ask questions later

Craig's Catch-22

Following up on David's post below on what Craig 'did', I have to imagine this was one of those catch-22s that Craig really had no way out of. I'm going to assume for the sake of the discussion that the gestures Craig is described as making are ones easily recognizable as soliciting sex. The rubbed shoe (see police report) seems unambiguous to me. With that assumption, it's still clear that the whole thing didn't get far enough for Craig to 'do' anything lewd. But I'm not sure that matters since obviously you can get hauled off to jail for agreeing to purchase sex from a prostitute even before things get freaky.

Given what's described, it seems quite possible that, with a good lawyer, Craig couldn't have beaten the rap.

But had he tried, it would have become public and it would have been pretty clear -- clear enough to doom him politically -- that Craig is gay and that he gets sex in public restrooms. (If someone put their shoe under a bathroom divider and rubbed it against your shoe, you'd get the message I think.) Remember, there'd already been lots of unconfirmed reports in the past. Because of that, Craig couldn't fight the charge even though he might well have been acquitted. But once he pled guilty, it really wasn't a he said/he said, as his press spokesman said yesterday. Craig had said under oath that he was guilty of the charge.

One way or another, once he was arrested, the apparent facts, even if they aren't ones for which you should be criminally culpable, were ones that were not compatible with his continuing in public office -- given his politics and the state he represents. All he could do was plead out and hope against hope that no one ever noticed.

--Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

a hell of a lot nicer than republicans would be if it was a democrat involved

Link to the local coverage on Craig, including an interview they did a while back but never published with a guy who claims to have had sex with Craig in a restroom.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/index.html

Myself, I don't care. It's his POLITICS I object to!

I don't care either. On the other hand, if it's a crime for George Michael, it's a crime for Larry Craig. Soliciting a same-sex or cross-sex person for sex-for-pay or for 'lewd conduct' is, apparently, a misdemeanor. And he plead GUILTY to it.



http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/143796.html

Senator Craig was born on the family ranch near Midvale, Idaho, which was homesteaded in 1899 by his grandfather. He later served as the Idaho State President and National Vice-President of the Future Farmers of America.

http://www.senate.gov/~craig/lec_biography.cfm

Hardly. Democrats are out to ruin him, and hold him against the whole party, while many REPUBLICANS are already calling for him to resign.

Out of fear that he'll bring him even further down than they already are. If it wasn't for the fact that the idiot bullsheitted congress on tape for everyone to see they wouldn't care.





By the way, since when have Republicans stopped doing this? The DHs do it to EVERY DEMOCRAT possible. Even if they have to lie.



Retaliation is the cornerstone of this administration.

Like you ranting loon lefties aren't all for retaliation. Most of the people I've heard were just plain morally outraged about the whole thing. I don't care about his sexual proclivities past the fact he shouldn't be cheating on his wife.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about Gonzalez.

I care about Craig's sexual preferences if he was a family values advocates who got into office using anti-homo fearmongering and trumpeting his own superior morals and values. Not sure if he fits but I'll assume he does.

I absolutely hate those types.

PS: I am not a ranting loon leftie. (I may very well be a ranting loon though)

This from TPM-


Heh.

I'll bet that "seat" has been used to pick up a few dems as well.

low blow.

Gonzalez was no favorite among conservatives either.

I can see why.

No, he sure wasn't. I've checked over at several conservative sites and found that most posters are happy to see him go.

Gonzales Gone for Wrong Reasons

The great shame of it all is that Alberto Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General despite it being widely known that he had played a central role in attempting to authorize the use of torture on prisoners in US custody. He had tossed aside the US Constitution's own prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" (such a wimpy bleeding-heart liberal document). It is an index of the corruption of the Republican Party, which then controlled Congress, that they made this man attorney general in the first place.

The great shame of it all is that Gonzales was hounded out of office not because he authorized torture and assaulted the basic principles of the US constitution, but because he fired US attorneys for partisan pro-Republican reasons. Torture people all you like, is the message he sent, but if you're if you are fair to the opposing party, you are fired.

