Patterico's Pontifications

9/5/2007

Craig Should Reconsider His Reconsideration

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:33 am



Larry Craig is reconsidering his resignation. He shouldn’t. With the silly lies he has told, he cannot be taken seriously any more, and we need to put this episode behind us. I can hear the talking heads now:

Talking Head One: Hey Joey, I hear Larry Craig is taking a strong stance on the President’s new Iraq proposal.

Talking Head Two: Yeah, Fred — but is it a wide stance?

73 Responses to “Craig Should Reconsider His Reconsideration”

  1. The “tolerant” Left would have a field day with Sen. Craig.

    JD (0b8ce0)

  2. A guy who is dumb enough to leave himself as vulnerable as Craig has doesn’t belong in the Senate.

    Pablo (99243e)

  3. Craig issued a statement saying he made his decision to plea out without seeing a lawyer (for two hole months). After he says the police acted inappropriately and tried to entrap.

    That alone — if true, which one admits is doubtful — is enough to disqualify him from the Senate for rampant stupidity.

    However, the cop in this case is a bastard, if I take the cop’s statement at face value, Craig did nothing that should have been a crime, and Craig is more a victim of his own weakness, stupidity, and dishonesty than anything else.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  4. *w

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  5. Someone said when this news bumps coverage of the Petreaus report, you’ll see Kristol’s head explode.

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  6. according to the idaho statesman, craig knew he was going to fight for his seat even before his saturday “resignation” speech. he had already hired billy martin, late of the michael vick defense, and he left a voicemail for mr. martin describing how he had carefully nuanced the speech he was about to give to hold open all options.
    trouble was, he reached the wrong number and left the voicemail message on somebody else’s voicemail! naturally, that somebody gave it to the media.
    i want craig to fight for his seat. with just a little choreography, this could be the most exquisite political trainwreck we’ve ever seen. all we need to do is get him to blame the voters somehow. in just a one-hour sitdown with him, i bet i could get him to do that.

    assistant devil's advocate (09cbff)

  7. Ohmigosh, you can’t turn on the tv or radio without hearing Craig jokes. E.g. “Actually Craig plans to run for a new seat — as Senator from the second stall from the left. I’s a gerrymandered district although I’m not sure the cop’s name is actually “Gerry”.

    But the perfect song for his “comeback” has already been written for him.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  8. “Actually Craig plans to run for a new seat”

    As an Independent. (IdaHO)

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  9. IDAHO? No, UDAHO!

    No offense, Semanticleo. Just couldn’t resist. 😉

    nk (a6ecc6)

  10. Christoph, soliciting sex in a public place is a crime. It’s the duty of the police to protect the public not only from being solicited in a place that they need to use (when ya gotta go, ya gotta go), but from being afraid to go in said place because of the activity going on in there. You know perfectly well what Craig was doing in there. If there were even a remote possibility of an innocent citizen somehow unknowingly going through the elaborate back-and-forth signaling process that everyone acknowledges is used by these guys to solicit sex, your argument might hold water, but you and I both know that ain’t gonna happen. I have no problem with what the cop did, and no sympathy whatsoever for Craig.

    CraigC (c4ea17)

  11. I’m trying to imagine another kind of incident that one can be arrested for that requires zero evidence of wrongdoing and just the word of the arresting officer allegedly making interpretations. I was thinking perhaps those stings when officers dress up as prostitutes but I’m guessing they usually have a recorder.

    This has got to be the easiest way to be framed for a crime.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  12. Beldar has an excellent defense lawyer’s perspective on Craig going to trial. There is more than a little bit of fun that can be had cross-examining the policeman as to how he acquired his expertise in translating foot-taps and hand-gestures into homosexual conduct but it could turn out to be the same kind of fun as walking a tightrope over a bed of swords.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  13. Christoph, soliciting sex in a public place is a crime.

    There goes the nightclub industry.

