Craig: 'I Will Continue My Work'

EDINA, Minn. -- Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) just made it official that he will remain in the Senate, presumably until Judge Charles A. Porter issues a ruling here on the Idaho Republican's effort to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct in an airport men's restroom.

Here's Craig's statement from his Senate Web site.

This is somewhat expected since Porter concluded the roughly 45-minute hearing by saying he would not be able to issue a ruling until "the end of next week" at the earliest. Craig had originally set Sept. 30 as his resignation date if the matter was not resolved, but is apparently willing to wait an additional week or more to get complete legal clarity on the issue.

Here's the link to the news story filed for washingtonpost.com on today's hearing. At issue was Craig's disorderly conduct plea resulting from a sex sting in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

As readers will see in the story, Porter asked a stream of difficult questions of Billy Martin, the high-profile attorney leading Craig's defense. Speaking to reporters after the roughly 45-minute hearing, Martin was confident. "He was very engaged," the attorney said of the judge's tough line of questioning.

By Paul Kane |  September 26, 2007; 5:52 PM ET Ethics and Rules , Senate
Previous: Judge in Craig Case 'Doesn't Suffer Fools' | Next: Local Officials Again Reject Alaskans' Earmarks

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



This guy is a joke and a huge embarrassment to Capitol Hill!

Posted by: Steven | September 26, 2007 9:11 PM

The more he backpedals on this issue, the more of a chance Larry LaRocco has.

Go Craig, I'm with you in this fight until the end!!!

Posted by: Brendan | September 26, 2007 9:24 PM

You stay put, Larry. Every day you're there is another reminder of Republican homophobia and hypocrisy.

Posted by: Brittman1 | September 26, 2007 10:28 PM

BUSHBOY'S WIDE STANCE -- God bless Larry Craig for showing Bushboy & the Republicans the way out of their hypocrisy. Here's their new website: http://wwwthepartyofthewidestance.blogspot.com/

Posted by: patriot76 | September 26, 2007 11:25 PM

Sen. Craig has apparently convinced himself that he can beat the odds and have a court withdraw his guilty plea. But to what effect? To remove a legal basis the Senate can use to continue to bar him from Senatorial committes? And then what?
Does he seriously believe he can run and win re-election? That both local and national news media will not diligently search his past for any hint of earlier "wrong doing"? That his name won't be splattered with more mud? That his fellow Republicans won't shun him as a political leper?
The fact is that even an unlikely win will probably result in more problems for Craig. And the fact that he can't see that probability suggests he has lost any sense of good judgment on the issue.

Posted by: Barton Keyes | September 27, 2007 9:25 AM

Mr Kane-
Any word from the prosecutor on what he'll do if the court allows Sen Craig to withdraw his plea?

My understanding is that, with Sen Craig's plea of guilty to disorderly conduct, the prosecutor dropped the other charges, invasion of privacy & lewd behavior, or something. So if the plea goes away, doesn't the prosecutor have the option to reinstate the other charges & put the Senator on trial?

Posted by: bsimon | September 27, 2007 11:10 AM

This is all pension related, he's just hanging on for the taxpayer paid pension and universal health care provided by the taxpayers, as the Congress declares health care for the US citizens to be socialized medicine.

Posted by: twistedreality109 | September 27, 2007 11:23 AM

What a boondoggle. Our state doesn't need this after Ruby Ridge and the Skin Head crap up north. It isn't that Craig is gay or not, it's that he's a liar. Many of us here in Idaho have known he was gay, or at least thought he was, and we didn't care. But, now that he's lied about it, we're incensed. If he'd have just said, 'yeah, I'm gay, but I'm a damned good legislator,' then all would have probably been forgiven. Now, there's no chance he can legislate. I've got to think that his senatorial collegues are shunning him at every turn like rats deserting the ship. It's a shame. Craig represented my state admirably for many years and I hate to see him go down like this, but it's his own fault for not being honest.

Posted by: John Belville | September 27, 2007 11:48 AM

Craig has to show that upholding the plea is a manifest injustice to him. Why? Only on the basis of his innocence of the disorderly conduct charge. (The notion that being over-stressed or being fearful of public disclosure is sufficient to take back a plea would be a very unwelcome precedent.) Now suppose the judge agrees with Craig... essentially that decision practically exonerates Craig of the disorderly conduct charge based on the evidence. Remember, Porter will be the same judge who would try him on any charges filed if the plea is withdrawn. If Porter decides that what Craig did is not disorderly... how likely will he decide that it was lewd behavior or an invasion of privacy? The prosecutor would likely see few options. He needs to appeal Porter's decision if it goes for Craig. He also needs to forget about the previous charges and investigate perjury charges for Craig for falsely signing that guilty plea.

Look, they have a signed admission of guilt from someone who had ample opportunity and ability to consult a lawyer. In signing that statement, he agreed that he was not making any claim of being innocent of this charge. ("I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty.") In colloquy the defendent needs to be under oath for the plea to be valid. I'm not sure what requirements are needed to for a "mail-order" plea to be valid. I think Martin made this argument in court as well, right? That the plea was not valid because there was not colloquy, Craig was not under oath and not in front of a judge testifying that he understood the charges and the crime and admitting his guilt. Again, I'm weary of the precedent this sets for all those other "mail-order" pleas.

Posted by: proxli | September 27, 2007 3:02 PM

Video -- Pump Up the Volume: Energy Production & National Security

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL);
David
Hamilton, Director of Global Warming & Energy Programs, Sierra Club;
Steven F. Hayward, Resident Scholar, American
Enterprise Institute;
Andrew N. Liveris, President, CEO, & Chairman, Dow Chemical Company;
James Woolsey, VP of Global
Strategic Security Division, Booz Allen Hamilton;
Moderated by Lawrence Kudlow

The panelists debate and discuss energy
production and supply from economic, national security and environmental perspectives -- including whether climate change is caused by humans and what to do about it.

http://video.energypolicytv.com/displaypage.php?vkey=b73148b7d49f70afcfb3&channel=Oil

Posted by: Anonymous | September 27, 2007 3:18 PM

Personally, I hope he hangs in there, wins whatever he needs to win and runs for re-election. He is about the only Republican in that state that could lose that seat to a Democrat. A dog with an R behind his name would win but not Sen. Graig. Having said that, I doubt it will come to that. Saner heads will prevail and he will resign, if for no other reason than to keep his pension. And I do believe that, should he not resign, the ethics committee will come down hard on him and may expell him from the Senate. Also, there would almost certainly be a primary challence for him to fight. After all, the people in Idaho may vote republican but they are not stupid.

Posted by: Opa | September 29, 2007 2:15 AM

to Opa: Idahoans' may vote republican, but they are not stupid. By voting repubican, does that not declare stupidity? This guy is guilty as sin, but wants the pension, which should be taken away. I personally am disgusted with all politicians, irregardless of party affiliation. They're all crooks and liars with no regards to us civilians. I'm all for term limits, you ?

Posted by: jime | October 1, 2007 9:22 PM

when Larry Craig says he didnt understand
the charges.It makes one wonder how bright
he is as a representive for the state of
Idaho.Does telling a lie make him smarter

Posted by: carl Larsen | October 3, 2007 12:11 AM

This is the laugh we need today.

Posted by: DFC | October 3, 2007 1:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company