And since I'm here again, I'll respond to the question you've raised about why the prosecutor's office permitted the more lenient remedy of plea arrangement rather than going to trial.
There were approximately 40 suspects arrested and charged during the sting operation that snared the Senator. Like Craig, some of these defendants were important people. The object of the sting was simply to clean out that public restroom and discourage further transgression, not to crowd the docket with tedious and costly media circuses. That, IMO, is why Craig was given a sweet deal.
Your personal attacks and diversions reveal a truly weak intellect. I say that not as a rant, but as an observation. Your questions are silly, given I have a long record of explaining my position and have pointed you to audio on the subject. I don’t know who you are, and the fact that you (or another) managed to write some questions and post them here is of no consequence to me. Indeed, the questions, like your debating style, such as it is, is tedious.
Ok, this is too good to pass up. I realize whatever I write will actually not matter to you, but I will address your questions - just once. And that’s probably one too many times:
Mr. Levin, why would a 62-tear-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 homsexuals used for casual public sex?
(Your knowledge of bathroom locations and the gate used by Craig goes well beyond what’s available in the public record. You assume he went way out of his way to go to this particular bathroom. And I am supposed to make assumptions in response to your assumptions. You also assume this is the only bathroom used for casual public sex. I don’t know that to be true. How do you?)
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?
(According to both the police officers report and the audio, he waited 1-2 minutes or thereabouts. Thirteen minutes may be some calculation you performed, but that’s not what’s in the record.)
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?
(He didn’t keep placing his foot under the divider. He tapped his foot and their shoes touched after the officer slid his foot toward the divider. If he was intending to touch the officer’s shoe, as alleged, then I would not consider that normal behavior. If he did not intend to touch the officer’s shoe, then it’s of no consequence as Craig explained.)
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?
(Once again, you take liberties with the record. He slid his foot so deeply into the adjacent stall? And how deep would that be? And what is your source for this? As I said above, the officer slid his shoe toward the divider and their shoes touched. The officer neither said nor wrote that he slid his foot deep into his stall. For all we know, it was a matter of an inch or two. But who knows.)
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?
(I assume this is a joke. Either that or you are as sick as you claim Craig to be - and he may well be sick.)
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?
(Now, this is a rhetorical question as Craig has provided his answer, which you don’t accept. He was scared. He was told by the officer that if he pled guilty and paid $500, it would go away. He was stupid. But I could ask a different question. If the officer had him dead to rights, why didn’t the prosecutor take the case to trial? Why let him plead to a misdemeanor? Wasn’t the point of the sting to stop lewd behavior and soliciting for sex? What kind of message does pleading to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, a relative slap on the hand, send the right message to those who are not public officials but conduct themselves in this manner?)
And why would such a man not tell his wife about all this injustice to which he was subjected?
(I assume it would depend on his relationship with his wife. This is not a question any of us can answer. And it proves nothing. But your implication is that he was soliciting gay sex in the bathroom and that’s why he didn’t tell his wife. Yet, that’s not what he pled to. That’s not deal the government accepted, either. In fact, the government offered the lesser misdemeanor of disorderly conduct, and that was even a weak case.)
Mr. Levin, would you trust a man who admitted guilt before a judge but subsequently denied his guilt on camera?
(I would or would not trust him as much as someone who comes on this thread, anamously, and misstates the facts in this case and throws around insinuations to prove a point. I don’t him and I don’t you. I trust people I know and with whom I’ve had experiences that earn my trust.)
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?
(Now, isn’t this clever. Why don’t you cite us to your source, and in doing so we can read the context for this. I’ve heard several liberal Democrat operatives assert this, and I assume that’s where you picked this up, before I directed you to do some research. Don’t peddle in liberal talking points. I won’t trust you anymore.)
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?
(Let me rephrase this question: I am being asked, “Mr. Levin, don’t you agree that everything I said is so brilliant, and that no one can possible disagree with me?” Well, many do disagree with you. I stand by the article I posted. Craig may be everything you insinuate, but insinuation it is. He’s gone now, so it doesn’t matter much.)
Now some questions for you:
1. When you go to the public bathroom at an airport, do you always go to the bathroom closest to your gate?
2. Have you ever waited a minute or two because the stalls in the bathroom are full?
3. When you sit in a bathroom stall, have you ever placed your brief case or luggage in front of your feet toward the door as opposed to next to the toilet?
4. A listener called a local host on WMAL in Washington and recounted how he was in a bathroom stall at the airport and the person next to him slid his foot toward his. He said he stomped on the other person’s foot. It happened to be a police officer doing a sting operation. The listener had been accused of soliciting sex for stomping on the officer’s foot. The matter was eventually dropped. Don’t you think a little more than shoes touching is required before you can actually read somebody’s mind?
5. Have you ever done anything you’ve kept secret from your wife or other family members? If so, what was it?
6. Before this case, have you ever heard of another case where someone is accused of lewd behavior without — exposing himself, touching himself, touching another person, or saying a single word? If so, what case would that be?
7. Why would local prosecutors cut a deal with Craig in which he would admit guilt to a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct when they could have presumably prosecuted him for a gross misdemeanor and sent a much stronger message to would-be bathroom perverts?
8. If the officer is involved in bathroom sting operations all the time, why didn’t he invite Craig to take more definitive steps toward soliciting sex, or is it possible the officer didn’t think Craig would take the bait?
Ok, chew on those for a while. Off to dinner. Now, I know you will be hovering over your computer and this thread for hours. But don’t consider my absence anything but a desire to ignore you at this point. Thank me!