    Pablo (99243e)

  14. Christoph, soliciting sex in a public place is a crime.

    There goes the nightclub industry.

    Amen to that. How do we draw the line? You can seek sex as long as alcohol is being served?

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  15. Hmmm Pablo so you solicit males for sex at nightclubs? Do you tap your foot or sing Village People songs?

    Get a grip. When people try to blur the differences between soliciting in a public restroom and compare it with a situation that isn’t in anyway similar you only open the closet door.

    Yeeeeew.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  16. Here’s a legal question for you. How do you arrest a Senator or Congressman on their way to or from Congress? There is a little problem with something called the Constitution isn’t there? Since the arrest was unconstitutional then even though he pled guilty it has to be tossed out. His conduct wasn’t a “breach of the peace” in the meaning of the constitution.

    “Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place”

    airedale (925226)

  17. Craig has a problem. It’s right there on the tape. He says to the cop early on the tape, “You solicited me.” Apparently, Craig knows exactly what the foot taps mean, and basically admitted that yes indeed their feet did touch despite his later denials and claims of ignorance.

    He’s toast.

    Viktor (6c107f)

  18. Hmmm Pablo so you solicit males for sex at nightclubs?

    Is that what I said, Thomas? Why, no, it isn’t. I know this may come as a shock to you but people have been meeting in public places for the purpose of finding someone with which to have sex for years now. It happens all over the place, thousands and thousands of times a day.

    Actually having sex in a public place? That’s a different story.

    Pablo (99243e)

  19. He says to the cop early on the tape, “You solicited me.” Apparently, Craig knows exactly what the foot taps mean
    Viktor

    How do you know he was referring to a “tap”? Maybe the toilet trooper knocked on his stall and asked Craig if he wanted sex. You wouldn’t have to be gay to know that is solicitation.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  20. Larry Craig-The Comeback Kid?

    My initial post on the adventures of Larry Craig was written shortly before he announced that he was going to resign his Senate seat. The good news was that the Republicans had leaned on him suffiently to convince him that “it was over”. Well, not quite. Now the esteemed Senator from Idaho (and the Minneapolis Airport Men’s room) is reconsidering. Apparently, he has received encouragement from Senator “Snarlin” Arlen Spector, that weasely guy from Pennsylvania who still calls himself a Republican. Now with the support of Spector, Craig is proceeding to immortalize himself in political folklore. It’s not going to be pretty.

    As of this writing, Craig has hired top gun criminal defense attorney, Billy Martin (No-not the former Yankee skipper-he’s dead). Martin is fresh off of pleading out Michael Vick to dog-fighting charges, and now is being paid to think of a way to undo Craig’s previous plea and fight charges that he solicited sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom stall. Good luck.

    Now the Senator has made yet another goof. Calling Mr Martin on his cell phone, Craig left a recorded message with strategy instructions for the attorney, informing him that “Snarlin” Arlen was advising him to fight and that Martin should hold a televised press conference to try to turn the events in a different direction. (I am paraphrasing). Nowhere on the message is there any statement of innocence-just spin strategy. So, you say, that is attorney-client privileged communication. How is it that we even know of this conversation? Because boob Craig was leaving his message on a wrong number! The owner of that number has turned the tape over to the news media-and away we go!

    Folks, is this the kind of guy we want in Congress leading our nation? Is this the kind of guy the Republican Party wants in its ranks? Hardly. Spector aside, this is the time for the Republican party to stand up en masse and announce that this clown has got to go. If they can’t do that, then they deserve whatever punishment they get at the polls in 2008. Let the Dems explain why Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and William “Cool Cash” Jefferson still hold office with the full support of the party. Remember the White House tea party they held for perjuror Bill Clinton on the day of his impeachment for lying about how he was playing “hide the baloney” with a young intern? For the Republicans, they need to send a clear message that they will not tolerate the Mark Foleys, the Larry Craigs and, yes, the David Vitters (who is still in office).

