Posted on 09/04/2007 5:35:49 PM PDT by tsmith130
Just reported on a news break.
But not after a stiff fight.
He is a pure Liberal.
Isn't that what he was trying to do?
You are correct. I should have said that the cop tried to deceive Craig into believing that he could avoid publicity by pleading guilty. The cop's statements don't quite rise to the level of an outright lie.
A good snow job looks an awful lot like honesty. And nobody wants to admit they've been taken for a ride, especially by someone close, trusted.
I think he should pack it in and audition for Dancing with the Stars...
Tap-dancing, o’course.
Surely, you jest. When has the MSM ever let something like this go by (it's a Republican). Note. Hillary fund raising (Hsu) vs. Craig. Peter Paul ad infinitum and the attention that this story is getting.
Like I say, I am not defending this guy, it was just a thought.
I must bid you a good night FRiend ;>)
Let me refine that a bit more, if I may. Karsnia told him the truth about his own intentions and let Craig make whatever he wanted out of it. Nothing prevented Craig, who is a 62-year-old law maker, not a naive 16-year-old skateboarder, from recalling that arrest reports pass through many hands as they wend their way through the criminal justice system.
Over the many years of Craig's career, he has seen many, many colleagues go down because of leaked information.
Indeed.
According to the arrest report, Karsnia raised his foot slowly up and down after Craig started his tap routine. Only somebody cruising for sex in that bathroom would recognize that signal.
This has been badly handled politically when he had a month to prepare. No one looks particularly good in this.
Who the hell knows...? After 17 years in the Senate and he can't even place a call to an outfit like Jacoby & Meyers for a courtesy consultation...?
"... well Mr. Craig, I don't necessarily think that pleading guilty would be the wisest course action..... I think you might even be able to get the charges dropped without going to trial. Hello...? Hello...? Mr. Craig.... you still there...? Hello...?".
Pretty nuanced version of "truth." I must have missed the part where Karsinia said, "Senator Craig, you are a public figure. This will be made public whether you plead guilty or not guilty." Instead he said,
DK: There'll be a fine. You won't have to explain anything. (inaudible) I know. LC: Right.DK: And you'll pay a fine, you be (inaudible), done. Or if you want to plead not guilty, ah, and I, I can't make these decisions for you.
...DK: Okay. So we'll start over, you're gonna get out of here. You're gonna have to pay a fine and that will be it. Okay. I don't call media, I don't do any of that type of crap.
Karsinia is clearly trying to use the threat of publicity as leverage to get a guilty plea, though he knows that the publicity is inevitable whatever the plea. That, plus the paucity of evidence of Craig's sexual intent, is why I think this was probably a police scam, that used the threat of publicity to extort guilty pleas out of both guilty AND innocent men.
You are certainly right that Craig should have known better, but obviously he did not. Pleading guilty may have saved him some money, but his career as a senator was over whatever he did, and it would have looked better in the long run for him to have plead not guilty. However, I suspect that most men who lead non-public lives would be better off pleading guilty even if they were falsely accused. There is less likelihood that people will learn of the accusation, and it is a lot cheaper.
The police should require much, much better evidence before they ruin someone's life.
“I refuse to defend Craig, he brought this on himself. And if he stays and people try to defend him he way Clinton was defended, well, it will just serve to further alienate and anger a lot of people in this base.”
A lot of the fury at Senator Craig is justified, especially with the Republican party in its current precarious position. But a lot of it is also excessive.
With the number of people on these boards defending Giuliani, who actually did engage in immoral behavior, it is a little surprising to me that they’re so hard on someone only suspected of ATTEMPTING immoral behavior.
A lot of the attacks on Craig have been knee-jerk to say the least, and extreme for what is essentially a he-said/(s)he-said type situation.
I have confidence that the true story will emerge eventually. I originally posted some very nasty comments about Craig myself, but after the transcript came out I had to ask myself “Where’s the proof?” This cop’s gut feeling? Is catching a certain number of people good for his career (aka does he have an incentive to perceive behavior in a way that would be beneficial to him), and if he does how much proof does he have to provide, if any, that these men were doing what he says they were?