He tossed aside the Geneva Conventions, which were crafted to prevent any reemergence of Nazism in the post-war period. While Gonzales is not a Nazi, if you get rid of an anti-Nazi legal instrument you are in effect aiding and abetting potential fascism.

MSNBC wrote at the height of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, which Gonzales had implicitly encouraged:

By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK [pdf], it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a —high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

The Geneva conventions, to which the United States is a signatory (i.e. it is a treaty with the force of American law) cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

The great shame of it all is that Gonzales is being ousted for what amounts to selectively abetting voter fraud.

His role as torturer-in-chief would not have forced him from office.

It is a great shame.

----

A canny reader writes: "How appropriate that Gonzales's resignation is effective September 17: September 17 is Constitution Day."

http://www.juancole.com/

Just no pleasing some people.


I wonder if Juan has any idea what is in the GCs. Over and over I see people blindly refering to them as if anyone and everyone is covered.

Craig just had a news conference to declare he's not gay.

MPD. He gets a little fruity at train stations and airports.

It could happen to anybody.

He's been diagnosed with restless leg syndrome.

I tend to tap my feet occasionally too.

I guess I'd best watch that.

Fortunately, I do not have a "wide stance".

Though my cat likes to jump into my boxers when I'm on the throne.

GOP Leaders Ask Ethics Probe of Craig


Tuesday August 28, 2007 9:31 PM

By MATTHEW DALY

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republican leaders called for an ethics committee review Tuesday into Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's guilty plea in a police sting operation this summer in an airport men's room.

Republican leaders also are ``examining other aspects of the case to see if additional action is required,'' Sen. Mitch McConnell and other top GOP lawmakers said in a written statement.

They released the statement shortly before Craig's scheduled appearance before television cameras in Boise, his first public comments since confirming his guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6881750,00.html








New Documents Challenge Craig's Account

By Paul Kane
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 28, 2007; 3:35 PM

Sen. Larry E. Craig faced a torrent of criticism from both ends of the political spectrum over his guilty plea to disorderly conduct. He was arrested in June during an undercover police sex sting operation in the men's room of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

In addition, newly released court documents - signed by Craig on Aug. 8 - show that the senator's plea included his admission that he had engaged in conduct which he "knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment" from others. This statement, given to the Hennepin County District Court which handled the case, appears to contradict Craig's statement Monday that he did not engage in "any inappropriate conduct" and that the undercover police officer was "misconstruing my actions."



Conservative and liberal activists today condemned the Idaho Republican, while many GOP colleagues stayed silent and the Republican National Committee chairman said he would "reserve judgement" on Craig.

Appearing on MSNBC this afternoon, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said that he wanted to "reserve judgement" on Craig until he heard his public statements on the matter, noting Craig's denial of the events as laid out in an airport police report that was publicly released today. "The facts are still coming in on this," Duncan said.

But conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewit said: "Craig's behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required ... He has to go."



The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the Senate Ethics Committee to reprimand Craig, citing the portion of the Senate's rules manual saying lawmakers could run afoul of the chamber for "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate."

"If pleading guilty to charges stemming from an attempt to solicit an undercover officer in a public restroom is not conduct that reflects poorly upon the Senate, what is?" said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

Lots of stuff, Melanie.

It's not exactly Watergate, lady.

He simply engages in same-sex sexual activities every now and then, right?

If you take your cat to the airport, make sure he stays in his pet taxi.

So basically he got arrested for tapping his foot and swiping his hand under the divider? No wonder I avoid public restrooms.




Somehow they think everything is a two-man job.

Ahem.

What a crock o' sheit. These apologists should be run out of town on a rail. Did anyone ever think to ask Bush what he really meant when he took his oath to defend the Constitution?


There Is Only One Executive
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
August 29, 2007; Page A15

Anyone who thought that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's resignation would improve the Bush administration's relations with Congress will be disappointed. The only unifying theme congressional Democrats have exhibited since taking control last January is an unremitting hostility towards President Bush in particular, and executive power in general.

This animus has manifested itself in a series of pitched battles over the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, presidential signing statements and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, all of which shaped the anti-Gonzales crusade. Although the attorney general was instrumental in framing the administration's position on each of these issues, all are critical elements in a larger dispute over the proper roles of Congress and the president in our constitutional system, and his departure does not change this fact.

