The Congressional Black Caucus is furious at Nancy Pelosi for throwing Rep. Bill Jefferson under the bus because the Corporate Media says the FBI found $90,000 in bribe cash in his freezer.

Kos stands with Pelosi. So does Stoller. I stand with the Black Caucus.

Why? Not because I stand with Jefferson, who is a DLC hack best known for his outspoken advocacy of CAFTA.

I stand with the Black Caucus because its Members include some of the most progressive Members of Congress, period. Here is the breakdown of the House Progressive Caucus, which includes 27 of the 43 black Members (63%).

And here are the progressive vote rankings from ProgressivePunch.org:

• 3. Barbara Lee
• 8. Jesse Jackson Jr.
• 10. Donald Payne
• 19. John Lewis
• 20. Major Owens
• 23. John Conyers
• 26. Maxine Waters
• 31. Melvin Watt
• 33. Diane Watson
• 35. Gwen Moore
• 36. Danny Davis
• 38. Bobby Rush
• 42. Cynthia McKinney
• 45. Charles Rangel
• 46. Carolyn Kilpatrick

That's 15 out of the top 50 - 30% - even though blacks are 21% (43/202) of the 202 House Democrats.

On the cutting-edge issue of impeachment, there are only 37 Members who support H.Res.635, John Conyers' bill to create a Watergate-style Select Committee to investigate Bush's impeachable offenses. Of the 37, 14 are black - that's 38%.

And finally, let's not forget the historic date of January 6, 2001, when Congress met in joint session to count the Electoral College votes from 2000, including Florida's crucial 25 Electors, which were stolen by Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the Felonious Five of the Supreme Court.

While millions of Americans felt the election was stolen, it was only the Congressional Black Caucus - led by Rep. Alcee Hastings (left) - that was willing to file a formal challenge against Florida's illegal electors. That historic event was barely covered in the media at the time, but gained fame two years later in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.

When progressives need allies in Congress, we rarely find them in the House leadership. But we do find them in the Black Caucus, so if I have to choose, that's where I stand.

Update 1: I stand with Kos and Attractive Nuisance on this (Update II):

Dem Caucus Should Change Their Rules and say that anyone that is the subject of a criminal investigation must temporarily step down from their caucus or committee leadership positions until the investigation is resolved. Otherwise, like the Cynthia McKinney incident, the issue devolves into whether members of the CBC are being treated differently than white members in similar situations.

Such a rule should've already existed (assuming it doesn't).

Update 2: I stand with Christy Hardin Smith on the Constitutional issues:

The separation of powers question comes in because the FBI entered Jefferson’s office — in a Congressional office building —  at a time when Congress was in session to conduct the investigation.
This triggers a confrontation under the "speech and debate" clause in the Constitution.  The question on the validity of the warrant will be, I think, whether or not there was some triggering piece of information that Rep. Jefferson was attempting to use his office as a means to hide illicit information and/or to shield himself and whether that was the basis for obtaining the warrant.  If Rep. Jefferson was using his constitutional protections as a means to avoid prosecution, then the warrant may stand up — because you never, ever want to reward someone for using a loophole to subvert the investigative process — Congressman or not.

Absent some extraordinary showing of that sort, an executive branch investigative agency would not have the authority to do this sort of search on Legislative branch property.  It has never, in the history of the Congress, been done before.  It’s really unprecedented — that’s why I’m wondering if there was an extraordinary show of cause in the warrant as to why this needed to be done, because I can’t think of any other valid reason for a federal judge to grant them access under the "speech and debate" protections that usually are in place.

And I do wonder why it took the FBI months and months after allegedly finding all this cold, hard cash in Rep. Jefferson’s freezer before they decided to search his office — at a time when GOP corruption stories were all over the news.

I mean, honestly, the timing is a little weird and I wonder what they needed from the Congressional office that they didn’t already have with their videotape of Jefferson allegedly accepting a bribe, the videotape of him allegedly removing said money from the back of the briber’s car and taking it to his own and then the alleged finding of the cash in his freezer.  Why raid his Congressional office when you have a case that seems pretty darn solid?  There are investigative reasons to do so — but it was a truly unprecedented move, and one that ought to have required very extraordinary circumstances before it was executed.

I suppose my confusion arises from the fact that Duke Cunningham, former representative from California who has now plead guilty to bribery charges, wrote out a "bribe menu" on his Congressional office stationary…and they didn’t search his office.  And Tom DeLay has been running a virtual KStreet ATM machine for the GOP out of his office…and it hasn’t been raided.  Or the fact that Bob Ney’s office has remained intact.  Or…well, you get the picture.

And because this is the Bush Administration, you can color me slightly suspicious about the timing and the motivation on this — even as I sit here thinking that Rep. Jefferson ought to consider resigning.  Now.

Either way, though, the Speaker and the Minority leader, as well as the Senate leadership are absolutely correct in standing firm on their "speech and debate" rights to no searches.  This was put into place to prevent the sorts of abuses of the King going into the houses and/or offices of his political enemies to gin up a case against them (sound like any Administration we know?) — and they are absolutely correct to fight any weakening of this protection tooth and nail.

I’d do the same thing.