GOP Senator Norm Coleman Calls On Craig To Go | Home | GOP Senate Leadership Pushed Craig Out Of Committee Slots »
What Happens If Craig Resigns?
That's quite naturally the question now that Senator John McCain and other GOPers are calling for Larry Craig to go. So what would happen?
If a Senator resigns in Idaho, under Idaho law he gets replaced by someone appointed by the Governor. That person then holds the seat until the next regular Congressional election — which in this case, coincided with the seat being up for its normal election in 2008, anyway. In this case, Republican Governor C. L. "Butch" Otter would appoint a Republican replacement for Craig. Current names being floated about include Lt. Governor Jim Risch, Congressman Mike Simpson, and former Governor Dirk Kempthorne.
The appointee will then serve through the 2008 election, entering the race in this deep-red state with the advantages of incumbency, and a GOP likely to want party unity in the wake of the Craig scandal.
Craig now says he is innocent. Is it legal to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit? Or is it a form of perjury?
August 29, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's official. Sen. Craig is the skunk at the GOP garden party.
August 29, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, technically if Craig lied in his allocution he committed perjury. It would be rather bizarre to prosecute him for it, however.
But obviously, he didn't lie. He does indeed cruise tearooms.
August 29, 2007 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an authority but it would be senseless for the law to recognize perjury-during-plea. For example, people who plead not guilty are never prosecuted for perjury-plea if they are subsequently convicted of the crime in question. To the best of my knowledge the law permits suspects to engage in game theory during pleas without any fear of being prosecuted for a false plea.
August 29, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't plea under oath. And plea-bargainers often plead guilty to crimes that they deny committing.
August 29, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why doesn't rampant corruption, such as Tom DeLay's pay-to-play House and Jack Abramoff connections, provoke the kind of outrage that a closeted Senator's tearoom trysts do? The righties aren't even upset about the hypocrisy of Craig. The only thing that gets Republicans het up is sex that they aren't having - Billy's blowjobs, Foley's follies with fellas and Larry's lavatory encounters. David Vitter has been forgiven by his wife and God for hetero sex and that's good enough for the Base.
The old saying "dead girl or live boy" about sex scandals in Washington still applies.
August 29, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look folks, I live in the Pacific NW and Idaho
is red - make no mistake about it. We dems have vitually no chance to pick up this senate seat - it ain't gonna' happen. Sorry for the bad news -
August 29, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact you do plead under oath at the end of the case. In Oklahoma courts and every other American court, as far as I know, when a person pleads guilty they either testify under oath or provide a notarized statement under oath that provides an admission of a factual basis for a court to conclude they committed the crime. This is called the allocution as they say in "Law and Order."
If what the defendant says does not rise to the level of proving that they have committed the offense then the court is under an obligation to not accept the plea and set the case for trial. In America we do not convict a person of crimes without a factual basis to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the offense. The exceptions are a plea of "no contest" or nolo contendere which admits that the prosecution could prove the case or an Alford plea which simply says I give up, even though I think I am innocent and just do not want to fight anymore.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
If Senator Craig is now saying what he said in connection with his guilty plea to disorderly conduct was false, then he is guilty of perjury. You simply cannot falsely plead guilty under oath without some consequence. The prosecution and court in Minnesota should offer to allow him to withdraw his plea and charge him with perjury. The could turn a minor misdemeanor into a serious felony.
August 29, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's clear up some confusion: the entry of a plea -- guilty or not guilty -- at the arraignment stage is not a statement of fact. It's an assertion of choice. You either elect to contest the charge -- not guilty -- or not contest the charge -- either guilty or, in some states, nolo contendere (which means "I do not wish to dispute", which is almost, but not quite, the same as guilty).
But after the entry of a guilty plea, something else happens. The Court must determine whether or not to accept the guilty plea, for which the Court will want to be satisfied, broadly speaking, on two separate questions: first, is the guilty plea knowing and voluntary? Second, is the defendant in fact guilty. This latter point requires that the Court make inquiry of the defendant, in open Court, and that the defendant state the facts of his (or her) actual conduct. The process of judicial interrogation of the defendant and the defendants response is usually called an "allocution", and these are statements of fact made by the defendant. If a defendant knowingly makes false material statements in his own allocution, that could indeed form the basis for a prosecutable crime, especially if the defendant later recanted.
August 29, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Long Memory wrote on August 29, 2007 5:55 PM:
"It's official. Sen. Craig is the skunk at the GOP garden party."
Let us in on your secret: how can you tell which skunk is Craig?
August 29, 2007 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"SB wrote on August 29, 2007 6:31 PM:
"I'm not an authority but it would be senseless for the law to recognize perjury-during-plea. For example, people who plead not guilty are never prosecuted for perjury-plea if they are subsequently convicted of the crime in question. To the best of my knowledge the law permits suspects to engage in game theory during pleas without any fear of being prosecuted for a false plea."
1. A defendant is innocent unless and until proven otherwise.
2. The burden is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence.
August 29, 2007 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us in on your secret: how can you tell which skunk is Craig?
The one with a wide stance?
August 29, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have a bowl of split-pleas soup, please.
August 29, 2007 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Felony stupidity, but it's carried as a statue only in the code of social mores.
August 30, 2007 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink