Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is Jonathan Turley on KO claiming Craig plead guilty because he "panicked?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:29 PM
Original message
Why is Jonathan Turley on KO claiming Craig plead guilty because he "panicked?"
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 07:37 PM by Stephanie

Craig took FIVE WEEKS to respond to the charges. That is plenty of time to calm down. Craig was arrested in June and plead guilty to ONE of the two charges against him (disorderly conduct) in AUGUST. He most likely consulted SOMEONE in that time, whether he wants to admit it or not. Either he or his representative certainly negotiated a plea deal with the MN prosecutor, as evidenced by the fact that the other charge (PEEPING) was dropped. Craig was not required to appear in court - he submitted his guilty plea by mail. Turley should not go on the air as an expert if he has not read the complaint and Craig's pleading. WTF?

More info in this H2O Man thread >>> Your Opinion, Please!

The complaint and Craig's response are here >>>
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

Why is Turley parroting Craig's lie, and why is KO letting him do it? Craig did not plead guilty out of PANIC, unless he PANICKED for FIVE WEEKS. Can we get a correction?


From the complaint:



Larry Craig's petition pleading guilty on one charge:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Knew I wasn't alone in yelling at the TV at that one!
Normally, I sorta like him when he is on. Don't agree with him on all things, but he is generally good for a quick education on something. But tonight? :wtf:

Trying to help the spin: poor ol Craig, confused and panicked so he signed a confession????

Panicked my ass. Did Turley really not know about the time frame or has he gone totally to the dark side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Panicked my ass.
I think I'm going to change my thread title to that! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. LOL Glad to be of service to a friend!
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. June 11 to August 8 - almost TWO MONTHS btw arrest and plea.
Panicked???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Craig is a U.S. Senator. A lawMAKER. Not some babe in the woods who just
fell off the turnip truck.

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. And he went a long way in that airport to reach that stall.
The gentleman is not some babe in the woods at all.

He does look a bit pissed off. Perhaps his fight is not about denial so much as getting even with who ever leaked the whole thing? I'm gonna hate myself if I find reason to cheer him on, but if revenge is his game, GO LARRY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. A map is needed for that. I tried but didn't have all the details.
Such as the arrival gate and departure gate he would have used. The exact restroom he was using.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Well it was leaked to Roll Call.
So I doubt it came from anyone in MN law enforcement. It came from the Hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. I Think It's Perfectly Reasonable That He 'Panicked' In Fear Of It Being Dragged Out.
I also think he was guilty anyway.

But panicked doesn't mean impulsive in this sense. It merely means that he was afraid. He was afraid that if he brought it to trial it would increase the chances of the public finding out. He wanted it to just go away as quickly as possible. I find nothing wrong with that theory and it in fact would seem fairly logical. The only problem I have with his version of it is that in his version he claims innocence. I don't think for a second that he was innocent.

There is also nothing worthy of note about his plea bargain. It is quite routine and standard and would've taken minimal effort to do just on his own. Submitting the plea by mail afterwards and not needing to appear in court, is also extremely benign and uneventful. So I really don't know what we're supposed to take out of the OP, to be honest with ya.

He very well may have plead guilty out of 'panic', but I don't think that's the issue. I think the only real issue that needs to be focused on is just quite simply that he was in fact guilty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It's quite possible for people to work themselves up into a real panicky lather
over a stretch of time. Righto.

I don't think for a second that he was innocent either. I think he was guilty, but may have panicked that "coming clean" was his only alternative or his best one. As opposed to trying to engage in a lengthy cover-up. Later, he was persuaded otherwise...that denying everything and fighting might sound like a totally crazy plan, but it just...might...WORK.

I don't think it will, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Panic
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 09:10 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
I think the word is misused here... When the NAZIS launched Operation Barbarossa Stalin panicked for several days and went into a four day drunk...He then sobered up, stopped panicking and fashioned a response...

That's what Craig did...He balanced the benefits of copping a plea and putting it behind him against the liability of having a public trial and opted for the former...That's not panicking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whoneedstickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
37. Excited utterance?
I wonder if there is a setup here for an excited utterance claim? Craig was still 'wound up' from events that had just transpired?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. You can't have an 'excited utterance' six weeks later!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. The statement must be spontaneously made by the person (the declarant) while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" event or condition. The statement could be a description or explanation (as required for present sense impression), or an opinion or inference. Examples include: "Look out! We're going to crash!" or "I think he's crazy. He's shooting at us!" The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be premeditated falsehoods. Compared to present sense impression, excited utterance is broader in scope for permitting a longer time lapse between event and statement, and a wider range of content in the statement.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thank You...I usually agree with Turley but...
I did not agree with him on this one. And sure, I have no doubt that craig had a good chance to have fought this, but he chose not to, and that certainly casts some doubt on his claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. Jeffrey Toobin Was On CNN And Did A Much Better Job...
And I'm not a big fan of Jonathan Turley...He was one of the tv talking heads beating the drums for Clinton's impeachment during L'affaire Lewinsky...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Oh really?
I think he was very good on habeas corpus, IIRC. That's why I was so flabbergasted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. He Flogged Clinton Impeachment...I Can't Forgive Him For That...
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Linky
Turley knows a thing or two about the impeachment process. He worked with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr on the investigation that led to impeachment proceedings against former president, Bill Clinton


