Craig's Ethics Case: A Lengthy Process Likely
Now that he's decided to remain in office through next year, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) still must deal with an internal investigation from the Ethics Committee following a June 11 arrest stemming from an airport restroom gay-sex sting.
But for those looking for a quick verdict -- something that might embarrass Craig into retiring early, before the election season heats up next year -- think again. In the last two decades, the Senate Ethics Committee has taken more than a year to handle all but one of its investigations. [A sampling of five probes over the last 20 years is at the end of this post.]
And the likelihood of public hearings, floated as a possibility last month by GOP aides anxious to see Craig resign, is not high given the panel's closed-door nature. Only once in the last 20 years - during the so-called Keating Five investigation - has the Ethics committee ever opened its doors for a public airing of evidence and testimony against a fellow senator.
For now the committee has begun what is known as a "preliminary inquiry" surrounding Craig's disorderly conduct guilty plea from the arrest in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. While the panel can issue subpoenas and interview witnesses, including the target of the probe, this is similar to a grand-jury phase of a criminal investigation. Since there is no Senate rule specifically dealing with arrests in airport restrooms, the committee will try to determine whether Craig's actions broke the chamber's prohibition against "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate". This is an intentionally vague phrase meant to cover conduct that the committee could not foresee coming.
For those expecting a harsh punishment of Craig -- either being expelled or a formal reprimand -- that's not very likely, either, given recent history. According to the committee's manual, it needs to find "substantial credible evidence" of a serious breach by Craig for it to essentially indict him and move into what is known as an adjudicatory review. That "adjudicatory" stage of an investigation resembles an actual trial, creating the most likely time when hearings might be held. The six-senator committee, led by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.), would determine whether those hearings were open. But in the past decade the committee has not moved beyond any preliminary inquiries, settling cases by either dismissing them entirely or giving a letter of admonishment.
And while Craig's actions have provoked outcries on both ends of the political spectrum, the allegations against him are not seriously connected to his official duties, unlike other recent investigations involving bribery and corruption accusations. So, if the Ethics Committee sticks to its most recent history, then some time next year Craig would be receiving some sort of letter rebuking his actions, unless he's successful in persuading the panel to clear him entirely.
Here's a rundown of five investigations of the last two decades and their outcome:
• Keating Five, December 1989-November 1991. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Donald Riegle (D-Mich.) all were accused of interfering with regulators examining the failed savings and loan run by Charles Keating, who had contributed large sums to each of them. In November 1990 the panel held public hearings which were hailed as "unprecedented". Four of the five were reprimanded in February 1991, a light punishment, but Cranston was considered more culpable. It took another nine months to conclude his case, during which then-freshman Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acted secretly as Cranston's counsel and go-between with the panel. Almost two years after the probe started Cranston was officially reprimanded by the committee, which presented its case on the Senate floor. Cranston retired in 1992 and was succeeded by Boxer.
• Bob Packwood, November 1992-September 1995. The Oregon Republican, shortly after his re-election in 1992, was accused of inappropriate sexual advances to women, including his own staff. The panel subpoenaed his private diaries in October 1993, leading to an adjudicatory hearing behind closed doors in the summer of 1995. After the committee recommended his expulsion - the first such vote since that against Sen. Harrison A. Williams (D-N.J.) in 1982 during the Abscam scandal - Packwood resigned.
• Robert Torricelli, January-July 2002. The New Jersey Democrat's investigation is the quickest case in recent times. The panel moved as quickly as it did because the Justice Department had already conducted a long investigation against Torricelli, declining to indict him but forwarding all its files to the committee. After interviews with federal investigators and the senator, the panel issued a public letter "severely admonishing" him for accepting thousands of dollars of inappropriate gifts while trying to help a donor. He withdrew from his re-election bid two months after the admonishment.
• Richard Shelby, July 2004-November 2005. The Alabama Republican also was the target of a Justice probe, relating to allegations he leaked classified intelligence to CNN relating to pre-9/11 intercepts of terrorist discussions. As in the Torricelli case, federal prosecutors did not bring an indictment and forwarded their files to Ethics. The committee cleared him of any wrongdoing.
• Pete Domenici, March 2007-present. The New Mexico Republican has been under investigation for more than seven months for his role in the firing of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias, which came shortly after a testy phone call Domenici had with the prosecutor relating to a corruption case of Albuquerque Democrats. Like the case with Shelby - which dealt with the relatively simple issue of whether he leaked the information - this case resolves around one phone call and its aftermath. The committee has shown no signs of being close to resolving the case. Domenici announced last week his intention to retire.
By Paul Kane |
October 9, 2007; 9:05 AM ET
Previous: Senators get multipe-ticket benefit restored |
Next: Cheney, House Republicans on Different Money Paths
Posted by: jkmar | October 9, 2007 10:22 AM
"But for those looking for a quick verdict -- something that might embarrass Craig into retiring early, before the election season heats up next year -- think again..."
