GrayBear wrote: The situation here, if I understand it, is that he wants to withdraw what, to him, is a hastily made, invalid and ill-advised plea.
Sorry, but you
don't understand the facts if Larry (or anyone else) thinks this guilty plea was hastily made, ill-advised or offered under duress. He was literally caught with his pants down, arrested, advised to get an attorney, and released. He made his guilty plea TWO MONTHS later, despite never divulging the arrest to his family, to his staff, to any of his Republican colleagues or even to his own attorney. He is a U.S. Senator, who can reasonably be expected to understand the ramifications of entering a guilty plea.
He was specifically advised both verbally and on the papers he signed that by pleading guilty he was waiving any future right to declare innocence in the matter. He had sixty days to consider what he had done and what he was doing, and he pled GUILTY! And he almost got away with keeping it quiet it because nobody noticed the Congressional Record's initial reporting of the arrest. Only later did another newspaper, acting on a tip, bring the story into the open. The arresting officer has an impeccable record and was planted in that bathhroom to catch suspects engaging in exactly this type of lewd behavior.
The other question that nobody (except me) seems to be asking is for an explanation of what he was even doing in Minneapolis, in a bathroom infamous as a place for anonymous homosexual activity. Did he have other business in Minnesota? Are there no direct flights between DC and Boise, or do you HAVE to transfer in Minnehaha? He said on the interrogation recording that he used that bathroom "all the time". Why?!?!!?!?! What legitimate busines did Craig have in Minneapolis during all these visits?
If he says now that he was under pressure because the Idaho Statesman was investigating a story about men who claimed to have sex with Sen. Craig -- including a male GOP "operative" (still unidentified by the paper) who has stated for the record he had consensual oral sex with Craig on two different occasions -- why did he even put himself in the position to be arrested in that bathroom? Could it be because he didn't want to practice his secret double-life in either his professional home or in his home state, where he would be more easily recognized? The Statesman is a conservative newspaper in a "red" state, one that had consistently endorsed Sen. Craig throughout his political career. This was no political witch-hunt by the "liberal media". They wouldn't even run the story until the guilty plea for the Minnesota incident came to light, even though they had two credible witnesses and numerous others who's individual stories the Statesman said it couldn't verify.
Finally, in order to understand the context, everyone should listen to Craig's press conference from 1982. That year, a sex scandal rocked DC when a number of underage male House pages claimed they had attended parties hosted by Congressional members where they were plied with drugs and alcohol and then participated in consensual homosexual activity, although under modern law this would be considered rape as the Congressmen were adults and the pages were under 18 years of age. These events were basically big BJ orgies. The FBI said they interviewed all male members of the House, but never made any arrests. The questions were reported to be along the lines of "Have you heard about this?" or "Do you know anything about this?". Nobody was EVER formally accused, and the pages refused to name names. The whole thing would have faded away except for a press conference called by Representative Larry Craig (R-Idaho), on his own and apparently as a preemptive strike. Craig stated at this press conference (the video of which is widely available) that he is not gay, has never been gay (sound familiar?), but that because he was a unmarried man of a certain age people might mistakenly assume he was gay and that he might have been involved in sex with underage House pages. But NOBODY had even named Craig, the FBI says they had not been focused on Craig but were considering possible other suspects, and reported later that they found the press conference to be "bizarre". Shakespeare might have said "Me thinks thee doth protest too much"...
After that press conference, Larry married Suzanne two months later, although he admitted they had not known each other long and had not dated "seriously" before the Page Sex Scandal. Craig insists he had a "serious" girlfriend for three years in college, but the Statesman could only find and interview women who had dated him briefly and all told the same story -- Larry would never even hold their hand, and that none had ever been intimate with him. No serious girlfriend has ever come forward, and Craig refuses to identify her, even though she could presumably testify to his claim of heterosexual orientation. The paper also interviewed a frat rushee who claims that Craig, a house pledge officer, tried to get that rushee to have sexual activity with him in a bedroom at the frat.
These rumors about Craig have been around for over 30 years, yet he always denies them and seems to have gotten almost everyone to believe him, at least until he signed a guilty misdemeanor plea in 2007. Few people seem to believe him anymore, and despite becoming "toxic" to his own caucus he seems resolved to clear his name. Good luck, Lar!
