Republican Senator pleads guilty to lewd conduct in a men's room

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.... Spending 12 months in jail is sometimes easier than spending $40K in legal bills. ....

[/ QUOTE ]


There's a lot of truth IMO to the fact that copping to a lesser charge is often influenced by the expense of mounting a defense. I have my doubts in the Craig case but maybe. Hadn't considered that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some lawyer looking for some publicity probably would have done the case pro bono anyway; or similarly, some special interest group, or his political allies, would probably have been more than happy to help him raise money for his legal fees or provide counsel if he was actually innocent and decided to fight the charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I wrote to which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
There's a lot of truth IMO to the fact that copping to a lesser charge is often influenced by the expense of mounting a defense. I have my doubts in the Craig case but maybe. Hadn't considered that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means cost of a lawyer is probably not the reason Craig copped to the charge he did. Surprised you missed what I wrote, just thought I'd add the bolding to make it more readable and clear to you.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

This results in charges of disorderly conduct???

Ok sure. I'm not defending Craig or anything but just wondering what would have been the reaction to those that blasted Craig if this happened to a Democrat. Would you be ok with charges of disorderly conduct for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. This sounds like one of those "have to know the industry" to know the subtext. I will go on record saying that I don't know the industry. It would be similar to how some people are picked up for prostitution charges without being totally explicit in their demands, so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not defending Craig or anything but just wondering what would have been the reaction to those that blasted Craig if this happened to a Democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reaction would be the same "why the hell did this idiot plead guilty to this..."

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough and I suppose there's a modus operandi for cruising bathrooms for sex and that this probably fits into that modus operandi. Wonder if he could have beaten this in court? Seems like he had a decent shot but not sure.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Wonder if he could have beaten this in court? Seems like he had a decent shot but not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess he'd have a decent shot. Part of the problem for the prosecution would be that a jury generally doesn't have any clue about this stuff. They've seen enough "Cops" and LA Law or whatever to know how prostitution stings work (so they could buy into what the officer was testifying to) --- not so much with gay airport bathroom sex stings. The office could testify all day about how tapping the foot is a common sign, etc, but if I'm a jury member all I'm thinking is "Really???"

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it really illegal for me to go up to some dude in the bathroom and ask him if he wants to [censored] me in the ass? What the hell is this country coming to?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, if this would have happened to a Democrat then I just wonder what they, the Democrats, would be saying. Let's say that Craig is gay and doesn't want to come out of the closet. Should he be ridiculed and derided for this? I've been listening Air America and they've been basically doing just that. They're not deriding him for just hypocrisy, they're deriding him for not coming out of the closet. To me it looks alot like hate speech but could be convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'd be saying "Hooray for gays, we love our gays" because they haven't built their party around hating homosexuals?

Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm wrong but Craig is being villified for not coming out of the closet. I don't think they'd be saying "hooray for gays." I think they'd be saying we should show more compassion for people that can't come out of the closet. Why not some compassion for Craig? Even if Craig has opposed legislation that gay activist groups support, does that mean he's not entitled to compassion?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
.... Spending 12 months in jail is sometimes easier than spending $40K in legal bills. ....

[/ QUOTE ]


There's a lot of truth IMO to the fact that copping to a lesser charge is often influenced by the expense of mounting a defense. I have my doubts in the Craig case but maybe. Hadn't considered that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some lawyer looking for some publicity probably would have done the case pro bono anyway; or similarly, some special interest group, or his political allies, would probably have been more than happy to help him raise money for his legal fees or provide counsel if he was actually innocent and decided to fight the charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what I wrote to which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]
There's a lot of truth IMO to the fact that copping to a lesser charge is often influenced by the expense of mounting a defense. I have my doubts in the Craig case but maybe[/b]. Hadn't considered that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means cost of a lawyer is probably not the reason Craig copped to the charge he did. Surprised you missed what I wrote, just thought I'd add the bolding to make it more readable and clear to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol okay

When you say: "Great post Felix! Hadn't thought of that! There's alot of truth to the fact that the cost of mounting a defense is expensive, maybe that's why he plead guilty!", that apparently actually means "the cost of a lawyer is probably not the reason Craig copped to the charge he did."

Okay, good, glad that's settled then. For a second there, given the tone of your post, I thought you were as dumb as Felix, and thought that legal expenses were the reason he pled guilty to the charges. Whew. Good. Glad we've moved past that and we're all in agreement how ridiculous that claim was.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but Craig is being villified for not coming out of the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the married Senator is being vilified for consistently trumpeting "family values" while cruising public bathrooms for anonymous sexual encounters.

Hard for me to shed a tear when a married Senator trying to pick up the guy in the next stall for a quicky gets caught in a questionable sting by law enforcement while his political and ideological allies simultaneously make careers out of demonizing homosexuals for political gain.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Employing cops to arrest people for this kind of [censored] is ridiculous.

2) I agree that Craig looks "guilty as hell," but before using the "H"-word, has he really been a major busybody moralist in the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

So I shouldn't be able to use the public restroom without some creep peering at me and propositioning me for sex? What if he was profiling kid's stalls? What if it was yours and he rubbed your leg? You can't walk in someone's home and rub them and signal for sex. You can't do it on the airplane. The police were acting on a complaint as well, which gives it much more merit in my eyes. If he had just been there tapping away waiting for Republicans to show, thats just a fishing expedition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you. I believe that what consenting adults do in private is their business, and I would legalize drugs and prostitution if I were king or dictator, but I don't think any of this applies to public restrooms. Gay people who are looking for a pick-up should go to a gay bar, bathhouse, or the like. If I'm in a public restroom to take a dump, I don't want to fend off propositions, or listen to two guys in the next stall going at it.

That said, as others have pointed out, the case against Craig was very weak. However, if he contested it, the details would have come out, and the result to his political would have been about the same as his guilty plea. I think he plead guilty in the mistaken belief that it wouldn't become public.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he plead guilty in the mistaken belief that it wouldn't become public.

[/ QUOTE ]

no way he makes a mistake like that

[Metric]

I think the "consistently trumpeting family values" angle is really being over-sold for political gain. As much as Democrats would like him to be another Mark Foley (obvious hypocrite), the guy just doesn't look like it to me. He may vote with the conservative wing of the party to satisfy his constituents, but he doesn't seem to be the guy out there always railing against gays or introducing moralist legislation.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it really illegal for me to go up to some dude in the bathroom and ask him if he wants to [censored] me in the ass? What the hell is this country coming to?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, if this would have happened to a Democrat then I just wonder what they, the Democrats, would be saying. Let's say that Craig is gay and doesn't want to come out of the closet. Should he be ridiculed and derided for this? I've been listening Air America and they've been basically doing just that. They're not deriding him for just hypocrisy, they're deriding him for not coming out of the closet. To me it looks alot like hate speech but could be convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'd be saying "Hooray for gays, we love our gays" because they haven't built their party around hating homosexuals?

Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. If a proponent of drug legalization is found out to be using drugs the reaction would be...? I assume it would be along the lines of oh ok this makes sense and move on.