Larry Craig Not Resigning After All

After swearing to a judge that he was guilty of criminal action and then swearing to his constituents that he would resign if another judge didn’t allow him to take back his word to the first judge, Larry Craig has now gone back on his word. Here’s his official statement (not that it means much):

I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today. I am innocent of the charges against me. I continue to work with my legal team to explore my additional legal options.

Unless he’s an idiot in addition to being a liar and a pervert, he simply had to know that this ruling was a foregone conclusion. Judges simply don’t allow people to take back guilty pleas absent rather extraordinary circumstances.

I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate, and there are several reasons for that. As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively.

By all accounts, his colleagues consider him a joke.

Over the course of my three terms in the Senate and five terms in the House, I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments that are valuable to Idaho, not the least of which are my seats on the Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. A replacement would be highly unlikely to obtain these posts.

That’s certainly true. Then again, that was true when he made his pledge to resign.

In addition, I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee – something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate.

There’s still that matter of pleading guilty in a court of law.

When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek reelection. I hope this provides the certainty Idaho needs and deserves.

Why would his word provide any certainty? It’s of no value whatsoever.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Law and the Courts,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Bithead says:

    Perhaps some comparison is in order here…

    here again, we have a major difference between the parties; The Republicans are doing everything within their power to get Larry Craig out of office immediately, if not sooner. The Democrats, on the other hand, have made so much moves with “Cold Cash” Jefferson, and continue to defend him.

    A short time ago, we were treated to democrats defending Bill Clinton. Remember what the defense was? “It’s all about sex”. I would suggest to you, that if we take their statements about their value structure at face value, Larry Craig is all about sex.

    Whereas, Jefferson is all about bribe money.

    Which is the worst of these two offenses in your mind?

    Understand…This is not a defense of Larry Craig… let me be very clear about this; I want him out of there, as I have stated several times previously. But how do we judge the Democrats in the matter , particularly when they’ve been screaming for Larry Craig’s ouster, when they don’t lift a finger to oust Johnson, on something which by their own lights is a far worse crime?

  2. Anderson says:

    I declare, Craig is giving bathroom-banger homosexuals a bad name ….

  3. An Interested Party says:

    Contrary to Bithead’s comments, it seems to me that Democrats don’t want Craig to go anywhere…his staying in the Senate is the gift that keeps on giving to the Democratic Party…

  4. Anderson says:

    Contrary to Bithead’s comments

    “CTBC.” I must remember that.

    The Republicans are doing everything within their power to get Larry Craig out of office immediately, if not sooner.

    False. Have they moved to expel him from the Senate? I don’t ask if they have the votes; I ask if they’ve moved to do so.

  5. bob in fl says:

    I can see it now. IF it gets out of committee, it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to remove Craig. Why would any Democrat vote for his removal? If he goes, another from the GOP will take his place, guaranteed. He does the Dems nationwide much more good in office than out. They-don’t-have-the-votes.

  6. floyd says:

    Ya Think maybe we should throw all the liars and perverts out of office?

    What that sound? The sound of crickets echoing in the halls of congress?

    In all fairness,….3 or 4 would surely constitute a quorum!

  7. Tlaloc says:

    The Democrats, on the other hand, have made so much moves with “Cold Cash” Jefferson, and continue to defend him.

    Well they did strip him of his committee posts. When the 2006 election rolled around no less than eight (!) democrats ran against him, but Jefferson won. Jefferson did not have the backing of the Louisiana democratic party either.

    Despite your contentions the democrats have not in fact supported Jefferson, but the people of Louisiana keep electing him anyway.

  8. Tlaloc says:

    But how do we judge the Democrats in the matter , particularly when they’ve been screaming for Larry Craig’s ouster

    Uh, what democrats have screamed for his ouster?

    All of the calls I’ve heard for him to resign have been from the GOP.

  9. Nikolay says:

    The Democrats, on the other hand, have made so much moves with “Cold Cash” Jefferson, and continue to defend him.

    Where did you get that crazy idea?

