Larry Craig loses court case — will it matter?

October 4, 2007

Most legal experts agreed that Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) had little chance of withdrawing his guilty plea to disorderly conduct charges in Minneapolis, but his legal team believed it was worth a try. Today, the judge in the case rejected Craig’s request.

A Minnesota judge has denied Sen. Larry Craig’s request to withdraw his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest in an airport men’s room sex sting.

Now, as of last week, with a self-imposed Sept. 30 deadline hanging over head, Craig said he would wait for this decision before making a final decision on whether to resign. That was expected to take a couple of weeks, but apparently, the request was so weak, the judge was able to reject the request rather quickly.

So, Craig has no choice but to resign? Not so fast. As of a couple of weeks ago, the senator’s office said a favorable ruling in Minnesota was the only thing that would keep Craig from resigning. Now, the senator may decide that a misdemeanor charge on his record isn’t the end of the world, and he might just stick around anyway.

On MSNBC last week, Craig lawyer Stanley Brand suggested the senator may disregard the outcome of his court request altogether. Chris Matthews asked whether Craig would try to “hang on” until the end of his term. Brand replied, “[I] think that’s conceivable, especially if he gets some type of relief in Minnesota. But I don’t think it depends on that.”

In other words, today is a setback for the Idaho Republican, but it’s likely the story isn’t over yet.

First, Craig and his lawyers could appeal today’s decision. That could drag the process out for quite a while.

Second, Craig may very well announce that if every senator with a misdemeanor conviction on his record had to resign, turnover in the chamber would be pretty high. Indeed, Brand alluded to this on Hardball.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the Ethics Committee. That’s especially for you working within the Congress on ethics matters. Can you win his case in the Ethics Committee, if it comes to that? I know that no senator’s been expelled by the Senate. I — I think you have to go back almost to the Civil War, when they expelled people for joining and taking an oath to the Confederacy.

BRAND: Right.

MATTHEWS: What is the case? Would they…

BRAND: Well, again…

MATTHEWS: What’s the worst the Senate could do to a senator…

BRAND: Again…

MATTHEWS: … if he says, I’m staying?

BRAND: Yes. Again, I mean, I — you know, I—they’re — it’s inconceivable to me that the United States Senate will open the door to bringing cases against senators for misdemeanor, misdemeanors that have nothing to do with the performance of official duties. I know they say they have the right to discipline people for bringing discredit on the Senate. That’s a vague standard. That’s well beyond where we are in 2007. I can’t imagine that 99 other senators want to be judged by that standard.

MATTHEWS: Yes, you wonder about all the traffic violations and other kinds of problems that they would be facing.

Craig seems to be nearing the point in which he tells his colleagues, “If you want me to go, you’re going to have to expel me.” And frankly, everyone knows they don’t have the votes for that. They’ll make him awfully uncomfortable during the Senate Ethics Committee probe, but at this point, I’d almost be surprised if he did step down before the end of his term.

Update: The judge, Hennepin County District Judge Charles Porter, said Craig had entered the guilty plea “accurately, voluntarily and intelligently.” Porter apparently wasn’t impressed with the argument at all, and offered a sharply worded, 27-page order. “The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence,” Porter wrote. “He knew what he was saying, reading and signing.”

The term ‘misdemeanor’ in this instance is a red herring. This isn’t about jaywalking or dropping a gum wrapper on the sidewalk. Craig solicited sex from an undercover officer in a public toilet. That’s on the record. It’s nasty, unethical and beneath the dignity of the Senate. That’s why Craig should resign and not hide behind a mere technical label.

But we’re talking about integrity here, and we all know how the very word makes Republics break out in hives all over the place.

  • Craig should resign, but not even due to the bathroom hijinks: if his ‘excuse’ for pleading guilty is true — he didn’t have a lawyer with him — than he’s a senator who doesn’t understand basic U.S. criminal defendant’s rights, and isn’t smart enough to understand the Miranda warning.

  • The GOP must be in knots over this – they want Craig out so the Republican Governor of Idaho can appoint an electable replacement – and they want that to happen sooner rather than later – and Craig’s not cooperating.

