26 total posts
From what little I have heard of this
incident, He should have fought the charges. But, it would seem he wanted it to go away quickly and quietly. But as you may have suggested, did he or didn't he. Hmmmmmmmmmm
Craig has a degree in political science, not law...
... but since he is the second longest serving Idaho senator in the state's history, you kind of assume the guy knew what he was doing when he pled guilty. In his mind he miscalculated just what this would mean if brought to light... or he was so embarrassed he went for the quick solution when offered.
I have to wonder if the guy consulted a lawyer or even had one at his court hearing. If he didn't, then he was an idiot.
Heres a defense he could use
IF he needed a defense at all...
I don't see where he committed any actual crime. Is it against the law to put your hand on the bottom of a restroom partition? I think the cops had a very weak case.
He was an idiot for not lawyering up. If he had fought it, he would most likely have won and might even have a false arrest case against the cops. But I think it's likely the cops were bluffing. I'll be6t all their "convictions" are on "lesser charges". A good lawyer could have gotten a full release with no charges.
I think he was worried that the publicity would destroy him, as it has.
I disagree Ed
Would not be a false arrest. The rules/laws for that are very specific. I think the guy is a sex creep and knew what he was doing. Still, if he fought it, I think he would have won.
He PLEAD GUILTY
That means he admitted to committing an actual crime, Ed. As to the transcript, it's SOP for the interrogating officer to tell the suspect that a guilty plea will save everyone a lot of time and trouble.
If he wins the "I didn't know what I was doing when I plead guilty" fight, he'll have to go to trial. There, his only defense may be entrapment, which will still show that he went for it even if he was not the instigator.
that's what they charge you with when you get into a bar fight. He did NOT plead guilty to soliciting for sex and he has denied it consistently.
Is it a crime to rub your hand along the bottom of a bathroom stall? I don't think so. The case against him is very weak, if nonexistent.
Is a catch all charge and it is used a lot when the real charge won't stick. (as in this case)
seems a lot like blackmail to me. "Plead guilty to something or we'll ruin your life."
Whatever happened to the bleating hearts who are always complaining about "Constitutional Rights"?
Re: Plead guilty to something or
maybe the law in the US is similar to the UK...
in a recent (child-porn etc) case, the defendant plead guilty to a lesser charge because if they tried him (and found him not guilty) on the more serious charge, his name would have been on the sex offenders list and he would have to register where-ever he went...
So, in the UK
if you are found not guilty of the charge, you get put on the sex offenders list.
I'm sure that's NOT what you meant but that's how it is written
oops! should have been
n a recent (child-porn etc) case, the defendant plead guilty to a lesser charge because if they tried him (and found him guilty) on the more serious charge, his name would have been on the sex offenders list and he would have to register where-ever he went...
" Craig to announce resignation Saturday"
more at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/31/craig.arrest/
if I was innocent of such allegations I would never plead guilty. the arrest follows you forever.
does anyone really believe a senator would pick up toilet paper in a public restroom?
Actually it was the shoe contact
which is supposed to be a signal in that part of the world that there was interest in gay sex!
While the man's behavior was darn suspicious...
... I concur that there was little reason to arrest him based on what has been described. What bothers me though, is the fact that he pled guilty to a lessor charge.
If he was truly innocent, then why not fight it? I suspect that question will always haunt him.
Yeah, classy until he tried to take it back, LOL
He seems to have a habit of making declarations and then trying to take them back, doesn't he.
he shouldn't have been for it before he was against it
what's today's direction? flip or flop
will the "wide stance" defense win over the idahoans? stay tuned.
I think it is boilerplate that he was required to sign...
but, at this point, who cares?
i think he's saying
i now want to say that i did not do what i was not supposed to do but did, or didn't, depending which side of the stall i was or wasn't sitting on....
No. That is from the original plea agreement...
I don't believe he actually wrote it.
I think he's saying....
....that he was for his guilty plea and his resignation before he was against them.
Or he's saying "I did not have sex with that man, Mr. Karsnia".