Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson testified for the first time on Thursday in his bribery case, accusing the FBI agents who interviewed him at his home in 2005 of being rude, intimidating and overbearing. Jefferson stopped just short of accusing the agents of violating his constitutional right to store his bribe money next to the frozen waffles- a right enumerated directly after the one to “privacy” in the constitution. Jefferson stated the men were so intrusive that during the interview, when the Congressman abruptly left to go to the bathroom, one agent followed him and actually stood at the open bathroom door, refusing to leave.

    It may sound strange, but after $90,000 dollars cash in bribe money, taken from Nigerian, Ghanaian and Congolese businessmen was recovered from the Congressman’s freezer, the agent might well have suspected Jefferson of having squirreled away a supply of Sierra Leonean diamonds in his toilet tank.

Seperated at birth? Jefferson and his lawyer.

    At the hearing, Jefferson’s lawyers argued that due to the hostile nature of the interrogation, Jefferson “reasonably assumed” he was under arrest, and as such was entitled to be informed of his Miranda rights. Because he wasn’t, his defense is seeking the suppression of statements made at the time of the interview.

    Jefferson was mystifyingly able to glean that he was under arrest even without an actual statement of “William Jefferson, you are under arrest for [insert crime here]”. (And with Jefferson, there are certainly a lot of options to choose from). But despite being able to perceive things that aren’t there (like an arrest), Jefferson inexplicably claimed he was unaware of things actually present, i.e., his rights to remain silent and consult a lawyer.

    Beginning from a common sense approach, a politician claiming he doesn’t know of his right to ring up a lawyer the minute a park ranger cites him for littering is like an abortionist claiming never to have heard of Roe v. Wade. Those who indulge in immoral dealings are manifestly aware of the court-decreed absurdities which protect them from harm.    

    But why rely on a sense, even a common one, as they can so often be misguided and incorrect (like the sense of an arrest!). Jefferson is a graduate Harvard Law School. Unless he can somehow prove he nodded off in class the day they covered Miranda in school, Jefferson is going to have a hard time convincing anyone he was unaware of his rights (although his previous actions do seem to demonstrate he didn’t pay a whole lot of attention in Legal Ethics class). In an ironic turn of events, his Harvard law degree is proving more of a hindrance than a help at this point.

    Jefferson, anticipating this oppressive, conspiratorial statement of the facts by countering that he deals primarily in business and tax law, and has only a “fleeting” knowledge of criminal law. And yet I would be willing to bet that anyone with a “fleeting” grasp of how to work a remote control and who has ever flipped past Law and Order on television is undoubtedly aware of the standard Police Preamble preceding any arrest.

    Jefferson is the Larry Craig of the Left. A mountain of evidence against his ridiculous claims and he still doesn’t resign. The idea that a Harvard Law graduate and United States Congressman didn’t know of his Miranda rights that should have been recited to him at his imaginary arrest is the terrible mirror inversion of a recently shamed Republican’s “wide stance.”