Larry the Grammarian

Oh. My. This just keeps on getting better. Larry's lawyer filed a 27-page brief formally initiating an appeal of the judge's October ruling rejecting his plea withdrawal argument.

In it they argue that wittle Warry's actions couldn't have been a crime because 1) they could not have been offensive to the officer because he invited Craig's response and 2) the law states that "the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger others" and there was only wun wittle officer.

Hitting the Sauce Juice

Craig who, of course, never solicited sex in the MSP airport restroom, having lost the appeal to withdraw his guilty plea, tries another tack. Along the lines of OJ Simpson's If I Did It approach, Larry now wants us to believe (or rather a MN appeals court judge to swallow) that though he didn't do it, if he were to have done it, he should not have been able to plead guilty to it, because it would not have been a crime, as it would have represented free speech and therefore would have been protected by the Constitution.

Irony, along with hypocrisy, is alive and well in the Republican party. Craig who has acted as a rubber stamp for this administration while they have shred that same document by the use of torture, illegal wire-tapping, denial of habeas and the latest proposal of retroactive immunity for the criminally-inclined telecom corporations, thinks his solicitation of sex in a public bathroom should be a protected legal right.

We also learned that Craig had Mr. Martin (a criminal defense attorney) on retainer not merely before he entered his guilty plea but before he was even arrested.

While I never bought Craig's lie that he didn't consult an attorney before rendering his plea, the fact that he included that apparent lie in his formal (legal) filings with the court is tantamount to lying under oath. I categorize the lie as being apparent only in the sense that Larry hired an attorney to expressly defend him from the onslaught of the Idaho Statesman in efforts to out him as a nasty, naughty gay boy yet apparently was too embarrassed to let him in on his little arrest issue.

So, the saga continues and we can look forward to new allegations and other humiliating reports about the sad, pathetic, senator who refuses to admit he's no longer wanted by his party or his constituents. Maybe someday this will be made into an opera.

Codes

Never mind the trolling-in-bathrooms-for-sex secret code, evidently closeted gay republican politicians have a special addendum of their own.

I mean what are the chances that this is merely a coinky dink?

Joey DiFatta, Republican Councilman from Nola evidently withdrew from a state senate campaign when reports of his lewd behavior were about to surface.

In one instance he got caught doing the wide-stance-toe-tapping shuffle in a restroom and in both instances, when asked for his identification, he "produced his commission from the St. Bernard Sheriff's Office identifying him as a captain". [my emphasis]

The attempted power play didn't work for him either. Too bad for these guys that nobody else seems to think they're quite as important as they think themselves to be.

It's Lying Time Again ...

Craig won't leave the senate

He said he'd leave if stuck with his guilty plea

The judge didn't buy his line and we didn't either

It's one more renege, back to DC and lying time [to the tune of It's Cying Time Again]

Get outta the boat, Larry.

I have to agree with Larry and Billy on one thing though, I was disappointed in Judge Porter's decision today.

Not, mind you, that is was wrong - but I was soooo looking forward to the jury's field trip to the men's room to see a demonstration on just how wide one's stance has to be to reach into the next stall. I know if I were the prosecutor, I would have insisted on it.

And the perp walk. We'll never get to see Larry to the wide stance perp walk.

Some days it just doesn't pay to get out of bed.

Breaking News: Craig in Court

Evidently the judge has decided not to decide yet. He won't likely be deciding 'til after the 30th. Poor Larry ... it's a conspiracy.

Oops ... He Did It Again

While this picture may not be worth a thousand words, it's likely worth a whole heckuva lot more than the dozens of words in this note. And doesn't Larry have neat printing?                                                                   [my emphasis]
Doesn't seem to indicate that Craig was all that stressed out or in any disagreement with the prosecutor does it? If Craig thinks this is going to play well, he ought to love the prosecutor's affidavit. [pdf] Here are just a couple of juicy tidbits:

13. (p. 3 of 33) ... I explained that the plea petition would be filed with the court and the petition and conviction would be a matter of public record. [As I said before, I couldn't believe he didn't know this and now, it appears, he was definitively informed of the fact.]

