Idaho Senator Crapo Arrested For DUI

466px-Mike_Crapo_Official_Photo_110th_Congresscrapo-mug-jpgVoters in Idaho just got over the scandal involving Larry Craig and a certain airport bathroom. Now, U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) has been arrested for DUI in Alexandria, Virginia. A DUI would appear to be less of a political threat than an alleged attempt at a homosexual bathroom tryst. However, Crapo is a Mormon and told police that he had three shots of vodka that night. In a state with the second highest Mormon population in the United States, such an admission is not going to be well received. It may be that the image of being a “Jack Mormon” could be a lasting problem for Crapo.


Crapo has previously said that he does not drink alcohol in adherence with his faith. The officer, however, reported that Crapo “indicated that he consumed several shots of vodka hours earlier and did not consume any more alcoholic beverages since.” The officer stated that he noticed slurred speech and “bloodshot and watery” eyes. Crapo had a blood alcohol level of 0.11 (the legal limit being 0.08) and was charged with driving while intoxicated. He was released on a $1,000 bond.

It was an ironic twist given our recent fight in Idaho over “Five Sisters Vodka,” which the state officials barred out of concern for the sensibilities of Mormons in the state. It would appear however than at least one Mormon in the state is far more receptive to the product than anticipated by the state officials.

Source: Medialite

70 thoughts on “Idaho Senator Crapo Arrested For DUI”

    1. BF,

      Admiration! Got a fast lookup data bank in your brain? Thanks.

      The title to Turley’s one should have been: “The rising curtain”.
      And why so long, because it was an on-going struggle which took time to act out as I recall.

      The next question is how has it been used. And why is it still on the statutes? And if we want to be political, what pawns were traded to get the deal?

      The so-called justice system is fascinating. It is so complex, powerful, and potentlally so dangerous to freedom——besides all the chances to make money and get more power. Whooeeee!

      Reminds me of what it must be like climbing a mountain or climbing a spider web if you are a spider.

  1. DonS,

    I appreciate your comment. I don’t have any knowledge of such cases and your supplying support was important, I feel.

    I am not on a crusade, but noting some complaints of capricious handling felt it should be addressed.

    It is probably a snake pit. Worthy of dividing into several issues with a thread for each. A series simply as was done by GeneH on propaganda.
    It seems to be composed of interlocking corruption.

    Otherwise an explanatory comment would be desired, addressing the issues of denial of this that and the other. NOT treatment of KaySieverding’s case at all, but the general questions posed.

    I can only hope for more qualified persons to answer.

    But like yourself, I will and cannot pursue it other than raising the question. I am not a lawyer. But I do enjoy the mental gymnastics found here.

  2. M.J. Marsalek,

    You do know of the Corrections thread, which is also used for submitting ideas for threads. If not, go there and use it.

    Your opinion is welcome however, and I support your suggestion of “why NDAA indefinite detention” for a thread.

    It was discussed before but how it ended up is ?????.
    Particularly, I think citizens and foreign residents are guaranteed a speedy trial with all its security. NDAA would seem to deprive these persons of that right. A secret “court” decides and you are incarcerated indefinitely. A violation of your right to life, not only liberty as guaranteed under our system. You effectively have no life when incarcerated. And these should not be taken away without trial, which never occured before NDAA is applied to you.

  3. Id707, I don’t wish to get into a long discussion of the issue you raise, mainly because I am not an expert, but I would just note that people can be, and are, disappeared in the US justice system. Some through intention no doubt, and many through procedural negligence or lack of diligence or staff resources, or lack of anyone on the outside, with sufficient resources, to push the system. I have seen it happen.

    The principles that are enshrined in law and procedure are only as meaningful as as how they are honored in practice.

  4. Have we nothing more important than Larry Craig & Mike Crapo to talk about ? Turley is supposed to be a Constitutional Law schollar. How’s about we discuss the indefinite detention provision without charge with in the NDAA? Somehow that seems a little more important than a ” wide stance ” in a men’s toilet or a Mormon having a beverage of two. Or ….. how about the overpowering need for immediate gun control legislation before the facts of the recent Connecticut school shooting incident are made public? As of this date, it’s still not at all clear that Adam Lanza actually used an assault rifle or if it was left in the locked trunk of his car.

