Breaking: GOP Senate Leader McConnell Says Craig Won't Resign If Cleared
Crazier and crazier. Now GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell has gone and said at a press conference and said that Larry Craig won't be resigning if he's ultimately exonerated of the charges against him.
As you know, in an abrupt turnaround, Craig has vowed to clear himself of the charges he pled guilty to, which could apparently entail trying to withdraw his guilty plea, then seeking to have the charges dismissed, or ultimately prevailing at trial.
Now McConnell has weighed in on the latest twist in the case, and surprisingly, he declined to be directly critical of Craig's decision to fight on. McConnell said the following, according to CNN's footage of the press conference:
MCCONNELL: I heard from Sen. Craig this morning. He called me to give me an update on where he is in order to dispel, as he put it, any confusion that might exist with regard to his intention.So let me relate to you his comment -- he said that he is going to try to get the case in Minneapolis dismissed, that if he is unable to have that disposed of prior to Sept. 30, it is his intention to resign from the Senate as he expressed last Saturday. If he is able to get he case favorably disposed of in Minneapolis it would be his intention to come back to the Senate, to deal with the ethics committee case that he knows he will have, and to try to finish his term.
So whatever confusion may have been created in the last few days, as of this morning that is his view about where he is headed.
There's still a host of things that need to be unraveled here. What exactly would exoneration entail here? Is Craig hoping that if the plea is withdrawn that a judge will toss the case based on some legal argument? If Craig is forced to go to trial on the charges, will he resign before trial, since the case is unlikely to be resolved by the end of this month? If it does go to trial past Sept. 30 and things look positive for him, will Craig say that he's still not resigning?
And the most puzzling question of all, Why on earth is McConnell putting up with this? He seems to be stopping short of condeming this course of action here. But getting Craig out of the way and putting up a new candidate is far and away the best chance the GOP has to hold the seat -- whether or not Craig is exonerated in the end. And this course only keeps this sordid tale in the headlines in the weeks ahead.
Late Update: Here's video of McConnell's appearance:
Later Update Here's a transcript of McConnell's full press conference.
Comments (55)
fuzz wrote on September 5, 2007 3:50 PM:I didn't see this, so I don't know what context McConnell was speaking in on CNN, but this seems to me to be carefully worded so as not to be an endorsement of this course of action.
My understanding as that there's essentially no way they're going to lose the seat.
Right now I am most interested in the judge. This is starting to smell as if they've ascertained that the judge is friendly.
Anyone who has dealt with our legal system knows that--aside from having a very friendly judge--there is no way this is going to be taken care of by the end of the month. So if not a friendly judge then a stalling tactic. If he doesn't resign by September 30th then he won't unless he is forced to. No way he's going to say "Oh well, it hasn't gone to court yet, nothing left for me to do except keep my word and go ahead and resign now."
SVH wrote on September 5, 2007 3:51 PM:You know, if I were that Judge, I'd reinstate the original charge and hand down maximum penalty.
Between Craig and Alberto Gozales, we're not going to have a justice system much longer that anybody will listen to.
DaveW wrote on September 5, 2007 3:52 PM:If he gets the case dismissed or is somehow otherwise exonerated, why would their be an ethics committee case? If they ruled on hypocrisy issues, there would be time for nothing else in the Senate. I don't see how Craig's sexual behavior is any of the Senate's business unless he's convicted of a crime or has used his Senate position for personal gain.
OTOH, I also have to wonder if recanting a confession doesn't amount to perjury? In which case there would be a legitimate ethics issue? What a tangled web.
Doofus wrote on September 5, 2007 3:53 PM:This is just unbelievably wonderful, a gift to the Democrats. "Republicans: We Coddle Our Closeted Anomymous Sex Trollers." Should help recruit many new "Christian" fundamentalists into their ranks . . . Pat Robertson, whaddaya say? Maybe they can rehabilitate that televangelist who was caught trysting with male prostitutes while they're at it, get him to run for office as a Republican! "Family Values" -- that's what I'm talkin bout!
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 3:54 PM:Why go to all this trouble to subvert the rule of law when we can get Georgie to pardon him?
Mitch is gay wrote on September 5, 2007 3:58 PM:Mitch's double chin looks like that of a pelican. I bet the storage room in that monstrosity comes in handy when Mitch has to rush out of a stall in Union Station with a mouthful of evidence after the beat cop interrupts a beautifully delivered brother blumpkin.
Legalize wrote on September 5, 2007 3:59 PM:"OTOH, I also have to wonder if recanting a confession doesn't amount to perjury? In which case there would be a legitimate ethics issue? What a tangled web."
Nah, not perjury. He'll just say he didn't understand the proceedings, which is dubious at best, but not perjury.
I simply can not see a judge throwing out Craig's plea FROM TWO MONTHS AGO, for a relatively minor offense. But, whatever. This is terribly entertaining!
Pastor Doodah wrote on September 5, 2007 4:04 PM:Worst. Trial balloon. Ever.
EricW wrote on September 5, 2007 4:07 PM:This will do wonders to help McConnell consolidate the wingnut forces in Kentucky for his tough reelection fight next year. Ha! This Craig story is the gift that keeps on giving.
Jim Stemper wrote on September 5, 2007 4:09 PM:Ah, you gotta love the GOP and their respect for "the rule of law," which they grew to love in the Clinton days...
Gramma Millie wrote on September 5, 2007 4:13 PM:Just some thoughts:
Perhaps McConnell and Craig made a ... bathroom deal? (If so, no cigars would have been necessary.)
Maybe Craig isn't the only GOP Senator who likes to keep the bathroom floors clear of toilet paper?
Maybe Craig isn't the only GOP Senator with a "wide stance"?
chris from boca wrote on September 5, 2007 4:14 PM:mcconnel is gay.
Leta wrote on September 5, 2007 4:16 PM:I don't care if he's gay of straight - I contend that Senator Craig is a member of the most powerful 100 folks in this country. He's responsible for writing our laws and protecting us.
If the Senator did not have legal representation, did not ask for legal representation...but rather as way to deflect some bad press or more questioning about his sexual preferences - he pled guilty to a charge he now says he's not guilty of....well
He's too damn stupid to be a Senator - a least someone that represents me!
apodaca wrote on September 5, 2007 4:19 PM:Dave W asks If he gets the case dismissed or is somehow otherwise exonerated, why would [there] be an ethics committee case?
Because, among other things, Craig improperly tried to use his official position to avoid prosecution. As the arrest report notes, when asked for his driver's license, Craig instead handed over a business card identifying him as a US Senator (and then asked "What do you think about that?").
PETER202 wrote on September 5, 2007 4:27 PM:THE REPUBLICAN'S SHOULD BE THANKFUL THAT THE GOOD SENATOR FROM IOWA IS DISTRACTING THE COUNTRY WITH HIS TOUCHING TALE. PERHAPS WE WON'T NOTICE THAT IN THE MEAN TIME BUSHIE IS PLANNING AN ATTACK ON IRAN.
itsbenj wrote on September 5, 2007 4:27 PM:awesome. yes, this is sooo great! couldn't be going better. there's no way this guy is getting cleared of the charges, hehehe, mwahahahah!
Bokonon wrote on September 5, 2007 4:29 PM:Respect for law? Sure. That was nothing but a carnival come-on for the rubes.
It is now clear that the Clinton impeachment was simply the mother of all political dirty tricks. And that the justifications that the GOP used were simply intended to justify their own conduct -- and cause damage to the Democrats out among apple-pie-and-baseball America.
RockGolf wrote on September 5, 2007 4:29 PM:Somewhere out there, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are slavering. They've been off the past two weeks and this would have been a dead story. Now the hulking corpse is resusitated to even further embarass the GOP. The next Republican Senate caucus room will be much smaller.
ennui wrote on September 5, 2007 4:30 PM:I think the case should stand. Everyone talks about all he did was use signals that are known for soliciting gay sex in men' bathrooms but that he didn't actually have sex.
