Read Larry Craig's Poignant Request To Withdraw Guilty Plea

Comments (44)

anonymous wrote on September 10, 2007 3:49 PM:

Let's assume the office actually promised Craig something he couldn't and wouldn't.

Are we to believe that Craig is so stupid that he thinks convictions are not public information?

If he's that stupid, he doesn't belong in adult society, much less the Senate of the United States, and he might as well check into an assisted-care living facility where his feeble brain can get some rest.

And, btw, didn't he state long before the guilty plea that he was consulting an attorney?

So, he lied to police officers in the course of negotiating his plea deal?

Even more reason to not accept his claims.

And this is a US senator and he doesn't know about his right to an attorney despite being mirandized or understand the advisability of seeking the advice of an attorney?

Finally, boo hoo hoo. This moron and his supporters almost certainly would be absolutedly dismissive of a black man's claims of a coerced confession even under physical and psychological pressures that make Craig's little interview pale in compasion.

Craing and his defenders who've consistently undermined the constitutional rights of the accused in this country are being despicably hypocritical by making these claims.

Greg wrote on September 10, 2007 3:54 PM:

it is really unreal how woefully short of adding up this falls...

Steve wrote on September 10, 2007 4:06 PM:

For people "stuck" in a similar situation here are a couple of common sense suggestions before you make a plea;
1) Call your lawyer.
2) Take responsibility for your own actions.
Oh, forgive me; common sense isn't very common in our government's leaders.

S

apodaca wrote on September 10, 2007 4:08 PM:

Note also the critical misdirection that permeates most of the brief: the focus is almost exclusively on how hastily Craig submitted to the interview, not how he decided to plead guilty weeks later.

The simple fact is that Craig was Mirandized, and there's no reason to think he didn't understand his rights. In agreeing to be interviewed after his arrest, Craig waived his rights.

And as for consistently maintaining his innocence: bunk. The guilty plea petition he signed specifically concedes guilt. Moreover, Craig had weeks to consult an attorney, and even went back to the airport police station to demand more info, allegedly in order to give to his lawyer. The claim that he didn't understand his right to counsel after the arrest & interview is just as bogus as the claim that the interview was unfair.

You have to love these law & order Republicans....

dps wrote on September 10, 2007 4:15 PM:

Another thing that doesn't add up is the "plea agreement" mentioned in the petition. Senator Craig or his proxy must have had some contact with the prosecution in order for the gross misdemeanor to be dropped, isn't that right? Has anyone interviewed or tried to contact the prosecutor? And who is the judge in this case?

Aexia wrote on September 10, 2007 4:19 PM:

Wait a second? That was the actual statement?

It reads like something from the Onion.

Andrew Foland wrote on September 10, 2007 4:20 PM:

Suppose you're from Idaho. Is this the guy you want representing your state in some back-room negotiation?

blake wrote on September 10, 2007 4:26 PM:

he's pathetic. not a chance in hell anybody's gonna buy that.

well, maybe the president would.

Jingzi wrote on September 10, 2007 4:27 PM:

For some reason I had been assuming that all the plea action took place following the interview with the police officer with little or no intervening time.

I didn't understand that he had mailed in his plea documents days or weeks later! He had plenty of time to consult an attorney AND the financial resources to do so.

I represented many many misdeamenor defendants as a public defender who were too poor to make even a few hundred dollars bail. The were often forced to choose between staying jail 30 - 45 days waiting for trial on a case they could win and pleading guilty so they could get out right away and hope to keep their jobs or housing.

For a court to let him off would be clear bias toward the rich and powerful.

barkleyg wrote on September 10, 2007 4:32 PM:

Unbelievable.

"While in this state of intense anxiety, Senator Craig felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer; namely that if he were to submit to an interview and plead guilty, then none of the officer's allegations would be made public"

How come the lawyer, or most articles concerning this closet freak don't mention that he got arrested in June, and didn't plead till August?
And a sitting senator doesn't know that criminal records, whether they be felonies or misdemeanors ARE PUBLIC RECORDS? Helluva Senator; his state should be sooo proud of his knowledge of the law.