  10. markm says:

    Jeeze, all in all you guys are pilin’ on just because the dude has a wide growler stance…sheesh.

    🙂

  11. Anderson says:

    Bob in FL, you’re right, but it would let the Repubs wash their hands of him, so to speak: “we tried to oust the lying so-and-so, but the Dems love gays so much, they wouldn’t vote him out,” etc., etc.

  12. cian says:

    He called the GOP bluff. They’re scared stiff of an ethics probe. He on the other hand is quite excited by the idea.

  13. Michael says:

    The Democrats, on the other hand, have made so much moves with “Cold Cash” Jefferson, and continue to defend him.

    Names please, who is defending Jefferson and how? I can name at least one GOP senator defending Craig, Sen. Hatch. Name a Democrat defending Jefferson.

  14. Triumph says:

    They’re scared stiff of an ethics probe. He on the other hand is quite excited by the idea.

    Craig, scared “stiff” by a “probe”??? Heavens no!!!

  15. Bithead says:

    False. Have they moved to expel him from the Senate?

    Had you forgotten they’re not in power?

  16. Triumph says:

    I think that Craig is a bumbling idiot and that he should keep his word and resign.

    However, I think both Republicans and the Democrats are pursuing the issue prudently.

    The crime to which Craig plead guilty–disorderly conduct–is pretty minor. The fact that it was not related to his Senate duties provides little grounds for expelling him from the Senate.

    More pertinently, the Ethics Committee should be pursuing an investigation of the potentially fraudulent activities of Ted Stevens. There is ample evidence to suggest that this guy was selling votes and influence for monetary gain. That is clearly in the purview of the ethics committee.

    The business surrounding Craig is a sad sideshow with no impact on actual public policy.

  17. anjin-san says:

    The Democrats, on the other hand, have made so much moves with “Cold Cash” Jefferson, and continue to defend him.

    Yes Bit, let’s have some names of the Jefferson defenders. Or is this another “cut and run” posting?

    As for your Clinton gambit, I see the obsession goes on. What happens if Hillary gets elected, does your head just explode?

    (cut to “Scanners” outtake)

  18. bob in fl says:

    False. Have they moved to expel him from the Senate? I don’t ask if they have the votes; I ask if they’ve moved to do so.
    Posted by Anderson |

    Actually, they (GOP) had begun by addressing Craig in the Ethics Committee, but dropped it when Craig agreed to resign. I expect the Committee to address the issue again, now that Craig has refused to step down.

  19. mroom says:

    I thought that Craig had been removed from his committee asignments. If this is true, then his argument about his important committee assignments seems false.

  20. Beldar says:

    Most prominent and vocal among the Dems supporting Dollar Bill Jefferson have been Rep. Melvin L. Watts (D-NC) and Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), both leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    After his re-election in 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refused to reappoint Jefferson to the House Ways & Means Committee membership that had been stripped from him in the previous session, but she then proposed to appoint him to the Homeland Security and House Small Business Committees. The Homeland Security appointment was withdrawn in the face of a Republican-threatened floor fight, and Jefferson later resigned from the Small Business Committee seat, too. While these were not acts of full-fledged support by Speaker Pelosi on behalf of the Democratic Party generally, they nevertheless undeniably continued to empower and enable Jefferson.

    Among the significant differences between Jefferson and Craig, of course, are that Craig’s crime was a simple misdemeanor unrelated to his congressional office, whereas Jefferson’s is a felony directly related to his alleged abuse of his office.

  21. Wayne says:
  22. Beldar says:

    mroom, I believe Craig’s been removed from his committee ranking (minority) member positions, which, if I’m not mistaken, was all the Republicans had the power to do unilaterally.

  23. Bandit says:

    Craig and Killer Kennedy should retire together

  24. Tlaloc says:

    Rep. Melvin Watt

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003049686_watch09.html

    Nancy Pelosi

    http://washington.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/02/19/daily9.html

    Not exactly blowing my skirt up. Watt asks a question and Pelosi in the last round puts him in a minor committee post. Can you even have a representative who isn’t on at least one committee?