Posted on 08/30/2007 7:50:09 PM PDT by pacificus
I read the transcript of the Larry Graig interview with the Minnesota police.
I don't like what I'm hearing from other conservatives. The liberals see a cheap Senate seat and you want to give it to them because a guy moved two fingers under the stall wall in an airport bathroom.
If they had the guy on tape asking for sex, paying for sex, or photographed in the act, or any other physical proof, then I would say that looks very very bad and he should go.
But that is not the case.
This is very lame, and those of you who have never had a disagreement with a law enforecement officer should hope that a cop never accuses you of something. Because by your own action, your professional career, and or political career, should be forit, merely on the word of the officer with no physical proof or corroborating evidence.
Those of you who pass judgement, on Larry Craig, merely on the heresay and liberal spin that has been run in the press, should be ashamed.
I thought the Martha Stewart thing was nuts. The Scooter Libby case was insane and the Duke case was just off the charts. But this is simply weird.
He did not take a dump
because he wanted another queer to hump...
I didn't say that. And you don't have evidence that the Senator is crooked.
I said people are knee-jerking by automatically taking the cop's word for it and assuming that the Senator is crooked.
Okay, that’s plausible...
You're right about that. You're wrong about the Republicans dumping their own solely on the basis of the liberal media. Craig is being dumped because he ain't going to garner much support from "the good people of Idaho" in places like Sandpoint and Bonners Ferry.
I explained that in post #231:
"What do you think about that?" is essentially the same as "Do you know who I am?".
I initially read "What do you think about that?" in an early story (like the one referenced) and remembered it wrong as "Do you know who I am?"
Do you claim there is a material difference in the intent of these two questions?!
2 days. Ever since it came out. And every since the bigger story of Clinton's corrupt money has been wiped out of the news.
And on Larry King right now someone is gleefully stating that this is so stressful it might cause him to commit suicide. Gotta love the media.
More likely a Log Cabin type.
You are exactly right.
In the absence of an accepted moral standard he is okay with ANYTHING
Since he mailed the guilty forms in he may have a out from a legal standpoint.
Oh gee, I’m sorry, I said seduced instead of solicited. Here’s the transcipt.
DK: All right. I, I know I can bring you to jail, but that’s not my goal here, okay? (inaudible)
LC: Don’t do that. You You
DK: I’m not going to bring you to jail
LC: You solicited me.
So, I’ll ask you again - How did Larry know just from homo feet signals that he was being solicited? Dude, game over. Give it up.
He pled guilty - QED.
So I am supposed to guess what was said? I asked for your citation. You sounded like you were quoting verbatim since you place quotation marks around the statement, so I wanted to know where you got it from.
I do believe that accurate quotes should be used when convicting a man.
Suppose the GOP guv picks a RINO or another open-borders type to "replace" him? Then we're stuck with an even worse incumbent. We have primary elections in this country for a reason. Idaho Republican voters have the right to make that choice. There's no reason to create an artificial vacancy when none exists. The Guv can pick whoever he wants provided Craig falls into a coma, dies or is sent to prison. Until then, screw him.
The idea that Craig should resign when a PROVEN crook like William Jefferson is allowed to serve out HIS term is the biggest joke I've ever heard. Craig should call the Dems on their hypocrisy and announce he will resign the moment Jefferson does. I won't hold my breathe waiting for them to take him on it.
What next, we make every GOP Senator suspected of having perverted sex lives resign as well?
I predict that more skeletons will come out of the closet in the days to come. Possibly more “stall-buddies” of his will go public.
I mean, they're nearly ALL lawyers.
Seduced and solicited are so very close in meaning.
Accuracy in quotations is important.
This is the most insightful comment on this thread so far.
No one who has spent any amount of time on Capitol Hill could have been surprised at the allegations against Craig ... only at his recklessness in engaging in conduct that confirms rumors he knows have been threatening his career for decades.
Ask yourself this: when a guy has been rumored to be gay and to have previously engaged in gay sex in a public men's room, what are the chances that an officer's allegations of solicitation against him are false? Assume, of course, that the officer has no idea of the individual's identity or past history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.