Bill Richardson tells a joke — and this time, it’s funny. That and other political news of the day in today’s Happy Hour Roundup.

I’d heard some rumblings about this. But I couldn’t quite get myself to believe it. But Sen. Larry Craig is now saying he may not resign after all.

“The outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate,” says Craig’s spokesman.

TPM Reader KB understands the nexus between imperialism and 24 hour cable …

If Sen. Larry Craig reconsiders and steps all over Gen. Petraeus’ week of surge, Bill Kristol’s head will explode. That Penatagon media war room they set up will be useless in the face of this cable TV zoo.

Is the D.C. Madam attempting to raise the graymail defense? Or is it the throw-everything-against-a-wall-and-see-what sticks defense? From the WaPo:

The woman accused of being the D.C. Madam now argues that the fact that Muslim men used her elite, Washington-based escort service before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks might have played a role in the government’s effort to prosecute her.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey says she might need to divulge classified information that has sensitive national security implications — perhaps including the identities of Middle Eastern customers — to defend herself against the charges. She is asking a federal judge for a hearing behind closed doors to discuss the information as it relates to the government’s charges.

I’m not sure where this is going. A grand unified theory of scandal, perhaps? Warrantless wiretapping of Muslim men after 9/11 led to the interception of information indicating some Muslim men used a D.C. escort service, which led to the investigation of Palfrey, which led her to divulge that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was a client of her escort service. Therein may be a defense for Vitter: If I resign, the terrorists have won.

I fear the fun may not last long. But for the moment, well, I can work with this. As we noted below, Sen. Craig (R-ID) now appears to be signaling that he’s considering not resigning. The Politico has a story up confirming this and another story on how GOP strategists and Craig’s senate colleagues are investigating mind control techniques and sorcery to force Craig’s departure before David Petraeus arrives in town.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that after Craig’s weekend ‘resignation’ a number of TPM Readers wrote in to say that his resignation didn’t seem nearly as firm or unequivocal as press reports were portraying it. I understood the logic of the parsing, but I still didn’t buy it.

What did make me wonder was the legal team Craig signed on — Craig has hired two vey big team DC lawyers, Billy Martin (crisis management and miscellaneous) and Stan Brand (ethics investigation).

Now, I’m actually not even sure if they go ahead with an ethics investigation once you’ve resigned. But if they did, who cares?

On the criminal law front, what is there to fight about? Craig is like a senatorial Wile E. Coyote. He’s fifteen feet out past the edge of the cliff on the criminal procedure front. The only reason he hasn’t fallen yet is that he hasn’t looked down.

I’ve now spoken to a couple DC defense attorney friends who both say that a good defense attorney could have gotten the whole thing thrown out just on the basis of the interrogation. But as far I know, a guilty plea is virtually impossible to take back. Not impossible — there’s always an exception. But my sense is that to even have a shot at it you need some massive procedural flaw in what happened. Changing your mind or not being gay doesn’t count.

All of which is to say that the extent of Craig’s lawyering up should have been the tell that this story wasn’t quite over.

I’m really not sure I’ve ever seen such a bizarre story. Via McJoan at DailyKos I found this story at the Idaho Statesman, which, well … there’s really no explaining this …

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill political newspaper, posted a voice mail tonight that Craig may have inadvertently left at a wrong number Saturday morning. In it, Craig says he changed the wording in his speech and that “this thing could take a new turn or a new shape.”

Whiting confirmed that the message is Craig’s. Here is the transcript of the message:

“Yes, Billy, this is Larry Craig calling. You can reach me on my cell. Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense, arguing that it appears by all that he knows that I have been railroaded and all that.

“Having all of that, we have reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on Sept. 30. I think it is important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon, and I would hope you could make it in front of the cameras.

“I think it would help drive the story that I’m willing to fight, that I’ve got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape, it has that potential. Anyway, give me a buzz or give Mike a buzz on that. We’re headed to my press conference now.

“Thank you. Bye.”

For what it’s worth I went to the Roll Call site and I didn’t see any story about this. But setting that aside, it appears that Craig’s precise phrasing really was highly significant and intentionally so. And it seems from the message that Arlen Specter was the one who got Craig charged up to try to stay in the senate.

Late Update: TPM Reader BR wonders about Arlen: “What the hell is Specter thinking? Is he trying to destroy the Republican party? Nothing could be worse for them then drawing this out or attracting any further attention to the situation. Or did Specter offer friendly encouragement not thinking Craig would take him seriously? Certainly a bizarre development. I hope he does reconsider though, and that LaRocco forcibly removes him next year.”

Hard to say. I don’t think it could have been quite the misunderstanding theory BR broaches. Because Specter did make a statement a couple days ago saying that he hoped Craig could fight the charges and be able to remain in the senate. At the time it struck me as a bizarre comment — even by Arlen Specter standards — because after all Craig had just resigned, or so we thought. But now it all fits together. What Specter was thinking with regards to the GOP, that I really can’t say.

In the post below I mentioned how Roll Call obtained a voice mail that Sen. Craig left on a line he thought was his lawyer’s. I’ve now found the Roll Call article (sub.req.) And there’s an interesting little nugget packed in to the reportage (italics added).

