MyFox
 

NinevehDinha's Blog

by NinevehDinha from Salt Lake City, UT

Last Post 5 hours Ago


Idaho Senator Larry Craig has been a politician for 27 years, but his career is fading fast. Here's a statement posted on his official website that I pasted below.

"First, please let me apologize to my family, friends, staff, and fellow Idahoans for the cloud placed over Idaho. I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport. I regret my decision to plead guilty and the sadness that decision has brought to my wife, family, friends, staff, and fellow Idahoans. For that I apologize."

I'm sure you're aware the charges in regards to the bathroom incident and now the audio of the actual "sting operation" has been released.

My questions to you: Do you think his apology is sincere? Do you think his alleged actions will ultimately end his political career? And if it does, is that fair? Or do you think it was entrapment?

19 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 19
Page 1 of 1
akiame read my blog view my photos
Aug 31, 2007 | 10:41 AM

Do you think his apology is sincere?

NO- A slight bit of Foresight will save you the trouble of getting someone to believe you later.

Do you think his alleged actions will ultimately end his political career?

YES- It is nearly impossible to "Regain" trust.

And if it does, is that fair?

YES- Once again... Foresight. Are The Effects of Actions really so hard to predict? Take an axe and chop your leg, what do you predict will happen? If you answered Cut my leg off than your foresight is working just fine...

Or do you think it was entrapment?

YES- By definition Entrapment is A defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials. (For Example: If law enforcement officials dress up like hookers and run around trying to get someone to break the law. They are taking a pro-active step, they are setting the stage, they are initiating the crime...)

It just so "confidently" happens that the defining point of Entrapment is so far lost in ambiguity that it breeds misuse, abuse, uncertainty like mold growing on cheese out in the sun for two weeks! This sort of AMBIGUITY has no place in the Justice System!!!

akiame read my blog view my photos
Aug 31, 2007 | 10:46 AM

Do you think his apology is sincere?

NO- A slight bit of Foresight will save you the trouble of getting someone to believe you later.

Do you think his alleged actions will ultimately end his political career?

YES- It is nearly impossible to "Regain" trust.

And if it does, is that fair?

YES- Once again... Foresight. Are The Effects of Actions really so hard to predict? Take an axe and chop your leg, what do you predict will happen? If you answered Cut my leg off than your foresight is working just fine...

Or do you think it was entrapment?

YES- By definition Entrapment is A defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials. (For Example: If law enforcement officials dress up like hookers and run around trying to get someone to break the law. They are taking a pro-active step, they are setting the stage, they are initiating the crime...)

It just so "conveniently" happens that the defining point of Entrapment is so far lost in ambiguity that it breeds misuse, abuse, uncertainty like mold growing on cheese out in the sun for two weeks! This sort of AMBIGUITY has no place in the Justice System!!!

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Aug 31, 2007 | 12:21 PM

First of all this is not entrapment. Sorry. No one goes after a hooker that does not want one. Second, no one tries to pick up a hooker at an airport unless they have experience doing so. This was not his first prostitute. Also, his decision to plead guilty was based SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT HE WAS GUILTY. I have heard that excuse from criminals before. He saved himself a very embarrassing trial and now he is trying to play it off as a mistake. The mistake he made is calling Bill Clinton a 'naughty boy' when in fact he craves 'naughty boys'. His political career belongs in the trash. This country has enough two faced politicians already. I am glad to see this one go bye-bye. This also shows how easy it is for him to lie in the face of the evidence to the contrary. He pulled a Bill Clinton in the act and in the lie. Let's hope he eventually finishes with the truth. It saved some of Bill's reputation. Maybe it will help Larry's rep as well.

Crossover read my blog view my photos
Aug 31, 2007 | 12:45 PM

Akiame-
Since you think that the definition of entrapment is ambiguous I thought I’d look it up. Entrapment happens when a person is tricked or induced by law enforcement into committing a crime which they are not predisposed to commit. According to Lawyers.com there are two parts to an entrapment defense 1) governmental inducement of the crime and 2) a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law--Defenses-FAQ.
html All the reports that I have heard say that the undercover officer was in a stall in the men’s room of the airport when Senator Craig entered the next stall and started the behavior which led to his arrest. I fail to see how being in a stall in a men’s room is an inducement to commit a crime.
In your example of a cop dressing like a hooker it would be considered entrapment if the cop were approaching people and trying to get them to break the law. If the cop was just standing there and was approached by somebody then the entrapment defense would be hard to prove. According to the same FAQ referenced above, “The fact that law enforcement agents provide the opportunity or place for the crime doesn’t add up to entrapment. It’s only entrapment when the idea for committing the crime is planted in the defendant’s mind by law enforcement.” In the case of Senator Craig this is all moot since he pled guilty and gave up his right to a defense.

Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Aug 31, 2007 | 7:32 PM

I agree with Crossover on many of the points raised. The Senator's worst decision was to plead guilty to anything to save face or to sweep it under therug in the most expedient manner available.

There are two things I'd like to mention though ...
1) The Senator pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct - not lewd conduct.
2) If the officer felt confident about the offense the Senator was originally charged with, he never would have backed off from it.

Do I think it is fair ... no, but it is a situation of the Senator's own making.

Do I think it should cost him his career ... no, because he didn't plead guilty to a morally offensive crime or a felony.

Do I think it was entrapment or that his apology was sincere ... I wasn't there and I don't know the man. I will not judge him on matters I don't have direct knowledge of.