Well they convict folks of DUI's every day based on the 'potential' for them to have a car crash. Those people do not have to actually be involved in a motor vehicle accident just that driving while under the influence is said to potentiate the likelihood based on statistics and all.
Same applies here for Craig.
I do not think it even matters where the misdeamnor stands or not as that is not grounds for ethic misconduct in the Senate as his 'disorderly conduct' had nothing to do with his Senatorial duties.
The GOP, which is full of Log Cabin republicans and McConnell as well as Lindsay Graham who all engage in the same sexual proclivities should simply acknowledge that they are a nest of gay folks promulgating family values of their 'own sort'.
yellowdogD wrote on September 5, 2007 4:31 PM:If the Minn. charges get thrown out (not unreasonable), ethics committee has nothing on him. Showing card and saying "What do you think about that?" is dubious at best. He could have been letting cop know what a big fish he caught. That means nothing.
Brianm0122 wrote on September 5, 2007 4:33 PM:Maybe this is why McConnell is changing his tune:
How long after Craig resigns does it take the Idaho Gov. to replace him? Does he need to run that past the Idaho legislature? Would this leave the Republican a vote short in the senate, especially now that Johnson is ready to come back?
Political expediancy explains alot.
drv wrote on September 5, 2007 4:34 PM:Prediction: if Larry Craig is successful in getting his
plea overturned, there will be a rash of similar requests
across the nation. It happened after the Scooter Libby sentence and it will happen here. If Larry can change his mind, why can't they? At least that will be the argument.
And how will the GOP feel when they are the trigger that will allow some guilty homosexuals that pled down to a lesser offense now go scot free? What a legacy Larry Craig will leave!
Fantabulous! The DSCC couldn't possibly raise enough money to convey the Republican's propensity for such shenanigans. Are they going to sell expungement as exoneration? Will Senator Wide Stance continue to sit on Veterans Affairs?
Ioannes Magnumus wrote on September 5, 2007 4:38 PM:I know Judge Larson, there are few judges who come close to the level of integrity and fairness that Larson has. The appeals court in MN will not buck Larson.
yellowdogD wrote on September 5, 2007 4:41 PM:ennui @ 4:30
That's a pretty weak analogy. Driving under the influence IS against the law, after all.
I am neither a Craig fan nor a gooper. I am, however, hoping he sticks around, as this can be nothing but good news for Dems. He will be a weak opponent in general election if he survives the primaries, and the more the goopers spend to defeat him in primary is that much less they have for general.
drv wrote on September 5, 2007 4:41 PM:So, what happened to the disgusting behavior McConnell mentioned last week? That's how he described Craig's actions. That's all forgotten now it seems.
And don't you love the passive voice--"dispel any confusion". You mean the confusion Craig himself created with his non-resignation resignation speech?
And I also love the word parsing and opinion shaping going on here. What "case" are they talking about getting dismissed in Minnesota? The case was closed when Craig pled guilty. There is no "case". They want us all to believe a case is still open and Craig is fighting the good fight. Feh.
I think he's got a list of who's a "nasty, bad, naughty boy" in the Senate GOP Caucus and he let Mitch know he's on it.
Doofus wrote on September 5, 2007 4:49 PM:Is it too late for Mark Foley to get his case dismissed and make a triumphant return to Washington? The GOP needs a few more good men!
ed wrote on September 5, 2007 4:54 PM:this smells...
why sept.30 that's really short...
hmmm...maybe they are stringing it out on purpose to give it legs in order to compete with the really awfuls news stuff of the day...
like the IRAQ REPORTS?
KYJurisDoctor wrote on September 5, 2007 5:05 PM:He is NOT going to get it!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/idaho-senator-larry-craig-is.html#links
Do It True wrote on September 5, 2007 5:09 PM:There's an interesting take here that I haven't heard anyone mention yet: Craig's lawyer (of dogfighting fame) says the Ethics Committee should drop the complaint because the issue had nothing to do with Craig's official duties. (I bet Craig is breathing a sigh of relief that he didn't offer that cop an earmark!)