    As for Craig, he has revealed himself to be a pathetic, self-centered, narcissistic liar, who has no business being a US Senator. If he decides to hang in there and run for re-election, I doubt that the voters of Idaho will mimick those of Massachusetts and reelect a dishonest reprobate as their senator.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

    gary fouse (167b6c)

  21. How do you know he was referring to a “tap”? Maybe the toilet trooper knocked on his stall and asked Craig if he wanted sex. You wouldn’t have to be gay to know that is solicitation.

    Oh, please. Don’t be ridiculous. Craig certainly would have mentioned it. He didn’t say anything like that then, hasn’t since, and won’t in the future. Listen to the audio, read the stuff up on smokinggun.

    Yeah, yeah, maybe is was cut out of the audio, maybe it really WAS a big conspiracy to nail Larry Craig

    Viktor (6c107f)

  22. Pablo:

    Have youreading problems or dementia. Re read your comment and tell us what you meant.

    Pathetic.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  23. #17: I was wondering the same thing. On the tape, LC mentions that he is “commuting”, ie, “going to and returning from”.

    Viktor (6c107f)

  24. Christoph, soliciting sex in a public place is a crime.

    To start with, no, it’s not.

    Would you like to have sex with me, Craig? Would anyone else?

    This is in the public realm… but I challenge you to find the law I’ve broken.

    Craig was busted on a trumped up charge as I’ve explained at length earlier. WLS also did a good job with it.

    If there were even a remote possibility of an innocent citizen somehow unknowingly going through the elaborate back-and-forth signaling process that everyone acknowledges is used by these guys to solicit sex, your argument might hold water, but you and I both know that ain’t gonna happen.

    There is more than a remote possibility.

    And everyone acknowledges? Most people aren’t even aware of these so-called signs.

    My point — and WLS’s point — is Craig probably, probably was flirting… but so what? He tapped his foot, the officer knowing it was a sexual symbol didn’t pull back, but started raising and lowering his slowly, and Craig touched his foot to the officer’s, who had indicated consent for this non-obscene touching… hardly a crime.

    I have no problem with what the cop did,

    This cop is a jerk of the highest order, not just for this incident, but others in his career. I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

    In short, I think you’re wrong.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  25. “A guy who is dumb enough to leave himself as vulnerable as Craig has doesn’t belong in the Senate.”

    -Pablo

    Amen. That’s my biggest problem with the politicians that get caught up in these scandals in the first place.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  26. Ditto.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  27. Christoph,

    Craig was arrested for conduct, not words, and it’s not required that his conduct be offensive to everyone to make it illegal. Disorderly conduct charges are calibrated to community standards and those standards may vary depending on the community.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  28. You’re totally wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. Everything you’re saying is anti-freedom. Society has no right to make a law saying gay people can’t touch their feet together as part of a mating ritual if it’s consensual.

    It is not, in any way, obscene.

    WLS pointed out very well why this didn’t violate any statute. You should reread his post.

    If it DID violate a statute, then the statute is unconstitutional. They have a right to free expression and that includes touching feet.

    It would be a matter to be interpreted by higher courts.

    But if the supreme court ruled oral and anal sex can no longer be punished, then certainly they wouldn’t have people with a criminal record for touching someone else’s foot, consensually, even if, maybe, they wanted to have sex later, something allowed.

    If you and I were on a date and I held your hand, with your full consent, do you think anyone would have a legal right — supported by the courts — to arrest us for disorderly conduct?

    It’s absurd.

