Republican Senator Convicted

[scribblet]

or swiping your hand under the stall wall

Well - maybe he just wanted to know if he could 'spare a square'

[guyser]

We'll see if Craig dig in his heels. Perhaps he will hear from other Republicans who believe this is a non-event and stay.

I will go out on a limb and say...no freaking way will anyone thats a Rep come to his aid.None nada zip. Too close to election time.

I shouldnt have pleaded guilty.....riiiiiiiiiiiiight Craig boy. Hopefully he goes away and becomes the laughing stock of Idaho.

[Shakeyhands]

Well - maybe he just wanted to know if he could 'spare a square'

there isn't a square to spare, there is no way he could spare even a single square....

classic.

[CLRV]

For me the most amusing excuse was his blaming the footplay on the fact that he has a "wide stance" when taking a dump What is this, a driving range?

But the real victims here are once again going to be the poor homophobic males. Now that these "gay bathroom signals" of foot tapping and foot placement have become public knowledge, these men are going to be be trying to defecate with their knees and ankles pressed as close together as possible, with their feet and toes held rigidly motionless, for fear the guy in the next stall is either a trolling queer or a vice cop. This is going to cause untold misery in constipation, muscle cramps and blood clots of the leg.

The crapper was one of the last places where a man could truly be a man. Once again, the homosexual agenda destroys a sacred heterosexual institution... :angry:

[August1991]

Audio released by the Minnesota Airport Police after U.S. senator Larry Craig was arrested.

Listen, and think of Truscott.

Fox News transcript.

Call me naive but listening to the audio (not reading the transcript), I'd say the Senator is wrongly accused.

Edited August 31, 2007 by August1991

[Shakeyhands]

Audio released by the Minnesota Airport Police after U.S. senator Larry Craig was arrested.

Listen, and think of Truscott.

Fox News transcript.

Call me naive but listening to the audio (not reading the transcript), I'd say the Senator is wrongly accused.

yup, he's a good actor. Read the transcript too. There are just too many tings, the eye contact, the foot rubbing, the hand under the divider....

[jdobbin]

Audio released by the Minnesota Airport Police after U.S. senator Larry Craig was arrested.

Listen, and think of Truscott.

I don't recall Truscott pleading guilty.

[Guest American Woman]

Audio released by the Minnesota Airport Police after U.S. senator Larry Craig was arrested.

Listen, and think of Truscott.

Fox News transcript.

Call me naive but listening to the audio (not reading the transcript), I'd say the Senator is wrongly accused.

First of all, I have to say that once again a sex issue is being played out in the media as if it's the beginning and the end. If only other issues that really mattered got the same attention.

I'd also like to say that I think a mountain is being made out a molehill, even if he is guilty. I don't agree with the calls for his resignation and claims that he shouldn't run again. That should be left up to the voters.

Now about the transcript. First I want to comment on the fact that a discussion took place before Craig was read his rights. Seems to me the reading of the rights should happen immediately. So I would think that in itself would be handling it wrong on the officer's part.

But more importantly, I can, after reading the transcript, understand why he would have given a plea of guilty even if he weren't. To me it sounds as if the officer is almost leading Craig in that direction; it sounds as if the officer is saying that if he pleads guilty this will go away, never be made public, end of story but if he were to plead innocent, it would all be made public, etc. Is it even an officers place to advise on that? I would think that would be left to a lawyer.

As for whether or not he's guilty, looking at all the evidence that I have had access to, I wouldn't feel comfortable issuing a verdict of guilty in a court of law.

And I think CLRV is correct; there are likely going to be a lot of nervous men using rest rooms now.

[Guest coot]

I'm not sure why the resident Republican apoligists would consider this a non-issue. Perhaps they've never had to take a dump in one of these washrooms. If you've ever had creepy old right-wingers peeking through the crack in the door at you, you'd probably become a lot less permissive about what people do in the privacy of a public washroom.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure why the resident Republican apoligists would consider this a non-issue. Perhaps they've never had to take a dump in one of these washrooms. If you've ever had creepy old right-wingers peeking through the crack in the door at you, you'd probably become a lot less permissive about what people do in the privacy of a public washroom.

