Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: VWE on September 10, 2007, 07:56:29 AM
-
O.k. all you legal minds out there, how in the heck do you get charged with a crime, plead guilty to said crime and then a month later say "I'm going to retract my guilty plea" :huh
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/craig_senate
-
Just another fine example of someone who can't own up to the responsibility of their own actions.
His political career is toast anyway....he just can't see it yet.
68ROX
-
He's trying to get a Do Over on a bad situation.
The more he splits hairs over the details of the incident, the more and more guilty he looks. Just go away.
-
I think he soaks cork.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I think he soaks cork.
I agree but I think it's someone elses cork he soaks.
He's toast and all he is doing is hurting his own state and position. He should have followed through on his exit plan and cut the whining.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I think he soaks cork.
Did u mean sucks cork?? or soaks a cork??
-
Man it would have been funny if it was Vick with a Pit Bull in the next stall.
:rofl
Mac
-
Originally posted by Kaw1000
Did u mean sucks cork?? or soaks a cork??
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214721
-
Unfortunately here, he's guilty without ever really seeing a courtroom. Had he contested the charges, he would have been guilty by the public eye regardless of how it turned out. So he tried to take the easy way out and plead to lesser charges in the hope that it would go away.
And it almost did. We are now only hearing about it months later. This man now realizes that he was sunk no matter which way it went and wants to clear his name.
-
Admitting to a homosexual sexual act in public didn't bother him when nobody else knew.
Apparently it matters to him greatly now that everybody knows.
Fickle thing, these morals.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Unfortunately here, he's guilty without ever really seeing a courtroom. Had he contested the charges, he would have been guilty by the public eye regardless of how it turned out. So he tried to take the easy way out and plead to lesser charges in the hope that it would go away.
And it almost did. We are now only hearing about it months later. This man now realizes that he was sunk no matter which way it went and wants to clear his name.
Are you saying that the "liberal media" branded him guilty and that he's actually innocent and was trying to give a reach around...err I mean reach for that roll of toilet paper?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Admitting to a homosexual sexual act in public didn't bother him when nobody else knew.
Apparently it matters to him greatly now that everybody knows.
Fickle thing, these morals.
He was also investigated in the early '80s during that whole Congressional Page sex scandal fiasco.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Are you saying that the "liberal media" branded him guilty and that he's actually innocent and was trying to give a reach around...err I mean reach for that roll of toilet paper?
ack-ack
I'm not saying that they did brand him of anything. Or that he's innocent. Just that he thought he was taking the easiest way out.
-
*Sen. Craig enter airport to fly home after resigning*
[Airport Announcement]Attention All Airline Customers. Homeland Security has just raised this airport's terror alert to Fuscha. That is all.
-
You know, the saddest thing about this whole deal is that Craig, a US Senator, did not know what was in the constitution he was sworn to uphold.
Article 1, Section 6
They {Senators and Reps} shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
As he was returning to Idaho from a session of the Senate, he was unarrestable, let alone convictable.
All Craig needed to quote the Constitution and he would have been free.
The only recourse for the Minn. police would have been to bring this charge to the Senate.
-
I loved the part where he said he "was just picking up a piece of paper on the floor"
When was the last time you picked up a piece of TP on the floor, next to a toilet, in a public bathroom? ewwwwwwwwwwww :huh
-
WASHINGTON — Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.
The Minnesota judge found no grounds to allow Mr. Craig to withdraw his plea, ruling that the senator had not proven, under Minnesota law, that a withdrawal was “necessary to correct a manifest injustice and it is against the policy of the state court of Minnesota to give special consideration to butt pirates.”
"I will continue my Senatorial duties while I appeal this ruling on the grounds that I have been discriminated against because of my homosexuality: I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.
Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.
The third-term lawmaker issued his statement not long after Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter relayed word he has selected a replacement for Craig in the event of a resignation.
-
So Larry studmuffin er Frank er Craig is here to stay you say... won't that just be a dialy zoo. Cant wait for the telivised hearings! :aok
-
barny frank says "whats the big fuss?"
-
Two things I dont understand.
1 why he plead guilty to begin with.
In listening to the tape recording of the incident is seems like a BS charge to me.
Cops would be better served and used going after Real crime rather then two consenting adults wanting to meet at a john.
the charge itself seems like BS
Since when is one persons leg bumping into another persons leg a crime?
Cracked me up on the tape when the Cop accused Craig of lying.
What most people dont know is the cops dont have to tell you the truth in trying to get you to admit something. And as often as not they dont.
They can literally tell you that they have 14 people that saw you do something just try to get you to admit it. Even if you didnt do it.
Remember.
If they arent in the courtroom. they donot have to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What I think happend is the cop lied to coerce him into admitting it.
and in the end
Personally I dont care if he was looking for a gay guy or not.
He is an adult. the other person is an adult.
the cops would be better utilised on the streets looking for murderers robbers
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
the cops would be better utilised on the streets looking for murderers robbers
hey, that could get dangerous. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Admitting to a homosexual sexual act in public didn't bother him when nobody else knew.
Apparently it matters to him greatly now that everybody knows.
Fickle thing, these morals.
He was in a loose loose situation.
If he plead not guilty and fought it.
the media would have a feild day with it no matter if he was guilty or not.
He hoped that by just pleading guilty to it he could take the cop at his word that it wouldnt reach the media.
But like I said. Cops dont have to tell the truth when trying to get a confession.
Me personally I dont see how he commited any kind of crime.
Since when is picking up a peice of paper, or bumbing someones elses leg a crime?
Its absurd.
I say if you actually catch him in an act in public. Ok nail him.
If you actually hear or see him verbally or in writing solicit the act for money. ok.
but bumping legs and picking up a peice of paper?
Ok lets say he was looking for something.
Who is to say he wasnt planning on going to a motel?
Just seems to me in a crime like this you cant prove a crime like this untill the action takes place.
-
Well, when I'm in a public bathroom I do what is needed and get out...
-
Nobody is challenging my journalistic integrity?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nobody is challenging my journalistic integrity?
Why?
We already know you to be of low integrity.
whats to challange? LMAO
:D
Joking
-
Nope, cause thats how it should have been written in the first place... course most of these cartoon peelots can't read anyway.
-
I was commenting on the situation as a whole and not Holdens editorial
-
What editorial? Except for a couple of minor integrotic irregularities, that's how the story read.
-
Craig is a lieing, sleazy, low-life, scum-bag hypocrite.
Did I cover everything....or do I need to trot out a few more adjectives?