    Same if we just met.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  29. The only substantial difference is… the alleged behavior is homosexual…

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  30. I advise everyone who needs to use the public restrooms in Minneapolis to do the following:

    Call 911 on your cellphone or from a public phone and say: “My name is ______, it is now (the time and date) and I intend to use the (men’s/women’s) restroom at the Minneapolis airport for (number 1/number 2). Under no circumstances am I looking for homosexual sex. Please call whatever “fruitbait” you have stationed in there on his or her radio and tell him or her to leave me alone to do my business.”

    nk (a6ecc6)

  31. Christoph,

    I understand you disagree with the disorderly conduct laws as they apply to these kinds of cases. Others might agree, which is why it’s entirely possible Craig would not have been convicted had he gone to trial. But please try to accept there is a reason why these laws exist.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  32. If I had been in that restroom, I would have been totally oblivious to the signals. So how is this arrest doing anything to maintain public order?

    I’m all for keeping sex out of public spaces, but if two people want to exchange secret signals and head off to the airport hotel that’s okay with me. I think for this to be reasonable the cop should have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendent intended public sex.

    Eric (09e4ab)

  33. I do accept there is a reason these laws exist.

    Reread WLS’s post.

    They exist to prevent loud, boisterous, offensive conduct, etc.

    Not consensual foot touching among gays.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  34. Well put, Eric. I agree.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  35. Oh, please. Don’t be ridiculous. Craig certainly would have mentioned it.

    Comment by Viktor —

    Well, I read the transcript and I didn’t see Craig asserting that it was a toe tap that led him to believe he was being solicited. I got the impression that Craig didn’t want to fight the officer in the hope that the officer would let it go.

    As far as a conspiracy to set Craig up goes, I would eliminate that possibility only after looking into it. I certainly wouldn’t put it past the D-rats.

    Before I read the transcript, I considered a few things that I would expect to find in the transcript if the incident had the possibility of being a frame job and those things turned out to be in the transcript: Politicizing of the incident, promises of not going to the media with the incident if he pleads guilty, total lack of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that could give Craig the possibility of proving himself innocent forcing him into an assertion contest with a cop.

    None of that means he isn’t guilty as sin but it has given me pause to consider the possibility.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  36. As I understand it, these restrooms do not exist for this purpose of establishing a rendezvous at some future time and place. There are all sorts of dating sites one could use to do that. The intent is to have sex then and there. If anyone would like to justify sex in a public restroom, now is the time.
    <pause>
    I’ve seen sex in a public restroom, and to tell you the truth, if police had walked in and busted them, there would be no complaints from me.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (ab5f5a)

  37. If anyone would like to justify sex in a public restroom, now is the time.

    Ok,

    How is sex any nastier then what else we do in there? You young people are so puritanical.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  38. None of that means he isn’t guilty as sin but it has given me pause to consider the possibility.

    Hear, hear.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  39. Well, I read the transcript and I didn’t see Craig asserting that it was a toe tap that led him to believe he was being solicited.

    He didn’t have to say it. That’s the point. His “you solicited me” statement basically stipulated that it is so.

    I’ll explain:

    After what occurred between the two in the stalls, Craig asserted ON HIS OWN that the cop propositioned him. All that occurred — according to what we know — was toe-taps and maybe a foot-nudge. Based upon those instances alone, Craig claims that he was solicited. He makes no other assertions regarding activity between the two of them, and even claimed that he “didn’t know” if their feet touched. Yet he still “knew” that he was being solicited.

    So, for those of you keeping score at home, Craig knows foot-taps in a men’s room stall (and add in a “if-you-say-so” foot-nudge) are solicitations for sex. Indeed, it was his defense!

    Unless something else comes to light, he hanged himself with that statement.

    Viktor (6c107f)

  40. Viktor, you don’t know what the hell you’re saying.

    A person who is a well-respected elderly person whose being questioned by a younger and, if you check his record, physically aggressive police sergeant, accused intending a public sex crime of all things, isn’t necessarily going to respond the most logically.

    Further, the cop’s behaviour on that tape left much to be desired.

    “You solicited me…”

    Whatever weight one assigns to that, I’m not denying that Craig may indeed have sent a signal, the cop may have replied, and Craig may have touched the cop’s foot.

    But that isn’t obscene, boisterous, or any other violation of a statute.

