Breaking News: Craig's Motion Denied
Sen. McConnell? I have a question...
By haystack Posted in Breaking News — Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"Judge Denies Craig Motion to Revoke Plea"
Ok, so now this person has had his day (two actually) in court.
Craig should now live up to his original resignation, for his own sake and that of the political environment both sides of the abyss seem to be drowning in.
Senator McConnell? Will you call for this? Will you insist on it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | InSenatety — Comments (21) »
Breaking News: Craig's Motion Denied 67 Comments (0 topical, 67 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
He didn't argue ANYTHING. He pled GUILTY. He thought he could make it all go away.
But now, when he noticed he was wrong, he wanted to have a do-over and change his mind, weeks after the fact.
No deal. It's time for him to prove he can keep his word on something, and resign since he lost.
Using "Member of Congress [insert name]" and "keep his word" in the same post.
You know better.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It's called the Ron Pauli Exclusion Principle, I believe...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If you pled guilty to a charge based on an ex post facto law, because you didn't know any better, it would still be meaningless; any judge worth his salt would throw out the conviction based on the unconstitutionality of the charge, no matter the plea.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
that will hear an appeal of a misdemeanor.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Craig pled guilty under state law and asked a Minnesota judge to allow him to withdraw that plea, under state law. The judge ruled under state law.
If Craig wants to have the conviction overturned on the grounds that the arrest was unconstitutional, he has to go to federal court and make his argument there. It's not up to the Minnesota judge to go outside his jurisdiction and rule on the U.S. constitutionality of Craig's arrest.
The point is that Craig wants to try to get a not guilty verdict on the charges rather than try to have his conviction overturned on what some or many might view as a technicality. This is a personal and/or political calculation on his part - and it's not the role of the courts to spare him the consequences of his choices.
Supremacy Clause and all - the MN courts are perfectly equipped to vacate a conviction that was obtained in violation of federal Constitutional rights.
This conviction? Not so much.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
make one immune to legal charges, and that the prohibition applies only while Congress is in session. So you could be charged while Congress is in session, and then arrested when Congress recesses for one of their long ones. After that, if he wanted to assert that privilege, he needed to do so BEFORE they hauled him to the local court house, or at the very least BEFORE he plead guilty. Lastly, given the courts rulings on one William Jefferson Clinton in the matter of Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky/et al, I'm not so sure they would be willing to grant the privilege as absolutely as it is written.
But Craig's biggest problem is that he pleaded GUILTY in the first place. That pretty much nullifies most of the other protections accept actual innocence or coersion on the part of the police. Fighting it is political suicide. And the Republicans can't afford to have another hanger-on like this one in the next election cycle. We're down 5 incumbents out of the gate, having "culture of corruption" miasma floating around isn't going to help prosepcts. Craig needs to leave. After he clears his name, he can come back for holy retribution, but not before.
This will be a test for politicians. The esteemed senator has already failed his, but where will the republican leadership stand?
GOOD. NOW the other Senators need to send him to the "OUTHOUSE"!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/10/minnesota-judge-correctly-flushes...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
If the Democrats cleaned their house of all dim-witted slugs of questionable honor, they'd be unable to keep the seats of Congress filled.
I am all about purging the GOP of RINOs. I'm all about purging the GOP of dishonest cretins. But the way to do it is to PRIMARY their butts. The Republican Party, to its credit, has an interest in professional integrity (utterly unknown on the Dem side) -- Republican elected officials who become mired in legal trouble or really serious ethics and moral issues usually resign, sometimes under pressure.
But here's two points: First of all, it is a MINOR scandal. The charge he pled guilty to was what, a misdemeanor that merits a ticket. The media have blown this into a major mess. Screw the media.
Second point, resignations have gotten us nowhere. Tom Delay resigned after a trumped-up charge by a crooked DA. We lost the seat. That idiot Foley resigned amid a scandal that involved no crime -- not only did we lose the seat, but the crap-weasel media front-paged that one for months, and probably got the House Dem majority solely because of that.
Meanwhile, IN HIS FREEZER continues to slither the halls of Congress. Mr Gay Prostitute Ring in his Office is a committee chair. Slick Willy dug in his heels, and in spite of an open-and-shut perjury case, avoided becoming the first impeached POTUS to be thrown out. Now he's a rock-star zillionaire who wants to run for, and probably could win, President of the World.
So why, really, should stupid cretin Craig have the GOP run him out of office? Because some 2-bit judge refused to allow him to reverse his plea on that misdemeanor?