What I love just as much as this crock of sht
defense, is that he was legally protected from getting arrested. The federal law about Congressman being protected from arrest when they are going to or from their duties as a Congressman. He continued to D.C. that day where he voted on a couple of pieces of legislation.

Two months of "anxiety" over his arrest? Gimme a break!!

MarclNYC wrote on September 10, 2007 4:41 PM:

Maybe two months of "anxiety" over trying to decide which way he "wanted" to be outed.

Lily wrote on September 10, 2007 4:53 PM:

OK, wait. From the document:
"Based on these circumstances, however, the Senator had reason to believe that, without additional corroborating evidence, the Statesman would not publish these false and unproven allegations."

So, he decided to provide that additional corroborating evidence by pleading guilty when he was accused of trolling for gay sex? I mean, come on. I can't believe this sentence is even in there. It's absurd. His actions only reinforced the Statesman's premise. Had he pleaded not guilty and run the thing to its natural conclusion (who's kidding who; I'm no lawyer, but it's pretty clear he could have gotten out of it; he didn't really *do* anthing), the Statesman (and the rest of the world) would still have no "additional corroborating evidence."

Chesire111 wrote on September 10, 2007 5:14 PM:

Nice to see that the party of personal accountability continues it's unbroken record of blaming everybody but themselves for their own actions.

Danny G. wrote on September 10, 2007 5:39 PM:

"A state of intense anxiety"...Yeah Right,Intense Anxiety over living as a homosexual "in the closet",all of his life....Get Real Larry.

Mike Snyder wrote on September 10, 2007 5:55 PM:

I love it. He's using the "Gay Panic" defense!

Horatio wrote on September 10, 2007 6:01 PM:

Not to mention the fact that if he *now* says he's NOT guilty, then in fact he perjured himself by agreeing to the fact that he indeed was guilty at the time of the plea. Either he's gay or a liar, either way he is a typical republican and, as such, an embarrassment to America.

Brian Almeida wrote on September 10, 2007 6:06 PM:

Well boo hoo Senator Craig! If you cant stand up to the big mean ole press, then how do you expect to be tough enough to stand up to and provide leadership against the terrorists?

Glenn wrote on September 10, 2007 6:08 PM:

I am from Idaho and if you think the bathroom was the first back room deal Craig has ever been a part of think again. His whole legislation for Idaho Issues has always been closed doors, back room dealing politics.

I don't see him getting re-elected and I really don't know how the people and government of Idaho is allowing him to remain. I have wrote to my leaders telling them to drop him but he seems to think he can continue his career as a senator.

John M. wrote on September 10, 2007 6:29 PM:

Seems to me this 'intense anxiety' is the sort of justification that led many of our congress people to vote for the Iraq invasion. I don't really think we need to keep these spineless politicians in office to wreak further havoc on our country. GOODBYE, and good luck!

iburl wrote on September 10, 2007 6:59 PM:

If Idahoans accecpt this moron as a senator they deserve the reputation they have as a moronic backwater populated by white supremists and other assorted christian and gun nuts.

DC wrote on September 10, 2007 7:02 PM:

I am also from Idaho, and this whole thing is just so bizarre that it borders on fascinating...!

As a democrat in Idaho, I wish Craig all the success of getting his guilty plea reversed so that he can stand trial for not only the count that he plead guilty to, but also for the more serious count. I wish him to remain in the news as long as possible because while I might be from Idaho, this guy doesn't represent my values and I long to see my home state move to the blue...

Go get 'em Craig - you lying hypocritical weasel. If only you had the stones to tell the truth...

DC wrote on September 10, 2007 7:04 PM:

Hey now iburl - there are a whopping 30% of this state that are blue. Buffoons like Craig can only help us wash the red out.

jollyroger wrote on September 10, 2007 7:06 PM:

It appears that Craig's real objection to the plea is that he did not get the benefit of his bargain, ie, he was denied the avoidance of publicity implied by Karsnia's promise not to contact the media.

He may have been the victim of police misrepresentation (boy, that'll be a first...) but that will not render his plea constitutionally deficient.

