So it turns out that Larry Craig plead guilty and was convicted of "Disorderly Conduct", not anything to do with lewd conduct or homosexuality. So the gay thing and the lewd conduct is just an unsubstantiated allegation, similar to all the unsubstantiated allegations against Bill Clinton. Why is everybody who was NOT in that bathroom claiming that it is a certainty that he solicited gay sex? Seems to me the only "fact" here is that he plead guilty to "disorderly conduct". Isn't this just a liberal distortion and hatchet-job?
2007-08-29 08:46:16 · 9 answers · asked by America_Akbar 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, read all my replies on the subject from yesterday. The liberals are in a feeding frenzy on this one. A good republican scandal is hard to turn away from. These same liberals who say we Republicans are hung up on sex. I think they need to get some so they will give it a rest.
2007-08-29 08:53:36 · answer #1 · answered by libsticker 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No hatchet job here, just a Man looking for some strange.
In a strange place.
"In Craig's case, he was sentenced to pay $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year, with a stayed 10-day jail sentence. He had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. A gross misdemeanor charge of interference to privacy was dismissed as part of the plea agreement."
"That charge -- invasion of privacy -- was based on an allegation that Craig gazed into the police officer's bathroom stall through the crack between the door and the frame. And while Craig has claimed that the officer misinterpreted his foot and hand motions under the stall wall, he has not addressed the allegation that he looked into the officer's stall."
2007-08-29 16:03:39 · answer #2 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not the crime that's the problem. It's the cover-up.
If I was arrested, and then later plead guity to any offense, I would certainly tell my spouse. Apparently he did not do that.
If he didn't share this very important information with his wife (and quite frankly whether it involved "gayness" or not is immaterial in my opinion), he is a hypocrite, not for being gay (maybe), but not fully embracing "famliy values" and sharing a signficant life event (a federal lawmaker arrested and convicted (remember a guilty plea is the same as a conviction) with his family.
People who are trying to parse the arrest complaint and/or his response are missing the point. If he didn't share this information with his family until it was discovered, he doesn't have the jugdment to be a U.S. senator.
2007-08-29 15:57:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It wasn't his first time from what I have heard. He admitted to doing what they said he did. How much more do you need?
Now he backpedals because he is in the spot light. The Senate and the State of Idaho would be better of if he resigns.
If Craig had set down and one of his feet happened to go slightly into the next stall (stalls can be small at times) I might cut him slack if he pulled the foot back as soon as he discovered it was there. But he probed with his foot and then he groped around with his hand. That can't be accidential and whether homosexual or not is unacceptable. It was deliberate and he got caught this time. One can but wonder how many other times that creep did that before without getting caught.
2007-08-29 16:11:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Do you believe for a second that a public figure who was innocent would plead guilty? A regular joe might just plead guilty to a lesser charge "to make it go away" (as Craig claims), but a public figure has too much to lose by admitting even that much guilt.
No, if he was innocent, he should have gone to court to prove it.
2007-08-29 15:55:31 · answer #5 · answered by missusjonz 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's the little brother of lewd conduct, a lesser charge.
"Disorderly Conduct" is used as a catch-all, to describe criminal behaviors that would have problems fitting into other areas.
Sorry, but your spinning is totally off-base.
2007-08-29 15:51:47 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He cut a deal and plead guilty to a lesser offense.
Check out the smokinggun.com site for the police report and probable cause for arrest statement.
2007-08-29 15:53:10 · answer #7 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Here we go with the Republican spin machine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The man tried to have sex with another man in a public bathroom. There is no defense for that.
2007-08-29 15:59:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are correct. He could have been charged with a sexual transgression but was not.
2007-08-29 15:54:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