    If it were, the statute should be struck down as unconstitutional, but it’s doubtful it’s even a violation.

    WLS explained it beautifully.

    Even if it were a violation and constitutional, it’s a bizarre law where someone can be convicted criminally of touching someone’s foot, consensually, with their foot merely because he wanted to have sex.

    If he didn’t have sex in public, didn’t ask to have sex in public, or expose himself, he shouldn’t have been convicted of a crime.

    Craig’s an idiot and may be gay, but not a criminal.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  41. As I understand it, these restrooms do not exist for this purpose of establishing a rendezvous at some future time and place. There are all sorts of dating sites one could use to do that.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    Okay, it’s got to be asked, how do they get to each other’s genitals while in stalls separated by partitions? One of the claims by the toilet trooper was that Craig jammed his roller bag up against the door so how was he supposed to get at the cop’s unit? Was there a hole in the partition?

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  42. him. All that occurred — according to what we know — was toe-taps and maybe a foot-nudge. Based upon those instances alone, Craig claims that he was solicited. He makes no other assertions regarding activity between the two of them, and even claimed that he “didn’t know” if their feet touched. Yet he still “knew” that he was being solicited.

    [blockquote section chosen at random]

    And your entire comment is drivel. Of course if he didn’t know what the “signal” meant before, he sure as hell did when he was seated down with the police officer after being arrested.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  43. Okay, it’s got to be asked, how do they get to each other’s genitals while in stalls separated by partitions? One of the claims by the toilet trooper was that Craig jammed his roller bag up against the door so how was he supposed to get at the cop’s unit? Was there a hole in the partition?

    I assume if they were going to have sex, one would have had to move the bag and go through the door to the other’s partition?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  44. I think there is enough blame to go around in this mess.
    If the airport was having problems with male prostitutes in the bathrooms, that could have been solved with a uniformed airport security person appearing several times an hour. If it was widely known as a pickup spot I think a uniform could have solved that problem too. It sounds like the old speed trap towns use to generate income, rather than a true deterrent.
    As far as the senators character is concerned that should be between his conscience and the voters. I would prefer him than any current senator from Massachusettes or New York. As naive as he appears to be.

    Gbear (5a473d)

  45. I assume if they were going to have sex, one would have had to move the bag and go through the door to the other’s partition?

    Comment by Christoph

    If that’s the case then the cop’s claim that Craig was concealing some perverted action when he jammed the roller bag up against the door was bullshit because there wasn’t anyone in the stall with him at the time.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  46. I believe the cop is a liar.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  47. Thomas Jackson,

    Have youreading problems or dementia. Re read your comment and tell us what you meant.

    Neither, though I don’t want to rub that in with someone who seems to have both. I meant that people are attempting to recruit sex partners all over the country, thousands and thousands of times a day, and it is not a crime. It’s a damned tradition. It should have been obvious to you, but apparently, you’re an idiot.

    I’m not interested enough in you to care whether it’s teh buttseks that makes you think hitting on someone is illegal, but I can assure you that it isn’t.

    Sex in public is illegal, hitting on someone in public is not. Is that simple enough for you?

    Pablo (99243e)

  48. #46 That explains alot.

    However, why didn’t Craig challenge the cop on that ground? Instead he goes with the “gee it was a misunderstanding” stuff.

    —–

    I too do not understand the “putting the bag in front of the door is a come-on” nonsense. Where else does one put a bag in a bathroom stall?

    Viktor (6c107f)

  49. Viktor, you don’t know what the hell you’re saying.

    Huh?! Me?! Your objections have been asked, answered, and swatted out of the park into the parking lot for a walk-off homer. I’ve gassed up and am getting tacos at may fave truck already.