    So, the story is that the GOP doesn’t care what your record is – arrests, convictions, confessions to illegal acts – as long as your approval rating is high and you can keep winning elections. If you can’t be re-elected, they will push you out for jaywalking.

    Whatever standards and values they have are tied to power and money – what swell folk they are!

  • The GOP is going to lose a good portion of their shredded credibility if they let him stay on. The man announced—in writing—his intention to resign from the Senate. As far as the Senate GOP should be concerned, that constituted resignation—period. They’re under no obligation to refuse the resignation.

    Strip him of all his committee assignments, and let him be a SINO for the rest of his term. He’ll be the equivalent of a House of Commons “back-bencher”—he can make noise, but no one has to recognize him, or his status. Refer to him as “the individual from Idaho,” instead of the Senator, or the Member, or “my colleague.”

    Shun him enough, and the embarrassment alone should “turn the trick” (no pun intended)….

  • And do his fellow ReThugs want him to have a lot of spare time? Time during which he could write a book?

    Let the Political MAD begin!

    I have to wonder if Craig is planning to renounce his party and gay-bashing ways, move to another state and run again as the man who made the ReThugs tear out their hair.

  • The GOP must be in knots over this – they want Craig out so the Republican Governor of Idaho can appoint an electable replacement – and they want that to happen sooner rather than later – and Craig’s not cooperating.

    I wonder if that’s precisely why Craig isn’t cooperating. Given the speed at which the GOPers threw him under the bus, why would he do them any favors?

  • Oops – hit “Submit” too fast –

    Larry Craig does not get the benefit of the doubt here – he pled guilty. He, apparently, has no standards, either – since we know that had this news never been made public, he’d be finishing out his term. He was soliciting for sex in a public place – and the undercover operation was in place as a result of complaints about people being solicited. Whether it should or should not be legal to hit people up for sex in a public place is not the issue – the issue is that Larry Craig broke the law, but he – like many of his peers – does not see that as an impediment to serving in the US Senate.

    Is it the worst crime ever? No. But it’s not a speeding ticket, either.

    I’d like Craig to resign to show that he actually knows what ethics are, and the difference between right and wrong – but I know that is asking too much in an environment where those things are at the bottom of the list.

  • Following on the points in #1 and #3, to raise a question I’ve asked before in a different way, if Craig finishes out his term, is there the possibility of a Montana-style democrat who might be able to win the seat? Might not the ID seat suddenly become a possible dem pickup? I’d be obliged for someone local in ID to educate us on the situation in this regard.

  • I hope that Larry Craig stays.

    1) He didn’t do anything wrong in the first place, and he could have beaten the charges if he hadn’t been afraid of the embarrassment. Foot-tapping and finger-wiggling? Come on.

    2) Bringing discredit on the U.S. Senate? If that were grounds for expulsion, the two Senate seats from Oklahoma would be empty right now. As would a lot of other seats. David Vitter of Louisiana and “Tubes” Stevens of Alaska come to mind.

    3) His Republican “colleagues” were very quick to try to throw him overboard. Too quick.

    4) Since when has stupidity been a barrier to holding public office?

  • Kishin–Idaho is to the right of the Ayatollah. They will elect a Dem the day the potato ceases to be a starch.

  • Much as I can’t stand the guy, I don’t think his actions would convict anyone of anything in a court of law. I find this piling on, this lynch mob mentality among Republicans distressing, not just disgusting and reprehensible. The guy’s a closet bisexual who hates himself for it, can’t even admit it to himself, and is being run out of town for getting caught in a sting intended to do just what it did to him – intimidate him into pleading down and paying a big fine to keep it from the public. That’s outrageous.

    I agree with Okie #9: foot tapping, peeking and finger waggling. Please.

    I say it’s up to Craig, with input from his constituents, and from his Republican colleagues. The guy has suffered enough. Let it go. Move on.

  • 1) He didn’t do anything wrong in the first place, and he could have beaten the charges if he hadn’t been afraid of the embarrassment. Foot-tapping and finger-wiggling? Come on. -OfM

    That’s an oversimplification that can only be made by throwing all common sense into the wind.

    That’s like saying someone who tries to stab someone and misses was just doing some fencing exercises.

    Of course, I agree with you he shouldn’t resign over it. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP.