Can someone dig up all the sanctimonious BS I'm sure that Craig had to say during the Clinton impeachment trial? Bill's sex life didn't have anything to do with his official capacity, either. -At least I don't think Monica got to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom....
I actually hope that Larry Craig stays and stays and stays - and campaigns for Mitt, too.
Can someone also find out if Larry's left a record at any gay chat rooms? Or if the cruising web sites have logged his IP address? He's probably so technologically illiterate that he's left fingerprints everywhere.
eric wrote on September 5, 2007 5:18 PM:Ioannes Magnumus wrote on September 5, 2007 4:38 PM:
I know Judge Larson, there are few judges who come close to the level of integrity and fairness that Larson has. The appeals court in MN will not buck Larson.
I also know Judge Larson. He is very fair. However, I do not think that he or any other Judge likes being lied to. Which is what Craig is going to be doing if he says that he didn't take that plea willfully and with full knowledge of his rights.
In any case, I say let him out of his plea. Let's see what a jury says about these charges. Not just the disorderly conduct, but also the gross misdemeanor peeping charge. I don't think Craig has the guts to take a gross misdemeanor to trial, and I think the prosecutor is done giving this guy any deals.
Bill Tetzlaff wrote on September 5, 2007 5:20 PM:What ever the popcorn consession for this event sold for, it must be a realy money maker. The gift that keeps on giving.
thomas Lees wrote on September 5, 2007 5:21 PM:Wayne Madsen at his website claims that McConnell is worried about the public finding out about the way McConnell parted from the military in 1967.
Doofus wrote on September 5, 2007 5:28 PM:The only thing this story is missing is a Jeff Gannon connection. It's gotta be there somewhere . . .
Puddy Katz wrote on September 5, 2007 5:36 PM:don't you think Senator Craig should fight for his seat....in the men's room at the Minneapolis airport.
I love the "he misunderstood" argument. I really, really want a United States Senator to come out and say, "Gee, all this legal stuff is just too confusing for me. I just pleaded guilty so I could hurry up and get back to work. Making laws."
acf wrote on September 5, 2007 5:41 PM:I'm not going to get into the 'is he, or isn't he' question, or even the 'did he, or didn't' one. My question is why then was he forced to resign, and what, now, is the real reason behind this reversal of resignation? The cynic in me wonders what is the real motivation behind it. Is it rooted in national Republican politics, or is there some fundamental fear of the person most think will be named to fill the seat should he follow through and resign? Does the Lt Gov present a political problem for the party that we're unaware of at this point?
Robert wrote on September 5, 2007 5:42 PM:We Democrats cant get any luckier then Sen Craig somehow staying on and serving out his term. Lets all pray to the leftist gods.
jimijazz wrote on September 5, 2007 6:01 PM:Birds of a feather...that pretty much sums it up.
bob wrote on September 5, 2007 6:06 PM:There he goes, dragging the Senate through the mud....
Algol510 wrote on September 5, 2007 6:12 PM:How do we know at this time that Graig is not being blackmailed by someone. He seems a prime candidate to be.
Methinks he did protest too much in 1982 when he denied being what no one accused him of.
Also, doesn't everyone knows in a "he said, cop said" situation the judge will always take the lying cop's statement over the defendent's.
The Democratic standard is "nobody's perfect".
The Republican standard is "we are perfect and you lowlifes are not and never will be so just sit there and take it as we dish it out after we take all the really good big stuff for our own"
Now Craig certainly lives up to the Democratic standard but he simply can no longer claim to be an adherent to the Republican standard.
All this has nothing to do with laws or gays in bathrooms. It has everything to do with the next election. So by all means stay on Senator so we can enjoy the gnashing of Republican teeth.
MB wrote on September 5, 2007 6:41 PM:When the court tells him to bugger off with his attempt to withdraw his plea, you just watch how this will be spun into it being a "partisan witch hunt."
Just watch.
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 6:45 PM:This is the gift that will keep on giving.
As long as it stays in the news, goopers will have conniption fits. It's something they can't blame on the Dems.
