Your Opinion, Please!

[H2O Man]

Suppose that you given a couple of tickets in May. And, in August, you made a guilty plea on but one of charges -- the lesser one. How does that happen?

It isn't from going back later and talking to the officer who ticketed you. And you do not simply walk in to court and tell the judge that you are going to cop a plea to the lesser charge.


There is another step involved -- one that many DUers seem to have overlooked.

[berni_mccoy]

1. You give the court something it wants?

Not sure what the context of this scenario is...

[H2O Man]

2. What you give

is your willingness to cop a plea. But there is someone else, besides the fellow being charged and the judge, involved in reducing charges.

[blondeatlast]

4. Aha--we do seem to be thinking on the same wavelength (see below). nt

[berni_mccoy]

6. The prosecutor...

Could the guilty have something on him or the prosecutor got something more from the guilty party that they can use to get a bigger fish.

[H2O Man]

7. It's routine.

Any prosecutor will do that. It's no biggie, in and of itself. But it indicates that the senator is lying -- shocking! -- about what took place during the summer months.

[berni_mccoy]

8. Ah, I wasn't certain if this was about Craig or not

Now I see what you are getting at. I agree with your conclusion.

[H2O Man]

32. The record of the June 22 visit

would seem to verify this.

[Major Hogwash]

48. Eggsactly!

Craig had enough time to think about this and decide what he was going to do about it.

Craig didn't go to jail.
He wasn't even handcuffed.
The whole thing was just like paying a traffic ticket.

[H2O Man]

53. His behavior

when speaking to the police officer indicate a person who was consciously attempting to manipulate the discussion. I think he has continued to try to manipulate the episode.

[blondeatlast]

9. Can we discuss the seemingly boneheaded decision not to get a lawyer?

Maybe he already had one, so to speak (as in the DA's office)?

[H2O Man]

19. Well,

I don't think he had one in the DA's office. But someone must have approached the DA's office. Either he did -- which is a very clear indication of his insight on how to navigate the legal system (possibly with advice/assistance), or someone else did.

But his story is fiction. Listen to him talk to the police officer: you have a person attempting to manipulate the situation. He tries to plant seeds: cops shouldn't entrap; he has a wide stance; and it had to have been his right hand.

The republicans are dumping him, because they know there are other details.

[texpatriot2004]

109. The "other details" aspect is very interesting. Like the Rethugs

are dumping him over this issue so as to minimize these "other details" and by doing so have gained the "cooperation" of Craig.

I have a feeling that, somewhere, there is a concerted effort to expose people in official positions, especially those "family values" types for this behavior. It is as if there are people behind the scenes actively working to bring these things to light. I have a hard time believing that Foley, Vitter, Craig et al were revealed by coincidence.

[librechik]

105. Not the DA--the DOJ gave him a lawyer

the most senior lawyer in the land, who has previously gotten high-level offenders off serious charges with breathtaking dispatch.

[smoogatz]

80. Not necessarily.

Because of the expense to the state/municipality, prosecutors are under a great deal of pressure, in all but the most sensational cases, not to go to trial. Prosecutors almost always push defendants to plead to the lesser charge in order to avoid a jury trial. It's routine to charge defendants with two offenses, the greater of which carries substantial fines or even potential prison time, and the lesser of which has a reduced fine, etc. It's basically a way of blackmailing defendants into pleading guilty: cop to the lesser charge, or take your chances with a (very public) jury trial or court hearing. The vast majority of criminal charges are resolved this way; if it weren't for plea deals, the courts would be completely overwhelmed.

[H2O Man]

82. And thus

it is indeed routine. It happens all the time.

[blondeatlast]

3. A third hand? I mean, if you are talking about what I'm pretty damn certain you are

talking about, the DECISION not to consult a lawyer just makes no damn sense at all--or maybe it does?

My mind is reeling at this, but the decision to forego a lawyer just doesn't seem at all plausible.

[H2O Man]

5. If you have three

traffic tickets, and you want to plea to the lesser one in court, who do you talk to to arrange that?

[warrior1]

10. I don't think

with a traffic ticket you could plea to the lesser charge. If your talking about the LC case, then the plea of guilty to the lesser charge was suppose to make the whole thing go away, it didn't, because of who he was.

[Stephanie]

11. for traffic tickets?

I don't think there is even a prosecutor involved for traffic tickets. The clerk?

