I don't believe it was politically motivated. I do believe it was a setup. I don't believe he committed any crime, at least none worthy of being called one. I can't prove any of those things.
But in the canon of western jurisprudence, I don't have to. The burden of proof is not on the party establishing innocence, but on the party trying to establish guilt. Craig does not need to prove he was not soliciting sex; the state has to prove that he WAS.
You may have heard the principle stated another way: "innocent until proven guilty." It is NOT "guilty unless proven innocent."
Do you want him to continue in politics?
Lots of proof on this thread that denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.