Senator Larry Craig convicted of lewd conduct in men's bathroom

[kapkomet]

pled under duress? I have seen arguments made about statements or confessions under duress, but we are talking here about pleading to a charge in front of a judge, some period of time after the arrest. I have never heard of someone challenging a plea agreement under those circumstances. Has anyone else?

Honestly, no. But it's the only thing I can think of that he is going to try and swing. He mailed in his guilty plea, much like a speeding ticket, because it was a misdemeanor. I mean hell, at the very least, plead "no contest"... but from what I understand, it was "guilty"... so I have no idea what this guy is going to try and pull.

 

[Texsox]

I have heard of convictions be expunged from the record in exchange for something. For example successfully completing a probation, taking a class (traffic, child care). Perhaps he is working that angle.

 

[Kyyle23]

I have heard of convictions be expunged from the record in exchange for something.

 

Isnt that what got him in this situation in the first place?

[Texsox]

Isnt that what got him in this situation in the first place?

Thanks for coming, don't forget to tip the attendant . . .

[EvilMonkey]

Isnt that what got him in this situation in the first place?

Must be stealing jokes from Tex.

[FlaSoxxJim]

. . . I have no idea what this guy is going to try and pull.

 

I have a pretty good Idea what he was looking to pull, and that's how the whole mess got started.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

I have a pretty good Idea what he was looking to pull, and that's how the whole mess got started.

 

 

the double entendres are limitless. Best Thread Ever.

[Texsox]

Looking back, his story was hard to swallow . . .

 

Yes, I went there, and early

[southsider2k5]

I have heard of convictions be expunged from the record in exchange for something. For example successfully completing a probation, taking a class (traffic, child care). Perhaps he is working that angle.

 

 

Those are things that are either agreed to ahead of time, or as a part of sentencing. It is incredibly unusual to go back after the fact and change something. It usually takes a gross miscarriage of justice to warrent that, which probably isn't going to happen here.

[Texsox]

Those are things that are either agreed to ahead of time, or as a part of sentencing. It is incredibly unusual to go back after the fact and change something. It usually takes a gross miscarriage of justice to warrent that, which probably isn't going to happen here.

 

That is what I would assume, but since it is a misdemeanor, and he is a Senator losing his office, I'm guessing all sorts of stuff could happen.

 

And isn't sex a misdemeanor? I know the more I mis, da meaner I get . . .

[sox4lifeinPA]

Those are things that are either agreed to ahead of time, or as a part of sentencing. It is incredibly unusual to go back after the fact and change something. It usually takes a gross miscarriage of justice to warrent that, which probably isn't going to happen here.

 

 

I thought justice was trying to avoid gross miscarriages when they arrested this guy in the first place

[Balta1701]

So, for anyone who was wondering why we were still talking about this...here's your answer...Craig may in fact decide not to resign.

[Texsox]

What I dislike is whenever a Dem or Rep gets caught like this people believe it somehow sullies the entire party. Anyone who believes the validity of a group as large as the Dem or Rep parties is lost when one member falls, is either living in a fantasy land or so blindly partisan that they can no longer face reality.

 

Craig's actions in that bathroom, and his last ditch efforts to savage any credibility, should not have any broader implications than his personal.

[NorthSideSox72]

What I dislike is whenever a Dem or Rep gets caught like this people believe it somehow sullies the entire party. Anyone who believes the validity of a group as large as the Dem or Rep parties is lost when one member falls, is either living in a fantasy land or so blindly partisan that they can no longer face reality.

 

Craig's actions in that bathroom, and his last ditch efforts to savage any credibility, should not have any broader implications than his personal.

Ideally, you are correct. In reality, this will indeed effect the GOP as a whole. The Republican Party's insistence on leveraging the hatred of their more conservative elements, as manifested in this case in anti-gay sentiment, just makes this situation that much worse. It may not be fair to indict the whole party for Craig's actions, I'd agree... but among the voting public, some people will happily do so.

 

[kapkomet]

What I dislike is whenever a Dem or Rep gets caught like this people believe it somehow sullies the entire party. Anyone who believes the validity of a group as large as the Dem or Rep parties is lost when one member falls, is either living in a fantasy land or so blindly partisan that they can no longer face reality.

 

Craig's actions in that bathroom, and his last ditch efforts to savage any credibility, should not have any broader implications than his personal.

 

Tex, good post.

[Texsox]

Ideally, you are correct. In reality, this will indeed effect the GOP as a whole. The Republican Party's insistence on leveraging the hatred of their more conservative elements, as manifested in this case in anti-gay sentiment, just makes this situation that much worse. It may not be fair to indict the whole party for Craig's actions, I'd agree... but among the voting public, some people will happily do so.

 

And this is where the downward spiral starts. Since his actions will reflect on the party as a whole, the partisan members are forced to expend time and energy on damage control. Instead, as a country, we'd be better off if the reaction is, get this guy outta here, the party did the right thing and move on. As soon as we stop evaluating ideas, policies, vision, and direction and replace it with defending idiots, image, and spin we all lose.

[NorthSideSox72]

And this is where the downward spiral starts. Since his actions will reflect on the party as a whole, the partisan members are forced to expend time and energy on damage control. Instead, as a country, we'd be better off if the reaction is, get this guy outta here, the party did the right thing and move on. As soon as we stop evaluating ideas, policies, vision, and direction and replace it with defending idiots, image, and spin we all lose.

I actually think that the Republicans are handling this one just right - they have stated simply and repeatedly he needs to go. And many of them called him and implored him to step down. In this case, its the political stands of the party, combined with Craig's actions, that are bringing it down.

