From listening to the police tapes, I think the guy was innocent. Not everyone knows the "signs" for gay contact. If he had a plane to catch, why in the world would he be trying to hook up? Anyone who has ever had to deal with the police on a matter can relate to this, the fact that he took the easiest way out. There is something that is not right with this whole thing.
2007-09-01 09:15:47 · 14 answers · asked by Chloe 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Andy - please share. I would love to have more facts on this.
2007-09-01 09:31:40 · update #1
The officer was trained in what signs to look for when he went on the assignment; many gay guys have been on the networks explaining that yes, these are well-known signals. I realize that most Americans, including me, did not know about these signals before, and so it sounds odd and questionable.
But the questions remain: how did Sen. Craig know about these signals if he's innocent and why would he plead guilty if he was innocent? It's pretty hard to come up with an innocent explanation for one guy peeking in another guy's stall and then playing footsie and then sticking his hand under the divider. What would the innocent explanation be?
2007-09-01 11:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Craig is guilty. It's very simple.
Senator Craig was soliciting sex in a public facility. He got caught. He pleaded guilty. He has a long record of similar complaints against him.
And no amount of "spin" from the right-wing is going to change the facts--any more than the spin changed the facts with Foley, Wolfowitz, Haggard, Vitter, or the swarm of les prominant sleazeballs in the right-wing's culture of corruption.
2007-09-01 16:39:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bottom line is he plead guilty to a misdemeanor. One of the questions a judge asks when one pleads guilty is: Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? The answer must be yes. If the defendant says no, then the judge does not accept the plea. Whether he was the "victim" of a sting or whatever, the fact is he plead guilty of a misdemeanor. Period. End of Story. PS, I consider myself a conservative. He did the right thing by resigning. He plead guilty because he was guilty.
2007-09-01 17:27:26 · answer #3 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've used plenty of public bathrooms in my 42 years. Never once have I tapped someone's foot in the next stall over, reached my hand under the stall when someone was in it, nor made eye contact while sitting on the jon.
He was up to something, and considering he's married, he's in a public place, and considering how much he ranted on Clinton for his sexual adventures, Craig is certainly not worthy of holding public office, and I say good riddance!
2007-09-01 16:33:17 · answer #4 · answered by whiskeyman510 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
From the written police report, it's pretty obvious that he was trying to do something --- and the peeking into the stalls is hard to explain any other way.
He's obviously not totally innocent -- there's little argument that his actions were not at least within the "disorderly conduct" charge that he plead guilty to -- as for whether he was soliciting sex or not, we'll likely never know.
2007-09-01 16:20:46 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think he is guilty. There's a lot of rumors in the beltway that he was involved somehow in the 1983 congressional page sex scandal. He was on NBC news in 1982 in an interview to say that he did not have sex with men.
There is a lot of men who use public restrooms to solicit sex. That's why there was an officer there. It's nothing new, mostly men who are in the closest tend to do such things.
2007-09-01 17:22:27 · answer #6 · answered by rainy32 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I don't (I am a Republican so I don't say it out of hate or suspicion) but if he is innocent he sure was stupid in that interview with police and not demanding a lawyer right away.
2007-09-01 17:03:44 · answer #7 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He sounds like he is treading water as long as he can, hoping something will come and bail him out. I think he is absolutely guilty! The sooner he admits it, the less harm he will do to his family and his political party (from being a hypocrite, not being gay).
2007-09-01 16:22:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he already plead guilty, indicating that he is certainly not innocent. His later claims that he plead guilty to make it go away seem questionable at best...
2007-09-01 16:22:40 · answer #9 · answered by Will 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It does smell a little funny. Do you think he was set-up? And where did Andy get his info? If you know you should share.
2007-09-01 16:26:48 · answer #10 · answered by PATRICIA MS 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