Whoever the new attorney general is, he or she must be just as determined to defend, beginning with the confirmation hearings, the president's legitimate constitutional authority against congressional encroachment as was Alberto Gonzales.

The Constitution's framers wanted the federal government to have a strong executive power. Although few Americans were ever interested in a king, the country's experience under the Articles of Confederation suggested that Congress could not and should not exercise both legislative and executive authority. If the United States was not actually on the verge of dissolution -- and some at the time certainly thought this possible or even likely -- it had no effective government under the Confederation capable of defending the country's interests abroad or of addressing national concerns at home.

That's real good. ALTHOUGH covers a lot of ground for you dirtbags. Bet you have a whooooole different interpretation of the same god damned quotes when there is a Democrat president. You rightwingers are waaaay out there. Situational liars.

The new Constitution remedied this situation by providing for a single, independently elected president who would exercise the executive power. As Alexander Hamilton later explained in The Federalist Papers: "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws."

"A feeble executive," Hamilton warned, "implies a feeble execution of government." And, he noted, the very first "ingredient" constituting energy in the executive was this "unity" of authority in a single individual. Accordingly, the theory of a "unitary executive," which has become a particular bugbear to the Bush administration's critics, is nothing more than Hamilton's prescription put into practice by the Constitution.

Because the Constitution grants executive power to the president alone, Congress cannot "balkanize" the office by carving out areas of executive authority -- such as responsibility for federal prosecutions -- to be vested in officials who are not ultimately subject to the president's direction and control. Thus, high-level officials like U.S. attorneys serve at the president's pleasure, and can lawfully be fired for "political" reasons.

Similarly, the executive branch is a co-equal branch of government, and Congress cannot micromanage the president's exercise of his discretionary authority, particularly in the area of foreign and defense policy, or assign this role to the courts. Nor can Congress use its oversight power, which has been implied from the power to legislate rather than from any supervisory authority, as a means of controlling the president or the executive branch in general. As a result, any congressional demands for executive branch information must be grounded in a legitimate lawmaking need as part of legislative process, and balanced against the president's legitimate need for confidentiality in deliberations.

Notably, it was Congress, and not the president, who the framers feared would usurp power from the other branches of government or the states. As James Madison explained during the Convention itself: "[e]xperience had proved a tendency in our governments to throw all power into the Legislative vortex." And, as in so many things, they were prescient. From efforts to control the conduct of the war on terror and the campaign in Iraq, to demands for White House materials relating to the removal of several U.S. attorneys in 2006, the current Congress has directed its efforts at enfeebling the president, and the presidency.

It's called OVERSIGHT you frickin facist bastards. Jesus, what a pack of two-faced scumbags.

Building upon this unfolding interbranch confrontation, Congress's efforts to undermine presidential authority are likely to play out with a vengeance in the weeks to come. Like other cabinet officials, the attorney general is subject to the senatorial confirmation process and senators have asserted themselves in the past by demanding commitments or concessions from a nominee (and his or her White House sponsors) on important legal and political issues. Frequently, they were indulged by administrations anxious to confirm their nominees.


If you idiots would have shown any interest in oversight before I might listen to your argument, but as it is Republicans have allowed the biggest expansion of federal and executive powers since the big C was written. You want a king. Rubber stamp Republicans have no interest in checks and balances unless it's a Democrat president. I am so sick and tired of these jerks. Come on 2008.

Today, there is every reason to believe that the new attorney general's confirmation hearings will be used by the Senate Judiciary Committee as a platform to compress and prevail on all of the legal issues, from the USA Patriot Act and the TSP, to the U.S. attorney firings and Guantanamo Bay, that have dominated their anti-Bush agenda. They will want their pound of flesh, but the White House should not pay. Instead, it should use the hearings as an opportunity to defend first principles and the policy choices the president already has made.

Go to hell.

