Sen Craig takes it up the ass!

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=askeptic]
That is just not like you Bricker. Opining about a legal case you know nothing about. You think he did not have legal counsel to advise him on what success he could expect fighting the charges? Given the issue and how it plays to his constituency, if he had a hope in hell of beating the charges one would think he would have mounted an expensive defense. He didn’t. He plead guilty to one of the more heinous things people of his ilk can imagine. Sure we don’t have all the details. Sure what has been described thus far hardly amounts to criminal conduct. But to misuse a latin phrase, Res Ipsa Loquitur. The guilty plea speaks for itself. How the fuck can you know “he could have succesfully fought the charges”? You know more from a few vaguely worded newspaper articles than his defense team who actually, you know, reviewed the actual evidence? I wonder if his being a so called, though not apparently, conservative has anything to do with your rush to innocent judgment.
[/QUOTE]

According to his subsequent public statements, he did not have legal counsel; he acted pro se. Nor did any lawyer file an appearance on his behalf for the case.

On what basis to do you conclude his “defense team” exists or had any role at all this case?

And on what basis do you say I have rushed to innocent judgement? I think he’s factually guilty of the act, as I said above.

62

Apparently, according to a story in the Statesman, via Talking Points Memo, the poor guy had the same misunderstanding with someone in a D.C. men’s restroom as well. Except, allegedly, there the subtle cues involved his having sex with a guy.

Perhaps he should change up his stance a little.

63

[QUOTE=ambushed]
I can understand your skepticism, but I assure you that the footsy-playing is – at least in general – exactly what the cop thought it was. Have you never had the misfortune to have to excrete while driving a freeway at night where your only choice was to use a rest stop’s bathroom? I can practically guarantee that if there are truckers parked in the lot, you’ll be “approached” in the very manner Senator Craig approached the officer in question. I’ve decided that Lisa Nowak’s diaper-wearing is a better alternative.
[/QUOTE]

Not once have I ever been approached in any way that I know of. I’ve been through all the lower 48 a number of times and stoped at tons of truckstops.

I still don’t get what he was charged with, since he didn’t have sex with anyone in public, it seemed like he was just flirting looking for sex. Hell if guys got arrested for looking for sex we’d all be in jail and never getting out.

64

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
I really wonder if there’s some sort of common mental problem here … closeted Republican pols almost always seem to be gay bashers. The one who was so hot for the young male pages was a huge oppeoent of child molestation. Is there some weird form of psychological compensation going on here? Call it Roy Cohn syndrome …
[/QUOTE]
I know you didn’t mean it to sound this way but I’d just like to balance the record here by pointing out: Being an opponent of child molestation is not the same thing as gay bashing.

65

[QUOTE=Edward The Head]
I still don’t get what he was charged with, since he didn’t have sex with anyone in public, it seemed like he was just flirting looking for sex. Hell if guys got arrested for looking for sex we’d all be in jail and never getting out.
[/QUOTE]

This is precisely the point I’m making. While a fact-finder could find him guilty of some catch-all charge like disorderly conduct with these facts, it’s by no means a slam-dunk. He could claim his conduct was innocent, and I don’t see a conviction likely.

But let’s be honest: even though his conduct did not likely rise to the level of provably criminally culpable, we can pretty safely say he was, in fact, looking for sex. And that undoubtedly explains why he pled guilty – he wanted the thing to go away without publicity.

Now that the publicity has ensued anyway, he may as well fight it. The problem? He’s already pled guilty.

As Hamelt suggested above, he may be laying the groundwork for a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In doing so, he faces an uphill battle. I don’t know what the rules are in Colorado, but if this were Virginia, he would have to show that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given. In order to guard against that, judges accepting a plea usually have a little speech the give a defendant, called a colloquy, in which they lay out each of the rights the accused has and is giving up.

If the colloquy did not happen or was deficient in some respect, then he may well be able to withdraw his plea. Or if he can point to some reason, even given the colloquy, that would vitiate his consent… if he could believably testify that the cops told him they’d shoot him outside the courthouse if he didn’t plead guilty, to pick an extreme example, he could withdraw his plea even if the colloquy was complete and sufficient.

Absent any factors like those, however, the mere changing of your mind about the advisability of entering a guilty plea is not typically sufficient reason to be permitted to withdraw it.

66

[QUOTE=Edward The Head]

I still don’t get what he was charged with, since he didn’t have sex with anyone in public, it seemed like he was just flirting looking for sex. Hell if guys got arrested for looking for sex we’d all be in jail and never getting out.
[/QUOTE]

Winking at someone across a crowded bar is flirting. Getting the bartender to send someone a drink is flirting. Laughing at stupid jokes and saying “So, do you come here often?” is flirting.