He would have had a stronger argument without the whining. That said (IAAL), the absence of a judicial encounter wherein he "allocuted" to the charged conduct may present enough wriggle room for a friendly judge to set aside the plea.

Jinjzi notes, above:
"For a court to let him off would be clear bias toward the rich and powerful."

I need not, of course, remind my public defender colleague that the law is written to produce such clear bias.

Meah Bottoms wrote on September 10, 2007 7:09 PM:

Hubris enables many politicians to feel that they are above the law. Or that nobody will find out when they do break it. Such a man who thought that Bill Clinton was a nasty naughty boy, and has been so vociferous against all that those who are gay are asking for, should retire. I hope he begins his retirement by beginning to be honest with himself and his family.

Wayne Bauer wrote on September 10, 2007 7:24 PM:

Here's hoping that the Court in question will allow this hypocrit the chance to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. Perhaps the trial can be held in October 2008, around one month prior to the 2008 Elections. The timing would be priceless!

Cheryl wrote on September 10, 2007 7:25 PM:

"...may present enough wriggle room for a friendly judge to set aside the plea."

This is Minneapolis, we're talking about. I believe it was the only state that Mondale won in 1984.

I doubt there are too many friendly judges in Minneapolis. Craig's proclamations, if true, sullies the Minnesota court system. In fact, his whining has probably infuriated every court in the state. Here is a corrupt senator from Idaho who is basically is saying he was getting a fair shake and needs a do-over.

Funny thing about judges, though, they've seen and heard every trick in the book. Most are pretty good at reading the perp the riot act. Look for Craig to get quite a dressing down by whatever judge rules on this.

And I call Craig corrupt, not because he's a Republican, but because he apparently will try saying and doing whatever it takes to get his way. From playing cat and mouse with the newspaper to handing the cop his business card to trying to intimidate the following week when he stopped by to telling this fabricated tale of pleading guilty when he wasn't.

David Jacobs wrote on September 10, 2007 7:34 PM:

Boo fucking hoo! Those big, bad media meanies made him do it. I was telling my wife just the other day how scary that Matt Lauer is! I don't know how those Senators sleep at night with all those scary monsters running around.

RandyR wrote on September 10, 2007 7:37 PM:

God, it's difficult when your the 25th poster in a thread.
If you wonder if Larry Craig is lying, try the wide stance he said he uses. Now we don't often have an opportunity to do experiments when we need to use the toilet, so here is the test. Place your legs, while sitting on the toilet far enough apart to get the edge of your shoes 40 inches apart, the width of a stall plus two inches on each side for the edge of your shoe, as he has said. I can't get mine more than 28 inches apart without severe hip pain. Ok, now tap your foot and try to have a BM. Immediately you will notice that as you spread your legs you pinch your butt together and it prevents the the movement.

I really want to see the reenactment in court.

If he manages to reverse his guilty plea I want to hear why he looked through the crack in the stall for 2 minutes, long enough for the officer to tell he had blue eyes. And on that subject I would also want to hear the judge ask if he ever asked an attorney about this pleading, because I bet he did.

Amy_Linden wrote on September 10, 2007 7:58 PM:

Upon seeing the badge, the senator gave the cop his business card. That seems contradictory to Craig's current story in several ways.

It suggests Craig wanted to intimidate the cop, taking away the claim of being flustered at the situation.

It contradicts the notion that Craig feared public exposure.

It indicated at the time that he was a lawmaker, someone with more than a passing familiarity of legal ins and outs, therefore not needing more than the notice that other defendants get in that situation.

All of the above seem to make him out to be an even bigger liar than he was at the time.

Anonymous wrote on September 10, 2007 8:18 PM:

Before condemning Craig, just stop and think for a moment. Which of us hasn't, in a moment of panic and anxiety, played footsie with the guy in the next stall... and later regretted it after being caught. And then, still in a bewildered state, confessed to a crime while thinking... "those stupid morons who voted for me aren't smart enough to withhold judgement on me until I clear this up."

Of course he is now wanting to clear his name because he is thinking, "If I clear up my name now, those idiots are so stupid, they'll not even be able to tell I'm conning them again!"

