MARK SMITH MORE COLUMNS Advertisement

Some years back -- well, OK, we're talking about the American Civil War -- there was a general named Ben Butler who hailed from Massachusetts, had an amazing amount of political pull, always seemed surrounded by corruption but somehow always kept his own head above water when it came to personally staying clear of the law.

As one author put it, there was always something a little disturbing about the general but his own hands were never dirtied.

Likewise where Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was concerned. Later on, when he became president, no hint of scandal attached itself directly to him, but there were plenty of his buddies who were up to their ears in filth.

I've been thinking about those fellows where Pete Liakopoulos is concerned.

What exactly has he done wrong?

Was he just doing what any number of politicians do in making a deal with Laurayne Murray? Were they just scratching each other's backs?

If not, how did what they were doing differ from politics as usual? What exactly was wrong?

Well, what is actually charged is that Pete offered to vote on behalf of the public safety sales tax if Murray helped him acquire a lease on the Pahrump Veterans' Memorial building or, as an alternative, ensured his wife's placement on the memorial's advisory panel.

If Liakopoulos were simply making a political deal that qualified as arm's length, that would be one thing. "Hey, Laurayne, vote for this and I'll back you later on that." No problem.

The problem, as outlined in the sheriff's complaint, is that in each case Liakopoulos was looking for a deal that would help him personally, or help his wife, which legally is much the same thing.

In other words, "Hey, Laurayne, vote for this -- which will give me what I or my wife personally wants -- and I'll vote for you."

Murray, in fact, opened the gates when she remarked in a public session of the county commission that Liakopoulos told her the whole sales tax issue was dead "if I didn't give him what he wanted" -- both the lease and the job for his wife.

According to Liakopoulos, speaking in public at the same session, he merely told Murray that he would be willing to look again at the sales tax.

If you look at what the sheriff has charged, there is a big difference between what Murray and Liakopoulos say the latter said. And in the sheriff's case, he adds that there is a second source -- so far unidentified -- for the charges. He also points out that Murray has taken and passed a lie detector test, which Liakopoulos has so far refused.

What all this overlooks is an interesting question. What is it about armed forces veterans that has gotten Liakopoulos so revved up?

First it was the Wal-Mart wall, then the memorial building, then a shelter for homeless vets, then his wife on the advisory board. His wife, at least, seems to have some emotional reason for supporting vets. Her dad was taken prisoner during the Korean War, which was about as bad or worse than being a POW guest of the Japanese. (The Korean War is replete with documented stories of Americans who were taken prisoner, tied up and then massacred.) But what is it with Pete?

Meanwhile, cluttering up the water, so to speak, there is the recall effort that has nothing to do with the bribery charge. The problem with the recall effort is that much of it is nonsense. For better or worse, Liakopoulos was cleared of the ethics charge involving the road to Channel 41. (For one thing, the idea that anyone would go out of the way to have a road paved because he has a show on the tube borders on the loony. You could just as well come up with a charge involving Pete's hair.)

One of the charges in the recall petition notes that Liakopoulos voted himself a new truck when he got into office. Butch Borasky did the same thing and neither Harley Kulkin, who essentially ran the recall campaign, nor anyone else has raised a whisper about that.

In Kulkin's words, he voted against the Pahrump planning commission's approval of Focus Property Group. Assuming that is true and a problem, it raises an interesting question: Why have the commission if it must march precisely in lockstep with other boards? Why not just junk it and move along with less fuss? One must assume the commissioners are paid to think for themselves.

Liakopoulos also -- shudder! -- refuses to get on live TV and answer constituents' questions. Well, as far as I know there is no requirement that he do so, and frankly, I'd rather not have to turn on 30/62 or 41 and see him.

But the recall, of course, is another story altogether. Meanwhile we have to deal with Liakopoulos and the bribery charge, which is by far the more significant.