Culture of Corruption

"There is indeed a culture of corruption, and it extends well beyond any single politician. It swirls around big government. It always has and it always will. It has become institutionalized in many ways. And that culture of corruption celebrates clever word games used by unelected judges to exercise power they don’t have as they rewrite the Constitution; it demeans people of faith who speak out against the culture of corruption and for — dare I say — family values; it undermines and seeks to demoralize Americans in uniform as they fight a horrible enemy on the battlefield; it demonizes entrepreneurs and successful enterprises; it uses race, age, religion, gender, and whatever works to balkanize Americans; and so on. This is the real culture of corruption. Let’s call it what it is — modern liberalism. And its impact on our society is far worse than the disorderly-conduct misdemeanor to which Larry Craig pled guilty and for which he has now resigned."

WOW, one of Mark's best!

They conducted a sting operation without any sting.

I'd say Craig got stung pretty good. The family, the job, the national news..... Craig is guilty by his own admission. I don't get Levin on this one.

The sting that was lacking was the follow through with any meaningful prosecution. What's implied by Craig's plea is that all the other men identified in the operation also likely plead out and figuratively walked back out of the restroom with misdemeanor records. A misdemeanor, which is what a 20 year old gets for having an open container at a college football tailgate party.

Yes, for Larry Craig, a quite stinging record, but for the other 23 (a made up number) men who also found themselves toe-tapping next to a cop, they've all walked back onto the streets and into other airport men's rooms with quite toothless records. What was the point of the sting operation if those caught by it all plead out?

"... Levin is in a good mood."

Glad to hear it!

The show of indignation might be impressive on a theatrical stage, but it's not relevant to the issue under discussion.

The questions posed in post 20 still await reply.

Also offered for your consideration and pertinent comment are post 117 and post 105 on related threads.

Craig entered a plea of guilty to disorderly conduct (MSS 609.746), ie. admitted to commission of acts in a public place that he knew or should have known would arouse resentment and alarm in others. That's on record.

Subsequently, he states that he "did nothing wrong." That's also on record.

These two claims can't both be true.

Either he was disingenuous to the judge or he is being disingenuous with us. It's one or the other.

Moreover, Craig now states that he's retained counsel with a view to throwing out his plea. But no competent attorney would advise him to embark on such a Quixotic venture. To accomplish this, he would have to establish that a US Senator who voluntarily waived his right to counsel was somehow the hapless victim of coercion and/or was denied due process.

Since he's surely been advised that that's not legally do-able, he's clearly grandstanding to save face. That's disingenuous too.

Correction -- the cite in post 63 should read, "MSS 609.72" (not "MSS 609.746," which would apply to the gross misdemeanor charge that was dropped in exchange for his plea).

And since I'm here again, I'll respond to the question you've raised about why the prosecutor's office permitted the more lenient remedy of plea arrangement rather than going to trial.

There were approximately 40 suspects arrested and charged during the sting operation that snared the Senator. Like Craig, some of these defendants were important people. The object of the sting was simply to clean out that public restroom and discourage further transgression, not to crowd the docket with tedious and costly media circuses. That, IMO, is why Craig was given a sweet deal.

Your personal attacks and diversions reveal a truly weak intellect. I say that not as a rant, but as an observation. Your questions are silly, given I have a long record of explaining my position and have pointed you to audio on the subject. I don’t know who you are, and the fact that you (or another) managed to write some questions and post them here is of no consequence to me. Indeed, the questions, like your debating style, such as it is, is tedious.

You forgot to say bad things about my mother.

But otherwise, your reply was perfect.

Ok, this is too good to pass up. I realize whatever I write will actually not matter to you, but I will address your questions - just once. And that’s probably one too many times:

Mr. Levin, why would a 62-tear-old man who needed to go to the bathroom walk all the way over to another terminal to do this when there were bathrooms right there in his flight terminal? Out of all the many bathrooms at that Minneapolis airport, why would he select this distant men’s room that just happened to be the only one homsexuals used for casual public sex?

(Your knowledge of bathroom locations and the gate used by Craig goes well beyond what’s available in the public record. You assume he went way out of his way to go to this particular bathroom. And I am supposed to make assumptions in response to your assumptions. You also assume this is the only bathroom used for casual public sex. I don’t know that to be true. How do you?)

Having arrived at that terminal, presumably with a full bladder and/or lower intestine, why would he stand there waiting 13 minutes for a particular stall in that bathroom?

(According to both the police officers report and the audio, he waited 1-2 minutes or thereabouts. Thirteen minutes may be some calculation you performed, but that’s not what’s in the record.)

