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?