Craig attempts to change Guilty plea

[ZTAngel]

There have been other allegations that Craig has engaged in this type of behavior. None have been proven but the allegations go back as far as 1982.

Here's an article about it: http://www.idahostatesman.com/localn...ry/143801.html

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

It sounds to me like the majority here think he is "guilty" and that he was in fact trying to hook up with someone? Is my perception accurate?

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

well you sure can't hook up with a woman in the men's room....LOL

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

well you sure can't hook up with a woman in the men's room....LOL

Who says???

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

It sounds to me like the majority here think he is "guilty" and that he was in fact trying to hook up with someone? Is my perception accurate?

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

No, I could care less if he was "guilty" or not of trying to hook up. It's not the fact that he may or may not be a homosexual. And I do wonder about the legality of the whole sting operation. Foot tapping is not against the law. What bothers me is that he did plead guilty to something. Whether it's because he knew he was engaging in questioning behavior or because he was eager to shield his wife and public (and thereby himself) from the embarrassment of the situation, he plead guilty. That should count for something. He's now trying to circumvent the justice system by vacating his plea so he can stay in congress. I just think that's wrong. He's acting like the rest of lawmakers-- they think they are above the laws they create, and it's a sickening trend.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

That's my problem with the whole thing. He was set up in a place where men were known to hook up. I don't think that makes him a criminal.

it has to be proven that his behavior was criminal from the jump and that's the part that has this whole thing in a pickle.

Dependent on who you talk to, men hooking up in airport restrooms is allegedly a common practice.

Atlanta International and BWI have also been known to have a few issues as well

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Who says???

Alpha...you know what I mean.....LOL

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

As has been noted, there have been men who have talked to the press, but have not gone public. This is DC after all, and it's not inconceivable that any men in question have their own reasons for not wanting to go public.

Originally Posted by Sugar08

That's my problem with the whole thing. He was set up in a place where men were known to hook up. I don't think that makes him a criminal.

As for being "set up," I just don't buy that. The bait may have been offered, but nobody forced him to bite.

The man pled guilty, not nolo contendere. I don't know about Minnesota, but where I am, that's not just a simple matter of saying "okay, I'll plead guilty to get this overwith, see you later." The judge questions you pretty specifically with questions designed to make sure you understand the implications of pleading guilty. The judge also has to find that there is, in fact, a factual basis for believing that you are guilty, such as a statement from you that actually did what you have been accused of doing. These questions are designed to make sure that a defendant is receiving due process and is not being coerced into pleading guilty.

I'll be very, very surprised if he gets is allowed to withdraw that guilty plea at this point. I get the sense that he will be surprised as well.

[KSig RC]

Not to be a douche about all of this, but there's kind of a pattern forming:

-In 1982, he preemptively denies nailing Congressional pages a la Mark Foley

-Last year, he's named as someone who cruises for gay sex, implicated in three occasions: a.) Union Station, which apparently is known for 'cruising' behavior; b.) at an REI in Boise (which is loltastic); and c.) in college

-He is then arrested for following a moderately intricate process of "signals" that apparently are spread on the Internet as the way to signal "I would like a manly blowjob in this bathroom stall, what do you say ol' sport"

Not that this all couldn't be a coincidence, but I think it's very important to note his denials - he vehemently denies being gay, which isn't the issue here. The issue is whether he's getting blown by men, which while a homosexual act, could definitely be something enjoyed by an (otherwise) "straight," married man. He's treating it like an impossibility, when it's really not.

The attempt to change the guilty plea is a true shot in the dark, but hey - more power to him, I suppose. The pattern here, though, would make me think there's more here than a "setup" by Minneapolis police, who probably couldn't care less about a Senator from Idaho.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not that this all couldn't be a coincidence, but I think it's very important to note his denials - he vehemently denies being gay, which isn't the issue here.

A good friend of mine who works on the Hill thought that this denial is one of the more salient facts here -- that he denies being "gay," which he probably doesn't think of himself as (he's married, after all) but he doesn't deny being "bi."

And I think you're right that the Minneapolis police probably weren't looking to bag a Senator from Idaho.

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As has been noted, there have been men who have talked to the press, but have not gone public. This is DC after all, and it's not inconceivable that any men in question have their own reasons for not wanting to go public.

As for being "set up," I just don't buy that. The bait may have been offered, but nobody forced him to bite.

The man pled guilty, not nolo contendere. I don't know about Minnesota, but where I am, that's not just a simple matter of saying "okay, I'll plead guilty to get this overwith, see you later." The judge questions you pretty specifically with questions designed to make sure you understand the implications of pleading guilty. The judge also has to find that there is, in fact, a factual basis for believing that you are guilty, such as a statement from you that actually did what you have been accused of doing. These questions are designed to make sure that a defendant is receiving due process and is not being coerced into pleading guilty.

I'll be very, very surprised if he gets is allowed to withdraw that guilty plea at this point. I get the sense that he will be surprised as well.

I don't think he should be allowed to change his plea, unless they can prove that he didn't know what he was getting into.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

I don't think he should be allowed to change his plea, unless they can prove that he didn't know what he was getting into.

or what was getting into him....lol

[LPIDelta]

Yeah I just talked to one of my friends over lunch about this and he told me that he saw something on CNN about "other men" in Larry Craig's life who have not gone public--so given that, I'll stop giving him the benefit of the doubt. I totally agree with you sc--he pled guilty, that's it. You don't plead guilty unless you are, especially if you're a public figure in this day and age.

[MysticCat]

Well, apparently what he filed with the court this go around does, in fact, say that he mailed the plea in rather than appearing in court. I doubt that, alone, will have much affect though -- I'm guessing that between discussions with the prosecutor and boilerplate that I would expect is on the form, just the fact that he mailed it in won't help him too much.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Well, apparently what he filed with the court this go around does, in fact, say that he mailed the plea in rather than appearing in court. I doubt that, alone, will have much affect though -- I'm guessing that between discussions with the prosecutor and boilerplate that I would expect is on the form, just the fact that he mailed it in won't help him too much.

Wouldn't MAILING a plea show much more calculation then a verbal plea? To mail it, he would have to write it down and sign it, and put a stamp on it, and stick it in the mailbox, with chances all along the way for him to change his mind. A verbal plea could be a heat of the moment snap decision. He could have walked into the courthouse with every intention of pleading innocent, and at the last second with the pressure on and all of the charges laid out, changed his mind.

[MysticCat]

^^^ Maybe, or maybe not. If he was actually in court, the judge would not only question him but could observe his demeanor to see if it actually matched what he was saying or if he showed signs of duress, coercion, caprice, etc.

Plus, while I would guess that what he signed had all the "I understand that by entering a plea of guilty . . . ." language, and while I assume that his signature had an attestation that he had read and understood all of that, is there anybody who hasn't signed a document where we say we read and understood all the boilerplate, but we really didn't? In open court, the judge would be able to ask all of those questions and satisfy himself or herself that Craig really did understand it all and knew what he was doing in entering the plea.