Craig attempts to change Guilty plea
 

SUMMARY: Sen. Larry Craig wants to shed his guilty plea because he doesn't like the political consequences, a prosecutor says in advance of Wednesday's hearing.

Sen. Larry Craig is only trying to get out of his guilty plea in an airport sex sting because he doesn't like the political consequences, a Minneapolis prosecutor wrote in court papers filed Monday.
Craig, R-Idaho, has asked to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he was panicked into admitting to a crime he did not commit. A judge is set to hear the matter Wednesday.
Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct last month after an undercover officer at the Minneapolis airport alleged that Craig solicited him for sex. The senator has contended in recent weeks that he had done nothing wrong and said his only mistake was pleading guilty.
Airport prosecutor Christopher Renz wrote in court papers Monday that Craig had plenty of time between his June 11 arrest and Aug. 1, when he signed a plea petition, to think about the consequences of pleading guilty and whether he had actually committed a crime in the airport bathroom.
Craig's arrest and guilty plea weren't reported in the news media until Aug. 27. On Sept. 1, Craig announced plans to resign by Sept. 30. He later suggested he might stay in the Senate if he could successfully overturn his plea.
Denying Craig's motion "prevents further politicking and game playing on the part of the defendant in relation to his plea," Renz wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20070926/...aigpoliticking


and the irony here is....this is the same man that went after Barney Frank almost 20 years ago....funny how karma works .

Has anyone come out saying they've had a relationship or homosexual encounter with Larry Craig? I have not heard anything, and I guess until I do, I would have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Do I think he should be able to change his plea--no, he should have thought about that earlier because really its a done deal at this point.

I agree. I think the sting itself was totally unfair, but his knee-jerk plea was just stupid.

If he's guilty, he should resign. That's the bottom line. Sex criminals ought not be in Congress. Not only should he resign, he should do time. If it was one of us in the same position, we'd be looking at time plus having to register as a sex offender.

well....hmm....he's being charged for a misdemeanor...I am not understanding this.

I have a question Kevin, you may know this better than I do.

(No snark in this, I really want to know)

What does his crime have to be for it to be considered to be a 'sex crime' to then make him a registered sex offender?

Wouldn't what he did have to be considered a felony under the law under the state for where the crime was committed?

I don't really know anything about Minnesota criminal statutes.

I'm not trying to dodge your question, I just don't know. I don't remember whether Craig was attempting to procure an act of prostitution or whether he was simply propositioning a person in the restroom. If he was "pandering" as they call it, in my state, that's a felony.

I can't imagine that the crime "disorderly conduct" really fits the facts at all. It definitely removes the sex crime aspect of the case. At minimum Craig ought to have to register as a sex criminal.

From what I understand of the case, it is not a "sex crime". The bathroom at that airport had become known for a place for men to hook up with each other and have consensual sexual encounters. If sex had taken place, then a crime (sex in a public place-- lewd and lascivious conduct??) would have been an appropriate charge. But since there was no sex, I really don't see what the problem is. That's not to say that I find the Senator's behavior unbecoming of an elected official; not because of his homosexual tendencies, but because of his dishonesty and hypocrisy.

When I was growing up, my grandmother's preacher got caught in a sting operation at an adult bookstore. He had approached an undercover agent and solicited PAID sex, so obviously, that's a big no-no. But I don't think Craig was looking to pay for it, was he? And I don't think he was being an underage predator, either. But, I get snippits of US news over here, so I could be wrong.

I don't know. I didn't know the part about hooking up in airport restrooms.

That's a bit creepy.

This link details what happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/wa...tJi8RgJbQtJvcQ

Thanks, but that still doesn't completely clarify to me if the "lewd conduct" complaints made that led to the sting operation were due to consensual hook ups, or if it is a case of male prostitutes working the bathrooms. My thought is the former, because if it was the latter, I'm sure the story would have been that Craig was attempting to hire a prostitute.

I wonder if he was set up........

I believe we're talking consensual acts here. Just public ones. The ACLU is on Craig's side in that there is no reason why one can't solicit sex in the bathroom, as long as they're not having it...