    I’m not denying that Craig may indeed have sent a signal, the cop may have replied, and Craig may have touched the cop’s foot.

    didn’t ask to have sex in public

    So you admit he was soliciting the cop for sex in a public restroom. Let’s be clear: that’s what Craig was doing (assuming the cop is telling the truth). As one who read “Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex* *But Were Afraid To Ask” as a kid, I understand that the foot-taps were invitations to sex right-then-and-there. Not elsewhere in a TBD place. Right here, right now, in my stall. CRAIG UNDERSTOOD IT TOO. He said so. He didn’t act confused. He knew he had been caught. Yes! the cop is an ass, but but but but… But so what? Mark Fuhrman is a jerk, too, but OJ still did it.

    Your comment in #42 is a fair point. However Craig never once claims ignorance. Innocence (“I’m not gay, I don’t do these kind of things”), but not ignorance. Repeat: in the audio — which is all we have to go by, everything else being speculation and oliverstoning — he never once claims ignorance of what the foot-taps mean. Not one, “I have no idea why I’m even here.” Not one “FOOT-TAPS?!?!?! Who? Me!!!?” No. Rather, a freely offered, early in the interview, “you solicited me”. Then equivocating thereafter.

    The only thing that really bothers me is this: where are the people Craig may have had sex with? No one has come forward so far. If Craig IS gay/bi/whatever shouldn’t someone CREDIBLE have come forward?

    Viktor (6c107f)

  50. Disorderly Conduct …. Breach of the Peace ….
    Well, this is what we have SCOTUS for, to bring defined limits to the words of our founders. Too bad that they haven’t got around to defining “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”, or have they?

    This layman though, seems to think that disorderly conduct does breach the peace.

    Of course, to take this out of any Dem opponents’ quiver, Larry could always run for re-election as a Dem!
    Then, they would have to defend him, wouldn’t they?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  51. Airedale (#17): Important though it be, the Constitution is not in all things self-executing and automatic. The constitutional privilege that Congressmen have against “arrest” going to and from sessions would constitute an affirmative defense that Craig would have to have pleaded. He didn’t; instead he pleaded guilty.

    Even if he had pleaded it, it wouldn’t have mattered. In Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 614-15 (1972) (citations omitted; and yes, it’s that Mike Gravel), the Supreme Court held:

    History reveals, and prior cases so hold, that this part of the Clause exempts Members from arrest in civil cases only…. It is, therefore, sufficiently plain that the constitutional freedom from arrest does not exempt Members of Congress from the operation of the ordinary criminal laws, even though imprisonment may prevent or interfere with the performance of their duties as Members.

    Best case for Sen. Craig notwithstanding this law, he could have gotten the arrest quashed, and possibly any statements made or evidence seized in connection with it (as fruits of a poisoned tree). It would not have prevented the State of Minnesota from re-charging him, though.

    Beldar (bdd5c6)

  52. Another Drew,

    I laughed when I read your comment but then I realized that if Craig agreed to switch parties, the Democrats might very well defend him.

    DRJ (2afbca)

  53. i’m a democrat (but not a liberal) and if craig switched parties, acknowledged his homosexuality and denounced statist authority, creeping corporatism and religious interference in government, i’d defend him and root for him to keep his senate seat.

    assistant devil's advocate (aa2f49)

  54. Pablo you are a moron.

    Since when does anyone but you consider a public restroom to be private? Now if you think “recruiting sex partners” in public rest rooms is proper you have all ready disclosed your mental problems. I do not believe itt is necessary to comment further on your obvious moral issues.

    If you don’t grasp the difference between a bar and a public rest room the full extent of your mental problems become self evident to the casual observer.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  55. ADA:

    Not another Barney Frank fan. I can see why Satan would make an ideal candidate for the dhimmierats.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  56. #24, And everyone acknowledges? Most people aren’t even aware of these so-called signs.

    That’s my WHOLE POINT. When I said “everyone acknowledges,” I meant everyone who is familiar with the process, both the solicitors and the people in the legal system. The chances of someone without this knowledge going through the entire elaborate back-and-forth signaling ritual unknowingly and getting busted for it is NIL.

