Craig’s conundrum — Day 10

September 6, 2007

So, what’s the latest from Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)? Keeping up is getting tricky, but the senator is apparently convinced that he can “clear his name.” The Senate Ethics Committee, however, isn’t anxious to help in that endeavor.

The Senate Ethics committee late Wednesday rejected Sen. Larry Craig’s request to drop ethics charges against him, saying the committee will review the complaint against him pending any resignation. […]

Lawyers for Craig had asked the Senate ethics committee Wednesday to reject a complaint based on the Idaho Republican’s guilty plea in June stemming from a police undercover operation in an airport men’s room, saying the events were “wholly unrelated” to official duties.

“Assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the committee would be literally unprecedented and would create deleterious consequences for the Senate as a whole,” the lawyers wrote.

I think that’s a fairly persuasive argument, but the Senate Ethics Committee disagreed. It’s moving forward with its plans to conduct a thorough probe, stemming from Craig’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct in June.

What will be interesting is to see what the Committee does, if anything, should Craig reverse the guilty plea. I’m not an expert in Senate ethics procedures, but can the committee launch an investigation of a private misdemeanor that was thrown out of court? I kind of doubt it.

Now, there was also some question yesterday about Craig’s post-9/30 future. If he somehow manages to make legal progress on the Minneapolis charge, is it possible that Craig reached some kind of agreement with the Republican leadership about retiring at the end of his term? Apparently so.

Roll Call reports that Craig is fighting to save face and return to his Senate seat, but he has no illusions about his career beyond this term.

In the unlikely event that Craig does finish his third term, [Craig spokesman Dan Whiting] said Craig would not run for re-election in 2008, leaving an open Senate seat in a solid Republican state that the GOP should have no trouble retaining.

With that, Craig seems to have settled on a straightforward message: he just wants to end his career with a little dignity. When you’re caught hitting on an undercover cop in an airport bathroom, that’s kind of tricky, but Craig clearly realizes that the legal case against him is very thin, and without it, he shouldn’t be forced from his Senate seat.

Other Craig-related news from this morning’s headlines:

* Republican Senate leaders are “infuriated” by Craig’s latest offensive, because they “thought they had contained the political damage from his case.”

* A spokesperson for Idaho Gov. C. L. Otter (R) said, “We are working toward a replacement. We are working with the senator’s staff toward what we assume is a Sept. 30 date. What Larry has got going on outside of that, you’re going to have to talk to Larry about, but we are proceeding based on what he said at his Saturday event.”

* The White House still wants Craig to go away.

* Craig’s only outspoken backer is his home-state colleague, Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R), who told reporters: “I’ll support whatever Larry does.”

* WaPo: “According to legal analysts, a full public trial is about the best outcome Craig could hope for in his legal case. Minneapolis criminal defense lawyer Jon M. Hopeman said it is ‘almost impossible’ to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing without showing that ‘the person did not understand the nature of the legal proceeding.'”

* One GOP aide summed up the party’s sentiment: “Craig is the only person who doesn’t know he’s done.”

Stay tuned.

In some ways, I suspect the R’s on the ethics committee see this as a gift: by being tough on Craig, they can create a counter-example to the “Culture of Corruption” attack.

  • Isn’t Boxer the chair of the Senate Etics Committee? Why would she let the Repubs make so much hay out of this without also looking at Vitter?

  • I expect others have recognized these as stalling tactics, but if not, here’s my contribution to the big joke that is the GOP. Thanks, #2 Homer Hewitt.

    Also, if Montana is “Big Sky Country,” should Idaho consider becoming the “Wide Stance State”?

  • Over at TPM, David Kurtz has this jaw dropper from an outfit called The American Land Rights Association:

    By ambushing Senator Larry Craig, the Minneapolis St Paul Airport Police have effectively declared war on the West. They are primarily responsible for greatly weakening private property rights and Federal land use advocates in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and in Congress.

    Their solution? A boycott of the Minneapolis airport. I suppose if you tried hard enough you could make a connection between anonymous, gay, republican sex and private property rights. How a public men’s room would figure in that argument is beyond my feeble imagination.

  • Hmmm interesting… The White House is chiming in and wants Craig to go away, and stick to his earlier decision to resign at the end of the month.

    I thought that their policy has been not to comment on an ongoing investigation / case.

    Oops… I forgot… That only applies to croonies and bad apples, as long as they tow the line and stick to the administration’s policies till the end.

  • [Larry Craig] “just wants to end his career with a little dignity.”

    And Bush wants to leave Iraq in victory.

    Like his Bush’s used to say (or was it Dana Carvey?)

    NAH. GU. HAPPN.