Craig will singlehandedly cost the Gay, Old Party a considerable number of votes in 2008. Way to go, Larry!
Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 9, 2007 11:02 AM
He should have attempted to change his plea to "Not guilty by reason of insanity due to constipation," "The devil made me do it" or "That guy was so cute I thought he was a policewoman;" not to mention suing to get back all those Canadian quarters Barney Frank gave him to insert into the slots, now that our buck has been kayoed so much that the loonie's worth more.
Posted by: sawargos | October 9, 2007 1:57 PM
Craig got stiffed by his republican colleagues and it's payback time. The Idaho Governor would love to make an interim Senator appointment now so s/he can run as an incumbent next year. T.S. Elliot.
Posted by: Jim | October 9, 2007 4:34 PM
Larry Craig should be formally punished, as his bad actions reflect back on the senate, but technically he's already been punished- by embarrassment and publicity. I still think that he should be formally punished, though, because if he isn't then other senate members might think they can get away with bad behavior, and it will make the Senate look bad to the U.S. and to other countries.
Posted by: colorado_skiier | October 9, 2007 8:29 PM
Larry Craig should be formally punished, as his bad actions reflect back on the senate, but technically he's already been punished- by embarrassment and publicity. I still think that he should be formally punished, though, because if he isn't then other senate members might think they can get away with bad behavior, and it will make the Senate look bad to the U.S. and to other countries.
Posted by: Terrance | October 10, 2007 9:25 AM
Video -- Markey: Bush climate strategy an 'aspiration for procrastination'
In the wake of a high-level United Nations meeting on climate change, Rep. Ed Markey -Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming - makes the case for action.
http://video.energypolicytv.com/displaypage.php?vkey=cecb0778afbc7924494a&from_search=1
Posted by: | October 10, 2007 11:38 AM
Senator Craig deserves whatever punishment he gets. Yes it was misorderly conduct, but it could have been worse than his little gay sex scandal. The only thing now is that he has just given himslef a bad reputation but what can we really do about it.
Posted by: Justice | October 10, 2007 9:44 PM
The only fair thing for an ethics committee discussion is that reports said Craig flashed his U.S. Senate business card at the arresting officer while saying "what do you think about that?" or words to that effect. If there was a witness to that behavior (as opposed to he said/she, err, he said), that's certainly grounds for a public reprimand by the committee. That's not to say Craig is alone as a public official who flaunts his credentials for preferential treatment. But when you get busted doing it, you have to face a reprimand.
Posted by: ap | October 11, 2007 12:13 PM
My polling and public opinion research firm (Greg Smith & Associates, based in Boise) has just completed a poll among Idahoans regarding their attitudes toward Larry Craig, and whether or not he should stay in the Senate. In summary, "only" about half of Idahoans disagree with his decision to stay, about 20-25% favor this decision, and a surprising 20-25% are truly undecided -- not unknowledgeable or dispassionate, but truly cannot venture an opion. If you would like a copy of the analysis/press release, please feel free to e-mail me:
gregsm@quickidaho.com
Posted by: Greg Smith | October 12, 2007 12:21 PM
Well Craig will stay on the full term. It definitely isn't in the interests of the Democrats to see him resign can use him as the face of the GOP. Also it may in the midterm be benefical to the gays in America.
Craig has always voted again gay rights and ahows that political expediency is more important than a persons natural feeling. Whether Craig is gay, bisexual or straight he has never taken the stance that whatever a persons orientation is they have rights.
The only thing I can say positively about the VP is that he stood behind his daughter and her rights to live her life in the way she desired.
Cam
Posted by: Cam | October 14, 2007 9:00 PM
larry craig is either 1) self-acknowledged gay who is lying to the public and perhaps his family or 2) a basket case in deep denial of the obvious. He ought to be telling his family he is gay, and then coming forward to the public to say how difficult it has been to accept this...but my guess is he is unable to see the reality.
Posted by: intelligentnonhack | October 15, 2007 10:17 AM
Larry Craig was Just last week inducted into the Idaho hall of fame...
Posted by: tricia | October 15, 2007 12:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Senator Craig is in a difficult position.
Party Leaders want to end the bleeding of yet another example of impropriety by a member of the GOP, and they have already taken away his leadership positions from the committees on which he serves. The legal battle to change his plea from guilty for a misdemeanor charge is problematic at best.
I have witnessed the difficult personal relationship Sen. Craig has had with colleges on the floor of the Senate, thanks to CSPAN, among other sources. Late night TV is making a living using him as a butt of their jokes.
As a citizen of Idaho and a constituent of the Senator, I believe my interests would be better served by a new voice in the U. S. Senate.
We all respect his desire to clear his name... but not in a position of responsibility. This is a personal catharsis, with little time for public service.
Of course, if he is gay, there is little reason to return to Idaho. You see, this state is among the most homophobic places in America, culturally ultra-conservative.