[Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
starbliss at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 21:09:47 PDT 2007
Sunil et. al.
I made my statement about the charges against Craig being dropped if he had
contested them based on statements from lawyers commenting on this case.
Below read quote from one of them:
Several lawyers in Minnesota said Craig could have avoided the embarrassment
of having to admit committing a crime if he had hired a lawyer in the first
place. Minnesota, like many states, has special programs that allow
first-time offenders to have charges against them dropped after a year if
they do not engage in any further misconduct.
"Very likely, a lawyer would have gotten one of those dispositions ... and
Craig could have said, 'I never admitted I did anything wrong,' " said
Stephen Simon, a professor at the University of Minnesota law school.
And for those who really want to explore the case Craig's attorney's are
making in his defense, here's a pdf link to the legal eagles arguments:
On 9/26/07, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> While I agree with many of your points, I disagree with your statement
> if he had contested the charges, they would have been dropped. I haven't
> seen anything suggesting that these cases were being dismissed. I'm not
> saying such a story isn't out there, just that I've not seen it.
> I agree that the different treatment of Vitter is hypocritical; if the
> governor of Louisiana were a Republican, perhaps he would have been forced
> out too, but I doubt it. Having used homophobia as an election tool, they
> weren't going to let Craig stay in office.
> >From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
> >To: vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >Subject: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
> >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:41:17 -0700
> >In Minnesota, Larry Craig's attorney argued today before a judge to
> >his guilty plea for the "disorderly conduct" misdemeanor charge that has
> >hounded Craig. They argued, if I have this correct, that Craig pled
> >to conduct that is not a crime. It's like being charged with (my
> >raping a manikin, and pleading guilty. The guilty plea can be withdrawn,
> >because there is no law making it illegal to rape a manikin. The ACLU
> >filed a friend of the court brief alleging unconstitutional aspects of
> >I think that arresting someone for Craig's conduct in this case is over
> >zealous, and probably unconstitutional. Craig peered into a stall,
> >someones foot, and his hand came under the stall divider. This is
> >disorderly conduct? Questionable. As to whether these actions implied a
> >sexual advance, they probably did. But this is making inferences as to
> >state of mind that are also highly questionable. There was no discussion
> >sex, in fact no discussion at all, no physical contact except bumping
> >(how often does this occur accidentally?), no notes passed under the
> >There are serious constitutional issues regarding making his conduct a
> >crime, as the ACLU asserts, even if these actions implied a sexual
> >If Craig had pled not guilty odds are this charge would have been
> >But avoiding publicity no doubt was uppermost on Craig's mind.
> >The political and ethical charges of Craig's hypocrisy in promoting a
> >"family values" agenda, while allegedly engaging in gay activity, are
> >separate from the legal issues in this case. It could be argued that
> >is representing his constituency, which is his job, even if the agenda he
> >promotes contradicts the ethical implications of his personal behavior.
> >Almost all politicians face this ethical compromise. Craig did not force
> >the voters of Idaho to vote overwhelmingly for a Super DOMA in 2006.
> >Nonetheless, the shameless manipulation by the Republican Party of the
> >sexual hysteria of the public regarding Gay behavior is a major issue
> >impacts this case politically. The Republican's didn't just throw Craig
> >the bus, they threw him under the bus, after his "disorderly conduct"
> >charges became public. They want Craig to just go away quietly, no
> >The threat of a Senate ethics investigation prompted by a misdemeanor
> >disorderly conduct charge has almost no precedent, and might be an
> >to bully Craig into resigning:
> >Investigating such a complaint, they warned, would draw the Senate into
> >"reviewing and adjudging a host of minor misdemeanors and transgressions"
> >even if "minor or professionally irrelevant."
> >Consider the approach taken to Senator Vitter, linked to affairs with
> >prostitutes. If Craig had faced this problem, would the attacks against
> >have been so vituperative? Why should Craig be forced out of the US
> >for his conduct, and Vitter not? A married man having sex with
> >is morally superior to a married man having gay sex?
> >Vitter, 46, apologized in July for committing a "very serious sin" and
> >acknowledged his Washington phone number was among those called several
> >years ago by an escort service run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey. The
> >came after Flynt's Hustler magazine told the senator that his telephone
> >number was linked to Palfrey's escort service.
> >I hope Craig stays in the senate for the remainder of his current term,
> >resolves the case in Minnesota in his favor. The case in Minnesota
> >over zealous police entrapment, possibly unconstitutional, as the ACLU
> >alleges. And Craig remaining in the senate might temper the Republicans'
> >manipulation of the public regarding Gay issues, while serving as a
> >to the public that the anti-Gay agenda of the Republican Party is
> >manipulation of the public's fears and anxieties.
> >Ted Moffett
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020