to teach with excellence. The Fed. tests are a distraction and a waste of time in a well run school system, in my opinion.
I do agree with you that the citizenship test should be taught in the upper grades of high school, not only to learn the basics of how our system works (or should work), but also to learn respect for the people who come here, learn our language, learn our history and institutions, and proudly become Americans. May they always continue to come.
“Isn’t it odd that the only people who are tested by the Government on American civics are the much vilified foreigners whose greatest hope is to become an American citizen? Maybe the one test that should be mandatory in High School would be the citizenship test.”
I think passing it should be a graduation requirement. From your mouth to the FSM’s noodley ? ears?
OT, Maps of the US 2012 election results using various cartograms- interesting way of looking at the results:
No, it scarcely would pass, as yet. You’re right.
But group-think has a way of changing when things get out of hand, and the pendulum swings.
Geeba and Nick, “Boss” is still a relevant read and Royko was just the man to write the story. He once did a column about the essential, shoe-leather difference between the parties (both of which were/are unutterably corrupt) that I remember, and remember to be correct, some 40 years later. He was something as was Studs Terkel, Terkel’s book “Working” was amazing. I didn’t know I could be as moved (across the whole spectrum of emotions) by a book of interviews with people about their jobs.
“White politicians get a pass, Blacks do not.”
Samuel B. Kent (R) Federal District Judge of Galveston, Texas was sentenced on May 11, 2009, to 33 months in prison for lying about sexually harassing two female employees.
Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence Congressional action concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. See Executive branch convictions. Congressmen convicted in the Abramoff scandal include:
Tom DeLay (R-TX) House Majority Leader was convicted on two counts of money laundering & conspiracy in 2010;sentenced to three years.
Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy & making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors. Ney received 30 months in prison.
Duke Cunningham (R-California) pleaded guilty on November 28, 2005 to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion. Sentenced to over eight years in prison.
William J. Jefferson (D-Louisiana) in August 2005 was convicted of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison on November 13, 2009.
Jefferson’s Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was sentenced to 84 months for bribery.
Bill Janklow (R-South Dakota) convicted of second-degree manslaughter for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist.
Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) found guilty on 10 felony counts of financial corruption; was sentenced to 8 years in prison and expelled from the House.
Vito Fossella (R-New York) US Congressman convicted of drunken driving in 2008.
Larry Craig Senator (R-Idaho) – Guilty of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport men’s room, after having been arrested on a charge of homosexual lewd conduct. Senator Craig had previously stated that “people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy – a naughty boy.”
Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to a federal charge of money laundering and mail fraud in October; sentenced to 4 years..
Ronald H. Blackley, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy’s Chief of Staff, was sentenced to 27 months for perjury.
Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Was later convicted of 12 counts of bank fraud.
Walter R. Tucker III (D-California) was sentenced to 27 months in prison in 1996 for extortion and tax evasion.
Barbara-Rose Collins (D-Michigan) found to have committed 11 violations of law and house rules stemming from use of campaign funds for personal use.
Wes Cooley (R-Oregon), Cooley was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army. He was fined and sentenced to two years probation (1997)
Austin Murphy (D-Pennsylvania) convicted of voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home. (1999)
Buzz Lukens (R-Ohio) convicted of bribery and conspiracy.
Carl D. Perkins (D-Kentucky) pleaded guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).
Carroll Hubbard (D-Kentucky) convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife’s 1992 campaign to succeed him in congress.
Walter Fauntroy (D-District of Columbia) convicted of filing false disclosure forms in order to hide unauthorized income.
Dan Rostenkowski (D-Illinois) Convicted & sentenced to 18 months in prison, in 1995
Joe Kolter (D-Pennsylvania) Convicted of one count of conspiracy  and sentenced to 6 months in prison.
Jay Kim (R-California) Convicted of accepting $250,000 in illegal 1992 campaign contributions.
Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, (R) Treasurer of the United States. Pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion. (1992)
Nicholas Mavroules (D-Massachusetts) convicted of extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them.
Albert Bustamante (D-Texas) convicted of accepting bribes. (1993)
David Durenberger Senator (R-Minnesota) denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions and then disbarred (1990).
Walter Nixon US Judge (Mississippi) (appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968) Was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for perjury on November 3, (1989)
Now that’s an admittedly brief sampling of some of our leadership’s more publicized scatology over the last 20-some years. But any indication of a “White politician pass” will have to be found elsewhere, because the DOJ web data tracks no such bias.
To the supporters of Jesse Jr: Volenti non fit injuria
Ya mean that Jesse has a son that is 47 and is in Congress?
Geeba, Nobody understood just how corrupt and dysfunctional Chicago is than Royko. I’ve read “Boss” and read his column daily. I think he would be shocked to see how much Chicago has devolved since his death. Wait a minute, Royko was the consummate cynic..no he wouldn’t be shocked @ all.
Comments are closed.