Former NC House Speaker To Plead Guilty To Corruption Charges
In the continuing crackdown of Nancy Pelosi’s nationwide “culture of corruption,” former North Carolina House Speaker Jim Black (DEMOCRAT-Mecklenberg Co.) is expected to plead guilty to a public corruption charge in federal court in Raleigh on Thursday, ending the career of North Carolina’s most powerful speaker of the modern political era.
Under the deal, Black is expected to plead guilty to one count of accepting illegal gratuities, according to his lawyer and an Observer source. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
The court action will end a nearly two-year-long federal and state investigation that has rattled the state’s political establishment and has led to five associates of Black being found guilty in federal or state courts.
The long-running probe forced Black, 71, from the speaker’s office in December and paraded lawmakers, legislative staffers, political contributors and public officials in front of a federal grand jury.
“If the reports are correct, Thursday will be a sad day for the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Paul Stam, the House Republican leader. “I hope that every member resolves that under new management no one in the future will ever take illegal gratuities again.”
Fat chance. This is why we need to go back to the original concept of citizen-legislators both at the State and Federal levels.
Now, if only Empress Pelosi had the will or the desire to crack down on people in her own House! (*cough* Jefferson, Conyers, Life Partner Harry Reid *cough*)
[RELATED STORY - In the City of Corruption, Mayor Nagin (D-New Orleans) has been served with a contempt of court order. Couldn’t happen to a nicer incompetent.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
But don’t the partisan shills on this forum contantly assert that it’s inconceivable that a Democrat could ever be corrupt?
Let me see if I can predict how the shills will spin this. Tactic 1 will probably be “Diversion,” by bringing up as many Republican scandals as they can think of and pretending that Republicans have never been criticized here.
There will also probably be some use of Tactic 2, “Apostasy,” by claiming that this politician at one time or another sided with Republicans on some issue and therefore became contaminated and impure.
I think there’s almost a 100% chance that some Democrat borg drone will whine that it’s unfair to bring up Harry GReid and Queen Nan in the post because it had nothing to do with them (even though Bruce never said it did).
If we’re lucky, we might see some partisan deadhead assert the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” Defense not often seen, but always a hoot.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 9:25 am - February 14, 2007
You chickenhawk and homophobe and civil rights oppresser and religionist.
(Yeah, that works eqaully well as a baseless taunt from the GayLeft for Bruce and VdaK)
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 14, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - February 14, 2007
Must be Valentine’s Day - Nagin in contempt of court, Edwards’ bloggers dismissed, and no libtroll so far. Life is good!
(Doing Snoopy dance.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 14, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - February 14, 2007
I was f***ing hoping the f***ing Breck Girl would keep the f***ing bloggers.
I still think Silly 401k’s posts would be much more entertaining if he copy/pasted from Pandagon instead of MyDD.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - February 14, 2007
Also, I just shoveled about 8 inches of global warming out of my driveway and front walk. Thanks, manbearpig.
Comment by V the K — February 14, 2007 @ 1:48 pm - February 14, 2007
When I first read the headline, I thought of Liston Ramsey, but then I realized that King Liston is still dead.
Comment by Patrick Rothwell — February 14, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - February 14, 2007
Kind of ironic posting this on the day Wilkes, Foggo, and Libby are all in court, right?
I think the point is that you should never, whether Republican or Democrat, accept a politician at face value and that we are in an era where it’s a mistake to take the country’s leadership at their word. And that you should be even more skeptical than ever when a politician talks about another politician.
I find it rather sad actually, rather than the “in your face, Democrats!” way in which the post was intended. I don’t believe the framers of the Constitution ever intended to have this class of professional politicians. It highlights the great need for term limits and reinforced oversight of of the separation of powers in our government. I think it’s clear that with so many years of Republican dominance and their coelescence of power, it was bound to break down to where everyone was trying to get their grubby hands into the pie to get as much of the spoils as possible.
Comment by Just A Question — February 15, 2007 @ 12:47 am - February 15, 2007
It is easier to post the Democrats who aren’t corrupt at this point.
……I’m still thinking…..
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 15, 2007 @ 1:21 am - February 15, 2007
I think it’s clear that with so many years of Republican dominance and their coelescence of power, it was bound to break down to where everyone was trying to get their grubby hands into the pie to get as much of the spoils as possible.
Of course the liberals would NEVER do anything like that. Oh and brining up the travesty that is the Libby case? You just undermined your point.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 15, 2007 @ 1:34 am - February 15, 2007
Trying to find a Dhimmicrat who is not corrupt is almost akin to trying to find a Muslim terrorist who is concerned about global warming. And just as futile.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 15, 2007 @ 12:25 pm - February 15, 2007