Larry Craig Won't Resign

Non-lacrosse specific topics.

Postby LaxRef on Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:44 pm

OAKS wrote:
LaxRef wrote:Frankly, the thing that disturbs me most about this is that I could potentially have gotten arrested for tapping my foot on the ground without having any idea what it meant. I mean, who doesn't absentmindedly tap their foot occasionally? Because of this, the reliance on "supposedly well-known signals" in this case bothers me. Could that really be a basis for convicting someone?


Well according to this story for another Republican soliciting sex ( http://www.first-draft.com/2007/10/another-toe-tap.html ) - the guy tapped on the officer's foot. So unless you reach your leg underneath the stall wall and tap on the guy's foot in the stall next to you, I think you're ok. I'm not sure what info the cop in Craig's case got, but the one in this one seemed to have been collecting a lot to make sure the guy was asking for sex and not just some spare toilet paper.


Ah. I read "tapping his foot" as tapping the floor with his foot. Tapping someone else's foot is out of bounds.
-LaxRef
User avatar
LaxRef
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:18 am


Postby GrayBear on Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:29 pm

Adam Gamradt wrote:You can't separate his actions. When taken together in context, his behavior rises to the level of solicitation. He is guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.


It appears we have investigated, tried and convicted already. Minnesota=North Carolina?
User avatar
GrayBear
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Postby LaxRef on Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:25 pm

GrayBear wrote:
Adam Gamradt wrote:You can't separate his actions. When taken together in context, his behavior rises to the level of solicitation. He is guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.


It appears we have investigated, tried and convicted already. Minnesota=North Carolina?


Well, there was a guilty plea. That's a big difference.
-LaxRef
User avatar
LaxRef
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:18 am

Postby GrayBear on Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:47 am

Well, there was a guilty plea. That's a big difference.


You're right, at first blush (and I'm just playing devil's advocate, not defending this guy, unless like some you figure he's the devil). My point is, if he admits he's guilty that's one thing and what you imply is accurate. If the plea was offered, or extracted, out of fear or coercion or is the result of weighing options, or any other reason besides a true acknowledgement and admission of culpability, it's not valid. In the criminal context, I think we really want valid admissions, not "lesser of two evils" pleas. Believe it or not, some pleas and some confessions sometimes come from persons who are not guilty. In the civil context there are always settlements that imply liability on the defendant's part but are just offered because that's the most economical way to go.

Note the difference, between "there's a guilty plea" and "he admits he's guilty". I think you mean the latter and not the former would obviate the comment. The situation here, if I understand it, is that he wants to withdraw what, to him, is a hastily made, invalid and ill-advised plea, since he thinks he can present an effective defense, but I digress. My comment had to do with the previous poster's unconditional declaration of guilt, without a full exposition of any defense and without a trial on the merits, even in the face of the defendant's current assertion of his innocence. That's where there's a "big difference".

We've seen this before, and that's all I'm saying.
User avatar
GrayBear
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Postby sohotrightnow on Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:32 am

His defense is that he has a "wide base." :shock:
sohotrightnow
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:56 am

Postby LaxRef on Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:56 pm

GrayBear wrote:
Well, there was a guilty plea. That's a big difference.


You're right, at first blush (and I'm just playing devil's advocate, not defending this guy, unless like some you figure he's the devil). My point is, if he admits he's guilty that's one thing and what you imply is accurate. If the plea was offered, or extracted, out of fear or coercion or is the result of weighing options, or any other reason besides a true acknowledgement and admission of culpability, it's not valid. In the criminal context, I think we really want valid admissions, not "lesser of two evils" pleas. Believe it or not, some pleas and some confessions sometimes come from persons who are not guilty. In the civil context there are always settlements that imply liability on the defendant's part but are just offered because that's the most economical way to go.

Note the difference, between "there's a guilty plea" and "he admits he's guilty". I think you mean the latter and not the former would obviate the comment. The situation here, if I understand it, is that he wants to withdraw what, to him, is a hastily made, invalid and ill-advised plea, since he thinks he can present an effective defense, but I digress. My comment had to do with the previous poster's unconditional declaration of guilt, without a full exposition of any defense and without a trial on the merits, even in the face of the defendant's current assertion of his innocence. That's where there's a "big difference".

