Aug 30 2007
Senator Craig Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty
I had hoped someone I know who interned with Senator Craig would post on the man they knew (and this person still may, stay tuned). But what I have heard from this person is total disgust with the spineless and back stabbing GOP. While some on the right can go around claiming things like El Presidente Jorge Bush is a traitor without impugnity (or facts), why is they are given a pass for making the conservative movement look like crap and Craig cannot get the benefit of the doubt. Mac Ranger went and read the arrest report and it was all foot tapping and some vague signals – nothing more. Can Craig’s critics make the claim they read the facts before making fools of themselves? Now come the calls for resignation and the forced removal of the man from his committee positions and we have the lynching of Craig – which followed the lynching of Gonzales, the lynching of Harriet Miers, and the continuous backstabbing of Bush. Folks, the conservatives/GOP are out of gas. They cannot stand by each other, respect each other, stand by their commitments, nor come up with any good ideas. All they are good at is failing. Failing to pass legislation, failing to providing an example of leadership and civility, and failing to stand by their brethren.
In nut shell these are the kind of people you don’t want with you in a fox hole. While under attack they yell at you and call you names (sticks and stones) and then runaway and starting shooting at you from the rear. And that is why I am a proud conservative Independent and not part of the ever sinking GOP. Shut up and let his state’s voters make the decision themselves. Everyone else should really just butt out.
Addendum: Yes, I am aware he plead guilty. But then we must accept his reasons for doing this – which again do make sense if the arrest report is shows no evidence of a crime, just hints of one. He paid his fine so therefore did his time. Even in the worst case scenario he paid his debt to society. Now maybe the GOP can pay its debt to the American people and do something useful to the nation instead of their own electorial prospects.
Addendum: One wonders why so many liberals become lawyers when the lot of them seem so ignorant of the law. A plea of guilty is not PROOF of guilt. In many misdemeanor cases it is just acceptance of the charge – a no contest strategy. Why spend time and money when a fine will get you past it just as easy. To the English language challenged left accepting a fine is not proof of motive or intent. The police have no evidence and no jury determined motive or intent. Therefore there is no proof of Craig’s motives or intents.
Some folks would do well to check a dictionary before they claim a plea is proof – it is not.
He PLEADED GUILTY!
So there’ll be no proving of guilt . . . unless you’re talking about his alleged homosexuality, which is, of course, not against the law, and not something he should be guilty about.
Guilty of lying? Yep.
Guilty of hypocrisy? Yep
Speaking of ignorance of the law – – – when someone pleads guilty — there is no need for proof. And technically – unless one wants to stand the meaning of words on their head — when you plead “Guilty” you are admitting guilt.
You can spin it after the fact by saying “I just wanted it to go away” — BUT – the disingenuity of saying that pleading guilty is not an admission of guilt is even more egregious that “it depends on what your definition of is is”.
Guilt of what? Who the hell cares. It is extremely disengenious of the left to be so up in arms about this farce when this stuff goes on all the time in public restrooms by gays. Or is it only when a conservative is accused that he/she is presumed guilty period and not innocent until proven guilty like liberal gays and every one else are? The media only do it because it pulls the chain of the extreme right. I wonder at them for springing onto the hook they way they do. Self righteous prigs. In fact, when have liberal gays’ actions ever been so publicly splashed across the media?
Sooth,
You are out of your league again. A plea of guilty is NOT proof of guilt. Go read up on legal theory. It is an assumption of guilt the process can use to determine sentencing.
I don’t care. I say he didn’t do anything wrong, unless
not being straight is illegal for a Republican. (It isn’t for
a Democrat) Unless we want to make thought crimes and
foot tapping impeachable offenses, this is totally stupid,
and with the minority of Republicans in Congress – this is
no time to bring out the “purity” debate.
Sometimes Republicans are as stupid as Democrats.
Sen. Craig should have thought of a better excuse. I actually tried taking a “wide stance” the last time I have to go. Unless you are wearing clown pants or your pants were removed you can not perform a “Spread.
Furthermore the last thing you want to do(do) on a public toilet is spread your buttskin up and down a nasty public toilet seat.
I’m hoping that they will overturn his judgement so that we could enjoy his public trial on CourtTV.
Sooth,
Not to mention, “pleaded guilty” is not even correct use of the English language.
BarbaraS, I totally agree wit you, who really cares? This is a media ploy and the other GOP Senators who are willing to take a good man out of his committee positions over this, are falling for it.
