Repressive attitudes
There can no longer be any doubt that repressive, conservative Republican attitudes about sex create creeps like Rep. Mark Foley, the Rev. Ted Haggard and Sen. Larry Craig. These poor, miserable men could otherwise be happy and, frankly, gay.
Chris Shonka, Centennial
and how do you know they are miserable?
5:51
You can't be that stupid.
Posted by GK on September 10, 2007 05:56 AMGOP Gay sex scandals are just the gift that keeps on giving for the Democratic party.
Posted by just sayin' on September 10, 2007 08:02 AMAt least in the Republican Party a member acts like a democrat they are kicked out.
Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:09 AM"Creeps" Chris?
I would believe yours to be the attitude which causes repression.
"We, the conservative base, humbly apologize for the political candidates we have foisted on the American people for the past 15 years. We realize now that intense prayer and Bible scrutiny did not make us good judges of our candidates' qualifications or moral character. For the 2008 election, we will not be endorsing any candidates and, God willing, the liberals and moderates will be able to clean up the messes we made. Amen." Mark Anderson, Greeley Letter: Denver Post
Posted by rg Deicide r22037yahoo (ffrf.org for free copy of FreeThought on September 10, 2007 10:35 AMThe Dems would rather have a guy that is guilty of murder and is still elected as Senator over and over. They still think they can sit in judgement however.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 10:39 AManon 10:39,
Yeah, that guilty-of-murder senator got a boost from his big brother's reputation. If alive today, I think John would probably wish to disown his little brother.
Posted by Gail K on September 10, 2007 10:49 AMI don't have a problem with GOP diaper dandies, restroom enthusiasts, boys dorm managers, '08' prez draft-dodgers and whoremongers, etc. However, I do want to cull the herd of elected and politically appointed GOP felons. Bush is a UCMJ-felon (AWOL-deserter) and he appointed a fellow felon. USSC Judge Alito is also a UCMJ-felon (AWOL-deserter).
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 10, 2007 10:59 AM40acres is an idiot, he charges that Bush was awol just because his unit was never sent to Vietnam. Kerry violated UCMJ and federal laws as an officer meeting with VC and NVA represenatives in France while combat was still ongoing in Vietnam without any authorization. Get your stories straight 40 acres and quit blaming mankind for your inability to act as a human and inability to think straight.
Posted by Nick on September 10, 2007 11:30 AMOnly the Dems say that just to make themselves feel better but no Conservative is a murderer nevertheless. Aren't you glad it wasn't a relative of yours the good Senator from MA killed? If a conservative had done that the Dems would have made darn sure he got the death penalty but it's OK for the Dems to do whatever they want. I am not crazy about Bush either but you people are such Bush haters you can't see reason if it's staring you in the face.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 11:31 AMMan o Man
Democrats
Republicans
YOU FOOLS ACTUALLY THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. THEY ARE ALL SCREWING US. BEND OVER.
PLEASE SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER.
FSM, won't you please save AMERICA?
FSM BLESS AMERICA
From the clashing comments above I can only surmise that both the left and the right are unfit to run for Public Office, never mind dog catcher. If anyone thinks that one is worse than the other show me the evidence of which one itis and I will show you evidence that you chose the wrong one. Only both of them would be the right choice. Is it not time you all woke up to the reality that when people of both parties get elected they become brain dead to the needs of the people, if not entirely so.
Do you ever wonder why a good eighty percent of them are lawyers who failed to make it in the private sector? Have you considered that anyone who is even remotely honest and who runs for public office in this day and age has already been nullified by the donations they accepted to finance that running? Do you ever wonder why they get in such idiotic trouble? I can answer that one for you. It's because they belief they have immunity from the responsibility of the temptations they sucumb to by virtue of their indispensability to the process of representing the public.
You go figure that one out and, if you do, write an essay on it and you'll be nominated for a pullitzer prise at the least and then you can run for public office, maybe even become president.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 10, 2007 12:52 PMWhen the head of the free world is such a idiot that we are no longer the head of the free world, many will hate him for bringing our great nation down. Wake up USA, the combined strength of Europe and China will make us become a second tier country. This current adminstration is so morally bankrupt on all fronts that I could hate them, but I do not. I just do not have any respect for them are the people who voted for him, twice!
Posted by I have met the enemy and it was us! on September 10, 2007 12:57 PMGood comments OG.