We've seen this before, and that's all I'm saying.


Good points all. I'm torn between the point that he was in some ways (internally) pressured to accept the plea just because he's gay and didn't want people to know and the point that he wouldn't have this issue--at least not to the same extent--if he weren't a hypocrite.
-LaxRef
User avatar
LaxRef
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:18 am

Postby Zamboni_Driver on Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:59 pm

GrayBear wrote:
Adam Gamradt wrote:You can't separate his actions. When taken together in context, his behavior rises to the level of solicitation. He is guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.


It appears we have investigated, tried and convicted already. Minnesota=North Carolina?


Ok, so I'm glad this finally hit this message board because I have some questions, that I haven't had answered at our office, and maybe someone can answer. I may have missed it but....

(Just so you know where is stand...I think Craig was propositioning...but I don't understand what he was propositioning for...meaning..)

Did his actions suggest -

1. I want to have sex with you in the stall you are in, in this airport for free - AND thus is public misconduct

or

2. I want to have sex with you for money in this stall you are in in this airport - AND thus is prostitution and public misconduct

or

3. I want to have sex with you in a hotel room or a site outside of the airport for no money (but I'll pick up the hotel room) - AND thus is consensual sex (no prostitution or public misconduct)

or

4. I want to have sex with you in a hotel room or site outside of the airport and I'll pay you - AND thus is prostitution.


Anyone know which of the above he was signalling for??
Zamboni_Driver
All-Conference
All-Conference
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:24 pm

Postby Dan Wishengrad on Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:33 pm

GrayBear wrote: The situation here, if I understand it, is that he wants to withdraw what, to him, is a hastily made, invalid and ill-advised plea.


Sorry, but you don't understand the facts if Larry (or anyone else) thinks this guilty plea was hastily made, ill-advised or offered under duress. He was literally caught with his pants down, arrested, advised to get an attorney, and released. He made his guilty plea TWO MONTHS later, despite never divulging the arrest to his family, to his staff, to any of his Republican colleagues or even to his own attorney. He is a U.S. Senator, who can reasonably be expected to understand the ramifications of entering a guilty plea. He was specifically advised both verbally and on the papers he signed that by pleading guilty he was waiving any future right to declare innocence in the matter. He had sixty days to consider what he had done and what he was doing, and he pled GUILTY! And he almost got away with keeping it quiet it because nobody noticed the Congressional Record's initial reporting of the arrest. Only later did another newspaper, acting on a tip, bring the story into the open. The arresting officer has an impeccable record and was planted in that bathhroom to catch suspects engaging in exactly this type of lewd behavior.

The other question that nobody (except me) seems to be asking is for an explanation of what he was even doing in Minneapolis, in a bathroom infamous as a place for anonymous homosexual activity. Did he have other business in Minnesota? Are there no direct flights between DC and Boise, or do you HAVE to transfer in Minnehaha? He said on the interrogation recording that he used that bathroom "all the time". Why?!?!!?!?! What legitimate busines did Craig have in Minneapolis during all these visits?

If he says now that he was under pressure because the Idaho Statesman was investigating a story about men who claimed to have sex with Sen. Craig -- including a male GOP "operative" (still unidentified by the paper) who has stated for the record he had consensual oral sex with Craig on two different occasions -- why did he even put himself in the position to be arrested in that bathroom? Could it be because he didn't want to practice his secret double-life in either his professional home or in his home state, where he would be more easily recognized? The Statesman is a conservative newspaper in a "red" state, one that had consistently endorsed Sen. Craig throughout his political career. This was no political witch-hunt by the "liberal media". They wouldn't even run the story until the guilty plea for the Minnesota incident came to light, even though they had two credible witnesses and numerous others who's individual stories the Statesman said it couldn't verify.