[H2O Man]

20. Though I can't speak

for that state, I can say that in upstate New York, a person can't get a moving violation dropped to a non-moving violation, for example, without the DA's okay. The legal system, in every state, has a structure. If you wanted to fight a traffic ticket where you live, how would that be done?

[Emit]

55. Here in my city it's through an assistant DA who fields for the judge. n/t

[blondeatlast]

12. Clarification, please--would the LC case have been referred to the DA or not?

Or should I only be looking at the "mechanics" of the court regarding simply traffic tickets?

Confused! :shrug:

[Stephanie]

14. Here's the complaint - referred by the cop to the city attorney >

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

He pleads guilty to Disorderly Conduct but not to the other charge of Peeping.

His Petition looks to have been prepared by a lawyer, unless he did it himself...?

[H2O Man]

21. Right.

The City Attorney was approached.

Usually, I tell people to focus on "why?" as opposed to merely "how?" In this case, look at both. A picture emerges.

[Jim__]

13. Just a note on this.

More than once, I've gotten a speeding ticket and then had the court mail me a plea bargain, letting me plead to a cheap no-points violation if I just plead and mail in the ticket. My guess is they don't want you taking up court time.

I can't remember from listening to the tape, did the cop change the ticket to disorderly conduct? If not, the "court" (whoever that is) may have offered a plea to a lesser chage just to dispose of a nuisance case.

[Stephanie]

15. The complaint lists two offenses.

Peeping and disorderly conduct. He pleads to disorderly.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

"I am entering my pleas of guilty based on the following plea agreement with the prosecutor." Fined $575.00.

[Jim__]

18. Thanks - n/t

[H2O Man]

23. That's not

a "plea bargain" when you mail in the ticket. That's a simple plea. A plea bargain would be making a plea to a reduced charge.

[Stephanie]

38. So he got one of the charges dropped.

He got the name of the assigned atty from the cop, he called him up himself and negotiated a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. You must contact the prosecutor or town attorney.

And negotiate a plea bargain.

It varies as to who exactly you contact depending on the location, but there is one form of prosecutor of another that has been assigned to the case always.

[H2O Man]

24. Thank you.

People should realize that there is a reason that republicans are dropping this fellow so quickly.

[Stephanie]

40. I still don't get it!

So he called up the prosecutor and negotiated a plea. The prosecutor agreed to drop the charge of PEEPing in exchange for guilty plea on disorderly conduct. Republicans are dropping him because he's a known peeper?

[H2O Man]

41. It appears

that someone did. It isn't as important to know exactly who, as to recognize that someone seems to have. It indicates a pretty fair knowledge of how the system works. A person who, under these circumstances, went in to court and made a guilty plea can not have done so without having paid close attention.

[mod mom]

75. Thanks H2O Man, here I thought they used NSA stuff to "urge" him to resign.

[Stephanie]

17. So he bargained with the prosecutor...

So what are you saying? Not sure what you're getting at...

[H2O Man]

25. Either he did,

or someone else did.

[Stephanie]

28. well he clearly had an attorney

from the plea he submitted, either the prosecutor drew that up or his atty did it. I am sure he had an attorney, not sure why he wants to lie about that though. is he an atty himself?

[hootinholler]

29. Are you implying that "I DA HO" wasn't nessecarily a state in this case?

The cop doesn't seem the type to stand for a falsified report, wouldn't a third party be mentioned?

-Hoot

[H2O Man]

31. No.

The cop would not be involved in anything after the initial charge, unless the senator fought the charges in court.

[Stephanie]

33. well at that point the cop is the complainant but the prosecution is by the city atty

Either his attorney helped him draw up the plea, or the city attorney drew it up and he signed it. But I am sure he had someone look it over in that case.

[H2O Man]

34. Read the 6-22 report

of the senator's visit to the police.

[Stephanie]

36. yes, he says he needs contact info for his attorneys

and the officer puts him on the phone with Karsnia, who arrested him in the first place, and Karsnia tells him that when he has finished all his complaints he will hand them over to the city attorney, and he gives Craig the name of the city attorney.

So you're pointing at the fact that he comes back one week later (weird, yes) to find out the contact info for the prosecutor? You think he's lying about having attorneys? You think he attempted to intimidate the prosecutor or something? Not sure what you're implying.