Sen. Craig has the right to withdraw his guilty plea, and now it will be incumbent upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sen. Craig is guilty of disorderly conduct, without entrapment. That is his right under our rule of law.
What the man does, and the hypocrisy that he exudes is his business, and the people of the State of Idaho will be able to vote him out, if this is a big "no no" for them. I would hope they would vote out this now career politician, and inject some new views and beliefs as he has now served in the Senate for 17 years.
However, if he truly represents the views (and hypocrisy) of the people of Idaho, they pretty much get what they deserve, right? It is not up to us to judge this man, unless we are constituents of the State of Idaho. Comments, of course, but let's try to remember that in our country, his innocence is guaranteed until proven guilty, if justice is indeed blind. We shall see...
Posted by Dan2 on September 10, 2007 01:00 PMDan 2: "Sen. Craig has the right to withdraw his guilty plea"
Of course he does not have a right to withdraw his guilty plea. He has been convicted. Most of the people in our prisons were convicted on the basis of guilty pleas resulting from plea bargaining. What a mess it would be if they could withdraw their guilty pleas after their convictions and force the prosecution to go to court.
There can be unusual circumstances in which a court might set aside a guilty plea and require the state to to trial, but that does not happen as a matter of right but as a matter of equity.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 01:24 PMYET another prime example of people who have no clue about a damn thing, and provide a blaring truth as to why our country is draining away.
" but you democrats are "
" but you republicans are "
all of you are imbeciles of the highest order and the exact reason why our country is a pile of crap now.
ALL OF YOU!
Posted by Fresh on September 10, 2007 02:00 PMThere goes Truth again. Writing out of his ass.
From the Baltimore Sun:
"According to Minnesota law, withdrawal of a guilty plea can be allowed by a court if “necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Craig’s lawyers argue that because Craig never consulted with a lawyer and never entered his plea before a judge in open court, he was never made aware of the consequences of his guilty plea – or of the potential public humiliation if it went public. " There is even case law supporting this.
"To demonstrate that a guilty plea is involuntary, a defendant has the burden to prove that the plea was the product of threatened physical harm or of mental duress sufficient to overwhelm the defendant’s will. State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 719 (Minn. 1994) (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 750, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1470 (1970)). Ordinarily, if a defendant consistently states on the record that the guilty plea is freely made without threat and the record does not elsewhere disclose evidence of coercion, there is not sufficient proof of an involuntary plea. Id. at 718-19; Brown v. State, 449 N.W.2d 180, 182 (Minn. 1989)." MN State Appeals court decision A04-386 State of Minnesota Respondent, vs. Lawrence Andrew Matchem,
Appellant., Filed December 28, 2004
Reversed and remanded, Anoka County District Court, File No. KX-03-4202
Care to try again "Truth?" Maybe you should actually research something before commenting from the hip. You are the "master" of cut and paste, I would have thought this would be an easy one for you. But instead you speak in generalities, with no specific knowledge base to go from.
Oh this is rich, a member of the "law and order" party will try to get off on a technicality.
He didn`t have a lawyer, that cry never gets conservative sympathy. He didn`t get Miranda rights. The conservatives never listen to that one.
This is going to be a nightmare for him. Someone who cares about him should convince him to stop all this.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 04:18 PMDan2,
A couple of little problems there, I'm afraid.
1. The man is a U.S. Senator; and as such makes Laws. A bit difficult to argue that he didn't know what he was doing, without consulting a lawyer.
2. He IS a Lawyer. Though I believe we have been told he didn't, and doesn't, practice. A bit difficult to plead ignorance of consequences there, I would think.
3. The newspapers have stated that it was a "plea bargain", down from a more serious charge. This would have to have been approved and accepted by a Judge in Court to have been allowed. A bit difficult to argue
non-awareness there, too, I would think.
4. Truth said: " . . . he does not have a RIGHT to withdraw his guilty plea." Technically, that is correct. The withdrawal depends upon presentation of sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the withdrawal meets the "burden of proof" - as your cases cite. Lacking this requirement, there can be no withdrawal. Or, to put it in simpler terms. The RIGHT is that of presenting evidence, to the point of meeting the burden of proof, not one of actual withdrawal itself, ab initio.
