Posted on 09/09/2007 6:03:52 PM PDT by John W
“constitutional argument about congressmen not being subject to arrest going to or coming from congress”
If he uses that approach, he will enrage the public. I can see the headlines now,
DISGRACED CRAIG GETS CASE DISMISSED FOR BEING IN PREVLEDGED CLASS.
That will really go over well with un-prevledgd americans, who can’t get their cases dismissed. Craig will then open up a whole new can of worms for himself and the GOP.
That kind of “unintelligent action” doesn’t deserve a seat in the senate.
How so, Rep. Kennedy tried that same excuse when picked up for a DUI...?
Yeah how was he to know that when he tried to intimidate the officer by showing him one of his business cards which identify him as Larry Craig United States Senator that the cop would know what that meant .
That's not "intimidation." That's facing the music.
So he copped a plea hoping no one would connect Larry Craig with Senator Larry Craig.
And this excuses him how...?
The simple fact of the matter is that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial in open court. In the absence of any showing of fraud on the part of the prosecutor, his plea will not be withdrawn.
the court can deny his request in which case the appeals could take years.
Doubt it. There is no appealable question of law.
In the meantime, I fail to understand why many on this thread are so angry with him.
He pled guilty to - and therefore, is per se guilty of, soliciting public sex. That's not acceptable for a congressman. The fact that the sex he solicited was homosexual in nature is only incidental.
In Minnesota, at least, you cannot waive your right to appeal in a criminal matter.
“How so, Rep. Kennedy tried that same excuse when picked up for a DUI...?’
Are u serious? It is true that Kennedy got off using that BS.
Craig PLEADED GUILTY. There’s the rub.
Were u not enraged that KENNEDY got off because he was in a “special class”
I was.
Not that he needs the money (Senate retirement, and retirement benefits, are very generous). Maybe his family, children, grandchildren, for many future generations, are being threatened with wholesale destruction if he chooses to just go away and let the story die a natural death.
There is no logical, sane explanation, other than continued corruption, for his continued public exposure.
He HAD a right to have his day in court... but he voluntarily WAIVED that right when he decided instead to plead guilty in writing to the charge listed against him. DUH!
Did anyone here care that Ken Mehlman (supposedly gay) was RNC chairman? No. Do we try to disown the Log Cabin Republicans? No. Do card-carrying NRA members who are also conservatives diss the Pink Pistols? No.
What really get us angry are homosexuals who hide in a seemingly hetero marriage. I lost all interest is defending Craig when I found out that he never told his wife about the arrest in June when it happened.
This will be an interesting case. Once the appeals occur whole segments of the law could be abrogated. IMHO the local court would be wise to give him his day in court rather than risk a chance of this being an adverse, precedent setting case.
Really, what business is it of yours or the government that Larry Craig didn’t tell his wife about this tawdry incident?
“public figure subject to emotional blackmail by the arresting officer.”
If Craig can be “emotionally blackmailed” by a cop who has one of the worst jobs on the planet (working his shift in a toliet stall), He is unfit to serve.
Nope. There was no trial ruling from which to appeal. Additionally, entrapment isn't applicable here (there is no evidence that the officer overrode Craig's free will to cause him to commit a crime he would not otherwise commit), nor is there any evidence of any blackmail, since the officer made no threats of any sort. Finally, being a public figure is completely irrelevant to this matter.
. Once the appeals occur whole segments of the law could be abrogated.
That will almost certainly never happen. Craig could certainly file an appeal, but the State and Federal appellate courts will almost certainly refuse to hear the case. There is no reversible error.
He should have withdrawn his foot and his hand. Craig, you are toast.
It says a LOT about him.
Yes, have you ever wondered the wisdom having a “cop” working a men’s bathroom?
That's a question of policy, not law.
What makes you so sure he had homosexual intent? He denied and denied that he was soliciting sex on the tape the officer recorded without his knowledge.
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.