Wouldn't most of us do the same thing... assuming, of course, that we are just the same as this arrogant baffoon who has been able to fool the voters for 30 years?

jollyroger wrote on September 10, 2007 9:04 PM:

"Which of us hasn't, in a moment of panic and anxiety, played footsie with the guy in the next stall... and later regretted it after being caught."

Just for fun, let's embark on what the good Dr. used to call a "thought experiment"

Assume, hypothetically, co-ed bathrooms.

Make Karsnia a policewoman.

Craig behaves as alleged.

Do the Repugnants still have a problem with that?

If so, compare Vitter, rinse and repeat.

oleeb wrote on September 10, 2007 9:25 PM:

Sad, sad, sad.

It is incredible how far some people will go in an effort to convince themselves that they have fooled other people into believing that what they know about them is untrue even after the attempt to cover up the truth is utterly without credibility and they blow their cover.

Pardon the pun.

Tom Kovis wrote on September 10, 2007 11:40 PM:

I am sure that Larry Craig will end up in Nevada. The good people always dump thier trash on us Nevadans. Phil Batt sent nuclear waste south and than the adulterous republican congresswoman Helen Chenowith moved to Nevada. I am sure that Larry Craig wil continue the tradition. Hell with a little coaxing perhaps he will be the grand marshall of the gay pride parade in Reno.

Anonymous wrote on September 10, 2007 11:53 PM:

He's hoping for a sympathetic judge. Thats all this is about.

Anonymous wrote on September 11, 2007 1:58 AM:

The Idaho Stateman interviewed him a short time before he was arrested at the airport. Knowing this "cloud" was hanging over him, he continued to entertain risky business in the restroom. From the day he was arrested to the day he completed and submitted his not guilty declaration, 2 months transpired. He did not seek legal counsel, confer with his spouse, family, family friends or senate staffers - he had ample opportunity prior to pleading guilty to challenge the charges, which he did not. He has not accepted any responsibility for his actions. Intense anxiety? He should have sought legal and psychological counseling prior to signing the document. He blames the Idaho Statesman and the police sergeant, who he trusted would not release the info to the public (the sergeant, it appears, kept his side of the deal). Is he so naive to think that a guilty plea filed with the court is not public knowledge? Larry Craig, take this down wall. Accept and take responsibility for your actions.

VL wrote on September 11, 2007 8:39 AM:

"Submit to the interview" . . . hm . . . maybe Craig thought he was playing a sex game all along. Maybe he went into the room thinking he was going to get done over by somebody who liked to play cop in the bathroom. Maybe he got off on cop fantasies.

Suan King wrote on September 11, 2007 9:51 AM:

As much as I despise this man's stubbon definant attitude, I still feel sorry for him. Any closeted gay who does everything he can to appear not gay---including having the most anti-gay voting record possible-- is to be pitied. The cop was right when he said "no wonder we (the USA) are going down the tubes." He wasn't referring to sexual preference---he was referring to truth and honor. Neither of which Senator Craig is capable of, because sadly, he is so afraid of his inner, unevolved self.

I hope the court does overturn his guilty plea and this goes to trial. If Senator Craig's goal was to "make this go away" then a trial will most certainly not make it go away.

Marc5 wrote on September 11, 2007 10:19 AM:

As a openly gay guy, who has met and been with several married men, Craig's response isn't that unique. Many married gay men think they "aren't gay" or "are bisexual" because of the fear of losing their "normal" life or, playing upon the societal stereotype, the fear of being considered less of a man. Did he solicit the cop? Of course he did. This dog-and-pony show he is now putting himself through has little to do with his political career; he knows his chances of getting re-elected are slim. He is doing this as a way to save his manhood (not that one), especially in the eyes of his family. If he does get the charge thrown out (which I think he can), he'll at least save face with those who question his machismo. SOunds silly? I've been around plenty of closeted gay guys to know it's not.

gopindrag wrote on September 11, 2007 10:28 AM:

"While in this state of intense anxiety," sounds like the sort of thing fearmongering is meant to accomplish, you know like the "openly gay gays will queer our hetero freedoms."
Did anybody else see David Frum's defense of hypocrisy, the virtue of hypocrisy. He said Ted Haggard had sinned buying methamphetamine and a male escort's services, which was a sin, but the reverend Haggard had, at the same time been preaching against drugs and homosexuality and therein lies his virtue. Kind of like committing homosexual acts and riding with the armed posse that's going lynch some gay drug addicted evildoers.
May generations that follow remember, here and now, hypocrisy rules.