[Stephanie]

37. and here's Karsnia's report on that incident >

[H2O Man]

42. I think the senator

was not alone in charting the course that he took. It is not important if he simply ran it by an attorney, then took action on his own, or if an attorney made a call. What is important is that the senator's claim to being kind of confused by the whole deal, and just making a simple plea to make it go away, is a lie.

There are other layers here. There almost always are.

[blondeatlast]

64. Somehow his "rejection" of legal counsel just sounds too boneheaded to be believed.

It's contrived, IMHO, to make it appear that it was just a "misunderstanding."

The RRRs are too damn clever to have let him go along without an attorney.

I've sniffed something from the moment I heard that he didn't feel the need for legal counsel. "It's so stupid it's brilliant," as I told my husband.

[H2O Man]

66. He seems to

tell half-truths/half-lies (I know: shocking for a politician!) much of the time.

[hootinholler]

39. Hmmm, Detective Karsnia edits the entry 4 days later?

I wonder what the edit was!

-Hoot

[H2O Man]

47. He appears

to have added his description of his 6-22 discussion with the senator. This is routine.

[TahitiNut]

67. Little did I know that day that the State of Minnesota was giving me ...

... a birthday present!!! It took a while to unwrap. I should take the time now to send them a Thank You note.

:party: :party:

[PA Democrat]

60. The plea agreement states that he is NOT represented by an attorney.

That leads me to believe that Craig contacted the city attorney himself to work out a deal. The prosecutor, in this case the city attorney, must agree to a plea deal. While the prosecutor does have a great deal of discretion in whether to drop charges, I have to wonder if there was some political wheeling and dealing going on here because of who Craig was.

[lonestarnot]

22. A plea must be copped in open court on the damn record. But then

justice is fucked these days.

[spanone]

26. kick for enlightenment

[bridgit]

27. um, well, isn't entering a plea in such a manner, almost regardless of time-line...

that so consciously tinkers, or toys with due process in what is hoped to be your own favor; considered a form of obstruction of due process, or some disrespect of/for law as a practical matter

[H2O Man]

30. I believe that

people should take a very close look at the June 22 police report, and consider it in the context of what this thread focuses on. The senator wanted to complain about his "mistreatment" by the police officer the day in question. More, he indicated he needed information for his attorney.

It is good to put these pieces of the puzzle together.

[bridgit]

35. no doubt he had/has an issue with several moving parts that would've been better...

laid beneath the purview of others more able to sort them out, cause he seemed to be improvising on a theme if not moonlighting, so as to say...

what's that adage about the fool as his own attorney x(

[BeFree]

43. What?

You mean he is a peeper, too?

Tell ya what, if some guy is peeping on me in a public place while I'm peeing, the guy loses. Both of us would be going to jail.

So why do you think Craig is getting so much support on DU? Could it be they are knee-jerking over something they don't know the half of?

[H2O Man]

44. I think the

officer did his job well. There is an adequate record of his actions to support that. I am suggesting that people focus on what happened between the charges, and the guilty plea.

[blondeatlast]

69. I was just about to post a similar statement.

Too many trying to make this a political issue--but it isn't anything like it.

It's not homosexuality, closeted or not--it's about a perverted act (the peeping and touching) in a public place. Period.

[Rockholm]

45. K&R.

Nice work H2OMan...as always.

[H2O Man]

46. Thanks.

The senator has made a series of errors in judgement. The most recent one was his public statement, which resulted in the police releasing the recording of his conversation with the police officer.

The republicans are aware that the senator is likely to make another error, if he doesn't resign very soon.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

49. Hey I know it's a derail from this thread and was probably mentioned in one of the billion others,

but how exactly DID the story leak out? Did a news organization simply pick up his name on some police blotter or published court proceedings with his arrest/conviction?

I can see how with a somehow generic name like "Larry Craig" how the guy had at least slight hope that no one'd notice, :rofl: .

[H2O Man]

51. I think that is

an interesting thing to consider. It sure changed the focus from Gonzales to "sex" mighty fast, didn't it?

[Stephanie]

58. It was reportedly an anonymous tip to Congressional Quarterly.

Which prompted the Idaho Statesman to go ahead with a story they had been holding due to threats from Craig's office. Maybe someone in the MN attorney's office or police department or courthouse was ticked off?