In addition, the administration should unequivocally reject any Senate demands for the appointment of a special prosecutor to "investigate" the 2006 U.S. attorney firings, or allegations that Attorney General Gonzales "lied" to Congress when discussing the TSP. First, there is no substance to the claims that Mr. Gonzales, or anyone else, acted improperly in removing the U.S. attorneys -- who are political appointees and can properly be fired based on political considerations. The administration's opponents have been trying to find evidence of wrongdoing -- a "politicization" of the Justice Department -- for months now and have produced nothing more than speculation and innuendo. The White House should aggressively debunk the myth that either the attorney general himself or the U.S. attorneys should be somehow independent of the president -- a key Democratic talking point in the last several months. Congress should be reminded that all the authority U.S. attorneys exercise, including and especially prosecutorial discretion, ultimately belongs to the president and its exercise can be properly directed by him.

Similarly, claims that Mr. Gonzales committed perjury are groundless. Last spring, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on highly classified intelligence programs, including the TSP. He chose his words carefully, so as to be truthful and to protect classified information. He stated correctly that there was no dissent among the Justice Department's leadership over the TSP, because it had been revised by those very officials to ensure its legality.

An earlier program, doubtless similar to the TSP and over which there were objections, remains classified and Mr. Gonzales properly insisted on speaking only to the TSP that had been publicly acknowledged. While his statements appeared to differ from those of other officials, a careful examination of his testimony reveals no discrepancies in any material facts -- merely differences in descriptive terms used by different people. This is not perjury, it is life.

Second, the "special" or "independent" counsel is a highly suspect institution. As Justice Robert Jackson, who himself served as attorney general and the chief Nuremburg prosecutor, explained long ago, the interests of justice are always at risk when a prosecutor is told who to investigate, rather than what offenses to pursue. The natural, and perhaps inevitable, result is a determination to fit a crime to the suspect, rather than find a suspect to fit the crime.

This tendency is magnified when a special counsel is appointed because he does not have the perspective of an ordinary prosecutor -- who must balance priorities and assign scarce resources -- and his success or failure is measured based on whether a prosecution actually takes place. This is not the pursuit of justice, but the recipe for a political witch-hunt -- as was proven again and again in the 1980s and 1990s, before the independent counsel statute lapsed and went into a well-deserved legislative oblivion.

Overall, the next attorney general's confirmation hearings offer the administration a unique opportunity: to defend the president's constitutional authority and policy choices to the American people, to reveal how Congress has attempted again and again to usurp his legitimate power, and to refuse any constitutionally suspect compromises with the Senate. If, as a result, it refuses to confirm a worthy attorney-general nominee, President Bush can properly state that the Democrats are playing politics in the middle of a war. This is a fight he can and should win, revitalizing his presidency in the process.

Messrs. Casey and Rivkin served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1188355267...=googlenews_wsj

I despise Republicans.

They suck.

Guess Congresscritters shouldn't frequent airports so much.

The Craig Incident comes fast on the heels of the Filner Altercation:

" From the AP: Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, has been summoned to court on assault and battery charges after an incident at Dulles Airport on Sunday night where he allegedly pushed a United Airlines bag claim employee.

The wire service reports Filner was arrested after allegedly refusing to leave an employees-only area and pushing aside a baggage employee's arm."

Maybe they should stay in DC more, and do their job....

What am I saying!!!!! Please stay away from DC - too much room to meddle and muck things up if you hang around the halls of Congress!

One of the major symptoms of Potomac Fever is the need to be seen doing something, even if nothing really needs to be done - unlike passing any appropriations bills prior to the 1 Oct fiscal year start ( we were just notified to expect continuing resolutions into December as regards the FY08 appropriations), which truly does need to be done under the laws they themselves passed to ensure they had the time necessary to get it accomplished. But then again, since '76 they've only managed that a few times - so no big thing, right?

But wait, our Congresscritters are on vacation (who really wants to be in DC in August right?) so they really can't be expected to do their constitutional duty - those junkets and airport shenanigans are just sooo much more important. Gotta rack up those frequent flyer miles, right, folks?

A pox on both your Houses!

Complete the opening line of Larry Craig's statement to reporters about his total lack of gayness: "Thank you all very much for________________________"

a. coming out today.

b. making sure that the phrase 'wide stance' will be in the first paragraph of my obituary.

c. giving me the opportunity to repeat over and over again that I am not gay, I have never been gay, and I will never be gay, and anyone who doesn't believe it can blow me in a toilet stall.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky...cr_b_62321.html

Heh.