I feel compelled to ask: What about creepy old left-wingers peeking through the crack? Would that be less bothersome to you?

Edited August 31, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure why the resident Republican apoligists would consider this a non-issue. Perhaps they've never had to take a dump in one of these washrooms. If you've ever had creepy old right-wingers peeking through the crack in the door at you, you'd probably become a lot less permissive about what people do in the privacy of a public washroom.

Because it's a misdemeanor offense, and the whole topic of "solicitation" has been used for years under such circumstances to harrass homosexuals, regardless of Senator Craig's intentions.

When women ask for sheets of toilet paper from the next stall are they guilty of a crime too?

As far as peeking goes....I don't really care, not much to see really. In Minneapolis' Metrodome, the males pee into a community urinal about twenty feet long. No peeking required.

[CLRV]

Even if I believed this guy wasn't yet another self-loathing repressed homosexual (and I don't), this is still irony writ large and a reaffirmation of my faith in the doctrine that what goes around comes around.

This man's voting record has blocked gay rights for years. Every legislative attempt to bring gay people into monogamous mainstream life has been steadfastly opposed by this man and others like him. These politicians make a big noise about opposing gay rights, not because they are or are not gay; not because they are sincere about their professed family values, but because it's a guaranteed vote-getter. It garners cheap votes from that hateful segment of the voting public who obsess over the greasy details of homosexual life (and you know who you are ). It's a tried-and-true Republican election strategy. Get some fag-bashers and some anti-abortioners and some Christian fundamentalists and some gun-nuts and, pretty soon before you know it, you've sewn together a ragged bunch of disgruntled little minority patches into a crazy quilt encompassing 51% of the vote. It's how they win elections.

So they do it to gain and hold power. If it weren't for men like this (and the obsessed, voyeuristic perverts who vote for them), homosexuals would be free to meet each other in public without fear and they wouldn't be hanging out in public washrooms. Undercover officers wouldn't be wasting valuable police time in airport crappers. Our media would be available for REAL news stories. This is the damage done by such cynical politics and it's poetic justice that this shall be the man's undoing.

Now, is he guilty? Just look how fast his friends and colleagues in Washington have dropped him like a rock. Why, do you suppose? It's because Washington is a pretty small town. Everybody knows everybody else's secrets. People knew about Foley and his page boys. They dropped him like a rock. It's safe to bet that people knew about this guy's toe-tapping too, which explains their rush for the emergency exits.

Now of course Republican supporters are going to argue with this (that is, the ones who have the guts to discuss this issue, not the ones calling it a "non-issue" and otherwise humming like hell with their fingers in their ears). They're going to tell me that all it takes for something like this is an accusation; that people's lives and careers can be ruined like this merely if somebody THINKS they are gay; that it's a horrid witch hunt. I would say: Precisely.

These would be the same people who will tell you that homosexuals have all the rights they need; that they actually enjoy hanging out in bathrooms because they're just sick; they're not doing it to avoid having their lives ruined by busybodies and judgement-peddlers; that gays actually don't need more legislation to protect them from such oppression. I'd say they are trying suck and blow at the same time, but in the current situation I think I'll try to think of a better simile.

Edited August 31, 2007 by CLRV

[CLRV]

Because it's a misdemeanor offense, and the whole topic of "solicitation" has been used for years under such circumstances to harrass homosexuals, regardless of Senator Craig's intentions.

See what I mean? Suddenly this guy thinks homosexuals are being "harrassed".

And I bet you've said so all along, eh? A real champion of gay rights from the start, eh? Mmmm-hmmmm

[jdobbin]

First of all, I have to say that once again a sex issue is being played out in the media as if it's the beginning and the end. If only other issues that really mattered got the same attention.

I'd also like to say that I think a mountain is being made out a molehill, even if he is guilty. I don't agree with the calls for his resignation and claims that he shouldn't run again. That should be left up to the voters.