[Stephanie]

81. It's interesting that CQ got the tip, isn't it?

That indicates that it wasn't someone in MN who tipped off the press, it was someone on the Hill, more likely.

[H2O Man]

50. MSNBC's David Shuster

just announced that Craig will resign tomorrow, per AP.

[notadmblnd]

52. Send the ticket in with your money.

Unless of course the ticket says you must appear in court.

[H2O Man]

54. Or if you

want to get the tickets reduced.

[notadmblnd]

56. last time I went to court for a ticket, I spoke with the officer

who gave it to me. but when I went to court with a family member on a criminal charge, she had to speak with the prosecutor.

[H2O Man]

57. That's nice. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

59. Assessment of guilt & consequences, whether on you own or with the advice of counsel.

Obviously, he decided the risk of going to trial or challenging the charge(s) were not worth the potential consequences.

Obviously.

[Stephanie]

61. Yes but who made that negotiation?

Did he call the City Attorney himself? He came to the window of the POC a week after the arrest, appearing agitated, and said he needed to know the status of his case and the contact person, "for his attorneys," (I don't think any attorney would advise his client to stop by the police station himself to get this information, but anyway). The POC put him on the phone with the arresting officer, who told him the case would be handed over to the City Attorney in a few days, and he gave him the name and number. Five weeks later he pleads guilty to one of the charges (disorderly conduct) and the other charge is somehow dropped (peeping). Who talked to who? What exactly was the deal that was cut?

[H2O Man]

63. Keep in mind

that there was likely to be an ethics probe, due to the senator attempting to pull rank by using his "official" ID. That was improper. Consider the possibilities for if he made the contact with the city attorney.

[havocmom]

72. Ya gonna make me hunt up the name of the city attorney

and hunt around to see if he got any sudden promotions to DOJ or are just just gonna tell us? ;)

[Garbo 2004]

96. Actually the prosecuting attorney for the Airport Commission is in private practice.

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3401736_1?noconfirm=0 The law firm he belongs to handles misdemeanor cases for the Commission: http://www.mspairport.com/police/investigations/default.aspx

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

65. HE initiated all of it and HE made a 'weighed' decision. HE is responsible.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that HE engaged in TONS of consideration about what his best options.

For him to now try to escape that is just fucking silly considering the power and resources he has at hand compared with the average person, like me.

I apologize in advance for my language. I just think it is ridiculous that anyone suggests this guy was somehow 'powerless' under the circumstances (not saying you are the 'suggestion' among the incredulous posts I've seen, here, throughout the day).

[H2O Man]

68. Otherwise

he took a heck of a long time to not give it much thought.

[Binka]

62. My Money Says Norm Coleman Is Involved

This could be dynamite for the Franken campaign, and the powers that be are pushing Larry out before he blows Norms chances in 2008. Coleman is involved in pulling favors for Larry. FWIW I have always thought Norm was a deeply closeted homosexual.

[H2O Man]

70. It's interesting

to see which republicans started casting stones the soonest.

[Garbo 2004]

89. Mitch McConnell was among the first.

And from earlier this year re: Mitch... http://www.blogactive.com/2007/03/my-old-kentucky-homo.html

[havocmom]

71. Yep, another step and other people involved

Now, a GOP governor gets to appoint a replacement for a guy who was probably gonna have a tough re-election campaign. That newly appointed senator will have the perks that come with being an incumbent when campaign time comes around here pretty soon. All the perks of incumbency with none of the baggage of being an incumbent who carried water for the failing GOP agenda. Wow, that's a help for the RNC!

This all took place a couple months ago but comes out now, when things are getting pretty damned hot for the cheney/bush junta. Now, when people are bristling about bushco's instance on expanding war by attacking Iran on the old WMD pretense. (Do check my sig line.) Interesting timing. Interesting that this titillating, but not too important, story gets outed now.

Yes. There were other steps in between arrest and cop-a-plea day. Other steps, other people. Bet there were phone calls making arrangements, court appointments and attending to all those pesky details that have to be tied up in a nice plea-deal package.

Intriguing that this story gets popped out now. Guess RNC couldn't find any missing blond women stories to pimp on the news. This is certainly more riveting (and diverting) than the report on Iraq that got leaked before it got scrubbed. Much less dangerous than letting America keep asking 'Where's the emails?' and hounding their reps on the Hill to do something about an out of control executive branch that will not comply with subpoenas.