Missed one.

d. Giving me all this attention.

Goes to required ego to be a Congresscritter.

Senator Craig said "I never had sex with that man".

What does the senator know about your sexual encounters?

Now that's funny!!!

(You're quick, Space - must be an orbital thing.)

Tweety Matthews is blathering on about ”Will the Christian conservatives desert the Republican party?” over these recent gay sex/prostitution scandals.

Of course not. I imagine some are shocked, but I think they are smart enough to realize that what counts is how representatives vote on the issues the Christian right cares about. On that, Craig is still batting 1000.

What About Sen. David Vitter?

So how will Senate Republicans square their calls for Sen. Larry Craig's resignation with their support for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)?

Let's put it this way: Vitter did more than slide his foot under a bathroom stall. He has as much as admitted to breaking the law by paying for prostitutes proffered by the D.C. Madam. He left precious little ambiguity in his public statements, though he didn't go quite as far as Craig's guilty plea.

But that is a slim reed of a difference. Is the only real difference for GOPers that Vitter was in for straight sex (though apparently pretty kinky straight sex, by one account) whereas Craig went in for gay sex in public places?

There's been considerable commentary on conservative commentators' double standard for Vitter and Craig. But it's a standard GOP senators are going to have to answer for, too. Let the squirming begin.

--David Kurtz

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/




What did Rove alledgedly call them? Nutcases?

Who else are they going to vote for?

Gary Bauer on Hardball. He's blaming our culture, not Vitter, not Craig, not Republicans.


Oh, fork, he just dropped the $400 haircut line as an example of political hypocricy. Man, what a forking pig.


Now he is talking about the SCOTUS and the potential nominees.

Suuuuure Gary, give them all a pass.

Frank says Craig should serve out term
By Associated Press
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - Updated: 05:43 PM EST

WASHINGTON - Rep. Barney Frank says embattled Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is a hypocrite on gay rights issues, but he doesn’t think the Republican senator should resign.

Frank’s comments, made in a telephone interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, came as some Republican lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, called on Craig to step down after being caught in a men’s room undercover police operation.

But Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress and a prominent voice on gay rights, said Craig should serve out the remainder of his term. The third-term senator is up for re-election next year.

"What he did, it’s hypocritical, but it’s not an abuse of his office in the sense that he was taking money for corrupt votes," said Frank, D-Mass. "I think people should resign when they have clearly done the job in a way that is dishonest."

Added Frank: "It’s one thing to say that someone can’t be trusted to vote without being corrupt, it’s another to say that he can’t be trusted to go to the bathroom by himself."

(more) http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view...ticleid=1019832

Good for you, Mr. Frank.

Ewwwww, all men have fallen short in the sight of god. Christians are forgiven.


Christians will forgive them all.


That is so disgusting. I would love to plant my fist in that dirtbags face just to shut his skanky d**k smoking mouth. And poeple wonder why I hate Republicans now.

Scumbag two-faced hypocrites.

Screw you JT, you piece of crap.



Barney would love to have Craig as the posterboy for the party but that will never happen. Craig's career is over.




I just realized something. I don't have enough curse words for the Republicans.

C&R Video News Clip: Countdown: Republican Senator [Lavvy] Larry Craig “Idaholier Than Thou”

Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Ted Haggard, Duke Cunningham, Bob Allen, Randall Tobias, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Jeff Gannon, Bill Frist....

As I recall Frank is more acquainted with in house meetings.

I love reading the comments after the stories. Some are very funny. Houston Chronicle has a comment section.

You've heard of Vitter and the fishing rodeo. well now it's Craig and the toilet rodeo.

I give him credit for supporting Craig when Craig is down.

Craig embarrassed himself, but he isn't a crook that we know of.

Thanks for bringing that extremely important fact to our attention.

Craig can probably save his seat if he changes parties.



We just make sure Craig gets dumped because he has lousy family values.



Craig may be too old to work in Barney's man whore house.

Craig should er, switch locale.