Now about the transcript. First I want to comment on the fact that a discussion took place before Craig was read his rights. Seems to me the reading of the rights should happen immediately. So I would think that in itself would be handling it wrong on the officer's part.

But more importantly, I can, after reading the transcript, understand why he would have given a plea of guilty even if he weren't. To me it sounds as if the officer is almost leading Craig in that direction; it sounds as if the officer is saying that if he pleads guilty this will go away, never be made public, end of story but if he were to plead innocent, it would all be made public, etc. Is it even an officers place to advise on that? I would think that would be left to a lawyer.

As for whether or not he's guilty, looking at all the evidence that I have had access to, I wouldn't feel comfortable issuing a verdict of guilty in a court of law.

If the police pick you up for questioning and advise you of your rights, you should consult a lawyer. A police officer is allowed to lie in the interrogation room. What he is not allowed to do is question you after you said you wish to speak to a lawyer.

All of the calls for his resignation have come come from Republicans. Not one Democrat has made that request.

Craig pleaded guilty. He didn't tell his lawyer. He didn't tell his family. He alone is responsible for the repercussions.

There have been major problem in public washrooms across the U.S. and Canada. The police are not allowed to place cameras inside stalls even if they believe a crime is being committed in them. The one option they have for luggage theft or for other crimes is to stake out a washroom, identify a suspect and either catch them in the act or get them to confess or plead guilty. I'm quite certain that if Craig had retained a lawyer, he would have won in court. It would have become a case of "he said, police said" and reasonable doubt probably would have won over.

Whatever the Senator was thinking about when he pleaded guilty was not in his best interest either legally or politically.

I expect the call from Republicans will get louder and louder because they can see how the optics of this play out.

Edited August 31, 2007 by jdobbin

[LonJowett]

When women ask for sheets of toilet paper from the next stall are they guilty of a crime too?

No, but when they solicit sex with strangers, invading other peoples' privacy and turning public washrooms into dangerous and uncomfortable environments, then they too are guilty of a crime.

As far as peeking goes....I don't really care, not much to see really.

The peeking is the first step of an extended ritual that weeds out the uninterested parties. If you don't mind being checked out as a potential sex partner while you're having a crunch, that's fine, but many others would prefer to be left in peace.

[jdobbin]

Craig to resign?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/

BOISE, Idaho - Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will announce Saturday he will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will hold a news conference at 10:30 a.m. MT and say that he will resign effective Sept. 30, three state GOP officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The announcement follows by just five days the disclosure that he had pleaded guilty Aug. 1 to a reduced misdemeanor charge arising out of his arrest June 11 at the Minneapolis airport.

Guess we'll find out tomorrow.

Edited August 31, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

See what I mean? Suddenly this guy thinks homosexuals are being "harrassed".

And I bet you've said so all along, eh? A real champion of gay rights from the start, eh? Mmmm-hmmmm

Brilliant....I suppose you also think there are no Republican homosexuals? Yea, that's it...equally clueless.

[bush_cheney2004]

The peeking is the first step of an extended ritual that weeds out the uninterested parties. If you don't mind being checked out as a potential sex partner while you're having a crunch, that's fine, but many others would prefer to be left in peace.

It's a public restroom, not someone's master bath. There are men who refuse to use urinals because there is much less privacy by design (building code). Frankly, when "pinching a loaf" in a toilet stall there is not much to see.

My sister use to make money opening restroom doors for women back when it cost a dime. She only charged 5 cents. Nobody complained about potential peeking as she crawled under the doors.

[Guest coot]

I feel compelled to ask: What about creepy old left-wingers peeking through the crack? Would that be less bothersome to you?

Nope, about the same. Though I think the majority of bathroom lurkers are from socially conservative backgrounds: hence the shameful, secret double life and need for anonymity. Aren't all left-wing gays are all happily SSMed yet?

[Guest coot]

It's a public restroom, not someone's master bath. There are men who refuse to use urinals because there is much less privacy by design (building code). Frankly, when "pinching a loaf" in a toilet stall there is not much to see.

