Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. under federal investigation over alleged financial improprieties

By
October 12, 2012

It looks as though his absence reportedly due to bi-polar disorder may have also been a bit convenient. This doesn’t involve previous allegations of his buying his seat from Blagojevich. Nice Friday night news dump.

Federal prosecutors and FBI agents in Washington have launched a new criminal investigation of Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. involving alleged financial improprieties, including possible misuse of funds monitored by Congress, law enforcement sources tell NBC News.

The probe prompted lawyers for Jackson — who has been on a leave of absence from Congress since June for medical treatment — to meet with federal prosecutors this week in an attempt to persuade them not to bring charges against the congressman, sources said.

More via Open Channel.

Plus, more details via the Chicago Sun Times.

Rather, the probe — based in the Washington, D.C., FBI field office —is focusing on “suspicious activity” involving the congressman’s finances related to his House seat and the possibility of inappropriate expenditures, the sources said.

The probe was active in the weeks prior to Jackson taking a leave from his U.S. House seat on June 10, a leave his office ultimately attributed to his need for treatment for bipolar disorder, the sources said.

It was unclear whether the investigation involved the congressman’s official House spending account or his campaign finance account. But one source said it was an account monitored by Congress.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Chipperoo says:

    Can I make one thing clear to NBC News:

    There’s no such thing as a “leave of absence” for a sitting US Representative.

    There’s no one who can give Jackson a “leave” for his “absence” because he is answerable solely to his district’s voters.

    This is more properly described as dereliction of duty.

    If he cannot perform the office, he owes it to his constituents to resign.