Malcolm Smith | New York | News

BigGayDeal.com

New York State Senator Malcolm Smith And City Councilman Arrested in Plot to Fix NYC Mayoral Race

New York State Senator Malcolm Smith and City Councilman Dan Halloran have been arrested in a plot to fix this year's mayoral race, the NYT reports:

SmithMr. Smith, a 56-year-old Democrat, and Mr. Halloran, a Queens Republican, were among about a half dozen people facing charges in the federal corruption case, the people with knowledge of the matter said. Others include the mayor of the Rockland County city of Spring Valley, Noramie Jasmin, and her deputy, the people said.

The paper says both were arrested this morning. Smith was taken in handcuffs before sunrise from his home in Queens.

Sen. Smith has said he was considering running for mayor of New York City as a Republican, and the scheme centered on bribe payments he made to Mr. Halloran in exchange for the councilman’s assistance in setting up meetings with Republican leaders as part of his effort to get on the ballot, one of the people said.

The criminal complaint is set to be unsealed this morning before a judge.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Bipartisanship.

    You're doing it wrong.

    Posted by: Grant | Apr 2, 2013 8:20:21 AM


  2. Bipartisanship.

    You're doing it wrong.

    Posted by: Grant | Apr 2, 2013 8:20:22 AM


  3. Grant beat me to it.

    "This is not what 'bipartisanship' means."

    Posted by: Gigi | Apr 2, 2013 8:31:08 AM


  4. How did he get caught?

    Posted by: anon | Apr 2, 2013 9:44:47 AM


  5. Bloomberg switched parties so he could be re-elected. Then he destroyed the term limits, which the public had voted for, so the people of NYC could have "more choices" (i.e. himself) for mayor.
    After a 16 yr old kid was killed with 7 bullets in Brooklyn, he arrested 43 people during a candlelight vigil for the victim saying he would not "tolerate violence." Turns out the 2 cops who killed the kid have been in other race related abuse cases and the city has paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in plea deals to settle the cases and get them back on patrol. Would someone please throw Bloomberg in the slammer?

    Posted by: kodiak | Apr 2, 2013 9:56:29 AM


  6. @anon,

    *Snitches. People snitch for a variety of reasons, most likely someone is plea bargaining another case they've been charged or threatened with.

    *Feds had surveillance on one or more of this crew, and accidentally came across this scam. Or they started this case after being informed by the above snitch[s]

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 2, 2013 9:58:49 AM


  7. @Kodiak,

    I dislike Bloomberg. He's got a strong totalitarian streak. That said, NYC averaged 2000[!] murders a year by the early 90s. The 70s and 80s were a disaster, a war zone.Police, city hall, and prosecutors hands were in many ways tied from effectively combating the extreme levels of violence, committed mostly by young 'minority' males [yes, it's a fact, and I'm not 'racist' for saying it. I am not in any way saying I hate 'minorities' or that 'minorities' are all bad violent people...I'm pointing out the very serious problem as a society we have]. Actions result in reactions. What we're talking about here didn't just happen out of the blue. Police actions are taken after careful study of the issues, what demographic is overly represented for violent crime, gun crime, what neighborhoods, age groups, gender, etc., NYC's murder rate now averages less than 400 per year, a huge drop. This is primarily due to aggressive pro-active police tactics, less lenient courts, laws and longer prison terms, and to a degree changing demographics. NYC is lucky because it has many obvious things going for it that help it rise above the terrible violent crime wave that took hold during the 1970s-thru early 1990s. Other American cities aren't so lucky. It's a sad list, I won't name them here because it's too long.

    What MANY 'progressives' have never seemed to understand [or perhaps ignored] is effect violent street crime has a society, a city, a neighborhood. I think some of the most radical among them want society to collapse into chaos and violence. The rational should realize pretty much every good aspect a 'progressive' society is capable of offering is negated if people are legitimately afraid of being jumped, assaulted, robbed, stabbed, raped, shot, whatever, when coming home from work or a club/bar, or just out food shopping. It's possible to have full gay civil rights and not be subjected to extreme levels of violent street crime, and a political culture that not only tolerates it, but enables it, ostensibly in the name of 'compassion'.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 2, 2013 10:18:26 AM


  8. "the scheme centered on bribe payments he made to Mr. Halloran in exchange for the councilman’s assistance in setting up meetings with Republican leaders as part of his effort to get on the ballot."