I think most people's discomfort with this practice is not the concern for others peeking and catching a forbidden glimpse of their privates. It's more the creepy vibe of unexpectedly finding yourself in a cruising environment where anyone, even children, could wind up being exposed to godknowswhat. It's simply very inconsiderate of other people to use public facilities in this way. Why would you defend of this practice?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think most people's discomfort with this practice is not the concern for others peeking and catching a forbidden glimpse of their privates. It's more the creepy vibe of unexpectedly finding yourself in a cruising environment where anyone, even children, could wind up being exposed to godknowswhat. It's simply very inconsiderate of other people to use public facilities in this way. Why would you defend of this practice?

I am neither defending or assailing the "practice".....it's a PUBLIC FACILITY. Lots of "godknowswhat" goes in public facilities of all types, why get panties in a bunch over the restroom version of "cruising", by "x-sexuals" of any persuasion? Ever been to a city park?

[jdobbin]

No, but when they solicit sex with strangers, invading other peoples' privacy and turning public washrooms into dangerous and uncomfortable environments, then they too are guilty of a crime.

The Republicans quickly turned on the Senator. Pleading guilty to a crime and then trying to claim innocence just wasn't in the cards. Nor was the "I'm not gay!" the campaign slogan that the party wanted to hear in 2008.

The problem with being a social Conservative is that if you are caught doing something such as this or seeing prostitutes as some other Republicans have done, you risk not only your own credibility but that of your party.

Idaho, being Idaho, will get a newly appointed Republican senator. I think any threat the Republicans faced in that state are over. The fall-out in regards to the party's credibility on socially conservative issues will take a little longer to heal.

[geoffrey]

Call me naive but listening to the audio (not reading the transcript), I'd say the Senator is wrongly accused.

This is the first I've heard of the transcript. I believe it's clear that this guy is wrongly accused IMO.

He resigned this morning, but it's clear he didn't admit guilt there.

Typical police behavoir. Trying to intimidate and pull the power game. I can see why the Senator plead guilty to avoid the initial publicity... but that is truly the biggest load of crap (pardon the pun) I've ever heard.

Everyday I become more convinced of our new moderators 'former' belief in private police. These guys are out of hand.

[jdobbin]

Typical police behavoir. Trying to intimidate and pull the power game. I can see why the Senator plead guilty to avoid the initial publicity... but that is truly the biggest load of crap (pardon the pun) I've ever heard.

Many suspects lie when being interviewed by police. I don't know how it would be different if it was a private police force. You think they would not have questioned the senator after finding out who he was? How exactly would private cops have done things differently? Do you think the police were wrong to stake out the washroom after there were complaints that it was being used for the purpose of illegal activity? Do you think they were wrong about the "signs" about how propositions are made in a washroom? Do you have knowledge of it not happening that way? Do you think it is something that should be ignored? If the the police are forbidden from using sound or video equipment in a washroom, how exactly do they arrest people engaged in illegal activity?

I'm sorry if the senator thought that pleading guilty was going to erase this from the record. Since all legal decisions are public record, I don't see how it was going to be kept quiet. If the Senator thought he was wrongly accused, he should have sought counsel.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sorry if the senator thought that pleading guilty was going to erase this from the record. Since all legal decisions are public record, I don't see how it was going to be kept quiet. If the Senator thought he was wrongly accused, he should have sought counsel.

If you read the transcript, the officer makes it sound as if there will be no public record if he pled guilty, but there would be if he pled innocent. Under the circumstances, I can understand why a public official would plea bargain and plead guilty for a lesser charge.

I'm surprised at the Republican calls for his resignation. I'm not sure how serious a charge this actually was since even if he was guilty, it seems to me he was just trying to pick someone up in a bathroom. People of the opposite sex are constantly trying to pick people up in public places. If he were trying to solicit sex for money, then it would be illegal, but I don't see where this was for money.

Edited September 1, 2007 by American Woman