  5. “technicality” = some people have more access to a potent legal arsenal than others

    OR

    two wrongs don’t make a right . . .

    OR

    we have at least a two tiered justice system . . .

  6. Found it on Indian woman goes to police thread.

    I post KayVerdings whole post, but wish to call to attention to the last part beginning with the “In the USA according to documents filed……
    Assertions are made by Verding which could be her own documents filed in a pro se litigation.

    These assertions are particularly troublesome to me.
    Quote verding:
    “citizens can be imprisoned by the federal government without a criminal charge, an evidentiary hearing, a bail hearing, a right to cross examine witnesses, a right to an attorney, or a sentence that is in any way related to sentencing guidelines” end verding.

    Comments would be appreciated and respected from those with legal experience. Notably, OS opined of her case and I wish to present this to inquire if the accusations made have any value or reality at all.
    Her case itself do I not expect a opinion on other than that Juris gave in principle. It is general justice and its reliability that I am addressing.

    Also a thanks to Juris for taking my inquiry under consideration, and replying thoroughly to that which I had supplied for consideration.
    =============================

    “kaysieverding1, December 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    seems like the United States to me. The article says that the woman was “threatened not to testify”. In my considerable experience, the government doesn’t prosecute witness intimidation. I have a lot of documentation that I was told that I would be imprisoned if I testified in Court, even if my testimony was truthful. I complained to DOJ and they said they weren’t obligated to prosecute and they left me subject to witness intimidation, did nothing to help me, and allowed the U.S. budget to pay for witness intimidation in the form of imprisoning potential witnesses without an evidentiary hearing, a criminal charge, or a bail hearing, as a method of suppressing my testimony about Federal crimes. Apparently there was a law for a while that the government was supposed to report criminal statutes that weren’t prosecuted but that was changed. I really think that the government of the United States in the form of the Department of Justice and U.S. Courts is corrupt. I don’t think that U.S. citizens have substantially more rights in the U.S. than women in India. In the U.S., according to documents filed in the District of Columbia 09-05621 and 11-01032, citizens can be imprisoned by the federal government without a criminal charge, an evidentiary hearing, a bail hearing, a right to cross examine witnesses, a right to an attorney, or a sentence that is in any way related to sentencing guidelines. I think what we have in the U.S. is third world justice and that anyone who thinks that there is procedural due process in U.S. Courts is mistaken

  7. Repost from Tunisian man thread as it may be pertinent. Searching still for her latest detailing of her case.
    Am aware that their are both pro bono channels, and the limitations which constrain here due to ethical reasons in taking a stand on an individual’s case.. Am looking for a response to what appears to be a larger abuse.
    I thought that Malisha’s exemplification was so simple that all would get it. Apparently not judging from the answers of “rant”, “hypotheticals” etc.
    ===============

    kaysieverding1, December 28, 2012 at 11:29 am

    The Crime Victims Rights Act 18 U.S.C. § 3771 supposedly gives American crime victims an avenue for recognition that a crime was committed against them when there is no prosecution but to the best of my knowledge it has never been used successfully by any victim to get recognition of a crime.

  8. Messpo says it is the law or it is not.

    And ignores therewith all the cases of abuse of the law by its own servants, which are in turn ignored by the bench.

    How can I contend that? Injustice provides so many good examples.
    And the existence of well-paid lawyers also proves it, in their very existence.

  9. Mespo,
    I am late to respond to your earlier comment about technicalities, but you are spot on. I can’t stand it when people make the comment that so and so got off because of a technicality!

  10. Malisha

    Your post above reminds me of a case a friend of mine had over a DUI arrest. He stopped this gal for driving 70+ in a city 35 zone and erratic driving. She was arrested for DUI and Reckless driving.

    The municipal court judge in that town had somewhat of a reputation in the LE and Legal communities as being overly lenient in jail sentences. My friend told me the defendant had demanded a new judge for among other things, she felt the judge would be too harsh on her. We joked to ourselves that of all the judges to declare to harsh, this judge was the last one we would consider.

