Stan Brand, famed DC ethics investigation attorney, went on the Today Show this morning to defend Sen. Craig (R-ID), who has retained him to handle his senate Ethics Committee investigation. And he made what seems at least on first blush to be a pretty good point: at no time in the senate's 200+ year history has the senate disciplined one of its members for a misdemeanor/petty offense not connected to his official duties. In other words, according to Brand, the whole idea of an ethics investigation should be ruled on its face.

First, I'm interested to know whether Brand's history is accurate, but because of his expertise in this area and the central place he's giving it in Craig's defense, I strongly suspect that it is, at least narrowly speaking. Second, there's a possible rejoinder to Brand's argument. Separate from his guilty plea, Craig did apparently flash his senate business card to the arresting officer in an apparent effort to abuse his position to get special treatment. That probably does violate senate rules, and rightfully so. But if we substitute the sex sting arrest for a 100+ mph speeding ticket (to which it might be a legal equivalent), it's hard to imagine that flashing the card would get more than a feather-slap from Craig's senate colleagues. Third, perhaps Craig's senate colleagues will argue that he pled down to a lesser offense. So it's not really the disorderly conduct charge that's relevant. To which I would say, maybe, but that's a stretch.

So why is there an ethics investigation exactly? The answer seems clear, if on two levels. First, Craig's senate colleagues want to engineer a soft expulsion from the senate. That's obvious enough. And second, he was trolling for gay sex in a public restroom. And in the GOP catechism that's not just a felony but a capital offense.

Of course, we know all this. But it is worth putting it there in black ink.