You, Dan, were premature in the matter of what the RIGHT was.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 10, 2007 04:35 PMYou can't blame Chris for his faulty views , for traditionally, and especially lately, the media only features Republican sex scandals.
Dems like Barney Frank,Gerry Studds,Mel Reynolds,Gus Savage,Wilbur Mills,Brock Adams,Mike Jones....if reported on, are championed as brave and courageous but never scrutinized.
Stories of major sexual deviance committed by prominent Dems is taboo and purposely ignored.
Take for a current example-
Three days ago, an ACLU CHEIF was convicted of some truly sick things.
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070908/METRO/109080032/1004
This should be big news to the MSM but less than half a dozen papers even reported it, and because it was a prominent liberal individual and organization involved, the story was promptly buried.
Look at all the Larry Craig stories focusing on hypocrisy.
The story of a violent , pedophile freak ,who happens to be a golden boy in the ACLU, an organization that defends NAMBLA , apparently isn't hypocritical, or newsworthy.
Can you say double standard?
Posted by Get Real on September 10, 2007 08:18 PMDan 2: "There goes Truth again. Writing out of his ass."
Now, Danny Boy, I ask you, is that a nice thing for a good Christian boy to be saying to his elders?
You quote: ""According to Minnesota law, withdrawal of a guilty plea can be allowed by a court if “necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”
Being a conscientious sort of a person, I immediately noticed the word "can". Did you happen to see it? It is different from "must". In other words, the judge can exercise his discretion. If the thinks the equities require it, he can grand a motion to withdraw. But he doesn't have to.
You also completely forgot the difference between a motion to withdraw before sentencing and after sentencing. They are different. It was an easy mistake to make, Danny; even fifth graders sometimes make the same mistake.
For example, your friend Moussaoui wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. The court said:
"On Monday, Brinkema said federal rules prohibit withdrawing a guilty plea after sentencing so his request must be rejected."
Of course, that is federal law. Different states have different laws. For example, the laws in Minnesota, where your case was located, are not necessarily the same as the laws in Idaho.
But here is a another quote from a Minnesota court:
"There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after it is entered. Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989). A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and a reviewing court will not reverse a district court’s denial of such a motion absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. A district court “shall allow a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty upon a timely motion and proof to the satisfaction of the court that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”
When the word discretion is used, it means the court doesn't have to do it but that he can if he thinks the equities call for it.
The main point I want you to remember, Dan 2, and there's be a short test on this in the days to come, is that there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after conviction and sentencing. You see, Danny Boy, if there were an absolute right, the defendant would only have to show his ass in court and nothing else.
I have a little time for questions, but nothing please about my sex life. I'm afraid you'd find that too exciting.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 09:37 PMIdaho Criminal 33(c) provides:
"Withdrawal of plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty may be made only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence MAY set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw defendant's plea."
It's up to the court's discretion. If the court decides the equities it is authorized by this rule to allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn.
So, as I have said, contrary to what Dan 2 has stated and claimed, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW A GUILTY PLEA AFTER SENTENCING. If a defendant has a right to withdraw after sentencing, the court would not have choice.
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 10:37 AMCorrection: "If the court decides a MANIFEST injustice would otherwise result it may allow the guilty plea to be withdrawn."
I have to wonder if Dan 2 has read any of the numerous comments that Craig is facing an uphill battle. If he prevails, it won't be because he had a right to withdraw but because he was able to convince the court to exercise its discretion in his favor.
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 10:42 AMTruth,
If memory serves, the guilty plea wasn't offered in Idaho. Didn't the incident occur in Minnesota? I think it did. And, Dan2's citations do concern Minnesota rules.
He was somewhat premature, in saying that the RIGHT was one of withdrawal, ab initio; rather than the RIGHT to move for withdrawal on the bases allowed by Minnesota proceedures and decisions; i.e., providing the evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof that the plea met Minnesota conditions for withdrawel. But, that is a technical error - or error in interpreting the timing, and progression, of the process - at worst.
In principle, the RIGHT to withdrawal exists, by way of State Rules of Procedure, or Federal, as the case may be; and I think that was all that Dan2 meant, though he didn't specify the applicable proceedural limitations; but rather, went on to deal with the potential of a future Court finding, should the withdrawal be allowed.