If Craig was a hapless victim, like a few talking-point spewing cooking munchers have tried to color him here on DU, he is a victim not of any police 'entrapment' but of someone who knew what he did and used his indiscretion when they needed to.

Question for GOP pols: How is that wiretapping thing working for y'all?

[H2O Man]

74. "....he is a victim

not of any police 'entrapment' but someone who knew what he did and used his indiscretion when they needed to." True.

[stillcool]

73. I think he should have..

brushed up on his people and/or peeping skills. It seems like he exacerbated an already bad situation.

[formercia]

76. I've seen a lot worse

I watched the boys get someone off on a murder charge. They negotiated a back door deal to have it reduced to justifiable homicide and it never even went to court. They had a fish fry afterwords to celebrate beating the system.

It's done on a regular basis if one has the right connections.

[H2O Man]

77. Sure.

This was routine. The city attorney's agreeing to reduce the charge is not an issue. The senator's pretending that he simply made a guilty plea is what is of interest.

[formercia]

78. The boys like people with 'flaws'

They are easier to co-opt and in return for their support, they do them favors, such as making charges go away.

[H2O Man]

83. Exactly.

It may be hard for younger Americans to fully appreciate, for example, how Hoover controlled so much of Washington, DC.

[formercia]

84. That's why Hoover kept dossiers on any one of importance.

If anyone gave him trouble, he would send one of the boys over with a copy of their dossier and let them read it.
End of problem.

By getting people off on murder charges, they keep others in line by implicitly saying "We can get you killed and the guy that does it won't spend a day in jail."

If you cooperate, you're golden.

OMERTA.

[havocmom]

100. Ever think McCain got of awfully easy in the Keating Five mess?

That pic of him hugging bush, looking like he was about to sob.... Oh, yes, they like 'em flawed. The help works cheaper when their bacon has been singed just enough for them to know heat, and fear it.

Wire taps for terror suspects? :rofl: J. Edgar would be so proud of the boys.

[formercia]

102. A little bit of public groveling goes a long way.

:rofl:

[DemReadingDU]

79. Interesting thread

It helps to clear up some questions. Thanks to everyone.

[blondeatlast]

85. Midmorning kick. nt

[eleny]

86. Since he was a rancher, according to Wiki, he surely would have needed legal counsel

This isn't something you resolve on your own with his grass roots background. As a rep and senator he surely has made many contacts to draw upon to help maneuver through this dilema. But I think those contacts would want to stay in the shadows. This circumstance could be damaging to anyone connected in any way. He may have very well just called in a favor to get verbal advice on how to handle things after he bungled them at the start.

I don't know why anyone in the Republican Party would blow things up like this in order to dump him - even if he was facing a tough reelection. Other scandals got dragged back to the spotlight. My guess is that it caught them by surprise and they acted quickly to make him go away.

One thing I wondered about was his getting married and having the kids. Now I read further in Wiki that his three kids are his wife's by a previous marriage. He adopted them as his own. He could have taken her as a beard.

I believe that he managed to run through the raindrops and never get wet in the past. Now he got caught and he bungled the situation. The Party is in big trouble but he's too arrogant ("What do you think of that") and stubborn to admit who he is and fade into the woodwork with a quick admission of guilt and immediate resignation.

[byronius]

87. K & R for deeper waters.

[snappyturtle]

88. K&R While listening to the interrogation tapes I was impressed

by Senator Craig's coolness to this notably awful situation. Makes me wonder if he has been caught before and that the flashing of his calling card or accusation of a set up previously worked to his advantage. I am familiar with the MSP airport and am amazed that he went so far from the gate areas to go to the Northstar Crossing restroom. He passed many,many restrooms in between which leads me to suspect he knew exactly where he was going. The Northstar area is right behind the ticket counters and just past security check points so anyone there would need to be ticketed. This restroom is the first after checking in and in an area of gift shops, phone banks,and eateries. After arriving, by an incoming flt., this restroom would be as far out of the way as he could have gone! I don't know why this intriques me but it does.

[H2O Man]

94. His behavior

during the questioning was telling.