Just primary him in his next election. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained otherwise, because he WILL be jettisoned.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
So that's the line? Misdemeanor convinctions A-OK, Felonies not?
He didn't say they were A-Ok. In fact, disapproval of Craig was implicit in the response.
absentee
and not a minute after. And that was also explicit.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
For this to be used as an issue against our candidate during the next election. He needs to resign now, because he's hurting us otherwise. He has to realize that. He just places a few more months in the Senate above what's best for the party and the country. He's still got a chance to get some sweet earmarks, I guess. Maybe he can put his name on some buildings on his way out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Longer than a few more months. Craig is not up for re-election in 2008. If he's not forced out, he can stay until his term runs out in 2010 or 2012, whichever it is.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I could have sworn he wasn't up for election next year. Thanks for the correction to my mistake.
Now that he says he will not resign, is he planning to run again? That would suck (no pun intended).
you know, right there with rolling through a stop sign.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Senators need to be held to a higher standard, especially when we all know the only reason he pled guilty to this was that he didn't want what he was ACTUALLY doing to be made public.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
They're disgraces aren't they?
I sure hope you don't think they excuse Craig not resigning immediately after his guilty plea, though.
And not once did my hands end up in another man's restroom stall as a result.
No matter how many sleazes there are on the Democratic side, this man does not need to be on Senate payroll for another second. He's a married man prowling around public bathrooms, at the very least trying to pick up "toilet paper" and very likely trying to pick up more than that.
Mitch needs to show this man the door, Sen. Craig is not worthy of his office (debased even as that office has been in the past few decades). His self-absorption is unbelievable and faith in the party won't be restored until we actually have some more honorable men and women serving (Coburn, DeMint types).
Given that "the crap-weasel media" is still, well, "the crap-weasel media", why do you think keeping Larry the Letch in the Senate works to our benefit?
Or, put differently, are you really suggesting that we fall on our swords for Larry Craig? I mean, Larry? Craig?
For my money, he needed to leave. Yesterday.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
These things pass. This was minor. As I said and will say many times, SCREW the media. The reason Craig is a problem is PURELY because of the media. When we keep throwing mice to the weasels, they keep coming around.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
1) I may have missed the news. What was it that Vitter pled to in court again?
2) "SCREW the media" may make you feel better - but it's not a viable strategy when self-same media is set to SCREW us. YMMV.
Say it with me - He. Pled. Guilty.
This is a story because... He. Pled. Guilty.
This will continue every single stinking minute he stays in the Senate because... He. Pled. Guilty.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Inre item #! -- Vitter was in reference to a media blow-up based on a Republican "moral issue" . And in my judgment, the Vitter scandal made a comparable magnitude of splash, and for a broadly similar reason. And since it has died down pretty quickly to a dull hum, I believe the Craig thing is similar.
Now say it with me: Mis.De.Mea.Nor. Ti.cket.
Inre Item #2, the worm is starting to turn on the MSM chokehold on free America. The General Betray-Us ad in the Treason Times (do not miss this point -- the PREMIER LEFTY RAG IN THE UNIVERSE) resulted in a Congressional condemnation (do not miss this point either -- a DEMOCRAT Congress that is consumed with BDS). The left's attempt to get the Swifties thrown in there got shot down. The Clintonista Matters ambush of Limbaugh got pilloried, and a standing invite from Limbaugh to Harry Reid for a mano-y-mano showdown results in .....crickets chirping.
Rush has shown us, that a forceful, continuing, articulate response to the crapweasel media can win.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Yep, no big deal. That being the case I still cannot imagine why he didn't, you know, plead "NOT GUILTY".
Tell you what - you keep on believing that we'll be able to overcome the ludicrous bucket-loads of Krap the MSM crapweasels will dish-out for our unwillingness to toss Larry Craig (I ask again: Larry? Craig?) under the bus and I'll make sure to be with you, in close proximity, tearing my garments and gnashing my teeth when Satan gets sworn-in on 1/21/09.
Deal?
BTW, this speaks not at all to the whole pleading-guilty-I'm-resigning-I-talked-to-Arlen-I'm-not-resigning nonsense.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
But Hill-Satan will not be anywhere near the White House when [Fred/Rudy/Mitt] is being sworn in on 1/21/09.
Larry? Craig? will matter 0.00% in the 08 election.
* Every time they say "ticket for disorderly conduct", we shout "$90,000 in the FREEZER'.