After all, neither the news accounts, nor the lawyers, are really aiding and assisting in keeping the matter completely clear as to technical and proceedural matters. The lawyers are more or less "muddying the waters" by presenting a sort of "case" before the case; while the news media rarely, if ever, knows the difference - or presents it if it be known.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 11:27 AMUnder Minnesota law OG, he does have a right to move to withdraw his plea. I did a search on my find law account and don't see that this was a plea that was actually entered in during a court appearance (which is my understanding for part of the motion to re-open this case as it was accepted by the ADA that was "catching"). Anyway, we'll see, but I stand by my statement that it is within his rights to file to have his plea withdrawn.
And, in the legal system, unless Sen. Craig filed to represent Pro Se, he was not afforded an attorney (although I have been unable to discover the facts relating to this issue), and I do not know if he was licensed to practice in Minnesota. The fact that he has a JD, is irrelevant in this instance.
Truth, you are correct. It is not a "right" to have it accepted. But under Minnesota Law (Idaho law is irrelevant in this case), he has the right to move that it be withdrawn. I stand, somewhat, corrected.
OG, your last post to Truth also corrects my mistake. I appreciate your due diligence. Both of you.
Posted by Dan2 on September 11, 2007 12:16 PMWhat I have been responding to it Dan 2's erroneous statement that Craig has a right to withdraw his plea.
Dan 2: "I stand by my statement that it is within his rights to file to have his plea withdrawn."
What garbage!! Dan 2, seeing that he is totally wrong, now wants to pretend he didn't say that Craig had the right to have his plea withdrawn. He now wants to save face by pretending that he said that Craig had the right to file the motion to withdraw.
Duh. Of course he had the right to file the motion. A person has the right to file whatever motion he wants. Courts don't say that the defendant had no right to file a motion to withdraw; they simply deny the motion.
What is clear is that Dan 2 did not say, as he claims he did, that Craig had the right to file the motion; it is clear that he said that Craig had a right to have the motion granted. But he is not willing to accept responsibility for his own posts.
Minnesota law:
From an earlier post of mine:
"There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after it is entered."
Also:
"Berneche argues that the court abused its discretion by not permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.05 permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing when that withdrawal is necessary to correct a "manifest injustice." Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1."
That is the identical requirement of Idaho law. Manifest injustice.
"The final decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea "is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion."
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 02:01 PMTruth,
I think you are over-reacting. I doubt Dan 2 practices law, or has had significant legal education as such. He has indicated that there was a correction necessary. What more does he need?
Dan 2,
First, my apologies, if you are a lawyer, or are reasonably legally educated. I just gathered from the postings that you were not, and had spoken from the standpoint of someone interested only.
As I pointed out earlier, insofar as the news media has presented the matter, I have doubts concerning the ability to meet the burden of proof necessary to get the plea withdrawn.
I am not sitting on the Bench; but I think I have read enough cases over the years to form a fairly educated guesstimate of what the Judge would consider when arriving at the decision.
Motions based upon "emotional pressures" are not usually all that well accepted, especially when offset by certain facts; i.e., the actual status of the individual as a lawyer, and as a Federal Legislator. The old cut and dried: "Ignorance (of details locally) is no excuse", also comes into play here.
But, as I say, that is something neither the news media nor the lawyers are really even attempting to make clear.
Also, most courts are not all that sympathetic to arguments about fear of "personal humiliation" motivating a plea bargain. The old, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime", approach, so to speak; again in a rather cut and dried application. Add in the man's own failure to notify the proper authroity in the Senate about the matter; and I kind of have doubts of much sympathy from the bench.
It will be interesting to see just what steps are taken, and what evidence is introduced; as well as what is the court's final decision. And that's all anyone can do for now anyway, wait and see.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 02:32 PMOld Grouch: "What more does he need?"
Of course, he doesn't need to do anything. But it remains that he said in no uncertain terms that Craig has a right to have his plea withdrawn and then, when I finally made it obvious to him that he was totally mistaken, he tried to morph that into the meaningless statement that Craig has a right to file a motion. At 12:16PM he said: "I stand by my statement that it is within his rights to file to have his plea withdrawn." The fact is that he never made that statement that he claims he is standing by. The statement he made was that Craig has a right to a withdrawal.
I don't expect him to do a thing; I just wanted to point out that he was being dishonest. I would have wanted to point that out even if he hadn't said I was writing out of my ass.
Posted by Truth on September 11, 2007 03:32 PM