    Moreover, this was either her second or third DUI.

    The original muni-court judge granted her request and the city brought in a pro-tempore judge to hear her trial. She was found guilty and the pro-tem judge hammered her; a year in jail, the maximum. We guessed the original judge might have given her at most less than a month.

    I don’t know if that is related to your example, but it brought back a few memories.

  11. Malisha, not sure how to respond to that last rant. a lot of what ifs. You seem to be indicting the entire legal system based on your one experience with a bad lawyer. There are bad lawyers just as there are bad doctors, and so on for every professional field.

    The ultimate remedy at law is murder? wtf comes to mind.

  12. Oh, about the legal system turning on someone and denying them all constitutional rights? It’s a very easy puzzle to fit pieces into. Let’s say Judge A gets a case but a litigant doesn’t like Judge A so he gets him recused. OK, then let’s say Judge B takes over. Let’s say Judge B is a fool or a garden variety bad person and he screws up, either stupidly or deliberately. Let’s say the litigant whose rights he messed with starts to get leg up on him. He might have to call in a chit over in another courthouse and get prosecutor F to pull some kind of dirt to get the litigant off Judge B’s case and to marginalize the litigant so future judges can complete the process without exposure of their you-know-what-should-really-be-theres.

    This brings us to Judge C who is perhaps a federal judge. He can’t figure out a way to throw out the case so he turns to his upcoming clerk, Clerk H. Clerk H (who goes on to be one of the lawyers who defends the torturers) figures out a way to get rid of the federal case that arose: hold onto it for a coupla years and then throw it out in a way that causes another two years in the appellate world before you see it again; we’ll figure out something in between.

    That brings you probably up to Lawyer G who gets hired now to take care of this. It’s going to be very expensive because it’s now very complicated. But lawyer G is a late-stage alcoholic. Oh boo hoo he doesn’t do anything. So whatcha gonna do, make a complaint to the disciplinary board?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! “She complains about everyone.”

    Where are we? I? No, no vowels allowed. Bowels, yes, vowels, no.

    OK, Judge J. He gets on the phone and does a little ex parte — he’s kind of a parte animal. There’s old Judge B again, gives him a thumbnail sketch: “She wouldn’t obey court orders; I tried everything.” Mind you, there is not even an order to show cause in the file for contempt, that was all made up, but who is J to question B?

    On and on. It is easy. The outline is this: One hand washes the other.
    If you intend to show that a judge over here did wrong, a judge over there will have to prove YOU wrong and that is not hard to do. If there ever appears to be an error, it is, I assure you, “harmless error.”

    Don’t expect anything. I had a lawyer once — his name was Donald Cheatham so I don’t have to hide his name because he’s either disbarred or dead now (dropped off radar completely) and he sat with me in the courthouse cafeteria and he said to me, “The ultimate remedy at law is murder.” And he was a pitiful, pathetic, lying drunk. But he wasn’t stupid.

  13. East Broadway, pull yourself together, man.
    It was not the non-existent god that got to the drunk girl, it was the three-mile walk in the snow in high heels and the falling on her knees part. It was also, probably, her thinking as she trudged along, that she really WAS lucky not to have killed a person or a family or a pair of six-month-old twins. And lucky not to have gone to prison for vehicular homicide and not had any more high heels for a long time. Or something. But if you insist that I stay on topic, let me say this about that: Drunken Mormons are really bad drivers. Which reminds me of bad screwdrivers, but that’s OT and you will only object again…oh my.

  14. Juris,
    You observations are on point and I agree. I may have Kay mixed up with someone else (senior moment again) but I seem to recall her saying she had been jailed at least once for her courtroom antics.

  15. OS, thanks for info. She wouldn’t be the first or last to be chewed up and spit out by our legal system. However, rarely have I came across one that has that did not contribute to the result in some way. I suspect most practicing attorneys could relate. I am in no way putting kay in that category, just stating my experience.

Comments are closed.