  • Maybe this perv will leave the Senate quietly now–ideally, before the end of the day. AND TAKE ARLAN SPECTOR WITH YOU! (He screwed up the Kennedy assasination investigation, just like he instigated this prolonged embarassment to the GOP, the Senate, and the nation.)

  • Okie – Larry Craig knew exactly what he was doing, and that’s why he pled guilty to a lesser charge and tried to keep it all on the QT. If you read the transcript of the officer’s report, it’s pretty clear that the moment the officer showed Craig his badge that Craig knew why – his reaction was not that of a man who was looking for some toilet paper, or tapping his feet to a tune playing on his iPod. He sees the badge, shouts, NO!” and that is not the reaction of someone who knows he is not doing anything he shouldn’t.

    I get that Craig was in fear for his secret being exposed, and in fear of the effect on his job, and the media circus that would ensue. I feel bad that Craig has been reduced to trolling for sex in bathrooms because he has such a carefully constructed façade covering up who he really is.

    This “innocent” but admittedly kind of stupid man had months to ponder all of this, and made the choice he thought would mitigate both attention and the broader consequence. He made what seems to have been the wrong one – not surprising from someone whose first choice – trying to hook up in a public bathroom – was pretty bad, too.

    It may not be fair that his colleagues tried to throw him to the wolves – but, like I always told my kids, once you make a choice, you aren’t always the one who gets to control what happens next.

    That the Republican Party is awash in members who think the laws and rules are for other people doesn’t give Craig a pass. It’s like trying to argue to the traffic cop that all the other cars were going that fast…

  • Hmmm…. you know, I just wonder if ol’ Lar might know a few things about other folks on the Hill. Maybe this is a not-so-subtle hint: “Push me out and I’ll rat out the other folks guilty of misdemeanors” as well.” Maybe he recognized a few pairs of shoes while toe-tapping his way ’round DC.

    Pass the popcorn?

  • Heh. I wonder if Craig knows where the “bodies are buried” so to speak.

    The Senate GOP made a mistake throwing him under the bus like that. That’s NOT how Republicans do things, after all. When a GOP Senator gets caught, his fellow lizards are supposed to rise to his defense and beat the drum about how “awful the librul media is being by persecuting this wonderful family man and how DARE those muckrakers suggest that anything more needs to be done – hasn’t this man and his family suffered enough?”

    Of course Craig screwed it up himself by going off-script. Had he been on script he would never have pled guilty, instead he would have denied any wrongdoing and found some Democrat somewhere in the Minnesota state power structure to blame for instigating a “witch hunt” against him. Also, he should have gone on Larry King and cried about how terrible the media coverage was for his family and how his poor wife is just a mess because of all the hurtful things being said about him.

    Had Craig stuck to the IOKIYAR script like a good thug, he wouldn’t be in this trouble right now. Had the Senate GOP not gotten all up in a knot and thrown him under the bus so fast, they might have talked him down by now. I wait to see who the bus is going to drive over first.

  • I’m stunned and nauseated that anyone would try to defend Craig. It’s not like he asked a prostitute for directions and was falsely accused…he threw up the gang sign for bathroom tryst, and, just to make sure the cop responded to see if Craig would take the next step. Of course, all this was after he went stall to stall looking for his prey.

    It wasn’t an accident or an attempt to do his daily good deed by cleaning the bathroom. He was trying to have sex in a public place where you, me, children, anyone could be there. It’s unsavory and unsanitary.

    I don’t give a flying flip what Larry does in his private life or what his sexual preferences are. I don’t care. He can do anything he wants in private, but in public he can’t. It’s against the law to attempt to do so.

    Dismissing this as finger waggling and foot tapping good times is disrespectful to the law and to those citizens who believe there is a vested interest in maintain the public peace.

    Resign or not, it’s his choice right now, and I personally don’t care one way or another, but to pretend like he did nothing wrong is obtuse. Let’s save the bleeding hearts for those who actually deserve them.

  • He is a sad man. He should stay in DC. I don’t think Idahoans cotton much to sissies. Especially not ones that hate themselves enough to vote against legislation designed to protect him from himself. What?

