Drudge Blare: McCain Calls On Craig To Resign
UPDATE: Norm Coleman Too
Plus, The Iceman Rebutteth: A Reader Argues Against The Defense of Larry Craig

At Drudge...

'I believe that he -- that he pled guilty, and he had the opportunity to plead innocent. So I think he should resign,' Senator John McCain told CNN. 'And suppose he comes back to Washington and says, I want to serve. That's -- that will be a decision that he will make and most importantly, the people of the state of Idaho. But my opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, then you shouldn't serve. And that's not a moral stand. That's not a holier than thou. It's just a factual situation. I don't try to judge people. but in this case, it's clear that it was disgraceful.'

Rep . Pete Hoekstra, too.

Thanks to JackM. for those tips.

Norm Coleman Now, Too: Well played, for once, GOP. It seems the GOP has persuaded those not associated with the social right -- you know, the ones the MSM doesn't scorn as troglodytes -- to do the heavy lifting of removing Craig from office.

...

Iceman argues that Craig was not merely arrested for and charged with mere "foot-tapping." He was not arrested merely for an "intent" to do something wrong, as I suggested before. He did do something wrong, the original complaint maintains, by peeping into someone else's stall.

Craig didn't cop to that in his plea, but he was charged with both that and the disorderly persons rap. He pleaded to the less creepy and more vague disorderly conduct charge.

Iceman's rebuttal below.

This case is beyond simple ! Evidently The Smoking Gun has things rigged so that I cannot cut and paste. However, read the actual language of the statutes pursuant to which Craig was charged at the bottom of the link below-- http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig6.html The legislature passed two laws pursuant to which Craig was charged. The cop made a report and sworn statements that were incorporated in the criminal complaint. ( see link below) The DA ( or comparable authority) reviewed the cop's report and concluded that the cop's report established a violation of two Minnesota criminal statutes. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig5.html A judicial hearing officer agreed and issued a "finding of probable cause". http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig7.html Craig agreed that he was guilty of at least one crime charged. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html End of story !! Where is the problem ? If what you're saying is that the cop took the most egregious parts out of his write-up as part of the plea, that's a different story The cop didn't take out anything. Craig was charged by the DA ( or the equivalent) with peeping and disorderly conduct-- charges that were both fully warranted by the facts SWORN to by the cop ---- supported by a judicial finding of "probable cause"---- and ADMITTED to by Crag in the case of disorderly conduct. Read the complaint, as distinguished from the cop's report, and the finding of "probable cause" at this link. This whole deal is nothing more than a plain vanilla plea bargain ! In my mind, the DA could have proven the elements of both crimes had he taken the case to trial-- read the legislative language-- and the admission of Craig. (see item #3 at this link.) Again the cop didn't take out anything . The DA did what DAs do a zillion times a day--- every day. To avoid trial, the DA accepted Craig's admission and plea to one count, and in exchange dropped the other count. Again, if someone wants to argue that the cop was lying, or the laws are stupid, I'll listen. But the uncontroverted facts clearly establish a prima facie violation of both crimes created by the Minnesota legislature that Crag was charged with violating-- and BOTH allegations were found to be warranted by the judicial hearing officer when a "finding of probable cause" was issued . But as presented, the guy was arrested for doing what guys do to women in a bar every evening. Guys do not stand outside of women's bathroom stalls and peek through the crack in the stall door--- and if they did, many would be arrested-- as was Craig

But is it illegal to make actions that can be interpreted, no matter how intelligently, as solicitation?

It may be a bad law, but that is not the problem of the cop or the DA. If someone thinks the law is defective as written it should be taken up with the legislature or the courts.

But is it illegal to make actions that can be interpreted, no matter how intelligently, as solicitation?


By the way, Craig was never charged with "solicitation". He was charged with, inter alia, "disorderly conduct"-- the charge to which he plead guilty.

If a person were peering through a crack in a bathroom stall that you occupied, extending his/her foot into your stall, and reaching his/her hand under your stall, would you not find such conduct to be that which would "arouse alarm or resentment" in you ?

Again, read the elements of the crime with which Craig was charged--- AND plead guilty-- ( see #3 here.)

posted by Ace at 03:43 PM

| Access Comments