Dan wrote on September 11, 2007 10:54 AM:

Boys and Girls, here's a science experiment that you can conduct in the privacy of a bathroom stall that will prove Senator Craig is lying.

Most public restrooms are about 36" wide. Unless your pants have about a 72" waist, there's now way you can take a stance wide enough to reach the edge of the stall unless you swivel on the seat or move your other foot in the same direction. Your pants around your ankles prevent you from a "wide stance."

clammer wrote on September 11, 2007 11:02 AM:

1. he didn't mention this wrongful accusation to his staff or wife or family or lawyer.
2. This occurred in June and he pleaded in August, hardly a spur of the moment decision.
3. His "innocent" actions became guilty actions by his plea of guilty and admission of guilt. Obviously these trolling actions are innocent in themselves with only the intent causing them to be illegal. Tapping one's foot in time with the music is one thing, to attract the attention of the person in the next booth is another.
4. It is impossible to sit on the "throne" and place your foot under the divider if you are performing the bodily function for which the stall was intended. It is further impossible to place your left hand under the right-hand divider to pick up a piece of paper. Under these circumstances these "innocent" gestures become unequivocal trolling gestures.
5. His lawyer says the US Senator is not expected to understand the intricacies of constitutional law. He has dealt with the intricacies of constitutional law on a daily basis as a Senator. His oath of office is to uphold the Constitution. If he isn't expected to understand the Constitution then he has no business being a Senator.
6. He did not "knowingly" admit his guilt. He did not "intelligently" admit his guilt. He did not "understandably" admit his guilt. He is a U.S. Senator and is not stupid. He admitted his guilt because he knew he was guilty. He did not tell his family because he was ashamed.
7. Each item by itself may be equivocal but the cumulative effect is beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. It has been reported that there were other rest rooms in the secure area of the airport which were available to passengers connecting in the airport such as Senator Craig. This restroom was outside the secure area which meant that the Senator had to exit the area and then would have to go through the TSA procedures, remove shoes etc. This seems to undermine his claim that he was anxious not to miss his connection and to emphasize the report that this rest room was listed on gay internet sites as a good place for trolling.
7. All of the above indicates that he should not be a Senator but that begs the question since his office is not an issue. He lost $500 by reason of the plea. Legally that is the only punishment imposed. Hardly worth all the hoopla. The political fallout from the guilty plea will always be there even if the plea is withdrawn. Craig's actions has clearly demonstrated what he really is and apparently he is upset that his true self has become publicly known. He has been hoisted by his own petard and all of his fellow Senators who know him seem to agree that he should go.

zk0sm0 wrote on September 11, 2007 12:45 PM:

nothing to lose: when the courts laugh in his face, he can just pull out the old 'runaway liberal activist judiciary' saw.

Piled High and Deep wrote on September 11, 2007 3:25 PM:

What I find disturbing is the brief's approving citation of a precedent where a defendant was acquitted of taking nude pictures of a 13-year old girl because his conduct wasn't exactly "disorderly." (page 13 of the brief as linked above in the TPM document collection)

Who is lawyering for this guy, and did Larry Craig even read the brief filed on his behalf?

Jimbo wrote on September 11, 2007 6:33 PM:

I have not seen this question posed by anyone in the media. Senator Craig traveled home to Idaho each weekend via MSP Airport. This public toilet is well known by gay men as a place to find casual sex. How many times has Larry the Gay Guy used this particular toilet on his weekly travels? I wonder if the security cameras cover this entrance and exit? How many men have met Larry in this place? I'll bet he did not hand out his business card to any of them. Larry was not a first time bumpkin just taking a leak. Larry is a gay guy looking to get his ashes hauled while breaking up the monotony of a trip on Northwest Airlines. There is a lot more to this story if someone just goes looking at previous "layovers".

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)