Tammy Bruce: Larry Craig: Double Life, Double Decision

Larry Craig: Double Life, Double Decision

Craig has now backed way from his commitment to resign from the senate on September 30th, instead opting to stay until the judge makes a decision on whether or not he can withdraw his guilty plea. One more in a series of actions that make it clear Larry likes to have it both ways.

Craig to Stay in Office Pending Ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Larry Craig said Wednesday he will remain in office while a Minnesota judge considers his bid to withdraw a guilty plea, overturning the senator's previous statements of intent to resign by Sunday.

The Idaho Republican said he will stay in office "for now,'' but people close to him said he will remain until the judge rules. Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter said he probably won't decide the matter until next month.

Craig's comments Wednesday were greeted with chilly silence from Senate Republican leaders who have made clear they wish he would step down and let Idaho's GOP governor name a replacement.

I suppose it's just more difficult to step down when you have such a wide stance.

Posted by Tammy · September 26, 2007 10:11 PM · Permalink
Corruption | Hypocrisy | Politics

Comments

Good Lord...and people wonder what's wrong with Washington today. It's because of hypocritical creepy idiots like Sen. Craig who somehow not only manage to win elections, but then proceed to follow the motto of, "Do as I say, not as I do". Oy.

Posted by: ltlme at September 26, 2007 10:30 PM

I just want the "evidence" subjected to cross-examination. Then we will see if there's anything to this, or if it's just the usual gay smear from the homophobic, bigoted, racist lefties.
Craig should have his day in court. After all, what has he got to lose? The Dems/MSM have already lynched him.

Posted by: robert108 at September 26, 2007 11:26 PM

LOLOLOLOLOL

Tammy, your "likes to have it both ways" and "wide stance" comments are KILLIN' ME! BTW, you were great on O'Reilly the other night calling Media Matters on the carpet for their racial smear of Bill.

And I'm sorry Robert108, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. It's the poor judgment Craig exhibited in this situation that necessitates him stepping down. It was within Craig's power to subject the "evidence" to cross-examination, but he chose to waive that right by pleading guilty, hoping for a quiet and quick end to the matter. More of his colleagues would be standing up for him if he had spent his "day in court" shouting his innocence to the rafters instead of doing everything he could to conceal his arrest.

His incessant flip-flopping is just making it worse--it reeks of the same indignant and shameless maneuvers Democrats engage in to keep their jobs whenever they are involved in even worse scandals. Suddenly we are shown what Democratic Reps and Senators really believe--that it's ALL about retaining power and their individual political careers versus the well-being of their constituents and the country. Republicans have a good track record of recognizing when sometimes the best thing they can do for their constituents is to step aside. Craig is a public servant and since this went down I'm relatively certain that he has done absolutely nothing for the State of Idaho, and he will no doubt continue to put his personal travails ahead of his duties until the judge rules (and if the motion is granted, all the way through a highly public trial in Minnesota). That course of action would serve no one but Larry Craig, individual.

I would certainly feel differently if he had not cavalierly waived the presumption of his innocence and vigorously fought the allegations. Under those circumstances, I think he would have been entitled to more support from his party and the patience of his constituents as he went through a brief criminal trial in Minnesota. But not under these circumstances.

Posted by: Sean Arther at September 27, 2007 05:16 AM

There aren't any "do-overs" in criminal court when you have entered a knowing, intelligent guilty plea. For Craig "to have his day in court", by which I assume is meant a full trial, he has to admit that he is so stupid and ignorant he didn't know what he was doing. For that reason alone, the creepy little jackass should be thrown out of office.

Posted by: St. Thor at September 27, 2007 06:51 AM

Here we go again. The issue is not his guilt or innocence nor is it whether or not he likes a little trist in the bathroom to settle his nerves before a long flight. The issue is his willingness to compromise himself and possibly his constituents to keep his personal behavior hidden from the public view. This is a very, very serious security issue and it also cuts deep into the heart of representative government.

The guy is obviously not too bright. But that would not compromise his ability to represent his state. It's the secretive behavior and personal shame that makes him a target for blackmail by unscrupulous lobbyists and foreign powers. He has demonstrated his willingness to compromise himself with a plea of guilty to a charge he could have easily beaten. But he chose to opt for some level of secrecy rather than public disclosure of his behavior. Don't be sidetracked by arguments about the morality of his bathroom antics. That is not the issue!

Posted by: jdb at September 27, 2007 08:48 AM

Senator Craig has apparently voted against the Kennedy hate crimes amendment, which would add gays to the federal hate crime statute.

If he voted against gays, he can’t possibly be gay, right?

Let’s see if the court reviewing his bathroom sex sting case buys it.

UPDATE: the hate crimes measure passed the Senate this morning by a vote of 60-39.