Can’t we learn to keep out of everyone’s bedroom? I don’t want to know ANYTHING about anyone else’s bedroom behavior. It’s not any of my business!
Sooth,
Not to mention, “pleaded guilty†is not even correct use of the English language.
Wasn’t “Bootlicker” the HEBEPHRENIC Leftist Nutbag on just the other thread, who was going spastic and HER cramps were kicking in, because a Military spokesman supposedly couldn’t speak “English properly”?
Hmmmm???????
“Bootlicker”:
Guilty of lying? Yep!
Guilty of hypocrisy? Yep!
Guilty of stupidity? Yep!
Guilty of being a traitor? Yep!
Case CLOSED!
“B ootlicker”: you need to adjust your underwear and take the knot out of your panties; you’ll be able to relax a bit afterwards, and your sedition and treason won’t boil to the surface so much!
This is really too good to pass up. Now we’ve got republicans championing one’s right to have anonymous sex in public (which is against the law). I love it! By the end of Bush’s presidency, I’m expecting that every last so-called “family value” once espoused by the GOP will be shown for the complete sham it is.
Let me explain something to our linguistic gymnast, the hapless AJ Strata, who today has hung his hat on his sad understanding of legal theory. Fact is, someone is innocent until proven guilty, or until he pleads his own guilt. If someone pleads guilty, he is no longer regarded as innocent. This would be self-evident to most of you (and it would be to AJ Strata as well, were not the person in question a republican).
Fact is, apart from being a convicted felon, Craig is most essentially a hypocrite. And that is certainly interesting to the American public. For example, check out this quote from Craig:
“Knowing Governor Mitt Romney is knowing someone who, first and foremost, has very strong family values. That is something I grew up with and believe in.”
-Larry Craig
Now, given that Craig claims that Romney (a presidential candidate) shares his values, and given that Craig’s values include having anonymous sex in public, this comment by Craig is very interesting. Sure, you don’t care, simply because it makes a republican look bad, but that’s why you’re a partisan hack rather than a real thinking American. Those of us who are incensed by staggering hypocrisy by our elected officials, regardless of their party (be it William Jefferson’s $90k in the freezer, Mark Foley’s oh-so-disgusted rhetoric against Clinton in the 90s, or David Vitter’s style of legislating morality while gratifying himself) find this kind of story certainly to be worth knowing about.
You don’t, I understand. But rather than struggle through redefining language or floating crazy legal theories, why not just disclose the fact that you want to defend Craig because he’s a republican? Sometimes, even in politics, you’ll still find that honesty is the best policy.
Sooth,
Guess what wrong again. AJStrata and LJStrata are correct. A guilty plea does not mean that there is proof that you are guilty. It is the assumtion. There is also a plea called nolo contendere or no contest. “‘No contest’ is also used where there has been a ‘plea bargain’ in which the defendant does not want to say he/she is guilty but accepts the sentence recommended by the prosecutor in exchange for not contesting the charge (which is often reduced to a lesser crime).”
Paul,
Hate to burst your bubble but I am not and never have been a Republican. I voted for Chuck Robb over Ollie North years back, for example. And if you folks read the report there was no sex in the bathroom. In that case I would send him packing. Drool onward my friend.
Apologists like this doofus will always have an answer that evades any accountability and defies all logic. A guilty plea doesn’t mean that he did anything wrong, just like a conviction of guilt doesn’t mean that Scooter Libby did anything wrong, correct? Everything is a witch hunt, everything is a conspiracy, everything is the fault of someone else (usually liberals, sometimes brown people or gay people or anyone else who frightens me) one way or another.
I guess by your logic, you will agree that since Bill Clinton was never charged with a crime in the Lewinsky thing, let alone was he convicted of one or did he plead guilty to one, then obviously he is innocent.
This is situational ethics pure and simple. If your guy does it, its the greatest travesty in human history. If my guys does it then he was framed, he was forced into it, it wasn’t a crime, it just doesn’t matter or yes, that was horrific when your guy did it in the past, but when my guy did it, that was different.
Craig’s hypocracy should surprise no one who pays any attention to the conservative movement — hypocracy is their strongest pillar.
AJ, whether or not there was any sex in the bathroom is about as immaterial as it gets. Really, if you’re going to hold forth on legal theory, and ridicule other people’s understanding of the same, you should brief yourself so you don’t look both stupid and hypocritical at the same time.
