Emerson Wainwright said:
LOL!
You linked us to the definition of "plea"?
You are so desparate that you didn't even read it, including the
section I quoted right below. I guess you object to people actually
citing the text they quote.
And in response... ummm.... to WHAT?
    United States
    A defendant who pleads guilty must do so, in the phraseology
    of a 1938 Supreme Court case, "knowingly, voluntarily and
    intelligently". The burden is on the prosecution to prove that
    all waivers of the defendant's rights complied with due
    process standards. Accordingly, in cases of all but the most
    minor offenses, the court or the prosecution (depending upon
    local custom and the presiding judge's preference) will engage
    in a plea colloquy wherein they ask the defendant a series of
    rote questions about the defendant's knowledge of his rights
    and the voluntariness of the plea.
Furthermore, in his plea, Craig only admitted to "engag[ing] in
conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or
resentment of others, which conduct was physical (versus veral) in
nature." Â See
<
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agree...>
Absolutely.
So, you're saying that he actually IS guilty of "engag[ing] in
conduct which [he] knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or
resentment of others, which conduct was physical (versus veral) in
nature"?
What I'm saying is what I stated in the post you responded to and that
you quoted immediately below your inane comment. You'd look like less
of a fool if you'd read the posts you reply to before mouthing off.
Craig can claim that his conduct was merely that of inadvertently
bumping the officer's foot, and that it is not perjury to sign a
document that states that he should have known others would find it
offensive, which is a different statement than one as to whether the
conduct occurred knowingly.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct. He admits to "engag[ing] in
conduct which [he] knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or
resentment of others, which conduct was physical (versus veral) in
nature".
The plea he entered in no way indicates that he was guilty of
soliciting sex or engaging in lewd conduct. That's what the flap
was about, not clumsily stepping on someone's foot. Most people
would resent having someone step on their foot. Is doing it by
accident criminal?
What you are trying to do is to equivocate on the world "guilty",
trying to turn a plea on one charge (whether he was actually guilty
or not) into guilt for something quite different (the behavior the
restroom sting was set up to stop).
He's a legal analyst, not a "random person". And you consider CNN
News to be just a "TV program"? Like "Roseanne"?
You dimwit.
No, he's a random person hired to mouth off on TV. I'm not all that
impressed with any of them. I'm certainly not impressed with him:
when Craig entered a motion to have his plea withdrawn, he had the
advise of a high-powered attorney. That attorney would certainly have
warned Craig if there was any risk of a perjury conviction in trying
to withdraw the plea. Since Craig tried to withdraw the plea, it is
pretty obvious that there is no such risk. Your guy is running a TV
program. People who run TV programs need something to rant about to
fill up the time. He's most likely no exception to the rule.
So, the "dimwit" would appear to be you. It's amazing. You have a
perfect track record of making a fool of yourself.