Rumors abound that McConnell is tutti fruitti himself along with Lindsey Graham.
afc: good point. I think he has an agenda, with lots of potential fallout for several other notable "independent contractors" among his buddies in the senate. I think he's ready to dish some shit (heh, heh) if anyone steps in his way. I think if he were being blackmailed we'd see a little different psychology though. A different tone, less sanctimonius, with a different anxious edge to it among the whole sorry lot of them. It's really early yet and hard to tell anything, but look how far we've come already. I'm watching for that miracle, that comes out of the blue and exhonerates this wrongfully accused, manipulated, stall-hogging fuck. The machine lives.
D.M. wrote on September 5, 2007 9:52 PM:Re: the 'misunderstood the guilty plea' defense
Craig has had a lifetime of self-deception -- why stop now? I'm sure he believes both that he's not gay and that he has a legitimate legal case. It's just a shame to see McConnell enabling. But not a shame from a Dem perspective of course.
michael valentne wrote on September 5, 2007 9:57 PM:Larry is making a mistake here.
He walked into a sting.
The cops must have gotten complaints about activities in that men's room. They busted the male prostitute and got his underground code. They then put their "Tucker Carlson" type cop in place and waited it out.
I would be interested to hear if they have busted other executive type closeted gays.
In a court trial they could produce the prostitute to testify about signals. Hell he may even recognize Larry.
Larry is sadly in denial.
Captain Nemo wrote on September 5, 2007 10:05 PM:"You know, if I were that Judge, I'd reinstate the original charge and hand down maximum penalty."
No, the judge should throw the entire case out of court, on the grounds that the process of booking Craig and getting him to plead to a lesser charge violated his civil rights. Craig's sexual orientation is a private matter and is not pertinent to this incident.
We here in KY know exactly why Mitch had to cave on this one. One of the worst-kept secrets in the Commonwealth is the one about Mitch...
Yeah--that one.
Sadly, a proclivity for public sex is a preference not an orientation. Whether someone is straight or gay, you can't peep into a restroom nor touch a stranger in an adjoining stall nor solicit them for public sex. I'd like to think its obvious that public sex is not a private matter but I guess its not so obvious to some.
Who cares if there was no actual sex? The thing about sting operations is, the cops pull out their badges before the targeted itself has been committed (and then make arrests for lesser crimes).
For example, it would be a poorly run 'murder for hire' sting that ended with the victim actually getting shot. Of course, murder conspiracies tend to be pretty quiet affairs, so maybe that's a private matter too.
john hancock wrote on September 5, 2007 10:54 PM:The unesteemed Senator from Idaho is giving cognitive dissonance a bad name:
He's not gay -- except when he is.
He's not guilty -- except that he pleaded guilty.
He's not going to be a senator any more -- unless he is.
If I had to hold that many contradictory thoughts in my head at the same time, I might spend a lot of time in the bathroom, too.
Pocket Rocket wrote on September 5, 2007 11:49 PM:I believe the trial court retains jurisdiction over Craig's case for 30 days from the date of the guilty plea, so if Craig doesn't get his plea withdrawn by this Friday, then after that he's out of luck. If I were the judge in Craig's case, I would have already set this case for a hearing on my own motion and sent Senator Craig a summons to appear to determine if Craig's plea should be withdrawn or not, since Craig's public statements to the effect that he was "railroaded" have cost doubts on the integrity of the court and the judicial system in general. I'm not saying Craig's allegations of being railroaded have merit, but if I were the judge I would be plenty pissed that a sitting senator is going around accusing my court of railroading him into pleading guilty to an offense which he now claims he did not commit. That is an extremely serious allegation. Of course if Craig is successful at having his plea withdrawn, he still has to face a public jury trial on the original charge, which would be like Christmas came early this year for the Democrats.
DCB wrote on September 6, 2007 12:25 AM:Sen. Craig was for resignation before he was against it.
Michael wrote on September 6, 2007 9:30 AM:We have long thought McConnell is a closeted homosexual.
Michael in Lexington
