Posted on 09/26/2007 12:42:57 PM PDT by shrinkermd
Sen. Larry Craig's actions an airport bathroom stall in June didn't constitute a crime and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, Craig's lawyer argued today. In a 45-minute hearing covered by a crowd of local and national media, William Martin faced skeptical questioning from Hennepin County District Court Judge Charles Porter, Jr. Porter said he doesn't expect to rule on Craig's petition for at least a week and a half.
"Seeking to have a guilty plea overturned is nearly impossible and it should be," Martin acknowledged during the hearing. But he also argued that Craig's plea was not voluntary, intelligent or accurate.
He said that Craig's behavior at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport -- tapping and bumping his foot, sliding his hand under the bathroom stall and peeking into a stall -- does not equal disorderly conduct.
Martin said, "Craig vehemently denied committing or attempting to commit any crime."
Judge Porter countered that the disorderly conduct statute is intentionally broad and is intended to catch behavior that makes other people uncomfortable. Porter peppered Martin with a series of questions.
Metropolitan Airports Commission prosecutor Christopher Renz argued that Craig's attempt to withdraw his plea was flawed because it was filed too late and that he committed the crime by engaging in "a series of invasions into the stall space next to him."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Based on the evidence used in Craig’s case (he was intending to do this and that, but didn’t, and denies he was intending), why is Hillary not charged/guilty of conspiracy with Hsu?
Obviously I am being a rationalist and not a moralist, but that is a conservative faux pas used against conservatism every day by liberals.
I am not a big fan of Craig’s and certainly despise H. Clinton.
In Craig’s case, it was a conservative Republican caught in embarassing but not criminal behavior.
************
If it was not criminal, why is Craig guilty? Why are others found guilty?
I don’t believe is guilty of a crime. The court did/does. My point is that Hilary is in the same position legally, as Craig. If he is found guilty, why shouldn’t she be charged?
We agree, just come about it from differing perspectives.
Well, it’s well known that he plead guilty to disorderly conduct only, and anyone can see the plea paperwork on The Smoking Gun.
Not sure how it got around that he plead guilty to anything else.
He plead guilty to disorderly conduct, yes.
Your list of technicalities aside, which of the following do you dispute, or disagree with?
a) Larry Craig is a homosexual
b) Larry Craig wishes to deceive the conservative (putatively, anti-homosexual) voters who elected him, by hiding (and denying) his homosexuality
c) Larry Craig did, in fact, engage in the behavior documented by a police officer in Craig's arrest report
d) Sen. Craig engaged in this behavior because he was, in fact, soliciting gay sex from a total stranger in a public place, namely, a men's room
e) Citizens have an expectation of entering a men's room to relieve themselves without being solicited for gay sex by a pervert; therefore, it is reasonable to make and enforce laws against such behavior
f) Whether or not it's illegal, soliciting gay sex from strangers in a men's room is not acceptable behavior from a senator, whether said senator is openly gay or not
g) Senator Craig, as a lawmaker, is well versed in matters of law and is of normal or above average intelligence
h) Senator Craig was caught in an offense, arrested for it, arraigned, and voluntarily pled guilty
Since male homosexuality (point prevalence) is 4%, this means about 1 in 20 are open to Republican scorn and punishment.
Games with statistics. I find that as a profession, psychs have always played fast and loose with stats... it's all they have, really. First of all, you state matter-of-factly that 4% of males are homosexual; I don't agree and neither does this source, which can only put the number at somewhere between 1% and 10% with the caveat that "Measuring the prevalence of homosexuality is difficult because there is a lack of reliable data".
Even so, suppose for the sake of argument we use your 4%; that's not "about 1 in 20", as you say, but exactly 1 in 25! Why did you feel the need to use an egregious math error to overstate even your already overstated percentage by another 20%?
Makes me wonder who you're carrying water for, and why.
Your list of technicalities aside, which of the following do you dispute, or disagree with?
a) Larry Craig is a homosexual
b) Larry Craig wishes to deceive the conservative (putatively, anti-homosexual) voters who elected him, by hiding (and denying) his homosexuality
c) Larry Craig did, in fact, engage in the behavior documented by a police officer in Craig's arrest report
d) Sen. Craig engaged in this behavior because he was, in fact, soliciting gay sex from a total stranger in a public place, namely, a men's room
e) Citizens have an expectation of entering a men's room to relieve themselves without being solicited for gay sex by a pervert; therefore, it is reasonable to make and enforce laws against such behavior
f) Whether or not it's illegal, soliciting gay sex from strangers in a men's room is not acceptable behavior from a senator, whether said senator is openly gay or not
g) Senator Craig, as a lawmaker, is well versed in matters of law and is of normal or above average intelligence
h) Senator Craig was caught in an offense, arrested for it, arraigned, and voluntarily pled guilty
Since male homosexuality (point prevalence) is 4%, this means about 1 in 20 are open to Republican scorn and punishment.
Games with statistics. I find that as a profession, psychs have always played fast and loose with stats... it's all they have, really. First of all, you state matter-of-factly that 4% of males are homosexual; I don't agree and neither does this source, which can only put the number at somewhere between 1% and 10% with the caveat that "Measuring the prevalence of homosexuality is difficult because there is a lack of reliable data".
Even so, suppose for the sake of argument we use your 4%; that's not "about 1 in 20", as you say, but exactly 1 in 25! Why did you feel the need to use an egregious math error to overstate even your already overstated percentage by another 20%?
Makes me wonder who you're carrying water for, and why.
Apologies for the double post.
Judge Porter countered that the disorderly conduct statute is intentionally broad and is intended to catch behavior that makes other people uncomfortable. Porter peppered Martin with a series of questions.
***Something to keep in mind. Craig’s attorneys have a tough time proving that no crime was committed if he pled guilty to the crime. Of course, what do they care? They get paid either way.
“He has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion on what others think he wanted to do rather than what he actually did.”
The idiot confessed.
I hope he'll be just plain Mister soon.
Leni
I never heard that Craig "confessed" --though I've heard some people claim he did.
AFAIK Craig pleaded guilty to "make the thing go away." That's not the same as a confession.
A confession would go something like this: "Yes I was soliciting sex." Craig has never said that or anything like it.
I carry water for those who are able to hold abstract arguments designed to answer basic questions of fact. You are, obviously, not in this group.
The 4% is “point prevalence.” If you take lifetime experience it is higher. At least 5%.
>> I carry water for those who are able to hold abstract arguments designed to answer basic questions of fact. You are, obviously, not in this group.
Is that why you so carefully evaded my basic questions of fact?
Or did my questions and comment make you uncomfortable, causing you to resort to such a lame ad hominem?
>> The 4% is “point prevalence.” If you take lifetime experience it is higher. At least 5%.
Proof?
Not flimsy studies, mind you. Proof?
He plead guilty! Hillary is quite likely a Dyke but until they catch her with Janet Reno it has not a freaking thing to do with this thread!
The guy is a QUEER and needs to resign!
newsflash. A guilty plea is a confession under the law. He did not say “no contest” or “not guilty”. He specifically said “guilty”. Guilty means he admitted he did it. He confessed.
IF he had been intelligent he would have plead “no contest” which is a plea of convenience and admit nothing. He did not do that, he plead GUILTY. He signed the document that said GUILTY.
This dispite the legal case against his homosexual conduct in fact was actually pretty weak.
Your source for this information?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.