14. (same page) During the July 17, 2007 phone conversation, the Defendant expressed that he was in a difficult situation as a result of the nature of the charges and his position as a member of a zealous homophobic party United States Senator. I responded to the Defendant that I had appreciation for the fact that this was probably a difficult situation and told him that it was a situation regarding which he should seek advice from an attorney. ...[emphasis mine]

It's hard to argue misunderstanding of the situation based on these statements by the prosecutor. But if Craig's note and the prosecutor's affidavit don't sink him, take a gander at the prosecutor's motion to dismiss [pdf] that was filed in court today. Basically, the prosecutor isn't buying Craig's argument and calls him out for his political theater:

B. (p. 39 of 41) The Defendant Has Not Been Diligent in Seeking a Withdrawal of His Plea but Instead Has Waited in an Apparent Attempt to Gauge the Public Response to His Arrest and Political Turmoil.

It's difficult for me to imagine how Craig could possibly come to the conclusion that this exercise was going to come out favorably for him regardless of the legal outcome. Based on the prosecutor's motion, I don't think the legal outcome will be favorable either.

Craig's Little SM Freak Show

Okay, so maybe not SM but masochistic to be sure.

At this point Craig should just go down to The Grove and piss himself in public as it could hardly be more pathetic an act than his filing this petition [pdf file] to withdraw is guilty plea.

If pride truly does go before the fall, Craig is still standing. His arrogance laid bare as a Full Monty in his motion.

From the very first sentence in the motion we are drawn back to his failed power play in Minnesota when he presented a young officer with a senate ID card in hopes of intimidating him:

Pursuant to Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Larry Edwin Craig, a United States Senator from Idaho ("Senator Craig") [per usual, my emphasis], hereby moves this Court for an Order allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea entered in the above-captioned action on August 8, 2007.

Wow. One might wonder what the significance is, other than to intimidate influence the court, of his being a senator in this instance. They're not merely going to mention the fact but let you know at the outset that he will be referred to, from this point on, as Senator Craig (for just how long that holds remains to be seen).

Lost in the *outcome-based-ethics of the GOP, coverage by the mainstream media, and the takes of late-night comedians, the power trip is in good measure what this is about. After all, he's no ordinary citizen by gawd and he should not be subjected to this. His ID card, like a magic wand, should have made it all disappear. His magical powers having failed him, he hoped to bury the incident with the quietest of guilty pleas - one in which he would not have to submit to the humility of a public appearance; he mailed it in.

Now we're to believe it was Craig who was intimidated, by the Idaho Statesman no less. To even address the ludicrous nature of this assertion is to lend it too much credence. It would take only a casual perusal of past issues to disabuse anyone of this notion, the fawning of the articles and editorials so saccharine as to be barely digestible. I don't know Dan Popkey's political persuasion (or that of the paper's editors) but based on his writing pandering, I'd say he's definitely in the I-wanna-be-with-the-power-brokers club.

The latest evidence was perhaps the August 12th non-article article by Popkey as to whether Craig would run for re-election. While most any Idahoan (or certainly Boisean) with a pulse was aware of the reason for Popkey's leave, not many likely knew of his interview with Craig upon the completion of his investigative query. In hindsight it would appear as though the article did serve a purpose - signaling to Craig that he was safe. Granted this was after Craig entered his guilty plea and I've little doubt that he was panicked that news of his arrest might start that snowball rolling but that doesn't mean that the plea was "not knowingly and understandingly made" as his motion asserts.

Let's back up a bit.