Mr. Levin, do you consider it normal behavior for a man in a public toilet stall to keep placing his foot and hand under the divider into an adjacent occupied stall?

(He didn’t keep placing his foot under the divider. He tapped his foot and their shoes touched after the officer slid his foot toward the divider. If he was intending to touch the officer’s shoe, as alleged, then I would not consider that normal behavior. If he did not intend to touch the officer’s shoe, then it’s of no consequence as Craig explained.)

Do you consider it normal and expected behavior for that man to slide his foot so deeply into the adjacent stall that it actually contacts the foot of the person sitting in that neighboring stall?

(Once again, you take liberties with the record. He slid his foot so deeply into the adjacent stall? And how deep would that be? And what is your source for this? As I said above, the officer slid his shoe toward the divider and their shoes touched. The officer neither said nor wrote that he slid his foot deep into his stall. For all we know, it was a matter of an inch or two. But who knows.)

Mr. Levin, how is it possible for a sitting man to have his pant waist at mid-thigh and abduct his leg that far without tearing his pants?

(I assume this is a joke. Either that or you are as sick as you claim Craig to be - and he may well be sick.)

Why would a powerful and well-to-do man who is arrested for something he didn’t do waive his right to legal counsel, confess, pay a fine and submit to conditions of probation?

(Now, this is a rhetorical question as Craig has provided his answer, which you don’t accept. He was scared. He was told by the officer that if he pled guilty and paid $500, it would go away. He was stupid. But I could ask a different question. If the officer had him dead to rights, why didn’t the prosecutor take the case to trial? Why let him plead to a misdemeanor? Wasn’t the point of the sting to stop lewd behavior and soliciting for sex? What kind of message does pleading to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, a relative slap on the hand, send the right message to those who are not public officials but conduct themselves in this manner?)

And why would such a man not tell his wife about all this injustice to which he was subjected?

(I assume it would depend on his relationship with his wife. This is not a question any of us can answer. And it proves nothing. But your implication is that he was soliciting gay sex in the bathroom and that’s why he didn’t tell his wife. Yet, that’s not what he pled to. That’s not deal the government accepted, either. In fact, the government offered the lesser misdemeanor of disorderly conduct, and that was even a weak case.)

Mr. Levin, would you trust a man who admitted guilt before a judge but subsequently denied his guilt on camera?

(I would or would not trust him as much as someone who comes on this thread, anamously, and misstates the facts in this case and throws around insinuations to prove a point. I don’t him and I don’t you. I trust people I know and with whom I’ve had experiences that earn my trust.)

And Mr. Levin, are you aware that when the 1982 page boy sex scandal broke, Senator Craig was the only legislator in Congress who publicly insisted “it wasn’t me” — before anybody had even suggested that it was?

(Now, isn’t this clever. Why don’t you cite us to your source, and in doing so we can read the context for this. I’ve heard several liberal Democrat operatives assert this, and I assume that’s where you picked this up, before I directed you to do some research. Don’t peddle in liberal talking points. I won’t trust you anymore.)

And lastly, Mr. Levin, wouldn’t you agree that there is no rational explanation for all this strange behavior on Mr. Craig’s part, other than his intent to initiate sexual activity in that bathroom?

(Let me rephrase this question: I am being asked, “Mr. Levin, don’t you agree that everything I said is so brilliant, and that no one can possible disagree with me?” Well, many do disagree with you. I stand by the article I posted. Craig may be everything you insinuate, but insinuation it is. He’s gone now, so it doesn’t matter much.)

Tell me, have you been stalking this thread all day, and yesterday? Apparently so.

This is the real culture of corruption. Let’s call it what it is — modern liberalism.

No, it's the corruption of perpetual power. And the cure is term limits. For the elected politicians, the government employees who like to think that being on a government payroll is the same as being a public servant, the lobbyists who spend corporate profits to bribe elected officials to swing votes their way, and the media types who never leave the Beltway in DC the same way they never leave the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Now some questions for you:

1. When you go to the public bathroom at an airport, do you always go to the bathroom closest to your gate?

2. Have you ever waited a minute or two because the stalls in the bathroom are full?

3. When you sit in a bathroom stall, have you ever placed your brief case or luggage in front of your feet toward the door as opposed to next to the toilet?

4. A listener called a local host on WMAL in Washington and recounted how he was in a bathroom stall at the airport and the person next to him slid his foot toward his. He said he stomped on the other person’s foot. It happened to be a police officer doing a sting operation. The listener had been accused of soliciting sex for stomping on the officer’s foot. The matter was eventually dropped. Don’t you think a little more than shoes touching is required before you can actually read somebody’s mind?