Posted by: Elizabeth Schmitz at September 27, 2007 09:56 AM

Right, St. Thor. I'm not a Minnesota criminal law attorney, but it is safe to assume that the grounds under which a guilty plea will be overturned are (and should be) extremely narrow, i.e., there is new evidence that the prosecutor concealed evidence that, if known to the defendant, would have affected his plea (not the case here), or that the defendant was unaware of the affect and meaning of entering the guilty plea (as you mentioned). Craig, a lawmaker, is of the demographic in our society least likely to be railroaded by the criminal justice system. This is nothing more than Craig recognizing that his plan to conceal the arrest was unsuccessful--and now that it's out in the open he's saying, "on second thought, I'd like my trial now." I wonder if anyone out there has a pdf of the actual motion itself (smokinggun.com?). The motion necessarily has to be shamelessly lawyer-ish and I bet a few direct quotes from the actual arguments made in the motion would shut this down (PR-wise) for good.

And one more thing, in case there is any remaining doubt as to whether justice has been irrevocably done in Craig's case and should remain closed, the ACLU's support of overturning his guilty plea should be proof enough that the plea should remain as is--http://www.kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=7087795

Posted by: Sean Arther at September 27, 2007 10:11 AM

Sean: Please explain why the police offered Craig, voluntarily and without a lawyer present, a reduced charge. That's why they should be cross-examined in court. The whole thing smells bad, no matter what you believe. Police "sting" operations tend to be self-serving, in the sense that they tend to create crime.

Posted by: robert108 at September 27, 2007 05:23 PM

Sean: If "bad judgment" were actually sufficient to unseat a Senator, we would be turning them over on a yearly basis. Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad idea...

Posted by: robert108 at September 27, 2007 05:26 PM

Hi Robert108,

I believe Craig was offered a reduced charge for the same reason criminal defendants across the nation are offered reduced charges by police and/or a prosecutor every day--because if they didn't have that discretion, the criminal justice system would grind to a screeching halt. The offer of a reduced charge is not evidence that the police made a bad arrest any more than Craig's consideration of taking it is evidence of his guilt.

And as far as a lawyer not being present, so what? Criminal defendants have the right to silence and the right to legal representation at the cost of the state in every criminal case, and Craig knows that. Anyone that has seen an episode of T.J. Hooker knows that. He's a lawmaker and has likely voted on whether to enact or defeat criminal laws that APPLY TO DEFENDANTS. The idea that Craig was somehow denied representation or didn't know he was entitled to it reeks of the kind of pro-criminal paternalism that Craig himself--if he really is a conservative--would reject in any other context.

I agree that there is a possibility of entrapment (or "creating crime") in every criminal case, and particularly in cases generated from sting operations. That's why entrapment is a valid legal defense to alleged criminal acts. On the tape recording of the interrogation of Craig, he states to the arresting officer, "YOU solicited ME!" If anything, this is proof that Craig was well aware of the availability of the entrapment defense in his case (EVEN without a lawyer being present). He CHOSE not to go through the process of proving it in court.

And why does the case "smell bad"? Because it's a Republican Senator that was arrested? Because it was a sting operation? The police had received complaints that this particular bathroom was the "cruisiest" in all of Minnesota and it was listed on many websites that provide information to gay men on where they could go to have this type of encounter. It was a public nuisance so the Minnesota police did something about it. I could be mistaken, but wasn't Craig's arrest and conviction something like three months before it came out in public? Isn't that somewhat relevant as to whether he was targeted or not? If this was a politically motivated arrest, why wasn't it on the front page of the NYT the next morning? I think the real reason the case "smells bad" is because it involved an elected official in a very powerful position engaging in disgusting, deviant, reckless behavior.

Believe me, I am the first to suspect unfair political motivations behind any legal action taken against a Republican politician because everything Democrats do from the moment they wake up in the morning is politically motivated, i.e. Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, etc. The list of honorable Republican politicians railroaded by politically motivated, grossly unfair legal attacks from liberals is LONG. Craig has no claim to being on that list.

Accordingly, the offer of the reduced charge and the fact that a lawyer was not present is not sufficient to entitle Craig to a "do over" after voluntarily pleading guilty. If that were true, it would jeopardize 99.99% of criminal convictions and any prison inmate could demand the same thing tomorrow (and they would have an even better shot at it because they would presumably know significantly less about the legal system than Craig!)

P.S. I did not advocate "poor judgment" as the standard by which every politician should keep their job or not. Politicians show poor judgment every day (Republican support of the Shamnesty Act and Trent Lott appearing on TV with SFO liberal Diane Feinstein talking about how wonderful it would be to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine come to mind). Craig's poor judgment in this particular case warrants him stepping down. Craig KNEW the choices that were available to him--get a lawyer, remain silent, plead not guilty, raise the entrapment defense, present evidence of the sting operation being a dragnet, publicly and vigorously refute the charges. He knowingly waived them ALL in favor of a quickie guilty plea to a reduced charge (which he thought would be much simpler to conceal from his family and constituents).

Posted by: Sean Arther at September 28, 2007 03:36 PM

By Category

By Month

Larry Craig: Double Life, Double Decision

Comments

Post a comment