Senator Craig states that he did not consult an attorney regarding the incident yet, 11 days after his arrest, he returned to the airport police station and requested information for his attorney. He was either lying then (if that's the case perhaps it was another failed attempt at intimidation hoping they might drop the charges if he informed them he'd involved a lawyer) or he's lying about not seeking counsel prior to his guilty plea. It is interesting to note that in his affadavit (a legal document appended to the motion) Craig chooses his words a little more carefully, stating "I did not seek advice of counsel on the date of my arrest" and then talks separately about signing the plea petition even though he did not believe himself to be guilty [more on that later] and that he did not seek advice before entering that plea. It's not clear whether or not he means at any point in the interim or whether he's being deceptively specific.

His basic argument now (after having consulted an attorney) is that he's not an attorney and can't be expected to have understood the "intricate" constitutional rights he was waiving by entering his plea ... a judge should have asked him about it.

As I've stated before, I'm not a lawyer, I have never been a lawyer, I don't do those things ... but I am aware of Miranda, as well as the 6th amendment, and what those rights entail -as are the majority of Americans if the variety and longevity of Law and Order(s) are any indication.

Are we to believe the senator didn't know that everyone is allowed their day in court? On the contrary, he didn't want a day in court, he wanted to avoid that at all costs hence his choice to mail a plea.

We're evidently supposed to also believe that Craig doesn't know that arrests are a matter of public record. Again, according to the motion, since the officer said he wouldn't go to the press, Craig had an expectation that all would be hush hush and that should be viewed as a "promise" that would be "binding on the courts and parties". You have got to be shitting me. This is pathetic - if the man is that stupid, that should be a crime in and of itself.

Further, they want to be able to withdraw his plea because "there is insufficient factual basis, as a matter of law, to support his plea of guilty". The because-you-didn't-prove-it excuse. Well, the senator could have exercised his right to a trial, then the prosecutor would have had to prove his or her case or maybe the judge would have tossed it but he decided to enter a guilty plea - the ball was in his court.

Apparently Craig is even confused by the nuanced difference between the words guilty and innocent. He pleaded guilty but now he "submits that he is innocent of the charges against him".

Look at the the copy of his plea agreement (appended to the motion). It does not take an attorney to discern the following from the document: precisely what you're pleading to, what rights you are waiving in entering the plea, acknowledgment of whether or not you are represented by counsel, specifically that you are not making any claim of innocence and also the (detailed) rights you are waiving by not entering the plea in person.

To suggest that Craig is innocent and naive is simply not credible. In reviewing the interview one wonders where is the outrage of an innocent heterosexual man? [nowhere in the tone of that interview to be sure] Perhaps more telling, however, is Craig's use of "entrapment". The only way he could think of it as entrapment is if he thought that the officer's moving his foot slowly up and down had been done in response to his foot tapping (solicitation) and that it was an enticement for Craig to continue. Craig may not have acted wisely at any juncture but he knew what he was doing every step of the way.

I agree with the cop ... embarrassing.


*Outcome-based ethics. Notice that Republicans are only morally outraged when the result of advertising their faux ethics will have a desirable outcome. Vitter, with prostitutes? Well, hey, it's straight sex and he comes from a state with a Democratic governor - leave well enough alone. Instead, they can show their moral superiority while running that homo Craig off and they're guaranteed another sheep from that state. Yet we're to believe it's only because Craig entered a guilty plea, not the arrest itself - only in their warped world view is that a positive assertion.

Legalese Ease (or Not)

What did I say? Uh-huh.

Lawyers not involved in the case have said Craig faces a difficult challenge, pointing to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring that *a defendant show a "manifest injustice" to withdraw a guilty plea.

In Craig's case, he voluntarily signed a plea agreement that included a provision stating that the court would not accept such a confession of guilt from anyone who believed himself innocent.

Piece of cake, Larry.

*I don't think they made people think I'm gay is going to cut it.

Oh, and Butch, ya' know how you like to keep 'em guessing and do things contrary to what's expected of you... Call me, I could make myself available for a stint in the senate. Think of what that would do. This little scandal -it'd be forgotten in less than 24 hours.

