I am no supporter of the hypocrisy of Republican Senators like Senator Craig of Idaho.
I have no sympathy that he should suffer to decide whether or not to resign his seat as a result of his ill behavior and decision to put the incident behind him with a plea agreement.
Too many other people have suffered far worse as a result of the obstinate Republican Senators--approving a an illusion of responsibility to the nation with their supplemental spending authorizations to carry on the war. No sympathy here.
But as to the question of the Minneapolis bathroom incident, the Senator may have a legal defense which ultimately may “legally” clear his name. The question evolves upon the
Presentation that in fact there is an affirmative defense--in this case entrapment by an overzealous law enforcement in the airport. The whole incident makes one wonder what the Police were doing in the airport--apparently with enough personnel to have all the stalls full and make the good Senator wait. I bet he tapped his foot, waiting. Senators aren’t used to waiting or the tic of the time.
Certainly Senator Craig was no terrorist. Isn’t that after all why we as citizens of the nation have been asked to accept congregations of police and homeland security. A line of defense for the global war on terrorism isn’t conducted in the bathrooms. That all the stalls were full when the Senator entered causing him to wait demonstrates a question for a jury. The government ( by its subdivision Metropolitan Police) performed certain acts which were indispensable to the provision of “probable cause”. That fact that the stalls were full with enforcement officers. and the avoidance of the indispensable elements to be mentioned in the report demonstrate the viability of the entrapment defense.
Despite the protests that the Senator is not gay or implicitly intended an illicit session, the plea agreement reflects a popular tactic of prosecution: “routing or inducing” a plea agreement. Explicitly plea agreements are proposed to reduce the case loads of the Courts and are conducted with “informed consent absent prejudicial inducement. Disposition of charges after plea discussions is not only an essential part of the process--leading to early and final disposition of criminal charges. Without plea agreements, the Courts would have to multiply by many times the numbers of judges and court facilities. In practice, “the reasons other than the fact of guilt often induce to so pleas which many choice to plead” ( Maxwell v. US; No Car v. Alford).
The kind of showing of guilt reflective of a voluntary plea agreement is an informed plea. A Court accepting a plea cannot exclude substantial facts and be satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. Such is errant logic which renders “constitutional guarantees
counterproductive”.
Once a plea is accepted, there are reasons for vacating the plea entered. One consideration is the balancing with the amount of harm which the government may suffer through the withdrawal. Is the case prejudiced as a result of the withdrawal of the plea?
Can the defendant define that he would be more satisfied with the decision to have a trial before a jury?
For Senator Craig there is no redemption. The charge and plea had a deadening effect upon his political career-- and no amount of legal maneuver will salvage that. And the great tragedy is that he will not see that the “constitutional defects’ he feels others have suffered more and longer. Doesn’t seem the Constitution is popular until one personally needs it.