Idaho Senator, Larry Craig, is reconsidering decision to resign, ...
... (read it here) now is the chance for sensible Republicans in the Senate Leadership, like our own Mitch McConnell, to shove him off the political cliff if he won't go quietly!
In case you are still undecided and are listening to Larry Craig's statement of not being guilty or not knowing what he was doing when he plead guilty, please re-visit the Senator's guilty plea, negotiated over the telephone by the Senator, on August 8th to the complaint of June 11th (nearly 2 FULL months after the incident, hence the Senator had enough time to assess the situation before sending in his guilty plea)!
This guilty plea was entered into with the understanding: (4) "that the court will not accept a guilty plea from anyone who claims to be innocent", and that (5) "I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty", and (9) that "I have certain constitutional rights which I knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently give up (waive) by entering the guilty plea -- amongst the enumerated rights identified here are rights to cross examine his accuser(s) and to challenge the evidence against him."
Any questions?
Update: Attorney for Larry Craig asks Senate Ethics Committee to throw out ethics complaint against his client. This is where we can expect Mitch McConnell's leadership to shine, as he INSISTS that he means it when he says "I think the episode is over." "We’ll have a new senator from Idaho sometime in the next month or so and we’re going to move on."
Update #2: BREAKING NEWS, as CNN is reporting that the Senate Ethics Committee has rejected Larry Craig's request for dismissal of ethics charges against him.
Labels: Keeping them honest
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 8:30 PM
8 Comments:
Osi: Word is that his lawyers have advised to take a very hard line- and wide- stance on this issue. ;)
Seriously, what an embarassment. Doesn't this guy know that you can come back from anything other than humiliation?
"Wide-stance"? You are a riot, CYBERONE!
You can't be serious in referencing paragraphs (4) and (5)and saying the Senator can't now change his plea. Many innocent victims of a sting plea down a charge for various reasons even though not guilty. There does seem to be a rush to judgment on this case and maybe he was Nifonged. I, for one, would like some more information on the police officer who, as reported, was an up and comer and on a fast track before I would make a decision on his conduct. Maybe some investigation into his party registration along with previous restroom encounters would put this case into perspective.
He cannot change his plea made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently once accepted by the Judge!
As far as I can see from the "record" you cited: a USAToday article "quoting" another paper; the judge never made an inquiry into the plea. In fact, according to the media, the Senator never appeared before the judge. Thus, how can you state:"knowlngly, voluntarily [note voluntarily]and intelligently" without a court record establishing these "facts" in a court of competent jurisdiction?
The next time you get an out of state ticket, and you send in your ticket pleading guilty and paying the fine, try arguing that you were not, in fact, guilty!
Moreover, the plea by Larry Craig was negotiated by him over the phone before acknowledging the contents of the agreement that he sent in. The only likely (legal) salvation for him is that the judge did NOT yet accept his GUILTY plea!
And "he's got to show either that he was coerced into the plea, or that he didn't understand his legal rights at the time that he signed the document acknowledging his guilt."
In other words, he has to "demonstrate a 'manifest injustice' under the Minnesota's Rules of Criminal Procedure.
This, I think, will be hard, if not impossible, to show considering that he (Larry Craig, a man of assumed considerable intelligence) had nearly two months to think about the plea and to consult a Lawyer, if he wished, as he was advised to do by the Prosecutor who told him, in a July 20th letter with several references to references to an attorney: "Please review the document and to the extent that you wish, review the same with legal counsel"!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=300148326565&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=020
Post a Comment
<< Home