Ethics panel says Craig acted improperly

[Tab]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Senate Ethics Committee said Wednesday that Idaho Sen. Larry Craig acted improperly in connection with a men's room sex sting last year and had brought discredit on the Senate.

In a letter to the Republican senator, the ethics panel said Craig's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea after his arrest at a Minneapolis airport was an effort to evade legal consequences of his own actions.

Craig's actions constitute "improper conduct which has reflected discreditably on the Senate," the letter said.
...
The six members of the committee — three Democrats and three Republicans — told Craig they believed he "committed the offense to which you pled guilty" and that "you entered your plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently."

The panel said Craig only tried to remove his guilty plea after his attempts to avoid public disclosure had failed.

"Your claims to the court ... to the effect that your guilty plea resulted from improper pressure or coercion, or that you did not, as a legal matter, know what you were doing when you pled guilty do not appear credible," the letter said.

The panel also said Craig should have received permission from the ethics panel before using campaign funds to pay his legal bills. Craig, who is not running for re-election, has spent more than $213,000 in campaign money for legal expense and public relations work in the wake of his arrest and conviction last summer.

The committee said it had reached no conclusion about whether use of campaign funds was proper, but it said "it is clear that you never sought the committee's approval, as required," to use the money for legal expenses.
...
The panel also admonished Craig for showing the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a U.S. senator. Craig has been reported to have told the officer at the time, "What do you think about that?"

The committee wrote, "You knew or should have known that a reasonable person in the position of the arresting officer could view your action and statement as an improper attempt by you to use your position and status ... to receive special and favorable treatment."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_go_co/craig_ethics

[marshall]

1. Anonymous public bathroom sex

I can't think of anything more unromantic than anonymous sex in a public airport bathroom. Is it really a common occurrence to tap one's leg to attract a partner? I wonder where he would have even learned the signals and know the places to go. He was obviously living quite the down-low double life.

[Robbien]

2. Just that? A statement of improper conduct. No censure?

What a crock.

[Deny and Shred]

3. Surprising admonition from these hypocrites.

The 3 Repubs who voted in favor have orders to blame this sort of thing on Clinton. I guess 8 years IS a little bit of a stretch.
His wife ought to take the rest of his campaign fund, grab all the contraband she can, head to Vegas, and live it up. I watched her at his side when this story broke. As much as you can blame her for being a blind fool, she owes him and herself a little Vegas action.
Too bad what happens in the bathroom stall doesn't stay in the bathroom stall.

[SpiralHawk]

4. "But at least he wasn't having diaper sex with a hooker..." - Ethics Committee

"...like republicon Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, a real low-down, smelly republicon kinkster."

- Ethics Committee

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Thank you Captain Obvious.

If Craig took steroids and played in some football game where the stakes were high in Vegas, justice would have been swifter.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. No surprise here. Even the Repubics wanted him gone 'yesterday'.

[PetraPooh]

7. I know its all about gay sex and bathrooms; but the thing

that surprises and disturbs me is that there is no punitive action against the use of $213,000 campaign funds. Seems that should've at least required a repayment to the campaign fund.

Then I have a question, if he isn't running for re-election, why does he have campaign funds and what happens if he doesn't spend them for personal use? Does he have to hand them off to someone who is running?

[struggle4progress]

8. Of course, if he collected money in restrooms, the legal fees are an incidental fundraising expense

[Tab]

9. If I remember correctly

politicians who run for office are allowed to keep any unspent campaign funds for themselves.

So, being a Senator can be sweet. You retire, get a pension that is more than most people make (I think over $100k/yr) and you get to keep any unspent campaign funds, which could easily run into the millions. At least that used to be the case. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[PetraPooh]

10. Okay, that would explain why he didn't get penalized for spending it.

[dysfunctional press]

11. except for one thing...

i don't think that the campaign funds can be converted to personal use until AFTER the politician retires from office.

[PetraPooh]

12. Even so, if ultimately he can have them when he resigns, and he

has indicated he is resigning or more accurately not running again; I could see why they might not push the point. Wish they had, cuz he deserved much worse than he received, but that's me.