Let the Good Times Roll

Larry Craig is apparently having second thoughts about resigning. Never mind how schadenfreudelicious^TM it will be to watch the GOPers falling all over themselves to retract their previous stance, if this article is any indication of the talents of the crack team Craig has hired to revive his image - get me some popcorn. In the mean time, here's a little friendly advice, Senator:

First, don't let your spokesman use phrases like " he's not crying in his bedroom".

Second, using Spector as a bellwether for changing your announcement to intend to resign -probably not such a great idea. I don't mean to imply that Arlen can't be counted on for the strength of his conviction but ... you have been in the senate, right?

Third, you should really examine how an attorney's other clients have fared. You know Vick is likely doing some time in the big house and have you seen Gary Condit on the hill as of late? [Not to mention the character of his other high-profile clients - wouldn't want the whole guilt by association to raise its ugly head. Iverson and Vick are not exactly Boy Scouts but I suppose you're going for a tougher, more manly image - so maybe that's okay, big guy. Although you wouldn't want that stance getting any wider.]

Fourth, I think your ethics attorney may have already tripped coming out of the gate when speaking of other Senate ethics cases:

“If you look at all the cases the Senate has tried, they’re all bribery, treason, taking gifts from outsiders, all things that are expressly prohibited by law, rule or statute,” Brand said.

So, his hotshot DC lawyer is going to argue that the Senate Ethics Committee shouldn't have jurisdiction in this case because all other ethics cases have dealt with actions that were illegal, unlike Senator Craig's actions which merely violated a Minnesota statute and, therefore, were not prohibited by law or statute. It would appear Mr. Brand took Tortured Logic 101 with Bush. Hey, it may not make sense but I'm sure he's on solid legal footing there - no worries.

While you're up could you get a couple of cokes and some jujubes -it could be awhile before intermission.

Update: [from original posting of 9/4/07 10:35 PM]

Senator Craig is sooo gay [how gay is he?] - he can't even dial a phone straight. [Yeah, I know]

Perhaps more interesting (though no unexpected) is that while KHQ reports the entirety of the voice message Craig left on the phone:

"Yes, Billy, this is Larry Craig calling, you can reach me on my cell. Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense arguing that all he know that I've been railroaded and all that. Having all that we've reshaped my statement to say it is my intent to resign on September 30. I think it is very important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon. I hope you could make it in front of the cameras. I think it would ride the story that I am willing to fight that I have quality people out there fighting in my defense and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape, it has that potential. Anyway give me a buzz, or give Mike a buzz on that, we are headed to my press conference now. Thank you, bye."

The Statesman reporter/editorial staff saw fit to excise the emphasized portion above.

[So, he wants his attorney to make as bold a statement as he is comfortable with ... Comfortable with legally because Craig has admitted his guilt to his attorney or comfortable with personally as Billy knows Larry is gay. Could you do it in front of the cameras - I need all the help I can get here - I think maybe little Larry had spent some time crying in his bedroom. Nice deletion Statesman.]

Jeralyn thinks Craig may have a shot at his plea reversal as the mail-in plea form doesn't inform him of his right to counsel - but what's a defense attorney suppose to say. Craig was given his Miranda warning by the officer and that's on tape - I don't believe the law states that an individual has to be made aware of his or her rights at every step of the process.


You can listen to the message here.

Sunday Special: Let's Be Frank

What he didn't say

Contrary to local media reports, Senator Craig did not apologize to Idahoans in his resignation statement yesterday. [ooh yesterday? Who said it was going happen yesterday?] What he said was:

I apologize to the people of our great state for being unable to serve out a term to which I have been elected.

Hmmm - I'm sure he does regret being unable to serve out his term but that hardly constitutes an apology in any way shape or form.

He also did not state that he would vigorously fight the charges against him.

His website does indicate that he has retained a lawyer to "handle issues pertaining to the Senate Ethics Committee investigation".

He refers queries about his legal defense with regard to the Minnesota incident to Judy Smith who will be handling "all other legal affairs".

I think his response is along the same lines as his showing the young officer his senate ID card and his indication that suing Mike Rogers, the blogger who first outed him, was not out of the question - bluff, bluster, idle threats.

