"Are you trying to say that someone can admit to performing an illegal act, but unless they admit that they committed a crime, they haven't admitted to breaking the law? Does that mean that someone who confesses to killing someone in cold blood hasn't confessed to a crime until he/she actually says "I committed 1st degree murder"? The distinction doesn't make sense."

I am saying that a person can admit to committing a sin without admitting to have committed a crime. All sins are not crimes. Adultry, for example, is a sin, but not a crime in most places.

If one were to actually take it a step further, to many radical fundy Christians, merely thinking about doing the nasty with one who is not one's spouse, is a sin.....and yet it is not a crime. Jimmy Carter once claimed that he had sinned because he had "lust in his heart" and I doubt if anyone, even the most rabid Baptist would consider that Jimmy Carter broke any law.

Vitter has acknowledged that he sinned. That's all he has acknowledged. He has never admitted breaking any law and, to the best of my knowledge, there is not enough evidence on the street to bring charges against him for that lawbreaking, even if the statute of limitations had not passed. They have phone records which do not prove any illegality. There are apparently co-conspirators whose veracity has not been verified, and they (prosecutors) have Vitter admitting to talking on the phone - about what, we don't know.

If you were a prosecutor, would you take the case based upon those facts? Even if you did, it still doesn't mean that Vitter has confessed to any illegal act. Taking it step further, is it a crime to romp about in a diaper with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married?

Vitter's wife has nothing to do with this, except for the fact that she's just as big an asshole as he is. Her statements are not relevant except in the context of her also being a hypocrite.

To me, Vitter is guilty as hell.....of aggravated hypocrisy. Nothing more. Allowing the Republicans to get away with excusing his (ongoing) behavior simply because his sins occured prior to his becoming a Senator, is stupid. He was no less a hypocrite as a House Member than as a Senator. THAT's what progressives should be emphasizing, not his sins.

Both hypocrisy and adultry are the breaking of God's law, but neither is a violation of either Federal law or the laws of Washington, D.C. or the State of Louisiana.

"Jebbie

OK, then clear up the mystery. If it's not illegally soliciting a prostitute, what is the sin David Vitter is confessing?

I acknowledge your broader point. Religions have a long list of common sins, many of which are not crimes. Looking at a Playboy--sin, not a crime, thank God! Using the "Lord's" name in vain--sin, not a crime. Of course, many of those sins are crimes--murder, theft, and soliciting a prostitute (except in Nevada). So, I get your point. I just don't see how it's relevant, except as a typical right-wing tactic to create enough cognitive disonance to give Vitter more wiggle room."

The point is that people have jumped to the conclusion that Vitter confessed to a crime on the same level that Craig confessed to a crime and therefore he should be treated the same way as Craig. That is false. I do not know what sin he is confessing to having done and neither does anyone else except, presumably, his wife. He didn't specify.

He should be treated the same way, politically (not legally) becauase he is a hypocrite, not a lawbreaker because WE DO NOT KNOW whether he broke the law or not.

Thus, Democrats should be insisting that Vitter be purged NOT because he broke a law, but because he's a hypocritical piece of shit. There is NO wiggle room in that regard and by not falling into the real trap (comparing his lawlessness with that of Craig) Of course, Republicans don't care if he's a hypocrite. (unless, of course, he had been listed on the phone records of a male escort service).

Anyway....why waste time on Vitter? Unless someone catches him with a large dog or a small boy, he's going to be reelected.

"They haven't "jumped" to a conclusion at all, merely come to one, if Vitter admitted paying for sex-- which a quick romp through Google clearly shows he did:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288868,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/16/vitter/index.html"

I read each and every cite you provided and I have not been able to locate a single instance where Vitter admitted to paying for sex. Not one.

In fact, Vitter has denied the allegations from Louisiana since they first surfaced several years ago and the only thing I've been able to determine from that story is that the woman making the claim has no proof and the woman who allegedly was his mistress cannot be located and was last seen someplace in Florida after flim-flamming a boyfriend. IOW, she has zero credibility.

"He is Jesus. He is Lincoln. He is beloved by Our Troops. He "shows us the way forward." He is Our Leader.

-- Glenn Greenwald"

Barf me up a chunk.

Russell Crowe?