Finally, in order to understand the context, everyone should listen to Craig's press conference from 1982. That year, a sex scandal rocked DC when a number of underage male House pages claimed they had attended parties hosted by Congressional members where they were plied with drugs and alcohol and then participated in consensual homosexual activity, although under modern law this would be considered rape as the Congressmen were adults and the pages were under 18 years of age. These events were basically big BJ orgies. The FBI said they interviewed all male members of the House, but never made any arrests. The questions were reported to be along the lines of "Have you heard about this?" or "Do you know anything about this?". Nobody was EVER formally accused, and the pages refused to name names. The whole thing would have faded away except for a press conference called by Representative Larry Craig (R-Idaho), on his own and apparently as a preemptive strike. Craig stated at this press conference (the video of which is widely available) that he is not gay, has never been gay (sound familiar?), but that because he was a unmarried man of a certain age people might mistakenly assume he was gay and that he might have been involved in sex with underage House pages. But NOBODY had even named Craig, the FBI says they had not been focused on Craig but were considering possible other suspects, and reported later that they found the press conference to be "bizarre". Shakespeare might have said "Me thinks thee doth protest too much"...

After that press conference, Larry married Suzanne two months later, although he admitted they had not known each other long and had not dated "seriously" before the Page Sex Scandal. Craig insists he had a "serious" girlfriend for three years in college, but the Statesman could only find and interview women who had dated him briefly and all told the same story -- Larry would never even hold their hand, and that none had ever been intimate with him. No serious girlfriend has ever come forward, and Craig refuses to identify her, even though she could presumably testify to his claim of heterosexual orientation. The paper also interviewed a frat rushee who claims that Craig, a house pledge officer, tried to get that rushee to have sexual activity with him in a bedroom at the frat.

These rumors about Craig have been around for over 30 years, yet he always denies them and seems to have gotten almost everyone to believe him, at least until he signed a guilty misdemeanor plea in 2007. Few people seem to believe him anymore, and despite becoming "toxic" to his own caucus he seems resolved to clear his name. Good luck, Lar!
PNCLL Board Member 1997-Present
MCLA Fan
User avatar
Dan Wishengrad
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am

Postby StrykerFSU on Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:35 am

The other question that nobody (except me) seems to be asking is for an explanation of what he was even doing in Minneapolis, in a bathroom infamous as a place for anonymous homosexual activity. Did he have other business in Minnesota? Are there no direct flights between DC and Boise, or do you HAVE to transfer in Minnehaha? He said on the interrogation recording that he used that bathroom "all the time". Why?!?!!?!?! What legitimate busines did Craig have in Minneapolis during all these visits?


If you fly Northwest Airlines from DC to Boise you will probably fly through Minneaopolis. I just did a quick search on cheaptickets.com to see what would come up.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby DanGenck on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:05 am

Ahhh the Idaho Hall of Fame.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/07/ ... index.html

Maybe he'll be next to the display that shows Ian Johnson proposing to his girlfriend after winning the Fiesta Bowl?

And then next to the display about potatoes...
User avatar
DanGenck
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:26 pm

Postby Dan Wishengrad on Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:24 pm

Zamboni_Driver wrote: Anyone know which of the above he was signalling for??


According to the police report and the audio tape, it was #1. The Minneapolis vice squad had no interest in stopping consensual sex between adults in the privacy of a hotel room or anywhere else (private), nor has there been any specific mention or implied reference to money changing hands. The sting they were conducting was to halt anonymous homosexual activity in THAT specific restroom, which many legitimate patrons had been complaining about for months. Craig obviously was prepared to either slide under the partition into the next stall, or have the guy he was signalling to join him in his. And he said (again for emphasis) that he used that restroom "all the time".

By the way, as my final salvo on the discrepancies between the facts of the cop's arrest report and Craig's revisionist history of what happened in that interview and since:

1) Craig said afterward he simply went into the restroom, quickly chose a stall, sat down to use the toilet, and was shocked that a cop slid his badge under the divider to arrest him. It was just a simple misunderstanding of the senator's actions and intent, which Craig maintains with vehemence to this day.

