Comments on: Heresy of the Day

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:35:33 +0000

Let’s take a step back :^).
The cop says there is an elaborate “mating dance” for these restroom hookups — this is all the foot-raising, etc. If this is untrue, then the Senator may well be telling the truth. It should be easy to verify the cop’s claim, but on the face of it it is sensible for such a “code” to exist. The stylized gestures allow possible partners to negotiate terms without overtly doing any one thing that can’t be plausibly denied as purely innocent. Besides, it is probably not legal to walk up to a stranger in a bathroom and say “How about some hot man on man action before my flight leaves?”.
So, if there is this mating dance, the question becomes how likely it is for someone to perform it unintentionally, and then sign a document stating that they performed it deliberately. Not too likely, I say, but Craig isn’t a lawyer (unsurprisingly).
Craig’s defense (now that he has admitted his guilt!) sounds like something out of a cheesy movie, where the protagonist meets up with a native chieftain, performs some innocuous gesture, and then learns he has just agreed to marry the chief’s daughter. It’s funny in the movie, but in Minnesota it wasn’t just one innocent gesture — it was something like five consecutive moves, any one of which would have earned the Senator a “Hey pal, WTF?!!” if the other guy wasn’t interested (or pretending to be).

By: Freemage

Freemage — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 11:51:54 +0000

This has also been addressed over at You Are Dumb. Specifically, he points out the near physical impossibility of ‘accidentally’ sliding your foot under the wall of the stall next to you unless you’re sitting at a 30-degree angle, once your pants are around your ankles.
And the prosecutor could only be accused of suborning perjury if it could be shown that he KNEW you were lying about the confession (ie, deliberately elicited a false confession). In most cases of plea bargains, the cops and prosecutor sincerely believe they got the right guy–they might be mistaken, but that’s a separate matter.
And the notion that a long-time U.S. Senator was somehow coerced into making a statement by a local police department… well, frankly, it boggles the mind.
BTW, I notice that his big thing has been to state, “I am not gay.” Given that he has a wife and three kids, has anyone asked, “Yes, but are you bisexual?”

By: PHB

PHB — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:15:46 +0000

A reporter was already building a file on Sen Craig’s cottaging activities before he got caught. There is a witness who stated he had sex with Craig in another public toilet.
Even if the whole thing is a set up, he pled guilty but not until after he flashed his business card to show he was a Senator.
Given Craig’s statements on don’t ask don’t tell that came after his arrest ang guilty plea I don’t think he deserves a lot of sympathy.
On the other hand the GOP is happy to let whoremongering Sen Vitter stay in their ranks and preach the family values story.

By: David Brodbeck

David Brodbeck — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:24:55 +0000

Oh, and entrapment is exactly what he doesn't want to argue. "Entrapment" means you were convinced to commit a crime by the actions of the police. It means you did it, but you didn't originally intend to until they talked you into it. His argument is that there was no crime, not that the police officer convinced him to hit on him.

By: David Brodbeck

David Brodbeck — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:21:27 +0000

I guess I’m a lot more suspicious. People who are familiar with this particular strain of the gay community say that the actions Sen. Craig is said to have taken are very specific — they’re a sort of code for people trying to hook up. I suppose you could still argue the cop was making it up, but I don’t really see what his motivation for doing that would be.
Keith Olbermann aired the police interview tape last night and I have to say it sounds pretty bad. Sen. Craig sounds like he’s trying to intimidate the cop and make the whole thing go away. Typical Senator who thinks he’s above the law.
This is a guy who has all the money and power he could ask for. He could have hired the best attorneys around to take his case. Once he realized that he couldn’t talk the police into covering it up, he chose not to fight it in court. That speaks volumes, IMHO.

By: mordaxus

mordaxus — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:21:05 +0000

You might be able to, but you’re admitting to perjury. On the other hand, the obvious defense is entrapment.

By: Nicko

Nicko — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:01:31 +0000

Perhaps I’m just too accepting, perhaps not, but I have to say that the first thing that crossed my mind reading that article was that the guy was probably telling the truth.
The lottery that is the US legal system actively encourages people who are innocent to plead guilty to minor crimes in order to avoid risk conviction, or the embarrassment of prosecution, for major ones. Those who are innocent but have the audacity to defend themselves are frequently bankrupted by the exercise irrespective of their innocence.
The meta-legal question that has always plagued me in situations such as these is this: if a DA induces you to plead guilty and allocute to something you did not do, is he suborning perjury? If so, can you press charges?