Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Craig will now try to fight his case using the Constitution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21496482/

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will argue before an appeals court that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting, according to a new court filing.

This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.

Craig has been trying to withdraw his August guilty plea to disorderly conduct. A judge turned him down earlier this month, and now Craig is taking his request to the state Court of Appeals. The conservative Republican at one point said he would resign from the U.S. Senate but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

I wonder if the Senator will consider running again in the next election.

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman
Posted

Even if the Senator were 'coming on' to the undercover cop, I don't understand why what he did would be against the law. Since when is it against the law for one adult to hit on another? He wasn't forcing himself on the cop, the cop was responding. Had he not responded to the Senator's alleged overtures, one has to assume that would have been the end of it.

So what's the big deal? I really don't get it.

Posted (edited)
Even if the Senator were 'coming on' to the undercover cop, I don't understand why what he did would be against the law. Since when is it against the law for one adult to hit on another? He wasn't forcing himself on the cop, the cop was responding. Had he not responded to the Senator's alleged overtures, one has to assume that would have been the end of it.

So what's the big deal? I really don't get it.

Craig was arrested for lewd behaviour and disorderly conduct which covers a wide spectrum of activities. The lewd behavior in this matter would have been the tapping of the feet and hand signals under the stall which were not initiated by the cop. The disorderly conduct charge stemmed from loitering and disruptive behaviour.

Craig could have won his case had he not pleaded guilty. The charges are difficult to prove and open to interpretation.

However, once he pleaded guilty, it will be difficult for the Senator to argue the constitutional merits of his case when he himself has defended those aspects of the law over the course of his career.

Edited by jdobbin
Posted
Even if the Senator were 'coming on' to the undercover cop, I don't understand why what he did would be against the law. Since when is it against the law for one adult to hit on another? He wasn't forcing himself on the cop, the cop was responding. Had he not responded to the Senator's alleged overtures, one has to assume that would have been the end of it.

So what's the big deal? I really don't get it.

Its not against the law to do that, nor is it against the law to come on to a member of the same sex. The issue arises out of trying to engage in this behaviour in public. Just the same as if it had been a straight couple.

The area had been targetecd because of previous issues, no doubt that the Senator knew about this alleged activity, hence his actions in trying to engage in such conduct.

As far as what he did or rather does, I don't think anyone cares if he wishes to engage in homosexual activity, but it should not take place in public anymore than hetero sex in public.

"They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • 1 month later...
Posted

The latest on Senator Craig.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...03?hub=Politics

Eight men say they either had sex with Sen. Larry Craig or were targets of sexual advances by the Idaho lawmaker at various times during his political career, a newspaper reported.

One of the men is the former escort whose allegations disgraced the Rev. Ted Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Idaho Statesman reported Sunday.

The newspaper identified four men and reported details of the encounters they say involved Craig. It also reported the accounts of four other men who did not agree to be identified but who described sexual advances or encounters involving the conservative Republican, who opposes same-sex marriage and has a strong record against gay rights.

Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after being accused by an undercover officer of soliciting sex at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport and later called a news conference to deny that he is gay.

The newspaper acknowledged that its report was not based on definitive evidence but said it also found no evidence to disprove the accounts of the four identified men. It said it reviewed the senator's travel records, which put him where the sex is alleged to have taken place, and did background checks on those making the allegations.

I guess no one should be surprised that there have been more announcements on liaisons.

Guest American Woman
Posted
The latest on Senator Craig.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...03?hub=Politics

I guess no one should be surprised that there have been more announcements on liaisons.

Technically, "announcements" should be "allegations." Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make it true. I'm not saying it's not true, but at the same time I think public figures are open to these kind of allegations by people seeking their 15 minutes of fame. So until we know if these allegations are true, I think we should be careful not to perceive them as fact.

Posted (edited)
Technically, "announcements" should be "allegations." Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make it true. I'm not saying it's not true, but at the same time I think public figures are open to these kind of allegations by people seeking their 15 minutes of fame. So until we know if these allegations are true, I think we should be careful not to perceive them as fact.

I have no problem with that. We'll see if these allegations are true or can be proved. The Idaho Statesman is its report admitted as much that they could only confirm the times and places of where the Senator was but nothing about the activities. Perhaps the Senator will run again in 2008 to fight these allegations. They said on MSNBC the other day that he seems reluctant to leave the Senate despite pressure on him from fellow Republicans.

Edited by jdobbin

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,921
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    TheUnrelentingPopulous
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...