What is the definition of disorderly conduct?

Question

I keep seeing libs claim that larry craig "pled guilty", and is not trying to change his story.

That is half true. He pled guilty to disorderly conduct, not anything sexual.

I don't put it past a congressman to be a sexual deviant, but I also don't put it past a cop to take a bribe to set up a politician. Isn't it strange that a newspaper was accusing him of this same activity when this took place?

He pled guilty to disorderly conduct, which could be arguing with the cop. There was obviously not enough evidence to support the cops claims (which may be true).

If it were up to me, I would throw him on a lie detector, and if he is lying, kick him out of office, and if the cop is lying, throw his butt in jail, along with whoever put him up to it.

But the bottom line is, only two people know what happened that day. So libs, get over it. It's over, and it's not the case of the century.

Answer 1

Yes, he plead guilty to disorderly conduct (count II).

Defined in section 609.72 as "Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others."

And it's not the liberals who are beating this issue to death -- most of the constant news coverage is coming from Fox News -- and many more Republicans have spoken out about this than have liberals or Democrats.

Answer 2

I'm not sure if this was intended to be a question or an editorial, but I wanted to comment on a couple of your points.

1. It seems as though you are claiming that "libs" are making a big deal out of nothing, but you should keep in mind that several Republicans, conservatives, and religious groups are calling for him to resign. Even Mitt Romney, who is a close friend, basicaly threw him under the bus. So before you start saying libs are claiming this or that, you should keep in mind that it's not just libs that don't buy his story.

2. I think it's a stretch to try and suggest that maybe the cop was corrupt and setting up the politician. How would the cop know that a Senator would happen to come into that public restroom.

3. You state that it's strange that a newspaper was doing a story on this when it happened. If you read the facts, the Idaho newspaper in question had asked the Senator about previous allegations, but had never published anything until after the bathroom incident because it was he said/he said and they didn't have any corroborrating evidence until the arrest.

4. You claim that pleading guilty to disorderly conduct could mean anything such as arguing with the cop. Umm, actually when there is an official police report claiming lewd acts that resulted in a disorderly conduct charge, and you plead guilty. That means you are admitting that you did what they said you did. If he felt the police report was bogus, but wanted to get it over with, he could have pled no contest and not admit guilt.

The bottom line is you are trying to place the blame on liberals, the Idaho newspapers, and even the police. How about some accountability from the person who admitted guilt of a crime?

Answer 3

But the bottom line is, only two people know what happened that day. So libs, get over it. It's over, and it's not the case of the century.

This is too funny!
Coming from a Republican who won't let go of
ANYTHING Clinton has said or done!
And yet he's like...yawn....big deal....a man who
froths at the mouth about gay issues in Congress
is caught having gay sex in a airport BATHROOM!
Then there's that tape of Craig talking so gay...
Clinton was a 'bad boy' Clinton was a 'naughty boy'
matter of fact...Clinton was a 'naughty nasty bad boy'

Ummmm....dude....isn't that gay sexual talk?
It IS the case of the century...heh heh!!!

Answer 4

OK Larry....Sit down and shut up, no one else is defending you. It would be in your best interest to just resign like OLE ROVER did.