 

[Texsox]

I agree, and in general, the GOP does seem to handle these better than the Dems. I believe it is because the Dems are much more willing to accept that there are gray areas in behavior and give people a lot of chances, believe they can change, etc. The GOP is usually, and let's not start tossing out a hundred examples to the contrary, a one strike and you're out kind of organization.

 

Now this one is an easy one with a GOP Governor.

 

Once again, I would prefer a system where the Senator's party affiliation is kept. It would make these things cleaner for everyone and avoid the "we have to save him or we lose a seat" situations.

[Texsox]

 

Tex, good post.

 

Did I scare you?

[kapkomet]

I agree, and in general, the GOP does seem to handle these better than the Dems. I believe it is because the Dems are much more willing to accept that there are gray areas in behavior and give people a lot of chances, believe they can change, etc. The GOP is usually, and let's not start tossing out a hundred examples to the contrary, a one strike and you're out kind of organization.

 

Now this one is an easy one with a GOP Governor.

 

Once again, I would prefer a system where the Senator's party affiliation is kept. It would make these things cleaner for everyone and avoid the "we have to save him or we lose a seat" situations.

Yep. And that's why everyone was so quick to say he should resign. It's a bunch of poo. Vitter should go as well, politics be damned.

 

[Texsox]

Yep. And that's why everyone was so quick to say he should resign. It's a bunch of poo. Vitter should go as well, politics be damned.

 

Which is one reason I favor the Governor being required to pick a person from the same party. Makes it easier for everybody, all the time.

[jackie hayes]

Unless I'm really mistaken -- and I don't think I am -- he wasn't busted for solicitation, at least not legally.

I'm still a little confused about this. As far as I can tell, the "disorderly" part is because of the way he asked for sex, not the fact that he asked for it. I was under the impression that he was charged, basically, for annoying/alarming the guy in the next stall. While if he simply went up to someone and asked for sex, point blank, the asking wouldn't be illegal -- only the act that might follow the asking. Right or wrong?

[Gregory Pratt]

I'm still a little confused about this. As far as I can tell, the "disorderly" part is because of the way he asked for sex, not the fact that he asked for it. I was under the impression that he was charged, basically, for annoying/alarming the guy in the next stall. While if he simply went up to someone and asked for sex, point blank, the asking wouldn't be illegal -- only the act that might follow the asking. Right or wrong?

 

I believe that's right and I think there's some invasion of privacy in there, too.

 

--

 

Spoke today to a friend of mine who was a Republican state congressman years ago but still has a lot of contacts in the GOP and recently spent some time at an education conference with Jeb Bush, among others. He told me that "everyone knows" about Craig's "orientation." "I figured," I said, "as that type of thing is not secret in politics amongst the politicians."

 

Not that there's anybody here confused about his orientation or whether this was a one-time "mistake."

[Gregory Pratt]

You know who I have a huge problem with? Arianna Huffington. As I see it, she's an attention whore who loves to go to war against the incumbent political parties and I've especially disliked her since she hung out with Chalabi and asked him no significant questions. If she wants to rag on the press, she's got my intellectual backing but she can't criticize Tim Russert as an elitist insider when she's drinking wine with the man who may have betrayed American secrets to Iran, who she has been railing against, contrary to her public pronunciations on questioning officials of all realms.

 

And I still remember her as Newt Gingrich's best friend.

 

She had her own take on Craig's case and it greatly irritated me. From my blog:

 

Arianna Huffington writes: In the Age of Terror, Isn’t Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not wild about walking into a public restroom and seeing a couple using the a stall for something other than, as Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer in the Craig case put it, “its intended use.” But that is not what Larry Craig did. If he had, someone in the restroom could have done what most people do when they see a law being broken: go get a cop. And as it happens, since Craig was arrested in an airport, presumably there were plenty of law enforcement officers nearby looking for, you know, real threats — like explosives or folks on a Watch List. Assuming, that is, they weren’t all hunkered down in other bathrooms across the airport, protecting the public against people who might be thinking about having sex.

 

Let me be clear: I’m no fan of Larry Craig. Indeed, I disagree with almost everything he stands for. And I’d much rather he not be in the United States Senate. But I’d also rather have had his exit be the result of his constituents voting on his ideas and policies, instead of a ridiculous sting operation in an airport bathroom.

 

I wrote:

 

You sure you don’t feel like that because your ex-husband was a closet Republican, Arianna? Remember that? And you didn’t care because he would let you run his campaign for the Senate on his behalf and he allowed you to debate his opponent for him, amIright? I think you’re projecting sweetheart. Let’s call it Freudian, eh? (Her criticism is weak, also, because there were definitely plenty of policemen to go around. The airport didn’t go unprotected because someone was in the bathroom waiting for someone looking for unprotected sex inside of a stall.)

 

--

 

I just -- it bothers me. The idea that Craig did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been detained. The excuses made for him. The defenses and the various reasons for them. There is no defense for what he did. And I'm not in favor of criminalizing human sexuality. But I am definitely in favor of arresting people who have sex in public restrooms (though not, of course, for something crazy like twenty year prison sentences or something). I'm definitely in favor of detaining people who go through specific, well-known mating rituals (in this case Gay Bathroom Sex, in others of course there are all sorts of rituals) and telling them, "Hey, you can't do that here. This is a public restroom. We've got complaints. We need to keep this clean. f***ing children come in here, man."

 

That's why I don't s*** in public restrooms.

[Texsox]

I don't think anyone here would call me a GOP apologist, but I agree with much of her blog. Cops in uniform walking in and out of the restroom would have stopped the behavior, did they really need an undercover sting? Shouldn't the cops be detaining anyone with a dark complexion to be certain they aren't terrorists or worse, illegal immigrants?