There will be no suits and I would further suggest there will be no attempt to withdraw his plea.

First, Senator Craig entered a straight plea, not an Alford plea that would avoid admission of guilt. No doubt there is language that basically says he was not coerced in any way and was offering a truthful plea. Attempting to withdraw it now would suggest that he was lying in his initial plea; I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that would constitute perjury but ...

Second, if he withdraws his plea, the original charge will be reinstated (a felony I believe) and you can bet all sorts of details, about let's say, just how far out of the way this particular restroom may have been relative to the expected path Craig would have taken in changing planes, will come out. A chance he wants to take? I think not.

As an aside, not that it was reported but, Craig stated:

I hope I have served you and our state to the best of my ability.

Not I hope you know/believe that I have served you, but that he hopes he has done so.

He hopes? Doesn't he know? If he doesn't know, who does?


Penalty - Delay of Game

Puhleez, can you get over it already. I am so damned sick of hearing about how wonderful the BSU bronco football team is and how last year's Fiesta Bowl was the greatest game in college history ... blah, blah, blah. You would think that there was nothing else positive about Boise, Idaho other than this athletic program.

Let's be frank, the Fiesta Bowl? A miracle on ice -it wasn't.

Yes, Oklahoma has 9 national titles; 8 of the 9 were prior to 1986. Both teams had starting quarterbacks that were seniors except:

While Zabransky was in his 3rd year as starting quarterback, Oklahoma's quarterback a fifth-year senior (owing to the fact that he was red-shirted as a junior not being needed at either the quarterback position that he wanted or as a wide receiver, the position he played the previous season), was in his first season as starting quarterback and this, only because the starter was removed from the team in August for NCAA violations. In fact, prior to last season Thompson (OK's QB) hadn't played any minutes in that position since 2003 when he was last a second string quarterback.

Thompson threw 3 interceptions and lost a fumble.

Yes, those are the things of which the greatest ball games are made [I know it was all BSU's amazing defense].

That said, did Chris Petersen coach a helluva a game? Indeed he did. Credit, where credit due.

Update: And Another Thing

Just to get this out ahead of the election cycle -could we please find some political commentators who aren't completely worthless?!!

Granted Jim Weatherby sounds like a genius compared to Jasper LiCalzi (who sounds as though he graduated from the same educational system, "like as such", that produced Miss Teen South Carolina), but still.

Makin' Book and More

If I were a betting man gal, I'd say Saturday (or late Friday evening), after everyone has hit the road for their weekend destinations, for the announcement of Craig's resignation. That'll give him a couple of dead news days for the smoke to dissipate.

Craig's denials just aren't credible. But then, that's not really news. His denials, especially the preemptive one, have never been credible. Craig has never been a particularly nice or honest man. One might even say he's been a bad, naughty, nasty boy. Before this latest brouhaha over his peccadillo in the men's restroom, I was going to take him to task for the fundamental dishonesty [much like Simpson's] displayed on his website. It seems kind of pointless now but what the heck.

Although his denial presser has moved them off the front page, he has "releases" where he blames the Democrats for the failure of congress to pass any legislation and, get this, for the lack of fiscal responsibility. Yes, two Republican administrations (Reagan and the current White House occupant) digging our country into a hole several trillions of dollars deep (Bush decimating trillons in surplus first) and Craig wants to lecture Democrats on fiscal responsibility. But what can you expect from a guy who blames a newspaper (especially one who has gone out of its way to fawn all over him) for his pleading guilty to extranecessary^TM restroom activities.

As an aside, credit where credit due. While I may disagree with a few, several,many, most of his positions, Sen. Crapo's website represents all we should expect from that of an elected official. It's informative and has clear statements of his positions, information on legislation he's working on, complete contact information (and an invitation to do so) and links to the congressional record so we can see how he is voting on our behalf. Thank you, senator.

Rep. Sali? There's really no point is there? He's just fundamentally* insane.


* double entendre [for Sali supporters -here you can look it up]