Craig pleaded guilty to some lesser charge, so that he wouldn’t have to defend himself against trying to shag an undercover cop in a bathroom. That much is fact. Now here’s the supposition: if you had been accused of trying to shag an undercover cop in a bathroom, and assuming the accusation was false, would you plead guilty to a lesser charge, or would you fight the original one?
Take your time.
As for being a republican, you might want to edit this part of your bio if you really intend to do the “rats and sinking ship” routine:
“So as the left has sunk to nothing more than dire predictions and grasping for power, and the right has become a place for ideas, debate and mutual respect, it is easy to find myself leaning more and more to the republican side.”
Ideas, debate and mutual respect, eh? So, today your idea is to defend a convicted felon for no other reason but because he’s a republican, using a comically flawed understanding of the law. Good idea. Unfortunately, it’s not going to work, and you sacrifice your own credibility in doing so. I expect if I read through your blog (I haven’t gone beyond this one post and your about page), I’d find many more examples of this. That’s what happens when someone sets to defend the indefensible; their own integrity goes the way of the steam-powered engine.
But as you were…
The LA Times explains why Craig now saying he didn’t commit the crime he was charged with could get him into even more hot water. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-plea30aug30,1,6880447.story?track=rss&ctrack=4&cset=true
Essentially, judges don’t like it when you appear before them, admit to having commited the crime you were charged with, indicate that you understand what you are charged with and the consequences of a guilty plea, waive your right to legal representation and a jury trial, and then later you go in front of tv cameras and deny that you committed the crime and announce you are hiring a lawyer to see about reversing the conviction. Kind of makes them look bad.
Also it shows how stupid it was that Craig didn’t seek legal counsel. Quite obviously, the reason he didn’t was that he thought he could quietly make this all go away, when getting a lawyer most likely could have accomplished this. When will these morons ever learn — the cover up is always worse than the crime!
LJ – beg to differ on the English language, as you are 100% wrong (as usual), courtesy of Webster’s New World dictionary:
plead: vi, pleaded or (colloq) pled or plead.
The correct past tense of plead is pleaded. Pled or plead (pronounced pled) are colloqial usages, and hence not the preferred.
As for keeping out of “everyone’s bedroom” – that is the point precisely. Had Craig kept it in his BEDROOM instead of a PUBLIC RESTROOM – he would not have this problem. Unless you are now advocating public fornication, in which case I might become a liberterian.
By the way, LJ, I do not agree that “a good man” goes around soliciting sex from strangers in public restrooms in contravention of the law. I call that a criminal.
As for the Crazy Junior Republican, when you plead guilty, no proof is necessary. In the law, an admission is a statement of fact that is unchallenged by the parties. When the defendant is asked how they plead, and they respond: “Guilty, your Honor” that is an admission of guilt to the trier of fact, in this instance, the Court.
Oh, forgot to tell you Sooth. I’m prelaw and work in a law firm. So try again. And I’m not a Junior Republican.
Crzy4politks, you need to get your money back from your university. What pre-law program worth its salt lets its students roam around prattling nonsense as you have? Above, you attempted to conflate a guilty plea with a nolo contendre plea. Nice try. However, a guilty plea means the defendant has no issue with the facts or the findings, and admits to their validity.
Therefore, as you should know (and if you don’t, please talk to one of your professors immediately), Craig is not innocent because he pleaded guilty, not nolo contendre. Therefore, the title of this post is laughably false.
Geeze, really hate to pile on, but when you post that you were Chairman of your college Republican organization, it seems to me that makes you a Jr. Republican, in addition to a hopelessly addled pre-law student who might be better off opting for a spot in the custodial department. Look what happened to Monica Goodling.
Watch it Sooth. Keep your comments appropriate or AJ will kick you off again. Also I didn\’t say a nolo contendere plea and a guilty plea were the same. But read any law book and a judge takes a nolo contendere plea and treats it LIKE a guilty plea. Sorry, sounds like you need to go back to school or learn how to do research again. Oh and just cause I was involved with a Republican group does not mean I\’m a JUNIOR Republican. Yes, I\’m a Republican, but due to my age, degree, and experience in the political world (which is far beyond running my mouth off on a website) I am not considered a junior to the political arena.
I am not considered a junior to the political arena.
And yet you believe a hack politician, involved in prior investigations of homosexual pandering (e.g., congressional pages in ’82) and who protests he’s not gay when he’s arrested for coming on to an undercover cop in public restroom. And then pleads guilty to a lesser included charge.
So – if you’re not considered a “junior” what then? Gullible? Naive? Few bricks short of a full load? Half a bubble outa plumb? Inquiring minds want to know.