Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo is engaged in a lively conversation about the specifics of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s ability to withdraw his guilty plea for disorderly conduct involving alleged cruising for sex in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. Several criminal attorneys have commented on the blog suggesting that the claim by Craig that he did not understand his rights when he waived his right to counsel is contradicted by the plea agreement itself. They point out that the written plea agreement (which you can review here, courtesy of FindLaw and The New York Times) contains clauses that imply there was some negotiation and strategy on Craig’s part, which seems to indicate that Craig was thinking more clearly than he claims.
BLT readers, what do you think of these ideas? Does Craig have grounds to withdraw his guilty plea?