<DIV>I have a question here. Was the cop sitting on the toilet for hours with his pants up or down?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Think about the oddity of either situation for that moment. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><B><I>Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Ted,<BR><BR>So perhaps Craig could have gotten a dismissal, but it would have been a <BR>year later, assuming good conduct. It seems he wanted to get the case over <BR>and avoid publicity, as you mentioned in your post yesterday; going with a <BR>deferred prosecution would have kept the case alive another year. Of course <BR>his method of avoiding publicity also failed.<BR><BR>You talk about the conduct in the charge to which he pled, and the <BR>possibility that the law itself may be unconstitutional. That may well be <BR>so. But is that true of the
charge that was dismissed? If he gets his <BR>charge withdrawn, the best case scenario for Craig is that he now gets the <BR>deferred prosecution. With all the publicity, that's unlikely. Meanwhile <BR>his party will be backing up the bus that ran over him to take another shot <BR>at it, or looking for a wooden stake.<BR><BR>The worst case scenario is that he gets convicted at trial, after detailed <BR>testimony about him staring at the cop in the cubicle for an extended amount <BR>of time. For his party, that's the worst case scenario, as it keeps him in <BR>the headlines into 2008, as it's unlikely his trial will be this year. I <BR>don't think they'll allow that.<BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR><BR>>From: "Ted Moffett" <STARBLISS@GMAIL.COM><BR>>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <SUNILRAMALINGAM@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>>CC: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea<BR>>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:09:47 -0700<BR>><BR>>Sunil et.
al.<BR>><BR>>I made my statement about the charges against Craig being dropped if he had<BR>>contested them based on statements from lawyers commenting on this case.<BR>>Below read quote from one of them:<BR>><BR>>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.craig30aug30,0,6053476.story<BR>><BR>>Several lawyers in Minnesota said Craig could have avoided the <BR>>embarrassment<BR>>of having to admit committing a crime if he had hired a lawyer in the first<BR>>place. Minnesota, like many states, has special programs that allow<BR>>first-time offenders to have charges against them dropped after a year if<BR>>they do not engage in any further misconduct.<BR>><BR>>"Very likely, a lawyer would have gotten one of those dispositions ... and<BR>>Craig could have said, 'I never admitted I did anything wrong,' " said<BR>>Stephen Simon, a professor at the University of Minnesota law school.<BR>><BR>>-----<BR>><BR>>And
for those who really want to explore the case Craig's attorney's are<BR>>making in his defense, here's a pdf link to the legal eagles arguments:<BR>><BR>>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/09/10/craig.motion.pdf<BR>><BR>>-----------<BR>><BR>>Ted Moffett<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! <br><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow">Play Monopoly Here and Now</a> (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.