Close Topic Options

Larry Craig - Page 2

Whether or not he's gay is irrelevant. Senator Craig is in deep trouble because he behaved indecently and tried to solicit sex from a total stranger in a public restroom. He knew all the right "signals," and was quite aggressive about it according to the police officer's report.

In my view, he's sunk, his career is down the toilet (sorry), and it's OVER politically for this guy. He will never again have any credibility in the public arena.

What an idiot. I hope he serves jail time.

Craig Larry

Roz, I agree with you but I am shocked he actually thinks he did not do anything "wrong", I am also shocked that he hasn't resigned as yet. Usually when things like this happen they resign right away...well...except for Pres. Bill Clinton of course.

Larry Craig History & Civil Business Politics

That's true. I guess after 30 years in politics it's hard to just quit. It's the correct thing to do. But first, he's going to blunder around claiming innocence (after pleading guilty)... then his colleagues are going to shun him... next I expect his wife will divorce him. Wonder what else he's lied about in all his years in public office?

I just read that when he pled guilty he paid a fine, so he won't be serving any jail time. It's too bad - he could learn a whole new set of "signals" in there.

Page 2 Craig Larry

While I support the notion of treating our leaders more harshly when they engage in wrongdoing, the law does not do that (equal treatment). He was a first-time offender with a clean record. A charge of solicitation of sex is not something which would result in jail time.

I say impeach the guy from office for misusing his position of power.

Edited: tortdog on 30th Aug, 2007 - 9:44pm

Craig Larry

Breaking News

An audio tape of Sen. Larry Craig being interviewed by police has the senator claiming an officer solicited him.
Ref. CNN

Larry Craig

I just read the interview between the undercover officer and the Senator, maybe someone who knows about US laws can explain me the following:

1. Is it allowed that the same officer who is accused by the Senator of soliciting him (and not the other way around) to have an interview with him to find out what happened that day?

2. Is it me or we are assuming already that the Senator is lying and the officer is saying the truth, how is this conclusion being reached since it is the word of one against the other?

3. By law, would things change for the Senator IF in fact the police solicited him and not the Senator to the police officer?

Rather off topic, but... I remember seeing a couple of USA TV shows where undercover women police officers dress as undercover prostitutes stopped truck drivers in the street and offer them their "services". Isn't this illegal?

Larry Craig - Page 2

I totally agree with you LDS. I listened to that audio 2 times from different points of view and am not 100% sure about it. I will say that the Senator quickly seemed to go into a spin mode, but the officer pretty much lead him down the path of pleading guilty or this goes very public.

He is guilty side of me sees:
His feet crossed to the other side of the wall - either he has some really odd bathroom habits or it was a signal.
His hand went around the bottom of the wall - again, I have never had the need to do this and I have been using toilets for 40yrs now.
He stood for over a minute infront of a toilet stall door - this is again really strange! Guys do not stand in front of a toilet stall door in almost any case...we start a line outside the restroom or at the wash basin...not the stall door!
He instantly started parsing the truth like a lawyer in the interview...like he was already building his defense.

Wondering side of me saw:
The officer pretty much painted a picture that really only had one answer even if he was innocent and that was to plead guilty, pay the fine and dont go to court. If he wanted to fight it...there was going to be a trial. If there is a trial...doesnt matter if he is guilty or not he is done for. If it is as quite as the officer made it sound, it truly is the only option for the guy. Basically, the officer could lie and this guy is toast. It makes me wonder if the officer might get a few benefits from landing a big fish like the Senator...maybe even out of this type of work?

I do actually think he did it because he did acknowledge it was quite possible his feet wondered over to the other stall and that for some reason his hand was lower than the stall wall. The only thing he was trying to get on record was things that could be used for beyond reasonable doubt stance and missinterpretation of his moves. Either way, it is out in the open now, as Farseer says...he is done for.

Doing this is not illegal as long as the officer doesn't offer the services to the person being watched. Where I have trouble is that this apparent solicitation was all done with some strange gay bathroom sign language. I really don't see how anyone could really get charged with this and have it really stick if it went to court. That is why I imagine the hard sell to settle it right there.

Larry Craig Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

Well, I kind of disagree that the officer set him up via the interview. He asked questions which answers confirmed whether or not he was guilty. But simply answering the truth to those questions and NOT having done what the officer claimed would have resulted in innocence.

The transcript is here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3543062&page=1

For example, the officer asked if he used his left hand. The Senator said no. But the officer saw his ring which was on his left hand. The Senator said he never removed the ring. So the Senator is lying or the officer is lying.

I have to go with the officer. What motive does he have in lying? He said he didn't want to make a big deal out of it. He expressed shock that the Senator was the ONLY one who did not tell the truth whom he arrested.

Don't forget, there HAVE been past allegations of similar conduct by the Senator.

Lots of smoke and a little bit of flame.

Hang him.

High.