* When they say "footsie in the mens bathroom" we shout "Hummer in the Oval Office".
* When they say "broke his promise to resign", we shout "Perjury in the deposition".
I'm just NOT going to act according to the media template. THEY shall not dictate what Republicans get to serve in Congress.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
He didn't plead anything in a court. He just gave a public apology for being involved with the D.C. prostitution thing and then was connected up with another brothel in NO. Vitter should resign.
Republicans may have slightly better ratings than Dems, but 18 vs 11 ain't nothing to brag about. The War, although going well is still a drag on the election. The economy, despite having sound economic fundamentals, is likely on the verge of another recession because people don't believe it is doing well, there is a credit crunch for mortgages, and the MSM won't report good economic news until there is a Dem in the White House. We're down 4 or 5 incumbents right out of the gate. We're about to take a beating on SCHIP, because even though Bush was right to veto this socialist piece of crap, none of the Republicans anywhere on Capital Hill have any idea how to go over the heads of the Soros bought Democrats to appeal directly to the American people. Even if it wasn't sole responsible, the Foley mess certainly contributed to the loss of the House (I believe we would have lost his seat had he run).
In that kind of environment, Craig will at best be a distraction, and is far more likely to be yet another Foley. Cut him loose now, and pray for the best.
Well, maybe next issue. I believe what I believe.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
He told the people that he would wait until the end of September, then said he would wait until the judges verdict. He has that decision. He now needs to resign immediately. This long nightmare needs to end and it will end with him stepping down and moving on with his life-but not in the senate.
Is what has me upset about this.
He had chosen to do the right thing. As such, a lot of the Idaho Republican establshment surrounded him as he "resigned", to ease the pain for him and his family.
In his speach, he said something to the effect of "I intend to resign on September 30th, to allow the time for my successor to have time for a transition".
That was not his intent. He lied to us. Period.
He gave us the photo op that the media wanted, then hunkered down and hoped that this would blow over.
All in all, this won't be the biggest of issues for 2008, if he stays or if he goes. That said, any chance Mr. Craig had to re-establish any level of credibility or respect is gone.
He's just another lying, self-serving politician, who just happens to have "wide stance" and likes to reach under stalls in men's rooms.
Hopefully Craig will put himself and the Party out of their collective misery, step aside and retire into oblivion. However, I can't help but wonder why David Vitter was spared this kind of onslaught.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Come on now. Do you really think anyone there cares?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
As part of his reaction...
------------------------------------
"Over the course of my three terms in the Senate and five terms in the House, I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments that are valuable to Idaho, not the least of which are my seats on the Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. A replacement would be highly unlikely to obtain these posts.
"In addition, I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee - something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate.
------------------------------------
I take all of this as a saying "I dont want to go"
The only thing that gets you filleted in LA in regards to a sex scandal is having either a dead girl or a live boy in your bed. Since Vitter had neither, he'll be fine.
Laissez Les Bon Temps Rouler!
to stay in the senate? He was only going to do it for another year. Why can't he just do the party a favor and get out? And take Vitter with him?
I was brought up to believe that how I saw myself was more important than how others saw me. (Anwar al-Sadar, President of Egypt, 1970-1981)
Fox News is reporting that Craig will not resign and will stay and serve.
Craig should go--just for showing bad judgement. How could a man with so much power and in such a prestigious, visible position do something so reckless and indiscrete?
I really could care less about his sexuality. I really could care less about a rather trivial guilty plea to something that may or may not have happened.
Even if you assume that the worst was true, that he was trolling for sex in the bathroom with another guy, I cannot see how a hand wave and a foot tap in any way could be considered some terrible imposition if I were in the stall next to me. If I managed to notice someone tapping their foot next to me and then saw a hand pass back and forth, I doubt I'd notice it for one, and for two, I wouldn't even think of it as some effort to pick me up. I mean come on, I've had waiters hit on me harder at a restaurant.
The way I look at it, it's not like he was picking up some person and paying for sex (unlike another Senator that we won't mention). And I don't even think that senator should resign.
And with all due respect to the various congressional people here, if we kicked everyone out for any lapse of judgment or for stupidity or for minor legal infractions, the only people left would be the people who simply hadn't been charged yet. (Note: I'm not claiming everyone in congress has committed felonies, but I'm sure everyone has broken some sort of law, even as trivial as going to the bathroom behind a tree, which incidentally would get you on the registered sex offenders list if you had the bad luck of being observed and charged with indecent exposure in Georgia, thankfully that has been changed).