2) Sgt Knarsia reported that Craig entered the restroom, paced back and forth in front of his stall "for about two minutes" despite other apparently vacant stalls available for their legit and intended purpose. Craig kept approaching to peer through the door crack in at the Sgt., while "fidgeting with his hands" and "repeatedly returning to peek in at me". The cop's arrest report included the observation that it seemed like the suspect was "trying to decide what to do". Speaking for myself, if I have to go -- I have to go. I don't pace for two minutes while waiting for a particular stall, and I certainly don't keep returning to peer through a door crack of someone else's stall!

3) When Craig finally entered the adjacent stall, positioned his luggage to block as much of the front partition as possible then immediately started the foot tapping, slid his foot all the way underneath and into the cop's stall where he tapped the cop's foot with his own. The he moved on to the suggestive hand movements , repeatedly running his left hand underneath and along the bottom of the partition (ewwww, gross!) to Craig's right with his palm up and fingers extended, displaying his wedding ring.

4) Craig stated that he simply reached down with his right hand to pick up a scrap of toilet paper off the floor (double ewwww gross). What followed in the tape is an interesting back-and-forth about whether Larry had a ring on his right hand or whether he switched the wedding band from his right to left hand, which could conceivably explain the contrasting version of events. The Sergeant also stated for the record that there was NO scrap of paper on the floor.

5) Listen to the audio and Sgt. K getting angry and almost yelling at the senator, saying "You are lying!", and the now famous "I mean people actually VOTE for you for Christ's Sake and you lie this way. Unbelievable! Just unbelievable!" The cop also contradicted Craig's claim that the senator actually used the toilet, noting for the record he heard no sounds to verify this and that Craig left the stall without flushing the toilet.
He reported that when forced to accompany the cop to an interview room, Craig whipped out (pun intended) his official business card and said "What do you think about that!", which the cop implied he felt was an attempt to intimidate him by the senator's position and power.

But I guess none of these facts matter to some folks, who can't or won't believe that a "family values" Republican could actually behave in such a way and lie so vehemently that it never happened after. Too bad the vice cops didn't have a hidden camera, although even video evidence would certainly be rejected by Craig and his defenders as somehow doctored and false. Ya gotta respect ol' Lar's consistency -- he just won't change his stance on this.
PNCLL Board Member 1997-Present
MCLA Fan
User avatar
Dan Wishengrad
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am

Postby LaxRef on Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm

Someone had told me they'd heard that he stuck his business card under the divider (obviously mistaken by what you say above), and I thought they were using that as a euphemism. But you'd have to be pretty flexible to pull that off, I guess.
-LaxRef
User avatar
LaxRef
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:18 am

MJ

Postby Dan Wishengrad on Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:43 pm

Weird irony and parallel to Marion Jones finally admitting to steroid use and pleading guilty to lying to investigators this weekend, after years of vehement denials that she was "absolutely clean". Her ex-husband sure must feel vindicated after being so visciously attacked by Marion and her supporters for being a bald-faced liar. I listened to her tearful press conference, but unless I heard an edited version she apologized to everybody EXCEPT her ex. They played some of her old denials, which were very convincing. The gal surely has a future in show biz, she's almost as good an actor as Larry Craig...
PNCLL Board Member 1997-Present
MCLA Fan
User avatar
Dan Wishengrad
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am

Craig to Appeal

Postby Dan Wishengrad on Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:12 pm

So Larry just won't change his stance, and is planning to appeal:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_ ... est_appeal

Here's to the court granting his appeal, and agreeing to hear it in the future -- perhaps this exact time next year? Of course this appeal will have to be based on mistakes made by the Minneapolis prosecutor or judge, and not on his "misconstrued" actions in the bathroom itself. Perhaps the Senator will claim he wasn't able to understand the charges against him, or that he didn't read English so couldn't fathom the instructions he was was given that clearly stated that by pleading guilty he was waiving all rights to later claim innocence?

Get those "Free Larry Craig" t-shirts printed up, Sonny, my guess is they will sell like hotcakes!
PNCLL Board Member 1997-Present
MCLA Fan
User avatar
Dan Wishengrad
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am

Postby StrykerFSU on Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:45 pm

Who exactly is supporting Larry Craig at this point?
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

PreviousNext

Return to Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


cron