Wednesday, May 08, 2013


James Sanders, "PhD"

PhD=Piled. High. And Deeper.

Today, the Post ran an editorial strongly criticizing comments by freshman state senator, James Sanders  (D-Queens) in Saturday's New York Times. The editorial took issue with Sanders characterizing Shirley Huntley's agreeing to wear a wire as "snitching" -- which he asserted demonstrated that she "had no honor."
As The Politicker reported Wednesday afternoon, Sanders responded with the following:
“In response to the New York Post editorial on May 7, 2013, what was not said speaks volumes,” Mr. Sanders said. “While the Post highlighted a portion of my statement made to the New York Times that mentions ‘ensnaring’ others, which in the context used, described entrapment, which is prohibit under the law, the article neglected to mention my encouragement to perform a public service by exposing actual corruption that one knows of. Deliberately leading people into a crime that they would not have committed, be they legislators or private individuals, is wrong and shows no honor. I have always and will always encourage full cooperation with law enforcement to root out real corruption.”
This is total BS. First of all, Sanders clearly makes the insinuation that ensnaring and entrapment are the same thing. He further makes the assumption that Huntley entrapped her erstwhile Senate colleagues -- where there is absolutely no indication that that occurred. It's also remarkably ironic that Sanders calls wearing the wire demonstrates Huntley "has no honor" -- when it was her original indictment on corruption charges that provided him with the opportunity to challenge and defeat her in a primary last fall.

However, Sanders does include his full statement that ran in the Times:
“There are few among us who can stand up to 20, 30, 40 years without, as the streets call, snitching,” [Senator Sanders] said. “I think that it is tragic that one finds themselves in a world of pain and even more tragic if you’re trying to buy down your sentence by ensnaring others,” Mr.Sanders added. “Now, if you are merely speaking of what they have done, then you’re probably doing a public service. But if you are ensnaring people, then it just proves you have no honor.”
Note the second to last sentence: "Now, if you are merely speaking of what they have don, then you're probably doing a public service." Probably?

Contrary to Mr. Sanders' Wednesday statement, actually it's his original words that "speak volumes." When you insert "probably" right before "doing a public service," far from "encouraging" people to do public service, you're actually raising an element of doubt into their true motives. And then, after doing so, you're stating that ensnaring people "just proves you have no honor."

Again, "ensnaring" does not equal entrapment (except, it appears in James Sanders' mind). And nowhere in his original comments is there an unequivocal "encouragement" for people to cooperate with the authorities in an investigation.

But, hey, in sharing both statements and revealing precisely how confused is his thinking, Sen. Sanders has provided a public service.


Bookmark and Share

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Technorati search
Search Now:
Amazon Logo
  •  RSS
  • Add to My AOL
  • Powered by FeedBurner
  • Add to Google Reader or Homepage
  • Subscribe in Bloglines
  • Share on Facebook