  • I bet there is a financial gain for Craig to retire at the end of Sept. then now.
    How can one get a guilty verdict overturned in less then one month?
    And given the phone call to his lawyer on Sat. before his speech it appears he lied to the public if his intention was to try for an overturn of his guilty plea and not resign.

    Bad boy, naughty boy!!!!

  • At least when all of the R’s get tossed out in January 2009, they can find other jobs at the circus. This episode is showing them all to be expert contortionists.

  • Finger wiggling and foot tapping is constitutional.

    via Americablog:

    Is this going to be Craig’s defense?
    by Pam Spaulding · 9/05/2007 11:25:00 PM ET

    Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, didn’t have to plead guilty to sex charges stemming from a men’s room encounter with an undercover cop in Minnesota.

    All he had to do was hand the police officer a copy of the U.S. Constitution – the document the senator swore to uphold upon first taking office in Congress 27 years earlier.

    There is little ambiguity in Article 1: Section 6, which clearly states no member of Congress can be arrested while traveling to or from official session.

    Craig was arrested just after 12 noon June 11. He cast a vote on a high-profile cloture motion on the Senate floor at 5:55 p.m. that same day.

    http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/is-this-going-to-be-craigs-defense.html

  • 3. On September 6th, 2007 at 10:22 am, sagacity said:
    Isn’t Boxer the chair of the Senate Etics Committee? Why would she let the Repubs make so much hay out of this without also looking at Vitter?

    When your opposition decides to piss all over itself, get out of the way.
    The repubs used to be good at this stuff. Why they would want to keep the words gay republican bathroom sex in the headlines for the next 3 weeks is beyond me.

    Whether she eventually looks at Vitter or not, I have no idea. But it’s probably best to let repubs make whatever hay they can out of Craig, then apply whatever they come up with to the diaper/hooker guy.

  • Re: #7…

    Sounds like the “American Land Rights Association” has their hats on a little too tight. What are they a bunch of closeted gay Republicans?

    The police officer who busted Craig didn’t even know who the hell he was until Craig tried to use his senatorial clout to evade prosecution. (He handed the officer his card, identifying him as a US senator, and said “what do you think of that?”, obviously trying to influence the officer without openly saying as much)

    To me, that abuse of power is something that the ethics committee ought to be looking at as a possible rule violation.

    And while I’m at it, we need to ask him and everyone who supports his recent shenanigans if everyone who pleads guilty gets two or more bites at the apple, if they can challenge their convictions no matter what they lied about said under oath in their plea agreements. Plenty of convicted criminals would love to have the same deal Craig is shooting for.

  • From the Pensito Review, a leftwing blog:

    “In the wake of closeted Sen. Larry Craig’s self-outing in an airport men’s room this summer, Mike Rogers, the Washington-based publisher of blogActive who outed Craig, is threatening to reveal the secret sexual identities of two leading GOP senators, while two allegedly gay Republican congressmen are making headlines and drawing unwelcome attention to themselves, the timing of which could not be worse.” Four More Top GOP Outings Could Be in the Offing

    The two senators named are Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, from Kentucky.

    The two House members named are Patrick McHenry and David Drier.

  • To answer sagacity in #3 above, I believe the Senate Ethics comm. has equal numbers of Reps and Dems, so there would be co-chairs. I would think that the Dems might all support Craig just to keep the Reps wound open until the election.

  • Re #16: Oh, sweet baby Jesus, girlfriend. Thank you so much for that link. I have despised that mealy-mouthed little weasel McHenry for ages and if he gets taken down I would shout for joy. And the other three would be real icing on that cake of shame.

    It’s such a pleasure to see that real hardnose investigative reporting is still being done in this country. I was afraid it was gone for good.

  • So we learn that some of the most obnoxious Republic-thugs turn out to be gay. Most of the gay men I know are far from obnoxious, so it is more about being liars and fools. Shame, shame, shame, not for their sexuality, but for their lies. May the closet doors open wide and may the light shine in!

  • One interesting thing about the Craig case is that that most discussion has omitted the fact that it was almost 2 MONTHS between the time he was arrested (June, 6, 2007) and the time that he entered his plea (August 1, 2007). The police report and the plea document clearly show this…

    I believe that he understand exactly what he was signing.

    Police report:
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

    Plea document:
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html

  • He understood. The police transcript reaks of understanding despite his denials; “You propositioned me.” I think he’s walking towards a loaded gun. He plead guilty under oath. If the court has a sense of humor, they’ll let him reverse his plea and then promptly charge him with perjury.

    Anyone of us faced with a strange “police” card from a stall near us would have wanted to know what and why before following, instead it seems he only asked for identification. Then when he was questioned, he never said, “F*** you! Let me sign the paper that says I’ll show up in court.” If I managed to be so stupid and unlucky, I’d be much more beligerent if I was innocent.

    • Comments are closed.