Minnesota Lawyer Blog
 

Silly musings


It’s not a crime to make a pass at someone in a public place, but it could be a crime to engage in conduct that elicits “alarm or resentment” in others. Asking for a phone number in a bar: OK. Implicitly offering sex in an airport bathroom: Not OK.

That's my problem with the whole thing. He was set up in a place where men were known to hook up. I don't think that makes him a criminal.

It sounds to me like the majority here think he is "guilty" and that he was in fact trying to hook up with someone? Is my perception accurate?

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

There have been other allegations that Craig has engaged in this type of behavior. None have been proven but the allegations go back as far as 1982.

Here's an article about it: http://www.idahostatesman.com/localn...ry/143801.html

well you sure can't hook up with a woman in the men's room....LOL

Who says???:p;)

No, I could care less if he was "guilty" or not of trying to hook up. It's not the fact that he may or may not be a homosexual. And I do wonder about the legality of the whole sting operation. Foot tapping is not against the law. What bothers me is that he did plead guilty to something. Whether it's because he knew he was engaging in questioning behavior or because he was eager to shield his wife and public (and thereby himself) from the embarrassment of the situation, he plead guilty. That should count for something. He's now trying to circumvent the justice system by vacating his plea so he can stay in congress. I just think that's wrong. He's acting like the rest of lawmakers-- they think they are above the laws they create, and it's a sickening trend.

it has to be proven that his behavior was criminal from the jump and that's the part that has this whole thing in a pickle.

Dependent on who you talk to, men hooking up in airport restrooms is allegedly a common practice.

Atlanta International and BWI have also been known to have a few issues as well

Alpha...you know what I mean.....LOL

As has been noted, there have been men who have talked to the press, but have not gone public. This is DC after all, and it's not inconceivable that any men in question have their own reasons for not wanting to go public.

As for being "set up," I just don't buy that. The bait may have been offered, but nobody forced him to bite.

The man pled guilty, not nolo contendere. I don't know about Minnesota, but where I am, that's not just a simple matter of saying "okay, I'll plead guilty to get this overwith, see you later." The judge questions you pretty specifically with questions designed to make sure you understand the implications of pleading guilty. The judge also has to find that there is, in fact, a factual basis for believing that you are guilty, such as a statement from you that actually did what you have been accused of doing. These questions are designed to make sure that a defendant is receiving due process and is not being coerced into pleading guilty.

I'll be very, very surprised if he gets is allowed to withdraw that guilty plea at this point. I get the sense that he will be surprised as well.

Not to be a douche about all of this, but there's kind of a pattern forming:

-In 1982, he preemptively denies nailing Congressional pages a la Mark Foley

-Last year, he's named as someone who cruises for gay sex, implicated in three occasions: a.) Union Station, which apparently is known for 'cruising' behavior; b.) at an REI in Boise (which is loltastic); and c.) in college

-He is then arrested for following a moderately intricate process of "signals" that apparently are spread on the Internet as the way to signal "I would like a manly blowjob in this bathroom stall, what do you say ol' sport"

Not that this all couldn't be a coincidence, but I think it's very important to note his denials - he vehemently denies being gay, which isn't the issue here. The issue is whether he's getting blown by men, which while a homosexual act, could definitely be something enjoyed by an (otherwise) "straight," married man. He's treating it like an impossibility, when it's really not.

The attempt to change the guilty plea is a true shot in the dark, but hey - more power to him, I suppose. The pattern here, though, would make me think there's more here than a "setup" by Minneapolis police, who probably couldn't care less about a Senator from Idaho.

A good friend of mine who works on the Hill thought that this denial is one of the more salient facts here -- that he denies being "gay," which he probably doesn't think of himself as (he's married, after all) but he doesn't deny being "bi."

And I think you're right that the Minneapolis police probably weren't looking to bag a Senator from Idaho.

I don't think he should be allowed to change his plea, unless they can prove that he didn't know what he was getting into.

or what was getting into him....lol

Yeah I just talked to one of my friends over lunch about this and he told me that he saw something on CNN about "other men" in Larry Craig's life who have not gone public--so given that, I'll stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. :) I totally agree with you sc--he pled guilty, that's it. You don't plead guilty unless you are, especially if you're a public figure in this day and age.

