Larry Craig's Lawyer: Senate Ethics Committee Has No Business Probing Toilet Conduct
Larry Craig's efforts to wiggle off the hook are continuing today, with his lawyer now saying that the Senate leadership has no business calling for an ethics probe of his men's room conduct, as it did last week.
An unbroken line of precedents dating back 220 years makes clear the Senate does not consider misdemeanor private conduct to be a fit subject of inquiry, Washington attorney Stan Brand asserted after aides to Craig said the senator is reconsidering his decision to resign."We ought to seek to have the committee dismiss this outright," Brand said of a Senate ethics panel's investigation. "The Republican leadership called for an ethics investigation that had nothing to do with his office," Brand said on NBC's "Today" show.
Wow, they're really backtracking on all fronts now.
We've got a call in to the ethics committee to verify whether the Senate does indeed steer clear of probing misdemeanor private conduct. We'll keep you posted.
Late Update: Here's some video of Craig's lawyer trying to call off the probe dogs:
Later Update: Craig's lawyers delivered a letter to the Senate Ethics Committee today reiterating their demand that they drop their probe into Craig. You can read a copy of it in our TPM Document Collection.
Meanwhile, The New York Times fills in some detail on the legal situation:
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, established in 1964, is a bipartisan group of three Democrats and three Republicans. Senate ethics rules generally cover financial, employment and campaign rules. In February, for instance, the committee adopted new rules limiting travel paid by lobbyists, in response to the Jack Abramoff scandal.The committee rules say it is authorized to “receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of the Senate.”
I'm no lawyer, but that sounds loose enough to justify the current probe into Craig's actions.
Comments (19)
CT Voter wrote on September 5, 2007 12:29 PM:We've got a call in to the ethics committee to verify whether the Senate does indeed steer clear of probing misdemeanor private conduct. We'll keep you posted.
Please do. I'd love to know what kinds of private misdemeanors the Senate Ethics Committee chooses to investigate, or ignore.
EricW wrote on September 5, 2007 1:10 PM:Wow, how happy is the Republican Party with Arlen Specter right now? Pass the popcorn...
eric wrote on September 5, 2007 1:13 PM:Well, according to the manual, all it takes is "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate."
Orwell's Intuition wrote on September 5, 2007 1:22 PM:Sen. Craig, Republican from the great state of Ida-blow.
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 1:23 PM:I love it.
What a delicious distraction for our GOP hypocrites who have used gays and gay bashing as a wedge issue for so many years.
The yahoos in Idaho must be going apesh*t over this one.
Rumors flying that McConnel, Graham in the Senate, Drier and some other dork in the House soon to be outed as closet gay caballeros.
Let 'em stew in their own juice.
Priceless headline on msn:
"Lawyer: Senate should not probe Craig".
LOL.
sconset wrote on September 5, 2007 1:50 PM:Stan Brand is only doing what he has to do as a lawyer. He is a terrific person who was Legislative Counsel during the 80's.
If Craig gets this plead set aside, he is going to be in for a world of hurt--he will be eaten alive for the next year leading up to his reelection. He is a repugnant human being who was lucky he hadn't been caught before now. It has taken 25 years since the page scandal when he came perilously close to getting nailed. His wife is merely a "beard" who is also a former staffer of his.
I agree with Barney Frank, let his constituents decide what to do with him. In the meantime, he will be a constant reminder to the voters of the hypocrisy of the republican party.
Blue in ID wrote on September 5, 2007 1:53 PM:Who is paying for for the legal and public relation services? Craig isn't wealthy so it must be coming from third parties with vested interests in "Wide Stance".
Jabber wrote on September 5, 2007 1:53 PM:Will Craig step up to the plate on behalf of his fellow tow-tappers who were railroaded into guilty pleas? That would be a meaningful path to redemption he could pursue in retirement.
The timing of this is very interesting. I have to wonder if Craig is possibly a RINO mole mucking up the Iraq PR this week. I'm not saying he is, or that he should be, but these developments are just too bizarre even for recent news standards.
sam wrote on September 5, 2007 2:29 PM:I don't understand what the senator's sexual proclivities have to do with his position as a Senator. Does being a homosexual, attempting to solicit a private rendezvous, constitute an embarrassment to the Senate? He might have lost his credibility as a REPUBLICAN leader in the Senate, but he can still certainly represent his constituency (if they want him to)in the Senate until the next election.
RJ wrote on September 5, 2007 2:39 PM:My favorite quote from this episode to date:
"Bill Clinton did a lot more than tap his toe."
-Sean Hannity, digging deep.
Sam, I think you understand the situation perfectly. They don't, it doesn't and yes, it is up to them.
POed Lib wrote on September 5, 2007 2:43 PM:I listened to the tape of Larry Craig's phone call. Larry says, "I am really glad that Arlen is going to come out in favor of ..."
Arlen, too, eh?
POed Lib wrote on September 5, 2007 2:46 PM:"Does being a homosexual, attempting to solicit a private rendezvous,..."
Since when is getting butt-fucked in an airport bathroom "attempting to solicit a private rendezvous". I don't want butt-fucking in the next stall to mine, thanks very much.
Your idea of private is not mine. Butt-fucking should not be done in bathrooms. It should be confined to hotel rooms.
Commontater wrote on September 5, 2007 2:54 PM:"Private" conduct? Uhhhhh, Sen. Craig was not in his personal latrine when he was arrested. It was a PUBLIC restroom. Thus, his conduct was certainly not private. In fact his arrest was based on the publicness of the location.
fourlegsgood wrote on September 5, 2007 2:59 PM:Not for nothing, but I think they're looking into the fact that when he was arrested, he pulled out his senate business card and tried to intimidate the arresting officer.
Seems a little unethical to me.
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 3:03 PM:adfdf
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 4:06 PM:Mr. Martin appears to have read the committee rules very closely. It doesn't seem to me that the offense in question meets the final criteria:
"relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of the Senate.”
On its face, an anonymous blowjob in a bathroom stall does not "relate to the conduct... in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate..." Regardless of whether the plea is withdrawn or not, the Republicans may well be stuck with him. It may have been unethical to flash his Senate ID, but I have a hard time imagining that being the basis for expulsion. I can't imagine that any Senator wants that precedent set.