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Aug 31, 2007 | 11:40 PM

Mariposa
On your point number two. It is not the officers call that the charge was lessened. It is the choice of the prosecution. It is standard fare for first time offenders to get a reduced charge if they will plead guilty. It is called a 'plea bargain' and it happens all the time. And does he really need to plead guilty to solicitation to cost him his career? If it is shown to be true it doesn't matter what he plea bargains it down to. Or even if he gets off as free as O.J. We all know he did it.

Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Sep 1, 2007 | 9:56 AM

Skooby,
I see your point, but the DA (prosecutor) would have relied heavily on the officer's report. Senator Craig did not plead guilty to solicitation ... he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.
I'm a little more forgiving on entrapment concerns because of something that happened to me. I was asked to be at a certain location for valid reasons and can prove this. The people who arranged for me to be at this location then called the police and told him to arrest me for criminal trespass; they knew my husband was supposed to have left for service in Afghanistan three days before and that we had no family who could take emergency custody of our disabled children. There would have been no way I could have accessed the proof I was innocent. My children would have been put into state custody and my husband's honored military career would have been over (we told them three weeks prior to that date what the exact result would be if they tried anything like what they had done once before - he had to come home from Kuwait after 9/11 because of something these people started, would you like to hear the tape); we would have no income and would lose our home! As soon as they found out my husband hadn't left, they claimed it was all a big mistake and released me.
With all due respect, what a person does or does not know to be the truth doesn't have anything to do with whether it is actually true or not. We weren't there ... we don't know.

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Sep 2, 2007 | 8:45 PM

Have you listened to the tape they released of the thing?

Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Sep 2, 2007 | 11:47 PM

Yes.

It sounded as if the police officer was trying to talk Craig into the 'official' version of what happened. And, was being very aggressive.

There is one detail that hasn't come out that would give me better information. To which side of the officer was Craig sitting?

I still think Craig's biggest mistake was pleading guilty to anything he didn't feel he was guilty of. Just to make it go away before anyone noticed? Yeah, that worked really well.

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Sep 3, 2007 | 7:58 AM

The audio was only the interview after it happened. And it didn't give the officers version of the event. If it came down to who I think would be more likely to lie. Senators and Congressmen always seem more likely to lie than a cop. I am biased that way.

NinevehDinha read my blog view my photos
Sep 3, 2007 | 9:27 AM

I knew this blog would get people talking...as you know, Senator Craig stepped down on Saturday.

Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Sep 3, 2007 | 2:44 PM

I know, and to some degree it breaks my heart. Not this specific incident, but the vilification of people at the mere perception that something could be wrong. What happened to being human.

Any person is capable of lying given certain circumstances ... be they Joe American, a public official or a member of Congress. I would have no problem lying if it would save an innocent person's life, but there aren't many other valid reasons for lying.

I've had people lie about me to rid themselves of their legal obligations toward my disabled children because I know the laws they were violating. The problem there is that they lied to get the matter into court, they lied in court, and they lied to sabotage a plea in abeyance that had been offered so I'd be jailed for something they knew me to be innocent of. It almost bankrupted my family.

I'm all for standing up and maintaining one's innocence. The Senator should have been, too.

Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Sep 3, 2007 | 2:53 PM

Ninevah,

Great subject!

And just so you know, the matter that was brought against me based on lies ... it was dropped more than a year after the charges were filed due to 'lack of evidence'.

I don't think so - not after that length of time; the assistant DA and the party that had the charges filed found out I was going to present evidence that proved the charges never should have been brought in the first place.

Thank goodness I had the intelligence to stand up for my innocence against all odds.

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Sep 4, 2007 | 6:36 PM

Mariposa
Do you feel that he was tricked into this? Do you feel that maybe it was a political hit job? And if so why isn't there an uproar among Republicans? The main uproar seemed to be a call for his resignation by Republicans.

Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Sep 4, 2007 | 7:11 PM

Tricked, no ... entrapped or misinterpreted, quite possibly.

Political hit job, no ... wrong place at wrong time, probably.

He made a big mistake in pleading guilty to anything he wasn't guilty of ... these days, nobody wants to be around the mere appearance of impropriety.

Craig backed himself out of his senate seat.

roykirk read my blog
Sep 5, 2007 | 9:23 AM

Nineveh, I would like to think he his innocent (as I do prefer to think that people are decent), but, like Skooby, I have a deep mistrust for politicians in general. So I do limit the amount of belief I place in his statement. It was worded pretty well though.
I have also had a couple of experiences with crooked police officers though, so I'm not intirely willing to believe their side of the story either. I think that we just have to chock this one up on the side of a case that will not be solved, at least at the present time.

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Sep 5, 2007 | 1:06 PM

I will give Larry one kudos though. He didn't go to rehab and find god. Rehab repentance is getting old.

Crossover read my blog view my photos
Sep 5, 2007 | 3:50 PM

Skooby you'll love this one: one thing that I think has been ignored in this discussion is Craig's ties to the Romney campaign. Is it possible that Craig fell on his political sword to minimize the impact on Romney? I'm sure Mitt wouldn't be too keen on a messy court case involving somebody in his organization. Particularly one that could still be ongoing during the primaries. Just an idea, I have no evidence.

Skooby read my blog view my photos
Sep 5, 2007 | 6:54 PM

That would be interesting. I don't think it would affect my vote. If someone does something in secret his friends can hardly be blamed for it. But I can also see Romney treading carefully being the first mormon candidate to have a real shot. Presenting a clean image is a top priority I imagine.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




NinevehDinha

I start off every morning waking up our viewers, and it's always a pleasure! I'm happy to be part of Fox 13's Good Day Utah team. I anchor bright and early from 5 to 6 a.m. You can also catch me on the streets reporting for both GDU and Live at 11.

Member Since: 2/20/2007