Not much, I’d say, if it can be reduced to a misdemeanor charge like Craig’s was. Tells me the cop had no actual evidence. And I can easily see a politician trying to sweep such a story under the rug to avoid a protracted dispute.
We should note that Craig pleaded guilty to a reduced charge, not soliciting sex. Probably because he was assured no one would ever find out. This whole episode stinks to high heaven.
Congressfolks have done a lot worse things than this and kept their jobs... I hate to say it, but I think Republicans have let the Democrats trick them into doing their dirty work YET AGAIN.
That being said, there's absolutely NO reason why he should have to "resign" immediately instead of serving out the rest of his term til January 2009. There are at least a dozen RATS who have done FAR worse things than Craig and they continue to flagrantly remain in office and buck decency. If the RATs complain about Craig, all he has to do is bring up the name "William Jefferson" every time and promise to resign his seat the moment indicted felon Jefferson does. THAT will shut them up in a hurry.
Let's not forget that one of the very first things Craig did in that interview was to try intimidating the officer with his senatorial status, showing his Senate card, instead of producing the driver's license Karsnia had requested, and saying, "What do you think of that?"
That could just as easily be interpreted as a threat. After all, what chance would a young airport cop have against the wrath of a US Senator?
What does staying in office have to do being with re-elected? Everyone on this forum acts like there's some law saying he HAS to run for re-election if he doesn't resign.
Craig can simply opt NOT to run for re-election and serve out his term until January 2009. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he should have to "resign immediately" when DemocRAT Congressman, like William Jefferson, who have done far worse things are allowed to disgrace the office.
And for the life of me, I can't figure out why freepers think Craig has to step down immediately due to the fact he's probably unelectable two years from now.
Agreed. It's absolute bullcrap and I'm sadddened to see so many freepers piling on because apprently they can't figure out you don't need to "resign immediately" in order to NOT run re-election. Somehow they think if Craig remains in office, he automatically becomes a candidate for re-election and the seat will be in jeopardy or some bizarre crap like that.
Here's what Craig should do:
1) Announce that after consulting with lawyer and confident that he did nothing wrong and erred in pleading gulity to a lesser charge (due to false impressions created by the cop that he'd be on his way if he did), that he is NOT resigning his seat when the only think that's been proven against him is that he tapped his foot in a rest room stall. If the RATs complain, Craig can "remind" them all the KNOWN criminals that they continue to harbor in office.
2) Announce that due to the error of pleading "gulity" to a charge he didn't commit, Craig realizes a cloud remains over his head until he can clear his name. Craig states that due to this fact, he will NOT run for re-election next year and will not run for office again until he has cleared his name. In the meantime, he will continue to serve the people of Idaho to the best of his ability and work to gain back their trust.
3) Take his seat the next day the Senate is in session and follow through on his intentions stated in 1) and 2). Chair his committee. Introduce good bills. Make his last year in office count for something meaningful. IF Craig proves this is all a setup and it turns out to be another Mike Nifong type incident, he is welcome to run for office again in 2010. In the meantime, due to Craig NOT resigning, Idaho Republican voters are free to pick the best person they can in the 2008 GOP primary to represent them in the U.S. Senate -- rather than take a gamble and "trust" the Governor will appoint the right person.
Barney Frank is not a Senator, but a Representative.
It was clearly a threat, if hollow. Craig understood immediately that he was in a potentially career-ending circumstance, and he responded. Craig's threat could have been motivated by fear, even if he was innocent.
After all, what chance would a young airport cop have against the wrath of a US Senator?
I'd say his chances were very good, whether Craig was innocent or guilty. Karsinia must have known how much power he wielded. Karsinia had power over anyone who had the misfortune to select a stall next to his.
Again, I don't know if Craig is innocent or guilty. Unless he confesses his guilt, or credible sources confirm his homosexuality, we may never know. It just bothers the hell out of me that a man can have his life ruined on such skimpy evidence. Let's see police video of Craig entering Karsinia's stall and closing the door, or handing Karsinia his hotel keys and saying "meet me tonight," or some other evidence that is much more clear cut than we have here.
The confronting officer is 29 years old. If he has been on the force for 23 years, he was a rookie cop at age 6.
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.