Well, apparently what he filed with the court this go around does, in fact, say that he mailed the plea in rather than appearing in court. I doubt that, alone, will have much affect though -- I'm guessing that between discussions with the prosecutor and boilerplate that I would expect is on the form, just the fact that he mailed it in won't help him too much.

Wouldn't MAILING a plea show much more calculation then a verbal plea? To mail it, he would have to write it down and sign it, and put a stamp on it, and stick it in the mailbox, with chances all along the way for him to change his mind. A verbal plea could be a heat of the moment snap decision. He could have walked into the courthouse with every intention of pleading innocent, and at the last second with the pressure on and all of the charges laid out, changed his mind.

^^^ Maybe, or maybe not. If he was actually in court, the judge would not only question him but could observe his demeanor to see if it actually matched what he was saying or if he showed signs of duress, coercion, caprice, etc.

Plus, while I would guess that what he signed had all the "I understand that by entering a plea of guilty . . . ." language, and while I assume that his signature had an attestation that he had read and understood all of that, is there anybody who hasn't signed a document where we say we read and understood all the boilerplate, but we really didn't? In open court, the judge would be able to ask all of those questions and satisfy himself or herself that Craig really did understand it all and knew what he was doing in entering the plea.

For me, the issue isn't so much the "crime" he committed but the fact that he lives his public life in direct conflict with his private life. That is fine if you are into anonymous same-gender sex, own it! Don't become a senator who makes every opportunity to bash and discriminate against people who make the same life choices but choose to be honest about it.

I've met Sen. Craig and he seems like a nice guy. I honestly wish he would have taken the opportunity to just come out. He could have done for gay rights what Al Gore did for global warming.

I doubt it. There are no religious groups against global warming, and it really isn't a "social" issue. Science can prove or disprove global warming...nothing can prove or disprove people's stance on gay rights.

You're really conflating two completely different things under a kind of halcyon ideal of what would happen . . . realistically, though, everybody on Capitol Hill has to lead two lives, a public and a private, it's just that his was much more . . . stark (and probably hypocritical to some extent, although it's not like he was engaging in gay marriages, just gay sex acts - did he try to ban the latter?).

Party lines will always force people to make voting decisions they don't want to make, and etc. - and this is without getting into the fact that he likely isn't even gay (or, at least/more accurately, gay-identified).

What they should do is send him to Iran. He can not be gay over there.

-Rudey

Just to clarify my last post making a connection between Larry Craig to Al Gore ... I know that global warming and gay/lesbian rights are very different issues and distinguishable in many many ways. What I think Craig could have done was become a distinguished voice and face on this political issue. He has for many years been well-respected and it would probably open up a lot of people's minds if he came out. My comparison to Al Gore was that Gore gave America a face and voice of someone relatively mainstream as a proponent of concern over global warming. Having a recognizable face people can associate with a cause is very powerful in politics, and Larry Craig had an opportunity to spearhead what could have been a meaningful national debate on the issue.

A lot of people in Idaho are upset about this, no doubt, but I care less about his private life, and much more that he was a senior senator and we've lost what little influence and clout we had in DC. Now we're left with Bill Sali who believes that breast caner and abortion are linked http://www.spokesmanreview.com/idaho....asp?ID=157294 and it is going to take a lot of time to regain what we've lost as a result of Craig.

I also feel horrible for his wife. If, in fact, he has had anonymous sex he may have exposed her to disease, and that is unforgivable regardless of who or what a person decides to be intimate with.

I think we're not really speaking the same language here. I mean . . .

He's not a face for gay America, because Larry Craig a.) doesn't do anything positive for gay communities or even represent their interests when he's getting head in a bathroom and b.) HE LIKELY ISN'T EVEN GAY, IN SPITE OF HIS ACTS

I said that Craig had an opportunity to be a political face and voice for gay America and that it was unfortunate that he didn't take that opportunity ... not that he is a face or voice for gay America.

Skylark....

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/howard/61485/

Frank speaks on Craig.

How did he have this opportunity?

How would taking this opportunity NOT require him to be a voice for gay America?

Is he even gay?

Would it really help/would he actually be that voice you're claiming he could be?

I just think you're being quite short-sighted here - no such opportunity existed, and in fact he has the distinct opportunity to be a voice against gay America in many ways, no matter how positive he may act.