Sticking your foot under a bathroom stall divider to rub against someone else’s foot, then watching them through the cracks in the divider, and then repeadtedly reaching under the divider is not flirting. That’s propositioning someone for sex (and a pretty common way of doing it in areas known for cruising - which this particiular bathroom was according to the news report I heard - that’s why the policeman was there in the first place).

67

There’s one more item to note from the story in the Statesman that may bear on the manner in which he tried to handle damage control. Apparently the paper did a big investigation on the rumors that were going around about him, including an interview with him and his wife in which he categorically denied any gay sex stuff.

The arrest in the Minneapolis restroom was apparently less than one month after that interview.

68

One thing missing from this Pitting is his alleged conduct at booking. Apparently, according to one report I’d read, he pulled out his business card, showed it to the desk cop, and asked, “Wha’d’ya think of that?”

69

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t know what the rules are in Colorado
[/QUOTE]
Minnesota. Twine ball or bust.

70

[QUOTE=plnnr]
areas known for cruising - which this particiular bathroom was according to the news report I heard
[/QUOTE]
How does a particular bathroom become “known” for cruising? Is there some kind of secret sign that those of us who are decidedly not looking for anonymous toilet-sex can look for so we know to avoid these known cruising spots? :eek:

71

Here’s how I see the implications of Sen. Craig and all his fellow GOP closet queens:

  1. AFAIAC, the primary purpose of the GOP is to shift wealth upward, to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

  2. There are obviously not a lot of votes for this, so the GOP has to find other things to run on, while soft-pedaling and giving misleading impressions of its wealth-shift measures.

  3. The main ‘other thing to run on’ it’s had over the past 40 years has been religious/cultural/social conservatism: abortion, gays, all that. Without the religious right and other cultural conservatives who just plain dislike gays, the GOP turns into a permanent minority party, maybe even a third party. So

  4. the GOP has to keep its closet queens closeted, because if the GOP was shown to be full of the queers that they’re running against in order to get votes, the game would fall apart.

That’s the importance of outing Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Jeff Gannon, etc., etc. Religious conservatives generally aren’t the smartest tools in the shed, but even they might eventually realize they’ve been pwned. No harm in speeding up the process.

72

[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac]
How does a particular bathroom become “known” for cruising? Is there some kind of secret sign that those of us who are decidedly not looking for anonymous toilet-sex can look for so we know to avoid these known cruising spots? :eek:
[/QUOTE]

Word of mouth (so to speak) and, wonder of wonders, the Internet.

73

[QUOTE=plnnr]
wonder of wonders, the Internet.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, then I get to explain to my wife why I was googling “STL airport gay sex cruising restroom.” “Well honey, you see, I need to know which are the cruising restrooms, so I can not use those and make sure to use other ones. Yeah, that’s the ticket.” :o

74

I have a feeling that if this was some regular schmo and not some Senator from Idaho that Colorado would never have been dragged in this ugly mess.

75

Agreed. Here in the People’s Republic of Wobegon, he should have been issued a Citation for Exceedingly Gross Tackitude, along with a list of state approved cruising locations (Mall of America, that bar on Hennepin…)

Probably gave the arresting officer a ration of shit.

76

I blame Hollywood for this.

The country is full of impressionable social conservatives, yet they continue to release filth like Brokeback Mountain.

Now when will Craig swear off the devil’s drink and head to rehab?

77

Coors?

78

Count me with the folks who figure he copped a plea in hopes nobody would notice the incident. Now that the cat’s out of the bag, he’s obliged to recant his plea.

There is one question: given how many legislators are lawyers, is Craig a lawyer? If so, his whine about “lack of counsel” rings hollow. In any case, appearing pro se was his choice. (What’s that old line? It runs something like, “Anyone who defends himself in court has an idiot for a lawyer and a fool for a client”.)

79

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Coors?
[/QUOTE]

Enough of the Colorado Connection, already!

80

I agree that he probably entered the guilty plea in hops of keeping the situation quiet, but I’m also curious as to whether he’s trying to avoid having to state under oath that:

  1. he’s not a homosexual
  2. he’s never engaged in homosexual conduct
  3. he’s never solicited sex in a public bathroom in the past

Would these be questions that come up in a trial? If so, he’s probably afraid of being Mike Jonesed. Somewhere out there is someone who can definitively state he’s had sex with Craig.