Having arrived at that terminal, presumably with a full bladder and/or lower intestine, why would he stand there waiting 13 minutes for a particular stall in that bathroom?
Mr. Levin, do you consider it normal behavior for a man in a public toilet stall to keep placing his foot and hand under the divider into an adjacent occupied stall?
Do you consider it normal and expected behavior for that man to slide his foot so deeply into the adjacent stall that it actually contacts the foot of the person sitting in that neighboring stall?
Mr. Levin, how is it possible for a sitting man to have his pant waist at mid-thigh and abduct his leg that far without tearing his pants?
Why would a powerful and well-to-do man who is arrested for something he didn't do waive his right to legal counsel, confess, pay a fine and submit to conditions of probation?
And why would such a man not tell his wife about all this injustice to which he was subjected?
Mr. Levin, would you trust a man who admitted guilt before a judge but subsequently denied his guilt on camera?
And Mr. Levin, are you aware that when the 1982 page boy sex scandal broke, Senator Craig was the only legislator in Congress who publicly insisted "it wasn't me" -- before anybody had even suggested that it was?
And lastly, Mr. Levin, wouldn't you agree that there is no rational explanation for all this strange behavior on Mr. Craig's part, other than his intent to initiate sexual activity in that bathroom?
You nailed it, Bonaparte. I can’t beleive Levin is so far off the mark in this case. Hannity is burying his head in the sand as well. I thought these guys went out of their way to be independent conservative voices. Instead, we have Republican water carriers.
I will try to answer this gentlemen’s questions from the presumption of innocence perspective:
Question 1: “Mr. Levin, why would a 62-year-old man who needed to go to the bathroom walk all the way over to another terminal to do this when there were bathrooms right there in his flight terminal? Out of all the many bathrooms at that Minneapolis airport, why would he select this distant men’s room that just happened to be the only one homosexuals used for casual public sex?”
Having spent some time in airports, I have found myself killing time in all sorts of spots. Did the guy have to get on a shuttle bus? Or was he wandering around, looking for a better restaurant, who knows?
Question 2: “Having arrived at that terminal, presumably with a full bladder and/or lower intestine, why would he stand there waiting 13 minutes for a particular stall in that bathroom?”
Who knows? This certainly is no crime, and without the accusation, would be meaningless. How did the officer see the person through that little slit in his stall?
Question 3: “Mr. Levin, do you consider it normal behavior for a man in a public toilet stall to keep placing his foot and hand under the divider into an adjacent occupied stall?”
I certainly avoid that, but it isn't inconceivable in narrow stalls that while turning around with luggage he could have caused an illegal out of stall foot slip.
Heck, I even once dropped a piece of toilet paper and it fell into the next stall's boundary. What is stall etiquette when that happens?
Question 4: "Mr. Levin, how is it possible for a sitting man to have his pant waist at mid-thigh and abduct his leg that far without tearing his pants?”
Give me a diagram. Man, maybe we should put a camera in there to be able to validate this next time. How could the officer be so aware of this gentlemen’s pants anyway? Aren’t those stall dividers pretty low? This one is kind of creepy.
Question 5: “Why would a powerful and well-to-do man who is arrested for something he didn’t do waive his right to legal counsel, confess, pay a fine and submit to conditions of probation?”
Hmm. This is the one that really proves how ridiculous this argument is. If you note, he did not confess to anything lewd, thus isn’t guilty of all the officer suspected. Why can’t you see that? He’s guilty of disorderly conduct, because he pleaded guilty to it. He was being accused by a police officer of something with potentially great political ramifications, something that he recognized could never be disproved. While his attempts to make it go away were not successful in hindsight, do you not see he was screwed from the minute he was accused?
Question 6: “And why would such a man not tell his wife about all this injustice to which he was subjected?”
Unknowable. Perhaps he was embarrassed? Thought he had made it go away until now?
Question 7: “Mr. Levin, would you trust a man who admitted guilt before a judge but subsequently denied his guilt on camera?”
He is denying the implications of the officer’s apparent accusations, and sorry he tried to make it go away the way he did. The lynch mob assumes that guilty of a lesser charge proves guilt of the original accusation. How is this justice or fair?
It appears that all that we need is an accusation and we can presume guilt without any proof. This is the way of America now, to decide guilt or innocence from the comfort of our arm chair.
Well said. It’s beyond sad that so many are willing to close their eyes to the truth simply because Craig is a Republican.
I hadn't heard this. If this particular bathroom was nowhere near where his gate, and if the bathroom has a reputation, then game, set, match. I bet this guys internet browser history would make you retch.
From the moment this story broke, Mark Levin, who usually is spot on about most things, has taken the approach of analyzing this on “technicalities” and “legalities”, trying to show off how big his lawyerly brain is.
Completely missing the point that the real story is the incalculable damage Craig’s behaviors have caused. It ain’t about innocent or guilty at this point, its about public perception and minimizing additional damage that will occur the longer Craig stays visible. At least Foley had the good sense to resign immediately, taking some of the liberals ammo away from them.
A couple of things I'd want to know before considering this question:
Was this restroom between the gates of his connecting flights? To assume that he had a full bladder is a straw man. The vast majority of travelers will take a restroom break during the layover of a long trip even if they don't have a pressing need at the moment so as to avoid using the airplane toilet later on.
Is this restroom less accessible to the general public than other restrooms; one that would tend to be used by famous people?
I would suspect that a restroom that doesn't have lots of general public traffic would be a choice meeting-up place for the sort of activity for which Craig was accused, but it would also be the sort of restroom that is used by politicians and other public figures for the usual purpose.