I appreciate your comments. However, I am not making an emotional decision here, none whatsoever.
Just the opposite.
The emotional response would be one of anger and disgust at a US Senator, especially a pro family, prolife, Christian conservative one, being “caught in the act” of soliciting for sex in that bathroom.
The emotional response would be one of added anger and disgust and outrage when these latest accusations were published that this same Senator was still in office and had not stepped down.
My support of Senator Craig on this issue has nothing to do with emotion - I actually knew nothing about Senator Craig before all this started except that he was a conservative Republican Senator who had a high conservative voting record and was from the state of Idaho. Period.
The interview with the officer IS THE KEY bit of first hand evidence we have. It is the only evidence we the public have of what occurred in that airport bathroom and THAT is the ONLY event that arrest is critical because that event is what led to all subsequent actions by Senator Craig and the calls for his resignation.
Here is a link to the transcript of that interview: http://www.gameshout.com/news/was_senator_larry_craig_setup/article9368.htm
It is NOT an emotional response to have listened to and to read that interview and to decide Senator Craig is totally innocent of doing anything in that bathroom other than using it for its usual purposes and of picking up a piece of paper off the bathroom floor.
There is much to say about that interview....have done that already...but the key point in the interview is the police officer’s insistence that he saw Sen. Craig’s left hand reach under the stall wall because it had his wedding ring on it. Yet that hand was on the opposite side of the stall from the wall nearest the officer. As Sen. Craig tries to point out - “you saw something that did not occur”.
He would have had to reach his left hand over and under that stall wall. Finally the officer realizes he has a problem here on his accusation - so he says.....did you remove your wedding ring from your left hand and place it on your right hand any time today? Sen. Craig says no of course not - here you try to take it off my left hand (it won’t come off). Senator Craig....you saw something that did not occur.
In other words, the officer made that up. He totally fabricated the claim that he saw the Senator’s wedding ring hand go under that stall wall - it did not happen. That officer knew it. Knew he was caught in his bogus claim so tried to claim the Senator took off his wedding ring and put it on is right hand. But, to his dismay, that ring could have been moved to the right hand because it was stuck - could not possibly be removed. I have a ring like that. You would have to cut through the ring to get it off.
So what does the officer do? He keeps repeating: “embarrassing”. Yes he is an embarrassment to honest law enforcement officers everywhere.
Are you saying that in court, the officer produced additional evidence than what was discussed in this interview?
If so, what was it. I’d like to know. Or a link to the court documents and in formation on that judge would suffice.
I have never accused those who take the opposite view of these events of acting out of emotion and not reason. Freepers as a rule do not do that....though of course there are exceptions.
However, the jump to judgement without looking at actually what happened that day in terms of what started all of this is exactly the emotional result that these bogus charges were intended to produce. Same with the latest unfounded accusations.
You do realize that nonthinking people across this country and the world believe that Senator Craig was “caught” in the act of the sex act with another man in that bathroom, don’t you?
All because the man used the bathroom as it was intended to be used.
And by the way the only person who was even “soliciting” for sex that day was not Senator Craig. It was that officer - just as Senator Craig says in his interview.
The emotional response applies to anyone who makes a decision based on one small piece of the body of evidence then does not bother to examine at the rest. I have both read the transcripts and heard the interview, as well as read the police report, the police complaint, Larry Craig’s guilty plea, and the particulars surrounding the case. But the interview is just a small part of the evidence.
For example, you have decided the police officer is lying because Larry Craig says his wedding ring is not on the hand he says he reached down with. You think the proof is that his wedding ring is on the left hand but since he says he reached down with the right hand the cop must be lying when he says he saw a wedding ring. You do know that there are pictures of the Senator with his wedding ring on the right hand. There could be innocent reasons for switching your ring to the right hand but I’ve never done it. In any case, it is not as clear cut as you think, there is not enough evidence to support your mistrust of what the police reported. Larry Craig could be lying and given the fact that he has switched hands before, he has consistently lied before and that he has the most obvious reason to lie, I would not make that observation the main point of determining the facts in this situation. Especially since there is so much other evidence against him that has nothing to do with the interview you mentioned.
That you continue to repeat that Craig “used the bathroom as it was intended to be used” runs contrary to Larry Craig’s own admission. Your continuing to repeat it is how I knew you had not seen all the evidence.
The extra information I have is Larry Craig’s own admission of guilt, found in the court documents. By that very admission of guilt, his lack of telling anyone about the situation, his lack disputing the case at all until he found he could lose his senate seat, his lack of an innocent person’s behavior plus the information in the interview, and police report, I could make a more informed judgment.
Anyone who makes a decision based on a small part of the evidence is not showing a desire to know the truth. You have already judged the situation based only on a piece of the facts. If a jury did that, most people would say the jury was acting unfairly. There is nothing logical about it. I can only assume it must be an emotional decision.
I was not trying to offend you. I was just trying to understand how you could possibly come to your conclusion. Though you have been here longer than I have, don’t let my sign up date fool you. I lurked for a long time before I signed up to post, hence my screen name. Even then, as wary as I was, I still had a run in with A+bert.
When this Craig situation became known, I posted time and again all the links. But that was a while ago. They are no longer at hand. If you are serious about knowing the facts, do an internet search for smoking gun and Larry Craig. I’m sure you’ll be able to find the court documents then.