Posted on 09/04/2007 7:48:46 PM PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
I LOVE your idea.....I think EVERYONE should OUT THEMSELVES....and just get it all over with.
I took up for him right away, saying this could very well be a LEFT WING WACKO scam, and I was hit on the head by many FR, jump shippers.
That's EXACTLY what it is. He admitted guilt to the lesser charge.
Yes, Ben is exactly right. Railroad is the word I’ve also been using...before I see that Ben’s using it also.
no gregory it isn’t a joke. just life it’s not one when a ranking Senator engages in morally foolish behavior. Such persons make themselves readily available to be compromised on national matters. Knowing the politically inbred stupidity and naivety and desperation to keep the perks that we know now, are you saying Senator Craig wouldnt’ roll for just about anyone to be a good boy. He’s a joke because he’s morally deficient. It’s common sense, somethin that’s been lawyered out of a lot of our thinking anymore.
it’s funny how people who typically have -0- invested in the future are always ready to tear down the walls of old fashioned morality. Well some of us plan on having heirs to carry on and keep this thing together. Making America a mecca for alt lifers seems to be a bad thing if the Bible teaches anything. Eventually we can expect to be smote for our impertinent ways.
yeah take up for that no natural children, adopts two teen boys, busted not once but twice for being a twink dink, yeah back this pud to the hilt. Personally with his track record I’d like to see the Mel Gibon wearing a a funny bigged head paper machete mask and put backwards tied on a donkey and busted out of town into the desert. Can you say scum?
This is the second time I have seen this incomprehensible notion that pleading to a lesser charge is not an admission of guilt. I guess there are millions of innocent people rotting away in jails because for no reason they plead to a lesser charge. Make no mistake, if you are innocent, no amount of charges could get you to plead guilty. Don't let anyone fool you. If you plead guilty, you are acknowledging that you did something criminal.
In his plea, freely Craig acknowledges conduct or behavior that would cause another person to be disturbed or alarmed. Disorderly conduct was the crime. If he had been innocent, he should have fought the charges. He said he was guilty. Now when his job is threatened, he claims he wants to fight the charge. He is a fool.
First, according to the reports I have heard from Idaho, his popularity has nose dived.
Second, he pled guilty to a lesser charge to avoid being hit with the more serious charge of lewdness.
So, there is not much left to 'judge' since he has admitted guilt.
A sitting U.S. Senator should not be even suspected of the type of behavior he is, no less having been caught in a sting operation.
So what amazes me is the lack of moral conviction on the part of guys like yourself who are willing to overlook any deviancy so that you will not have to make a judgement.
Men in leadership positions are held to a higher standard because they hold greater responsiblity.
Now, if you want to argue the particulars of the case I will be happy to do so.
No normal man ever puts his feet or hands in another stall when someone else is in there.
So any normal man will tell you that Craigs' actions were those of someone who has been involved in that lifestyle and knew the 'signals'.
Just because someone adopts children does not make them gay!
I am not saying he is innocent, but he COULD have been set up by a desperate dimo party. They will do anything
I wouldn’t say “clearly”...but that comment from the cop is troublesome.
According to what we've heard from Karsnia, all the officer did was sit in a closed public toilet stall and slowly raise his foot up and down after Craig started tapping his foot in the adjacent stall. I make no suppositions, although others are certainly free to do so.
During the interview with Karsnia, Craig makes the curious claim that he was solicited and entrapped by Karsnia. It's a strange claim to make, because to defend yourself against a criminal charge on the basis of entrapment, you must admit that you committed the crime but assert that you had no intent to do so and would not have done so had not the police proposed it. A defense like this is dangerous, because if you can't show actual entrapment, your confession results in conviction.
And here's the catch-22 (one of them) for Craig -- if he maintains that Karsnia entrapped him by raising and lowering his foot, then Craig is also admitting that he knows this homosexual signal indicating willingness to have sex, which in turn implies that he knew what his own foot tapping meant. IMO, most reasonable jurors at trial would conclude this means that Craig, not Karsnia, proposed having sex.
To know what actual entrapment looks like, go no further than the DeLorean case. It's the textbook example and Craig's situation doesn't even come close, primarily because Craig adamantly denies committing any crime.
You don’t understand the difference between an officer offering you the option to take a plea to prevent prosecution on a more severe charge, and simply admitting that you actually did something? The guy was given a choice, and he took it. Are you so delusional that you truthfully think that everyone in the US who ever copped a plea to avoid prosecution on a more severe charge was actually guilty of the crime they admitted to?
I understand what copping a plea means. But simply taking the pragmatic approach of accepting the lesser punishment in order to make a greater charge “go away” doesn’t mean he actually did what they’re accusing him of...it simply means that he pleaded guilty to it.
If you actually think that nobody in the US prison system copped a lesser plea to prevent prosecution for a greater charge, even though they were innocent, you’re delusional. Sometimes people don’t see a way out of a situation and simply opt for the path of least pain.
Both Michael Vick and Larry Craig could have had a hearing but they opted to cop a plea instead. Both were charged with a crime and both admitted their guilt which is the same as being convicted. As a matter of law, both are guilty, not by the conviction of a jury but by their admission.
"As for the hand, even the cop was confused which hand was used."
_________________________________
From the arrest interview (linked above), Karsnia states --
Here is the audio of the arrest interview.
During that interview Karsnia clearly states that Craig's left hand was the one inserted into the officer's stall. When Craig disputes this and claims that it was his right hand, Karsnia heatedly insists it was, in fact, the left hand that appeared in his stall.
Again, Karsnia shows no confusion on this point. None at all.
"Cops can’t lie. That would be...uh, unethical."
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Karsnia was lying in his arrest report. Your suggestion that he did lie, seems purely speculative to me.
Concerning the "ethical" question you've raised, I can tell you that cops are legally allowed to lie to the suspect during these interviews. In fact, if an undercover cop is posing as a drug dealer and is asked, "Are you a cop?", he can legally say, "No, I'm not a cop."
He wasn't peering through the crack, as he was 3 feet away - probably just looking in the general direction. It was the policeman, parked in the stall, who was peering at the senator through the door, and scrutinizing his every action while he awaited for a stall to open, and who then spied on the senator as he was in the stall. The policeman would have to be the one to get right up close to the crack and peer out continuously to see what he did.
Here is the plea that Craig signed.
He affirmed this confession when he appeared in court before a judge.
Now he says he didn't do what he swore in court that he did do.
Is this an admission of perjury?
I think so, but what do I know?
Craig now says that he "wasn't thinking clearly" when he took the plea bargain, implying that the plea should therefore be reversed.
Isn't this a lot like a temporary insanity plea?
I've already performed some "experiments" of my own, placing a piece of cardboard with various widths of "crack" cut into it. I placed this cardboard four feet away from my eyes with a friend standing three feet beyond the cardboard.
As soon as some investigator reporter checks out the stalls and reports his findings, we'll all know a lot more than we do now.
that is precisely the point. He could be set up. And he’s like a child to listen to him. We are lucky it was the PD and not the enemy of the state who got to this vapid weakwilled loser. I imagine he would have thought about it a bit and then decided his continuing as lifer Senator is better than giving up the info on classified docs. He’s so easily compromised because of his child like retarded development as a result of being the chosen lever puller some time back. He cruises for gay sex and votes down all gay related legislation. He’s a piece of shit.
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.