Craig spokesman Dan Whiting confirmed Tuesday that the incoming phone number identified by the cell phone where the voice mail was left is in fact the Senator’s cell number. The cell phone’s owner, who requested anonymity, said Craig’s number has shown up on his phone as a missed call a handful of times over the past several weeks, but said that this was the first time the Senator left a message.

Now, the call appears to have been to Craig’s lawyer, Billy Martin. But I thought the story was that Craig only retained Martin at the end of last week. Possibly, the author of the Roll Call piece meant days rather than weeks, in which case it means nothing. But if Craig’s been in contact with Martin for several weeks that means there’s an important part of the story we haven’t yet heard.

From TPM Reader RS …

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Oregon, so nothing I say would be dispositive on the law in Minnesota. That said, withdrawing a plea on a misdemeanor is far from impossible. The primary factor in Craig’s case is that he didn’t have a lawyer. For example, in Oregon, the judge should take extra time with an unrepresented (or pro se) defendant, to make sure they are “knowingly” waiving their right to counsel. This “colloquy” between the judge and the defendant usually consists of the judge informing the defendant of the types of things a lawyer can do for that defendant which the defendant probably can’t do for himself (legal arguments, challenges to the complaint, etc.).

It wouldn’t surprise me, however, if the misdemeanor judge didn’t take the time to do that. If it’s a big docket, if the judge is pressed for time, if the judge doesn’t know any better, if the defendant appears capable, if there’s no jail time or immigration consequences, all of these factors would impact the time and care that the judge would take with a pro se defendant.

Craig’s lawyer will want to get a transcript of the plea and sentencing. (I haven’t heard about one floating around the internet, but that will change shortly, I imagine. Depends I guess whether it was tape-recorded or a court reporter was used. Most jurisdictions have switched to tape-recordings, as far as I know.) The lawyer will then parse it carefully, for any misstatements the judge may have made, but the primary focus will be on the discussion between Craig and the judge on his decision to waive counsel.

Legally, it probably doesn’t matter that Craig didn’t know (as you alluded to earlier) that his statements could be suppressed or that he had factual defenses to the crime. But I would expect the lawyer to emphasize those things at the motion hearing anyway, because they could be persuasive, if not legally significant.

Again, I want to emphasize that it all depends on the transcript of the plea and sentencing and what Craig was told prior to his decision to waive his right to an attorney.

From TPM Reader DL …

I’ll preface this by saying that I am, like RS, a criminal defense lawyer in a state other than Minnesota. I disagree with the analysis RS provided regarding Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and his ability to withdraw his guilty plea. It appears that the plea was accomplished by a written form without an actual court appearance, so there will be no “transcript” of the proceedings to challenge. Presumably this plea form and procedure has been vetted by the MN courts previously. The form provides a place where Craig waived his right to counsel, and given that the man is a U.S. Senator I suspect a judge will be skeptical about claims that he didn’t understand his options. There are two other points arguing against allowing him to withdraw his plea that have not received enough coverage:

1. The written plea agreement provided that the more serious charge (Interference with Privacy – a Gross Misdemeanor) be withdrawn. How did that come about? Either Craig or a lawyer on his behalf negotiated this with the prosecution – either case is not consistent with Craig’s characterization of the sequence of events.

2. The written plea agreement signed and mailed to the court by Craig contains a specific sentencing agreement providing that the 10-day jail term be suspended, that there be 1 year of unsupervised probation, etc. Like the issue of the dropped charge, this must have required some negotiation by Craig or someone on his behalf and demonstrates a deliberate strategy by Craig.

Finally, courts have a compelling incentive not to allow people to withdraw their guilty pleas after sentencing, because many defendants who receive stiff sentences from the judge will change their minds and take their chances at trial (ask any defense lawyer and he or she will tell you about plea bargains that looked good up until the moment the judge hammered their client at sentencing).

And TPM Reader NS seems to concur …

I am an ex-criminal defense lawyer in Minnesota so I am only commenting based on my memory of how pleas are handled here. Generally reader RS’s is correct in that if a guilty plea is handled at arraignment/first appearance the questioning about the waiver of rights is short. However often on a plea to any sort of misdemeanor greater than traffic, judges often required that a pro-se party read and complete a plea petition, which accurately described all the rights that are being waived, including the right to trial, right to confront witnesses, right suppress evidence, and the right to an attorney.

Also more to the point, according to the MSM, Larry Craig apparently completed his plea by mail after submitting a 3 page plea agreement. While I have not seen the agreement, I would guess that it contains a detailed statement of the facts alleged, an extensive and detailed explanation of his rights, and explicit acknowledgement that by signing and submitting of the plea agreement to the court he is freely and knowingly waiving those rights and admitting to the facts alleged.

Just days ago, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion explaining the standard for a guilty plea to be valid, it must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent (i.e., knowingly and understandingly made). Once a guilty plea has been entered, there is no absolute right to withdraw that plea. But Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1, allows a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea upon a timely motion and showing of manifest injustice. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that the refusal to allow him to withdraw his plea is manifestly unjust. It is manifestly unjust to refuse to allow the defendant to withdraw a plea if that plea is not accurate, voluntary, or intelligent. (Munger v. State, A06-1563 (Minn. App. 8-28-2007))

While I don’t know the ins-and-outs of how the courts apply the Manifest Injustice” standard, it would seem under the circumstances Craig’s attorney would have to show that after reading the 3 page plea agreement, Craig didn’t understand what he was doing and it was manifestly unjust to accept his plea of guilty.