5. Have you ever done anything you’ve kept secret from your wife or other family members? If so, what was it?

6. Before this case, have you ever heard of another case where someone is accused of lewd behavior without — exposing himself, touching himself, touching another person, or saying a single word? If so, what case would that be?

7. Why would local prosecutors cut a deal with Craig in which he would admit guilt to a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct when they could have presumably prosecuted him for a gross misdemeanor and sent a much stronger message to would-be bathroom perverts?

8. If the officer is involved in bathroom sting operations all the time, why didn’t he invite Craig to take more definitive steps toward soliciting sex, or is it possible the officer didn’t think Craig would take the bait?

Ok, chew on those for a while. Off to dinner. Now, I know you will be hovering over your computer and this thread for hours. But don’t consider my absence anything but a desire to ignore you at this point. Thank me!

LOL!!!

There's no proof of anything here, other than Senator Craig's mistake of trying to make it go away instead of saying the whole thing is bullshit.

That's all he did wrong, and if you are honest, you will agree.

Hardly. I expect a United States Senator to stand up to some airport cop falsely accusing him of a crime.

An innocent Senator shouldn't cower, but explain what he did in court, or in hearings in the Senate. If he is innocent, that policeman should be the one in trouble.

Hardly. I expect a United States Senator to stand up to some airport cop falsely accusing him of a crime.

An innocent Senator shouldn't cower, but explain what he did in court, or in hearings in the Senate. If he is innocent, that policeman should be the one in trouble.

I agree with you, Craig should have fought this from the beginning.

That was his mistake. That's all I'm saying. There's no crime here. Now he intends to fight to clear his name.That's what he should have done initially, of course, but at least he's doing it now. I say we give him the chance.

Thanks,smoothsailing. Great video!

"Furthermore, analyzing the facts of case is an attempt to show how smart someone is? Well, then, I suppose the opposite is true, i.e., refusing to analyze the facts of a case shows how stupid you are."

LOL! Now THAT is why I so liked you from the first time I saw you. NO one in the movement is as funny, quickwitted and simultaneously on target as you. : )

All with half-a-brain tied behind you back. Not bad, Mr. Levin.

Good stuff, guy. I figured you'd get a kick out this.:-)

There are numerous levels of legal problems here. Is the stall conversation via non verbal communication still communication? Probably so, given that sex dancers are protected by the First Amendment.

BUT, is conversation about committing an illegal act not “conspiracy”?

“Conspiracy” laws are a two edged sword. A sword which cuts the citizen on the fore and back stroke, I might add.

When we allow government to criminalize thoughts, thoughts or words - not acts!, we have stepped onto the slippery slope to totalitarian government.

Blackstone was right. It is better to allow ten guilty to go free than jail one innocent man. The guilty will continue to offend and will eventually be caught, but if the innocent are jailed then confidence in the justness of government is diminished.

I suggest that the weakening of citizen confidence/support of the Constitution and the Republic is the goal of many who are employed as lawyers, judges, ad nauseam.

These traitors are followers of the Critical Theory. Those intellectual trash believed that only by constantly carping a critical analysis of every issue, could the Americans be convinced to abandon their beliefs.

Such was the power of traditional American beliefs that unless the Americans could be convinced to abandon them, communism could never have “its day in the sun”.

Perhaps, this explains the constant carping, griping, denigration, etc coming from the Lamestream Media.

I loved seeing Arlen Specter say on Sunday that Craig had only expressed an intent to resign, that he could withdraw is guilty plea, and that as a former prosecutor he thought he could not be convicted.

Now, you say he may have been in a conspiracy anonymously with the cop. That toe tapping and hand waving could be a conspiracy, but against who or what?

In my mind, the drive by media placed him in double jeopardy and tried and sentenced him again. He had no counsel in this court of public opinion which is not constrained by the rules of evidence. I know from my own experience that they can and do stage these assassinations by media when they don't have the facts on their side. They make it all up. Richard Jewell got some damages paid, but that is very, very unusual.

Where did this unrelenting smear campaign really come from, three months after the fact. Larry Flynt? CREW? Unlike the Mark Foley assassination, we don't know who ginned this up.

“7. Why would local prosecutors cut a deal with Craig in which he would admit guilt to a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct when they could have presumably prosecuted him for a gross misdemeanor and sent a much stronger message to would-be bathroom perverts?”

Excellent question.