  • “Craig should resign, but not even due to the bathroom hijinks: if his ‘excuse’ for pleading guilty is true — he didn’t have a lawyer with him — than he’s a senator who doesn’t understand basic U.S. criminal defendant’s rights, and isn’t smart enough to understand the Miranda warning.”

    That is so true!

  • “The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence,”[Judge] Porter wrote.

    That’s one hell of an unwarranted assumption. Judge Porter is leaping to a conclusion without a shred of evidence. Indeed, all the evidence points to the contrary — Craig’s an idiot, despite his college education.

  • I don’t see what the big deal is.

    This guy, Craig, is just your ordinary, run of the mill republican. So he was looking for love in all the wrong places and got busted. Others have done (and do) a lot worse.

    I say let him stay.

    Fortunately the guys at http://www.freesenatorcraig.com are on the job.

  • Looking at this case, I say Craig should remain busted. But I think Teddy Kennedy should have been vigorously prosecuted for DWI, fleeing the scene of an accident, and manslaughter. That is much more important than Craig’s idiotic adventure, for which he should pay a price.

    For the Dems, breaking the law and getting away with it appears to be a game. The reason Jimmy Carter and the Dems want ex-felons to vote is that 90%-plus would certainly vote Democrat if they ever bothered to vote. But their relatives do, and a large percentage of Democrat constituents have a friend or relative who’s had brushes with the law. When I worked for the Democrats in St. Louis and later in a national capacity, that was an insider joke among guys like John Podesta & Harold Ickes—which dates my Demo allegiance.

  • Just out — Craig says he won’t leave Senate! Thanks Arlan! Let the Senate investigations begin.

  • Anne (#14):

    I almost always agree with your excellent comments, but I think I need to elaborate on my own original comment at #9 where I said: “He didn’t do anything wrong in the first place, and he could have beaten the charges if he hadn’t been afraid of the embarrassment. Foot-tapping and finger-wiggling? Come on.”

    There is no doubt in my mind that Craig was looking for a “date” in the men’s room that day. The police officer was “on patrol” there because of complaints about behavior in that location. But Craig wasn’t having sex in the men’s room or behaving lewdly there. He was engaging in some discreet non-verbal communication with the officer, who had initially responded positively to Craig’s toe-tapping.

    Did Craig intend to have sex in the restroom? Or would he have suggested that he and his “date” get a room? We won’t ever know. But to me, the acts of which Craig was accused fall far short of lewd behavior, and even far short of disorderly conduct. That was why I said that he didn’t do anything wrong.

    Having sex in a public place is, and should be, against the law. But when trolling in a public place for sex becomes illegal, I know of a lot of bars around here that are going to be shut down.

  • Okie – Sorry, I’m not Annie, but don’t you see a difference between going to a bar–where folks willingly pay five to fifty times the actual cost of the liquor–almost always for the purpose of establishing a sexual liaison, and going to a filthy public toilet, where folks usually want to do their business unmolested, and get out as quickly as possible?

  • Hi, golly. It’s OK with me if you aren’t Anne.

    Of course I see a difference. Trolling in the bathroom for sex is pretty sleazy. But if all that happens in the bathroom is some foot-tapping and finger wiggling, followed by a wink and a nod, is that a criminal offense? SHOULD it be a criminal offense?

    In my book, what Craig did is neither illegal nor wrong. Sleazy and sad, yes, but not illegal or wrong. David Vitter’s dalliance with prostitutes rates a much higher “yuck” factor on my scale.

  • This is a LEWD ACT, not a sex act. It has nothing to do with homosexual acts, gay sex or sex in general. Stay the hell out of my bathroom!

  • Did Craig intend to have sex in the restroom? Or would he have suggested that he and his “date” get a room? -OFM

    I would buy this argument if he wasn’t on a layover. Airport security tends to frown on leaving the airport during a layover, and even more so on returning.

  • The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence

    Talk about unjustified assumptions.

    Still, with 90+ other Senators unwilling to use the cloakrooms until Craig leaves, the pressure will be intense (so to speak)

  • If he wants to pick up guys in an airport I say go for it. It’s no dif. than picking up chicks in a bar. Just that he is such a pompous, bible thumping, holier-than-thou, Republican that it’s funny. same as Clinton, if he had just owned up to it and let it go.

    • Comments are closed.