    CraigC (c4ea17)

  57. Please try to imagine that the subject and the verb in that last sentence are in agreement.

    CraigC (c4ea17)

  58. So you admit he was soliciting the cop for sex in a public restroom.

    No, Viktor, I’m not admitting that. It seems likely, but not the only explanation.

    At any event, I’ve solicited sex numerous times in my life. You may think that’s wrong or right, but it’s a fact.

    As long as a person solicits sex in a non-obscene way, with a fellow adult, and no money changes hands, there isn’t a crime.

    There doesn’t appear to be a crime according to this statute either.

    Sex in public is illegal, hitting on someone in public is not. Is that simple enough for you?

    Pablo

    That pretty much sums it up.

    Thomas Jackson, YOU are a moron.

    Other than the cop’s opinions, there is no proof he intended to have sex in public. Certainly there’s more than one possibility.

    Since I believe in the reasonable doubt standard and would be loathe to ruin a man’s life because he touched another man’s foot after the man gave him a signal indicating it would be okay to do… I would have to find him not guilty of the horrendous crime of actually wanting and looking for sex.

    By the way, my offer is still open… want to have sex, Thomas?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  59. these people showing solicitude for craig, did they support bill clinton too during his sex scandal, or does everything depend on the party of the scandalmaker?

    assistant devil's advocate (2c81db)

  60. Here’s a question for you guys:

    If what Mike Rogers did (threatening to embarass Craig if Craig didn’t do what Rogers wanted) was blackmail (which it was), what do you call the actions of Senate Republicans (who’ve threatened to go forward with a very embarassing, very public investigation of Craig’s conduct if Craig doesn’t do what they want, i.e. resign)?

    Leviticus (43095b)

  61. Chrissie:

    You don’t even approach the level of moron. Besides being morally rudderless its clear that you have nothing between your ears. So explain why Craig pleaded guilty if he was innocent. Yeah I realize that denizens of public rest rooms like you have to deny the reason they are there. There’s nothing to be ashamed of being a Sodomite so why not admit it.

    I do enjoy your comments. Its like wallowing in incoherence. The persistence of venality you display is exceeded only by Alphie, Dr. Mengele understudy, but you are giving it a good try. Do you have anymore comments from the Pepto Bismol files Chrissy?

    By the way are you post op or pre op?

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  62. these people showing solicitude for craig, did they support bill clinton too during his sex scandal, or does everything depend on the party of the scandalmaker?

    One was the chief law enforcement officer in the land who lied under oath denying a citizen of his fair treatment under the law, who also lied to the American people at large, and was getting blow jobs and vaginally inserting cigars in the White House… but mostly lied under oath… the other, if true, flirted with a gay man intending to have sex, tapped his foot, waited for the other guy to send a return signal, he did, and then he touched his FOOT.

    Foot.

    In public.

    The two scenarios are not equivalent.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  63. *her fair treatment

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  64. Christoph,

    I’m just curious, what is it exactly do you think Craig was doing? Why do you defend him so vigorsly?

    Retired Vice Cop (d1267a)

  65. Because as alleged by the cop he didn’t do anything wrong.

    If I take the cop at his word, he wanted sex. He might have even wanted sex right then and there.

    I just don’t see where that is a crime. In a free society a person should have a right to flirt with a stranger looking for sex.

    If they have sex in public, they’re breaking the law. If they communicate obscenely with a stranger, they may well be breaking it.

    If they tap their foot, something the officer and you say are well recognized symbols, and wait for a return signal, which it would seem the officer gave, then touch their foot to the other person, there’s been no obscenity, no harassment, no public nudity.

    If Craig had struck up a conversation with this man, sent a signal of some kind, and then said, “Can I touch your foot?” or, “I really wish I was touching your foot right now?” this would not have been a crime.