You can talk about 'lack of moral character' and 'bad judgment' all you want, but the citizens in Idaho can call for a recall if they're really up in arms about it, in addition, he'll be up for election soon enough, and if somehow someway the Republicans manage to lose that Seat because Craig managed to win the primary but lose the general election, then the Republican party may as well turn out the lights.
The only real issue with Craig, is the 'I plan to resign' and then changing his mind. and really, the people if Idaho can boot him out if they want him gone.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Does being a Republican mean anything anymore? There is no way that someone with this degree of self centered entitlement and this extent of impaired judgement should be allowed to continue serving in the Senate as a Republican.
He should be expelled from the party if he does not resign immediately. Sorry but this is just flat out disgusting.
He is clearly not a man of his word. He lacks fundamental integrity. He said he was guilty, then changed his mind. He said he would resign, then went back on his word. My disdain for Craig does not arise from the liberal media, although he has certainly handed them several weapons at a critical time in the battle.
It will be R rated, but take the gloves off regarding "homosexual lifestyles" in the ethics committee. I fear too many Americans believe being a homosexual is about being a great neighbor, taxpayer and congenial talk show host. Let the American people see what the "homosexual lifestyle" is really about. Craig's actions are part and parcel of being a homosexual. The American people need to know this.
Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush
This is about his pleading guilty in court; had he been soliciting a female prostitute and pled guilty to this same lesser charge, we'd be having the same discussion.
He wasn't offering to pay for the sex. So it wasn't solicitation, if in fact he was looking for (free) sex in the first place (which was insinuated, but never charged).
Honestly, the only reason this entire debate is still going on is because of the implied homosexuality.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
Saying he'd go into the *women's* bathroom and troll around... is a different matter entirely, heh.
But your second line is flat wrong. Well, I will say this: the Democrats are screeching louder about it, because so many of them apparently hate gays, but I don't imagine the Republican reaction is any different at all.
If you are going to be it, try to spell it.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Soliciting a prostitute is against the law as was engaging in common homosexual lifestyle behavior in many states (i.e. anonymous oral sex) until the Supreme Court found the dormant homosexual clause in the Constitution. Yes, Craig was acting upon his homosexual lifestyle tendencies in a public place, which is a misdemeanor (until Justice Kennedy writes a 5-4 opinion), but the opportunity in the ethics committee is to fully discuss what the "homosexual lifestyle" is all about, as exhibited by Senator Craig.
Never forget, David Souter was nominated by President George H.W. Bush
Larry Craig didn't plead guilty to any sex-related charge. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Getting thrown out of a bar could easily get you arrested for disorderly conduct. Would you suggest that a Senator that got arrested under those circumstances must resign because he pleaded guilty?
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I wouldn't want to see Charles Barkley in the Senate, either. Even when he was a Republican.
Defining the "homosexual lifestyle" is not germain to Larry Craig. Most men that do this type of behavior tend to be married or men that live "heterosexual lifestyles". The reason they do this is because they are repressed over in deep denial. This is anonymous and they don't have to acknowledge being gay by do outwardly gay things-like going to bars over whatever. So instead they resort to going to bathrooms and rest areas. Most other homosexuals (at least that I know) do live next door, pay taxes and mind their own business. Their good neighbors to my family and I think it is unfair to tar all "homosexuals" with the "homosexual lifestyle"-whatever that means. Sure there are some homosexuals that are promiscuous etc but there are heterosexuals that are promiscuous etc. also. The "homosexual lifestyle" is a BS term and is a homophobic. Stacy sounds like he/she has quite a bit of hate in her heart.
He's still deep... deep... in the closet, ya know.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
My big beef with Craig is he said he "intended to resign at the end of September" then waited until after the verdict of the judge. Now he has decided that he is going to stay on until 2008. I think this is selfish. It is bad for the party and as well bad for him. Him remaining in the senate for another year in 4 months will be an unnecessary diversion. And if we have to endure an ethics investigation because he stays in the senate it will be an even more prolonged drag. Do we really want the Minnesota cop appearing in a senate investigation explaining the tawdry details of this mess? And what other bathroom excursion could possibly come up? And all this going on while we are in the heat of the campaign will be ugly.
If he resigns now he could save himself, the party and the country this sorted story. I think most of us have heard enough. We don't need any more graphic details.
I would think that Article I, Section 6 would make the charges invalid on their face:
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community