    Wouldn't it have been easier, legal, and possibly less expensive to simply hire an effective campaign manager?

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Apr 2, 2013 10:29:39 AM


  9. On the internet, in a comment, on a half hearted wire post, one should remember that an argument for one thing is not an argument against that things opposite.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Apr 2, 2013 11:38:41 AM


  10. Ratbastard,

    anytime I read one of your postings about inner-city crime and all those wonderful statistics you keep in your mind I google "Crime in Charles Dickens' London"

    Then I read a little bit and sigh. I always wonder, what if they'd had the availability of guns back then that we have in our wonderful country?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Apr 2, 2013 12:15:05 PM


  11. Ratbastard, obviously you know NOTHING about NYC. For the record, it was Mayor David Dinkins who started the ball rolling that eventually got the NYC crime rate to start falling with his community policing programs, among many of the excellent, community-basede crime-prevention programs he initiated. You and too many others give credit to Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg and it's credit they don't deserve.

    You also know nothing about what were the factors in the high crime rate and it wasn't "minorities". The real facts are just too complex to detail here and would probably be too much for you to understand and would probably cause you severe mental breakdown because those facts would not fit into your blatantly racist, neo-con, FOXbot dogma.

    Your idiotic take on what "progressives" want and the implication that liberalism is responsible for high crime rates is outrageously simplistic, not to mention statistically and factually inaccurate.

    If I had the inclination to really flame your tired @$$ here, I would give you all the data you would need to prove that it has been conservatives and the conservative philosophy of governance and economics that will always be the basis for high crime and violence, whether it be urban, suburban or exurban.

    You obviously went to The Michelle Bachmann Memorial Debating Institute because your "facts" are just another example of a clueless, racist, whiny-con making sh*t up.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Apr 2, 2013 12:47:12 PM


  12. @Jamal,

    The factors are:

    BROKEN FAMILIES. Mostly single moms raising kid[s], who're are 'collecting', usually living in subsidized housing or public housing. It is VERY difficult to properly raise a kid in that situation. Why are so many especially black families broken? When black folks started coming up north for decent paying working class jobs, those jobs and that economy were already on their way out. By the time of the civil rights legislation [mid 60s] America's heyday of plentiful well paid working class jobs were in steady decline, the decline got far worse in the 1970s [a terrible decade economically, and not surprising the decade when urban violent crime in America exploded]. So in a sense black people, especially black males, got screwed once again. What was still available and growing though was welfare and assorted social services. But, the rules for these social service handouts essentially stigmatized males, especially black males, and sought to give women, especially black women, more control economically, even to the point that you'd be denied help and services or be given less, if you actually had a husband. Add to that that if you had more babies, you got more free and subsidized stuff. IMO black people as a group, a demographic, were used by social scientist in an experiment. The experiment didn't come out quite right, and in the process many people were hurt [some permanently] and many even were killed.

    Finally, drugs, or rather our war on drugs and drug prohibition. Many guys, disproportionately black guys, with poor levels of education and little jobs skills, realized they could make big $ hustling [but with great risk and potential cost]. This along with everything else has been nothing short of a classic clusterf*ck.

    ==============

    I would say also that the reason there's been a disproportionate level of violence among black Americans as a group is most come from the rural south which has always had traditionally a much higher level of violence, including murders, than other regions of the country. The deep south was settled primarily by Scots-Irish immigrants who brought with them what's known as an honor culture. Google 'honor culture', I don't feel like elaborating here. Black folks picked up this cultural trait, and when they went north to the urban areas, they brought it with them. This resulted in a classic case of culture shock being as northern culture, especially in urban areas, is far less sensitive to perceived slights than an honor culture which dictates you resolve issues that reflect on your personal honor with violence.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 2, 2013 2:03:35 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Magic Johnson's Gay Son and His Boyfriend Hit the Town: VIDEO« «