    Likewise, if Craig had said, “Hmmm… you’re interested aren’t you? Yes. Oh good. I wish I was _______ ____ balls.”

    Not a crime.

    Simply put, people have the right to communicate in a free country.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  66. Chrissie:

    You don’t even approach the level of moron. Besides being morally rudderless its clear that you have nothing between your ears. So explain why Craig pleaded guilty if he was innocent. Yeah I realize that denizens of public rest rooms like you have to deny the reason they are there. There’s nothing to be ashamed of being a Sodomite so why not admit it.

    I do enjoy your comments. Its like wallowing in incoherence. The persistence of venality you display is exceeded only by Alphie, Dr. Mengele understudy, but you are giving it a good try. Do you have anymore comments from the Pepto Bismol files Chrissy?

    By the way are you post op or pre op?

    Comment by Thomas Jackson — 9/6/2007 @ 7:34 am

    Are you alleging that I’m gay? And if so, so what? That’s the crux of your legal argument?

    You use terms like “Sodomite” and “Pepto Bismol”.

    You may not be aware that the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. So a person can legally insert their member into any consenting adult.

    However, your argument seems unnecessarily insulting and weak. Craig didn’t do this. He touched someone’s foot.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  67. Retired cop, simply put, if a person was flirting with someone — who was consenting with the flirtation — and you said to the other person, “Would you like to have sex. In public.?”

    I don’t think that’s against any law. Now, to have sex in public is, but not to communicate you want to.

    Or if I ask my girlfriend, “Hey, would you like to have sex on the beach?” am I now subject to prosecution? Really?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  68. Because I’ve had LOTS of women say they want to have sex on the beach, in other public locations — movie theatres for some reason come up a lot — now to do these things is against the law, definitely… but is talking about them illegal?

    Whose gonna prosecute that?

    Oh, yeah, right. We have vice cops.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  69. bill clinton did his thing in private, with a consenting, indeed, demanding adult he had gotten to know.

    larry craig would have taken on anybody in the next stall. the issue isn’t whether he’s gay. gay people do it in hotel rooms after they’ve gotten to know each other; favorite cocktails, favorite books and music, what kind of votes they cast. the way barney frank does it, which is perfectly legal. hitting on people in restrooms doesn’t make you gay, it makes you a vile, disgusting pervert. that could have been osama bin laden in the next stall and it wouldn’t have mattered to craig; osama would have gotten a warm, wet, oral welcome to the “home of the brave”.

    oh beautiful, for spacious stalls, for amber rains in hane’s
    for purple mountain majesties, above the fruited groins…

    assistant devil's advocate (2c81db)

  70. bill clinton did his thing in private, with a consenting, indeed, demanding adult he had gotten to know.

    I didn’t get that impression. I remember that there was some incident that came up during the trial involving a woman, I think her name was Lewinski, who impeachie boy had a consenting relationship with, but I didn’t get that same impression about the victim who filed the suit.

    larry craig would have taken on anybody in the next stall.

    That would seem to be the implication. It’s not easy to believe that a conservative senator would do that. Hell, it’n not easy to believe that a Democrat like Barney Frank would take such a risk. That may or may not influence how one sees the truthfulness of the commode cop here.

    I think if you pinned a badge on any of these liberal fruitcake kos kid types, that cop would devise a plan to set up a conservative politician whose routine he has down pat; knows exactly when he arrives and which restroom he routinely uses, etc.

    j curtis (ecc9cc)

  71. I think if you pinned a badge on any of these liberal fruitcake kos kid types, that cop would devise a plan to set up a conservative politician whose routine he has down pat; knows exactly when he arrives and which restroom he routinely uses, etc.

    Very well put.

    Alright, I’m off to do some work. I won’t be back to this thread, fellows, so continue the debate, but not specifically to answer me.

    In case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  72. Christoph,

    Push the keyboard back to the nice men in the white coats. It’s time for your meds.

    Retied Vice Cop (dde475)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2110 secs.