[Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea

[Ted Moffett]

Tom, Sunil et. al.

Regarding the disorderly conduct misdemeanor charge, and the gross
misdemeanor invasion of privacy charge, read the arguments from Craig's
attorneys at the pdf link I previously posted.  Also read the ACLU's
arguments in defense of Craig at the pdf link at the bottom of this post.
This level of legal reasoning and referencing of case precedent requires
study.

As to the possibility Craig could have gotten the charges dropped without a
guilty plea, read the quote I posted from a professor at the University of
Minnesota law school.  Note though that this option might not have sparred
Craig publicity.

It does not matter if Craig pled not guilty, or eventually had the charges
dropped, if that tape of his conversation (or any written record of that
conversation) with the arresting police officer was make public.  Only if
that tape was kept "secret" or destroyed could Craig avoid a political
scandal.  I believe it when Craig said he "panicked" at first over this
incident.  He should have kept insisting he wanted to talk to a lawyer and
remained silent after he was approached by police, though he may have been
more "cooperative" to avoid what he thought might be more drastic actions by
the police.  Why weeks later he pursued the course of action he did is
puzzling, unless he reasoned he thought it offered the best chance of
avoiding publicity, the absolute worst case outcome for someone in his
position.  A trial, even if he was found not guilty, would have been a
disaster.

As to the Republican lambasting of Senator Craig, and the pass given Senator
Vitter, you are correct of course that who would replace them, if they were
forced out, by the governor in each state, is a critical issue.  But if
Craig had been linked to an affair with a female prostitute, like Vitter, I
still question if he would have been tarred and feathered and ran out of
town, as he was, even given Otter would replace him with a Republican.  The
fact Craig was linked to homosexual advances makes all the difference.  How
many good'ol boy married politicians in Washington have taken advantage of
some extracurricular heterosexual fun?  The list would go on and on...So one
of them gets caught... It's probably a joke over cocktails in the evening...

So who thinks the ACLU's case in defense of Craig has merit, in their friend
of the court brief?

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.html

Ted Moffett

On 9/26/07, Tom Hansen <idahotom at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted Moffett stated:
>
>
>
> "I think that arresting someone for Craig's conduct in this case is over
> zealous, and probably unconstitutional.  Craig peered into a stall, bumped
> someones foot, and his hand came under the stall divider.  This is
> disorderly conduct?  Questionable."
>
>
>
> As stipulated in the police complaint, Senator Craig peered into the
> neighboring stall for approximately TWO MINUTES (not exactly a "quick
> glance").
>
>
>
> By pleading guilty Senator Craig is admitting that he did, in fact,
> violate a law of the state of Minnesota and that he is GUILTY of committing
> that crime.  Senator Craig filed his guilty plea two months after having
> been charged with a crime.  Now, he is not only requesting that his guilty
> plea be overturned, but that the charges be dismissed since he feels he did
> not commit a crime (the crime that he plead guilty to).
>
>
>
> Mr. Moffett goes on to say:
>
>
>
> "If Craig had pled not guilty odds are this charge would have been
> dropped.  But avoiding publicity no doubt was uppermost on Craig's mind."
>
>
>
> What makes you even imply that "if Craig had pled not guilty odds are this
> charge would have been dropped"?  Had that been the case, and the charges
> had been dropped, one can't even begin to imagine the fallout that would
> have caused.  I believe that had Senator Craig pled "Not Guilty" to the
> original charge, he would have been scheduled for trial (something he was
> trying to avoid if guilty, and eagerly anticipated if not guilty).
>
>
>
> And Mr. Moffett continues . . .
>
>
>
> "Consider the approach taken to Senator Vitter, linked to affairs with
> prostitutes.  If Craig had faced this problem, would the attacks against
> him have been so vituperative?  Why should Craig be forced out of the US
> Senate for his conduct, and Vitter not?  A married man having sex with
> prostitutes is morally superior to a married man having gay sex?"
>
>
>
> This is a textbook example of politics in action.
>
>
>
> The reason why the Republican Party zealously pursued Senator Craig and
> wanted to avoid pursuing Senator Vitter is found in their respective state
> capitals.  If/When Senator Craig is forced to step down from his senate
> seat, it is logically anticipated that Idaho's Republican governor Butch
> Otter will replace him with another Republican.  If Senator Vitter were
> forced to step down from his senate seat, it is just as likely that
> Louisiana's Democrat governor Kathleen Blanco  would have appointed a
> Democrat replacement and the Democrat Party would have gained another US
> Senate seat without as much as an election.
>
>
>
> ------
>
>
>
> Things that make you go "Hmmm."
>
>
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
>
>
> Tom Hansen
>
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
> "Don't make me come down there."
>
> - God
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070926/9ccc8b9a/attachment-0001.html