[bleever]

90. Here's an interesting detail:

According to a caller to the Ed Schultz show who said he was a public prosecutor in Hennepin County, Craig's plea agreement was suspicious in two ways. First, rather than being the standard form with the blanks filled in by hand, it was typed up to conform (mostly) to the standard form. In other words, either Craig or someone with specific know-how created this plea agreement after some consideration.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, his plea agreement omits the standard paragraph wherein the defendant acknowledges his right to an attorney, to have one appointed should the defendant be unable to afford an attorney, and willingly and knowingly waives his right to an attorney.

Plea agreement here:

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html

Intriguing to think of who else had to be involved for things to happen the way the did. Excellent catch, H2O Man!

[H2O Man]

93. It is important

that we never take anything these people say on face value. Never.

[formercia]

103. It wasn't filled in by hand

in order to conceal the identity of the author, methinks.

Hand writing analysis might have revealed the perp.

[Garbo 2004]

91. Yes, Craig made it sound like he plead out ASAP in some sort of confused fog. But he plead 2 months

after the arrest to one lesser charge after having reached an agreement with the prosecutor's office. Clearly after some negotiation either by Craig and/or someone on his behalf. Copy of Craig's plea petition here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig9.html

One wonders if perhaps this was not the first time Craig had to deal with uh, an "unfortunate misunderstanding" of a legal nature... Were there other incidents that were buried or made to go away?

[H2O Man]

92. I've been around

a lot of people who are able to remain relatively calm under that sort of pressure. It isn't something that tends to come naturally.

[H2O Man]

95. Fox News

at 6:35 pm est reports that the senator indeed had consulted an attorney.

[treestar]

97. Prosecutors overcharge

The threat of conviction on the greater charge is always still there. So it encourages the person to plead to the lesser charge in fear of the possibility of the penalty for the bigger charge.

I had a friend once who was charged with "robbery." He had been fighting with a girlfriend over something. It was a physical sort of fight. He then took the item.

He had taken it "by force" so they charged him with "robbery" the equivalent of someone holding up a bank with a gun.

Made it easier to get him to plea to theft.

[H2O Man]

99. While some may

"overcharge," most try not to. However, in this case, the charges were made by the officer who made the arrest.

[bleever]

98. I figured it out:

One thing I try to remember when necessary is: Don't panic -- there's always time for that later.

Apparently Craig waited for just the right time to finally panic.

:thumbsup:

[TacticalPeek]

101. K & R

:kick:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. I've Read This Thread And Am Perplexed By The Tone That There's Something Dramatic Or Important Here

What is the big 'gotcha' that you want everyone to string together? On its face this seems completely routine and benign, and I can't for the life of me figure out what greater hidden meaning you're trying to turn it into.

Craig gets charged with two charges. He shows up in court on his plea date. There's a prosecutor at a table (at least in every municipal court I've been in) in which people line up to speak to, usually about traffic tickets and such. When it's Craig's turn, the prosecutor simply says "plead guilty to this one and we'll drop the other one". Craig says ok, and a short time later stands before the judge and enters a simple guilty plea. Is there reason to believe it didn't go down in such a routine and common manner?

Where's the hidden drama?

On edit: Ok, I've read the smoking gun piece and that he didn't have to show up on the plea date. So now it's just as simple as having contacted the DA's office and being told the prosecutor will drop the one if he pleads to the other, then they mail or fax him the agreement to sign. I still fail to see anything dramatic or that would entail further scrutiny in any of this. It is all amazingly routine.

[Tatiana]

106. I've been reading the interesting comments here and I don't think my impressions have changed.

I think Craig:

1. Had done this numerous times before. He was not a novice at trying to "pull" guys in the restroom.
   
   
2. Was given legal advice, whether he acknowledges this fact publicly or not. The documents are not the work of a lay person.
   
   
3. Was set up by the Republics. I'm thinking as a sort-of pre-emptive strike. It makes me wonder what they DON'T want us to know about what Craig has been up to.

[formercia]

107. Perhaps they're trying to make a scarecrow out of him

as a warning to others not to get too far out of line.


The wolves are closing in. Time to throw someone else off the sled.

[havocmom]

108. Oh, yeah. Cheney is getting boxed into a corner. Lots of shit about to come into light

All that wire tapping was NOT about 'keeping America safe' Cheney doesn't give a shit about America or Americans, save his own sorry ass.

Just a little reminder to the rest of the cast that the director can throw just about anyone out of the theater of the absurd?

Blackmail is such an ugly word. But the practice is SO effective for exercising the (ah-hem) influence over others so one can maintain power.