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.
Correct, P-Marlowe, if he truly had an urgent call of (unperverted) nature, he could find another restroom in 10-20 seconds with vacant stalls.
Great point. Well said. McCain is all too willing to throw a conservative colleague overboard while tapping his foot next to Kennedy. Which only serves to remind us that the Senators are not about much other than retaining their own power with a wet finger in the wind and a mouth in the closest press microphone.
Had he not pleaded guilty to any charge, I’d say damn the accusers and hold on until the election.
Very good question.
And that plea of guilt was for ....
________________________________________________-
You tell me? And then tell me why he plead guilty to ANYTHING if is was completely innocent?
And don’t give be the bad publicity chant.
I think it's time to accept whatever the constituents in his state decide to do about him. If they think he should be booted out - they will make it happen.
We should be talking about the Hillary scandal that the mainstream media is trying to bury. This needs to be talked about to the degree that the Craig story is being aired - to the delight of the RATS.
It is a ploy the RATS have suckered us into before and we should be smarter than to let it happen again.
We need to be calling for a full investigation of the illegal things going on with this woman and not stop insisting on one until the dirty laundry is all aired out.
I am not a jurist or a lawyer, on this subject I am not concerned with justice or legality, I am concerned with political expediency. It is not expedient that Craig remain.
Yup. And instead of dumping your politicians you should not knee-jerk and wait to see if they're guilty.
Even though you seemed to have made a typo, I get what you are saying. There is a good chance that a Democrat would get away with this, BUT that does not make it right AND that does not make him innocent.
Yeah and with the RINO’s we have , who needs Democrats ?
Real moral and trustworthy bunch up there ....</s
Yeah, the evidence was terribly weak. So why did he cop a plea to a crime? IF SENATOR CRAIG WAS INNOCENT, AND THE ONLY CHARGE WAS THIS WEAK, WHY DID HE, AS A SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR, PLEAD GUILTY TO A CRIME HE SAID HE DIDN’T COMMIT?
I think we ALL know the answer to that question.
I pretty much agree with your analysis. The timing is suspect, and Craig admitted to NOTHING during his police interview. He should also have plead guilty to nothing.
Craig was not charged with anything of a sexual nature.
He was charged with interference with privacy and disturbing the peace.
I read the arresting officer's comments and Craig does not dispute any of the facts in the police report. He pled guilty to those charges because he is guilty, not because he was somehow too dumb to bring a lawyer in. Since that time, he has given laughably implausible explanations for repeatedly sticking his hand and his foot under the stall divider and into the next stall, touching the officer's foot at one point.
According to Craig, he kept sticking his foot under the divider because he has a "wide stance" at the toilet. According to Craig, he reached under the divider (several times??) because he'd "dropped a piece of paper." I haven't heard his explanation yet for why he initially peered at the officer through the crack at the stall jamb before entering the adjacent stall, but I'll bet it's a whopper also.
In brief, Craig did everything a cruising homosexual does in a public bathroom, including the "signals."
I'm aware that since this news broke, Craig has flatly denied that he is or ever was homosexual and has done so publicly and at least twice.
Since I wasn't born yesterday, I don't believe him.
He should step down.
Amen ! You nailed it .
With a boot in the ass on his way out.
Whose bottom are you?
Craig didn't say he didn't engage in disorderly conduct.
He resisted what was happening to him. So would most people in the situation, especially if they were innocent.
I do not care if he is innocent or guilty, I just want him gone.
I don’t believe the report to be accurate.
So what. That has nothing to do with this case.
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.