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_9365.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Oh good God.
No wonder. So why does KO have him on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I Disagreed With Him But It's Not As If He's An Idiot...
He's obviously very bright...He's a GWU law professor... But most of the talking heads on tv are not aware of all the facts in the case and that's disturbing...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It is disturbing since it demands about eight pages of reading.
"Experts" don't even have to do that amount of homework?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. You Are Referring To The Time Between The Charge And His Plea
And the fact that Craig indicated to law enforcement he was conferring with counsel during that time....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:13 PM
Original message
Yes precisely.
He got arrested on June 11. He came through the airport again on June 22 and went to the police office at the airport and asked what the status of his case was and who should his attorneys contact. He was given the name of the city attorney. On August 8 his petition to enter a plea of guilty (on ONE count, not the two he was originally charged with) was filed in the MN court. Sometime between June 22 and August 8 that plea was negotiated, and the charge of peeping was dropped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
30. This Is So Stupid...
And the lawyers who go on tv and say he can easily get the guilty plea vacated... The courts would be filled with people who want do overs...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. Agreed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. Can't the judge put him back in jail ?
I heard on Air America that if he says he only pled guilty to get rid of the charges hanging over him, and since he said he wasn't guilty, isn't that contempt of court, and the judge can revoke the plea due to fraud? Or at least bust him for contempt of court and throw him in jail?


Statements 4 and 5 in the above seem to indicate that the judge can make his life more miserable.

I think it's called "plenary power". Power of Judges to exercise discretion and do things that are not necessarily allowed strictly in the Rules of Procedure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
22. I suspect he thinks he panicked, not "in the moment" panic, but
tryng to do everything possible to keep this quiet and not thinking clearly enough to realize he should have contacted an lawyer panic. It does sound like he didn't tell ANYONE, even a lawyer who could have quietly gotten him off with nothing and a scrubbed record too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Do you think he prepared his pleading himself?
Take a look at it. It is not a form. It was carefully prepared by an attorney. Larry Craig is not an attorney.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I did look at all that stuff yesterday. I think he worked out something with the
city attorney or what ever he's called in Mn. I think the City Attorney had the form typed to whatever specs they agreed on, and Larry figured he was free and clear. NOBODY KNEW and he was going to keep it that way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. that's one theory.
but mine is that over the course of five weeks he probably consulted somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Craig Is As Smart Or Dumb As A Box Of Crayons
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. That's Not Panicking
He made a conscious decision to plead guilty to avoid a public trial...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Yes, and he would have been tried as a PEEPER.
Nobody likes a peeper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-05-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I Don't Know Why The Talking Heads Suggest He Could Beat The Peeping Charge
You can provide "innocent explanations" for the tapping , hand waving, and foot rubbing, even though that's a stretch but either he's lying or the cop is lying about the peeking , no staring, that occurred for one to two minutes...

Nobody would like to think that was them being stared at on the toilet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. The talking heads rarely mention the peeping charge.
The party line right now is, it was a disorderly charge, and that could happen to anyone, so are we going to have Senate investigations every time someone gets a traffic ticket?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Because It's An Amorphous Charge
That's why if you applied for a "sensitive" job your employer would ask for the court documents...

It could be anything from playing your stereo at full blast at 4:00 in the morning to going into a public restroom, rubbing your foot against your "neighbor" in the nest stall, and putting your hand in your "neighbor's" stall and waving at him....

Comparing it to a traffic ticket is totally disingenuous and ingenious in the truest sense of the word...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I dont' think he waved at him.
I think he rubbed his hand along the bottom of the stall in a "jerking off" motion. I think that's why it was so important to establish that it was his left hand. He couldn't grasp the bottom of the stall wall like that with his right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Golly
I can't imagine being in a stall with all that going on... I would have left long before that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
35. The bottom line here is he is a LIAR
He signed a Legal document testifying as to his guilt. If he now says he lied on that document would he not then be guilty of perjury? I guess knowing what we do now about how Republicans actually feel about perjury it really does not matter to his constituency that he would then be a perjurous LIAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-06-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
39. KO: I would like to see a CORRECTION tonight.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC