I don't get the "evidence" Craig was arrested on. Link and more here...

[uppityperson]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/19763-1.html
WTF is this? I put my bag by the door. I tap my feet, WTF?

I never knew I was looking for lewd behavior. Damn.

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.

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.”

If this is all they have him on, what a joke. Same thing with lingering outside a stall or toilet. Seems like the interpretation is suspect. Too bad his guilty conscience had him plead guilty.

[Beetwasher]

1. Really? So You've Touched Another Man's Foot In HIS Stall

And waved your hand under the divider? Really? You've done that?

"...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.”

And he also plead guilty!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. You Forgot The Part Where He Peeked In The Other Occupant's Stall

The willing suspension of disbelief is astounding...

[Beetwasher]

7. Seriously

And you're right of course. FIRST he hung around PEEKING into the guys stall and THEN proceeded to give the appropriate signals and then touch the other guys foot and wave his hand under the stall. Yeah, all a big misunderstanding. :eyes:

[uppityperson]

12. I'm not saying he didn't propopsition a cop, just that the evidence in this story is odd.

Hanging around peeping into stalls is creepy, yes. But as evidence, strikes my wtfness.

[originalpckelly]

36. Well, it's not just that. It's hanging around stalls, peering into them,

going into a stall next to the target's, dropping one's drawers, then rubbing one's foot against another person's and motioning with one's hand under their stall.

[Kingshakabobo]

17. I didn't know about the "peeking" and "finger fidgeting."

It wasn't in the other threads posted. That moves me further in to your camp.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Here's The Crib Notes

Senator Craig went into a public restroom gazed into a occupied stall through the small crack , saw it occupied, sat in the stall next to it, tapped his feet, rubbed his feet against the feet of the occupant in the stall next then put his hand through the bottom of the other occupant's stall...

[uppityperson]

28. why did he do the hand thing? I'm not up on Men's Room Lewdness signals, obviously.

what was the hand swinging thing for? I am serious. Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. The Hand Thing Is A New Wrinkle To Me...

But the peeking, tapping, and footsie is all part of the ritual...

[Kingshakabobo]

54. Apparently, he hung out in front of the cop's stall for "2 minutes" while peeking?

That wasn't reported in the TPM report and the Huff post report - they began the report where he sat down in the stall.

[uppityperson]

9. yeah, but it was my boyfriend's.

pleading guilty happens even when the person isn't. I'm just saying that, according to this article, the evidence is very subjective.

[Beetwasher]

15. No, It's Not Very Subjective, Not At All

It's very clear what was going on. He hung around peeking into the cops stall, then proceeded to give the right signals, THEN touched his foot and THEN started waving his hand under the divider. And then HE PLEAD GUILTY. There's NOTHING subjective here. It's pretty damn cut and dry.

[emilyg]

41. Have you ever done all or any of the above?

[uppityperson]

49. Post #27. What I'm saying is I don't understand the evidence, seems subjective, though taken as a

whole, they guy seems a bit too too. I hope they have enough to counter his "I'm innocent, plead guilty by mistake" thing. I'm not up on Men's Room Lewdness Indicators.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1676931#1677151

[rzemanfl]

2. Yeah, well a) he pled to a reduced charge and b) he DID NOT

FLUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Who knows?

Maybe he was looking for toilet paper and wanted the guy to pass him some. That's what he should have plead.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. You Forgot The Part Where He Peeked In The Other Occupant's Stall

And played footsie with him...

[originalpckelly]

39. All apart of getting toilet paper my dear DemocratSinceBirth...

it's all elementary if you ask me. :rofl:

Don't rub other people's feet when you need to get toilet paper? :P

[Blue-Jay]

16. Because saying "Hand me some TP" would be too weird.

[AlCzervik]

20. The Square to spare scandal.

[MissB]

4. I don't touch other people's feet in the next stall.

And if I accidently did, I would say "Oh, I'm so sorry".

I'd also not plead guilty. Especially if I was a US Senator.

[TwilightGardener]

8. This was a clear form of solicitation, apparently, in the men's bathroom

Code of Conduct. He purposefully initiated contact, and got stung. And he knew it--pleaded guilty to hush things up. It's already been through the judicial process, so I don't know what more evidence you're looking for.

[uppityperson]

19. Remind me not to peek into stalls, put my bag next to me and not tap my foot.

These seem not very much in the way of evidence. I do these things all the time. (ok, in the women's room since I'm female) I put my roller bag by the door, I tap my feet, I look through cracks to see if anyone is in a stall. It just seems really odd.

[Beetwasher]

21. But Do You TOUCH SOMEONES FOOT?

And wave your hand under the stall? Guys barely even TALK to each other in Men's rooms. Yeah, a quick peek through the crack to see if it's occupied might be ok, but he was hanging out in front of the door for a while apparently.

[uppityperson]

31. what was the hand thing about? I don't know Men's Toilet Lewdness signals.

What was that about? I'm female, by the way, middle aged too. For further info on my urinating in public restroom habits, see post #27
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1676931&mesg_id=1677151

[Beetwasher]

42. Apparently It Means You Want Sex

The whole sequence of events is a pick-up routine. Read the article. This was a restroom KNOWN for this behavior and Craig made ALL the appropriate signals AND PLEAD GUILTY.

[goodhue]

93. it means hand is looking for something to jerk off

pretty obvious conduct IMHO

[stillcool]

32. that was you?

I was a little peeved that you were looking at me. You could have just peeked under the door to see if there were feet present.

[uppityperson]

35. I couldn't tell if it was a roller bag in the way or a blocked off stall, sorry.

[TwilightGardener]

47. Come on now. This was no coincidence or accident. Men don't

ordinarily make such contact with each other in bathrooms, I'm betting--a guy could end up getting his clock cleaned. When the officer showed the badge under the door, the Perpetrator said NO! and took off. He knew what he was doing, and he knew he was caught.

[electron_blue]

146. You're probably fine. Don't worry.

You probably won't follow up with the foot touch, hand-wave and guilty plea.

I'm also not familiar with all these codes, but surely other people are.

[AlCzervik]

10. according to that article Craig was also peeping him through the crack

in the stall--sorry for the verbage but thats what it is. It's possible it's considered harassment.

[madaboutharry]

11. It seems like

we just don't know the "language" of the bathroom sub-culture.

I find stories like this very sad. I think it is sad that there are still people who are tormented by their own identity. He obviously is trapped by all the things he was taught as a young person and must have spent his whole life hating himself. I have empathy for him.

[Beetwasher]

18. I Agree, You're Right Of Course, It IS Sad Where SOME People Are

Concerned, but not at all for this hypocritical douchebag. I'd say it's just desserts.

[madaboutharry]

23. I would never excuse the hypocrisy

You're right about that, the hypocrisy is disgraceful.

[peacetalksforall]

29. You said what I was thinking. So sad, for humanity, especially if

it is accompanied by a list of hypocriticals things he has said in public. I don't follow him, he must keep a low profile, but I have a distinct memory of some righteous stuff coming from him. Now this, in addition to despising his lock-step votes for nasty outcomes.

And, as you said, a person never stops learning on DU. Tapping, touching, waving hand.

Now, if it's anything like Foley or Haggard, others will come out?

Methinks he doth protest too much. Has there ever been a culture as hypocritical as ours? We are one sick country in more ways than one.

Will someone who always brags about our being the most superior country in the world, please step forward and tell us how? At one time we could say technology, but we exported, sold, leaked, and traded it away and only no jobs to show for it - for we working fools.

[MrScorpio]

13. Maybe it's some secret gay, closeted Republican code in the Twin Cities?

You know, like the hankey in the back pocket code in Hamburg Germany

[MADem]

14. You put your bag by the door, you tap your foot, you play footsie with your neighbor

and you made eye contact through the stall door...you're skipping some of the key factors, there.

Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall.”

The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.

“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. ......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.

[uppityperson]

24. I'm NOT saying he isn't a hypocritical douchebag. OKAY?!?!?

Lingering outside a stall, yes, that is creepy. Especially if there were other empty stalls (were there or was the one he went in occupied then he went in when the guy went out?) I don't understand the Code of Bathrooms and Lewdness. I also have been told off for not knowing the Code of Flowers, that I really shouldn't send pink flowers to a friend, or red, just white, since they all mean different things. For evidence, I sure hope they have more than he lingered, he fidgited, he tapped his foot, he put his rollerbag by the door. I hope they have more.

[Bluebear]

30. They don't NEED more. He pled guilty!

[uppityperson]

33. and now he's saying he pled guilty by mistake or some such.

I hope they have enough to put him away as a hypocritical jerk.

[MADem]

38. Well, I'm saying that anyone who plays footsie with you in the men's room

and stares at you through the crack in the stall door for two-plus minutes isn't wrongfully accused of the behavior they nabbed him for...that's not "normal" behavior by any stretch.

And being a hypocritical douchebag? I didn't say anything of the sort about that, though that IS what he is.

And you can stop with the 'hoping.' The case is closed. The guy pled guilty.

Like I said elsewhere, the man was outed a year ago by a gay activist. This is only a suprise to the MSM and Mitt Romney--anyone else who kept up already knew what his orientation was, wife beard and kids notwithstanding.....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. Did You Know Some Stalls Have Holes In Them To Facilitate Such Contact?

eom

[uppityperson]

51. penis holes? Hey, if he was using one of those, yeah, no problem

That seems very concrete. Secret codes bother me since they are too ambiguous.

[youngdem]

22. So your standard procedure when taking a piss in public

is to leer at someone else in a stall taking a shit while you masturbate?

Then, to finish off, you go into the stall next to your 'bowel assistant', take a 'wide stance' and tap your foot against his foot?

Remind me never to travel with you.

[AlCzervik]

26. wow, thats a good summation.

that whole Happy time for Larry hadn't accured to me--sometimes i'm a tad slow.

[uppityperson]

27. My procedure is to look and see if there is a stall empty, then go in.

If there are no empty stalls I linger and wait, unless I decide I can hold it and come back later. If I have a roller bag of course I put it by the door. I pee and wipe. I might even tap my foot while I am peeing. If I have no tp I might ask the person to pass me a piece under the divider. Unless I am in a public toilet with dividers all the way to the floor, in which case I might look in my purse or pocket for a bit of kleenex (tm). I've even wiped with the hem of my long indian print skirt (oooo). And put it in the laundry that night.

I'm not saying he is not a hypocritical asshole that doesn't deserve to be busted. I am just saying the "evidence" seem pretty scanty and hope they have more. Remind me to never visit a men's toilet as I'll probably get into trouble.

[madaboutharry]

37. Actually,

the best thing to use in a public restroom are the seat liners that are usually hanging on the wall over the toilet. Everyone touches the toilet paper, the seat liners are much more sanitary. (I just thought I'd throw this information out there for other germaphobes like me!)

[uppityperson]

43. I try to get enough off to get to the inside of an unrolled part.

even at home. Oh well. Nice to know there are other people out there that think this way too. And people who squat over and pee on the seat so they don't have to sit on a place someone else's thighs/butt touched so I get to sit on their pee instead, that really, well, pisses me off.

[madaboutharry]

44. I would never sit on a public toilet.

I would rather die.

[Ino]

46. You're asking for your bag to be stolen if you put it by the door, IMO (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. He Gazed At A Guy Through The Crack For Two Minutes

Then played footsie with him and put his hand under his stall...


Do you do all that?

[uppityperson]

53. No guys in the womens room. Usually.

I don't usually time how long I'm in line to use the toilet, sorry. I may have tapped someone's foot, never know. And yes, didn't you read about handing tp by handing it under the stall wall? I use my hand to take it, since I don't have a tail and it just seems politer than using my foot or another piece of my anatomy.

You continue to argue about my behavior, trying to compare it to his. You are missing the bigger point. Evidence needs to be clear, objective evidence and this Secret Code stuff seems subjective to me. I don't care who it is about, evidence should be clear and objective. I hope they have more than Secret Code and creepiness to get him on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. He Lied ...

He said he put his hand on the floor to pick up some paper...There was no paper on the floor... I have read the police report three times or so...Thet lying is consciousness of guilt...

You're not answering my question...

He looked at a guy on the toilet for two minutes through the crack...

Do you gaze at a woman on the toilet for two minutes through the crack?

He was looking to have some furtive restroom sex...That's why he copped a plea... Serves him right...

[uppityperson]

61. What does my behaviour have to do with adequate evidence?

I have written what I do. That is me. That has nothing to do with adequate evidence. Non-subjective evidence. Not "secret code" of looking, tapping, etc, but "hey mr wanna fuck" sort of evidence. What I do has nothing to do with any of this. People are taking the bits presented and putting their own slant on things. Looking objectively, "secret code" behavior can all be just normal behavior and they need real, hard, objective evidence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. He Plead Guilty

I asked you a simple question...

Senator Craig watched a man on the crapper for two minutes through the crack...

Is that appropriate behavior?

Doesn't the person in the toilet have a right not be leered at?

[uppityperson]

77. Probably not a legal right but I'm not sure.

If you want absolute privacy, don't use a public restroom. What does that have to do with having adequate objective evidence?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. Are You Arguing That People Have The Right To Look At Other People On The Crapper

When They Have The Door Closed Just Because There's A Small Crack To Facilitate Opening It And Closing...

Now it's the cops fault because Craig wanted to blow him...

What if it was a minor?

[uppityperson]

143. Are you arguing no one has the right to look through a crack around a stall door?

Have you been to France where they have uni-sex toilets with floor to ceiling doors, all enclosed rooms? They are nice and private.

[DemKR]

34. Whatever. He plead guilty n/t

[peacetalksforall]

45. Approximately 30 messages and no recommendations - as it

should be for this sad, sick news. So, if Foley resigned, should Craig? If Hastert (and DeLay) covered up for Foley, has someone or some people been covering up for Craig? If I were to guess, I would believe that he told someone. Hatch? Who is in charge for something like this? Was his Mpls record supposed to have been kept secret? What are the Idaho statues on filling Senator positions? Too premature?

[uppityperson]

50. I am wondering about evidence. Evidence used to possibly convict someone.

Evidence that seems subjective. I'm not wondering "did he do it" but about the evidence. The evidence seems scant. I don't like people convicted on scanty evidence. I like evidence that does not include subjectiveness, feelings of creepiness, putting your roller bag by a door meaning some secret code. I really don't like that evidence. This evidence seems really odd to me.

Like the ACLU, I want people tried and convicted on real stuff. Real evidence. That is what my problem with this is. I don't care about getting another hypocritical repub, I don't care, but I do care that real evidence is used. Not subjective stuff, not feelings, but objective things. Not secret codes, but outright propositioning. It doesn't seem that this is how this case it.

Again, I don't really care to gossip about another hypocrite, but inadequate, subjective evidence gets my goat.

[BlackVelvet04]

55. the fact that he touched the side of the guy's

shoe with his shoe has been reported here as caressing a leg and playing footsie.

It's a game of let's make shit up.

I agree with you. What if he did make an invitation for sex....is that illegal when it is a non-verbal solicitation and no money changed hands or was discussed?

[uppityperson]

57. Thank you. Most of those replying aren't seeing my question

my concern over the evidence being subjective and then slants are put on it. Evidence needs to be objective as touching the side of the guy's shoe could be for a number of reasons and only some of them are "playing footsie". Is being creepy, lingering, tapping, "secret codes" adequate evidence?

[BlackVelvet04]

62. I hear that

applying lipstick while in the ladies room is code for something. ;-)

[uppityperson]

69. right hand or left hand? They mean different things.

[BlackVelvet04]

80. Ooops, I forgot the code.....

Note to self: research code for Ladies' room sex.

:-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. Please Answer My Question

You seem to be denigrating the evidence...Part of the evidence is that he watched, not waited on line as you suggested , a man on the toilet for two minutes...

Is that appropriate behavior?

[uppityperson]

96. If he was waiting for the guy in the next stall to finish and leave, yes.

The stall was occupied. Craig waited for the occupant to leave, twiddling his fingers and looking around while he waited. Like the police report says.
Could be construed as creepy, but what do you do while you wait for a stall to empty? Close your eyes and stand at attention?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. He Kept Looking At The Guy In The Stall Through The Crack

If a bathroom is occupied I am not going to peak through the crack, every few seconds, for two minutes...It's a good way to get my ass kicked..

[uppityperson]

107. I wonder if anyone noticed the cop being in his stall for 13 minutes, wondered why.

Offered laxative or any such thing. 13 minutes. Poor guy, wonder if his legs went numb.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. Male Restroom Etiquette

If all the stalls are full you stand on line until one is available... You don't get close enough to a stall to watch someone through the crack do their business for two minutes...And then when you sit down you don't start tapping your feet, play footsie with your neighbor, and wave to him...

[uppityperson]

97. Dupe, darn glitchy connection. Or maybe it's a secret code? hmm, beware

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Would You Gaze At A Woman Who Was On The Crapper Through The Crack Like Craig?

Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall.”

The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.

“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.

[uppityperson]

74. What does my behaviour have to do with adequate evidence?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1676931&mesg_id=1677478

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. I Don't Know What Constitutes Lewd And Lascivious Behavior

But I do know if he was innocent he should have fought the charges and that those who have sex in public restrooms where chilren or others who don't want to be exposed to that behavior might see, belong in the hoosegow be they straight, transgendered, bisexual, or gay...

We all should have the same rights not special ones,...

[uppityperson]

64. Of COURSE we should have the same rights. That's the problem with shoddy evidence

If someone can get convicted on shoddy evidence, shoddy evidence can be used to convict someone else. I cannot say why he pled guilty since that is another thing. All I can, and am, saying is that evidence needs to be good solid stuff, not "secret code" stuff that can be attributed to other things also. We should all have the same rights, not special ones.

[BlackVelvet04]

68. I agree about having sex

in a restroom.....I would think that would be indecent exposure. But asking someone to have sex (nonverbally even) is NOT the same as having sex in the restroom.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. If You Don't Want To Be Framed Don't Put Yourself In The Picture

Do you really think he wasn't soliciting the guy for sex?

I realize the importance of being the "devil's advocate" but I am as confident that Senator Craig was looking for sex as I am confident the sun will come out tomorrow morning...

He plead guilty...

[BlackVelvet04]

81. I'm sure he was soliciting for sex......

and??? Is that really illegal? No money changed hands and not a word was spoken.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. He Plead Guilty

That means we are entitled to accept every fact as true...

He peered into the other guy's stall for two minutes...He then sat in the stall next to him... He then tapped his feet to get the other man's attention...He then played footsie with him... He then waved at him...

He plead guilty...


End of story...

[electron_blue]

150. Yes, solicitation is illegal.

That's another thread, I imagine.

[uppityperson]

157. Yeah, I decided to try to keep the topic really clear and concise here.

hahahaha. Not mix up whether or not solicitation should be illegal or not. That is for elsewhere.

[BlackVelvet04]

84. If You Don't Want To Be Framed Don't Put Yourself In The Picture

That's rather like saying if you don't want the government to listen to your phone calls don't make phone calls.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. That's A Non Sequitur

In order for the situations to be equivalent the behavior would have to be similar...You would have to use your phone in such a way to cause suspicion as Senator Craig brought suspicion on himself by gazing at another man on the crapper, sitting next to him, playing footsie with him, and waving at him... In one case, Craig's -there was ample probable cause and in your scenario there is no probable cause...

He was looking for furtive sex in a restroom where folks presumably go to pee and poop and got busted...

It's a really selfish act..."I want to have sex in a public restroom and it matters not who sees me, even if it's a child."

[uppityperson]

102. here is the repost.

[peacetalksforall]

59. I'm with you about evidence. If this were just breaking, I would be

looking for much more. But, if at some point he said he was guilty and at another point - he accepted the penalties, any denial now is suspect. If someone believes his denail, then we need to hear more.

Just remember this - it is a Rovian rule to fill the air with as much fog as you possibly can. They may have even taken seminars in how to contradict anything not favorable to them or one of them. He may have remembered a lesson or someone refreshed him on the rules.

There is nothing honest about these people, subsequently you can't believe anything.

So, do you believe something happened in the MN courts to set him up.
What would you guess about the lawyers he used to stand with him and work for the best penalties/sentencing (I don't know the lingo here)?
Someone must have been satisfied that the evidence was sufficient.
I don't put much money in people pleading guilty believing that it will stay secret?

How did it get out?

[doublethink]

78. Okay if you break this down to one ..... act at a time .... as in ......

"Oh I accidental peered into the stall", and then "oh I accidental touched the foot of the guy in the stall next to me", and then "oh I accidental waved my hands under the stall next to me" ..... I guess I could understand your point of view on this. But HE PLEADED GUILTY. End of story. Your attempt to cloud this issue is a waste of time. "Inadequate, subjective evidence?" WTF do you mean by that? There will be no trial, HE PLEADED GUILTY. If this was all just AN ACCIDENT ... why plead guilty? Makes no sense from a guy of his significance in society? The 'sting team' (cop in the next stall) didn't just make this type of behavior up on the spot. It's called a pattern of behavior, previously documented numerous times in this type of sting operation. Anyway ..... give me a reasonable explanation why he pleaded guilty? Make it reasonable, not the one he gave. All the best and peace. :hi:

[uppityperson]

83. Innocent people plead guilty all the time.

I don't know why he did. To get it done with, processed quickly with no publicity? Because he was guilty? Either would work.

I prefer unambiguous statements ("hey buddy, wanna suck it"), not secret codes, for evidence.

[doublethink]

100. I kind of understand what your saying .... kind of ....like the grey areas ....in between .....

black and white. However ........ lets for play sake .... say a guy on the street came at you with a hatchet, missed, and later pleaded GUILTY to assault with a deadly weapon. And someone on DU came in here and said ...... maybe the guy was just trying to chop down the tree behind you? Ummmmmm again the assailant said nothing during the assault..... Gotta love some of these discussions on DU! :rofl: All in fun. Peace.

[FredScuttle]

101. A sitting US Senator pled guilty to a sex crime so it wouldn't be publicized.

Somewhere, there's a Gore Vidal book in there....

[uppityperson]

104. Same party that attacked Iraq for 9/11 WMDs Saddam Demokracy.

it is a funny world we are in.

[BlackVelvet04]

144. HE DIDN'T PLEAD GUILTY TO A SEX CRIME......

he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

[IDemo]

58. Me, I generally just clamber over the top of the stall while undressing

and singing "Lovin' You" by Minnie Ripperton.

[Bluebear]

63. That was YOU???

:)

[IDemo]

65. Sorry that super high note at the end damaged my throat

I'll be out of action for weeks...

[MrSlayer]

66. Obviously he was trying to get the guy's attention.

And obviously he was up to something weird but if he didn't whip his skippy openly or offer sex for money or for free or whatever I'm not seeing what was lewd. Unless, of course, the staring into the stall is considered thus by the law. That's some strange behavior. He might have been intending to give the guy a blumpkin but didn't actually do or say anything sexual as far as these reports go. Perhaps there is more to come in the story.

[uppityperson]

70. That's my issue with it, so to speak.

[peacetalksforall]

109. OK, is that is what you're driving at? If yes, we should take Craig out of

the picture and just talk law. You're asking what the legal point is at which the undercover guy can say gotcha. Sounds like you are saying that body signals are not enough and that verbal words must come into it to break a law?

[uppityperson]

116. Yes. I don't care about this particular person but the situation, the Evidence

as continue to write, over and over. I don't care about Craig but about getting decent evidence. Not ambiguous stuff, but hard evidence. Not "secret codes" but more specific provable stuff.

[uppityperson]

72. dupe of a bad joke

[BlackVelvet04]

158. Thank you.....

where is the law being broken?

[alittlelark]

75. He's a Sen. from a 'safe state' who can be easily replaced w/ an R

Forget the fact that this all happened 3 months ago - NOW is the time it can distract best.

[Skip Intro]

76. Your question is, what is the crime, right? I'm not sure either.

I think it was disorderly conduct. Read that somewhere. Lewd behavior? Ok. What is lewd behavior? I was thinking invasion of privacy.

There is no harm in asking what crime was, and such questions have nothing to do with condoning anything. What was the crime?

[FredScuttle]

79. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST....HE PLED GUILTY

can we please get back to the fact that a neocon caveman Senator who has a 0% rating from the HRC just got caught cruising for dick in a public restroom?!!!!

[Beausoir]

82. I just don't get the apologists for this guy. Very strange.

[uppityperson]

87. NOT the guy, the "EVIDENCE"

The guy is a hypocritical jerk. My problem is with subjective evidence, secret codes, that shit.

[FredScuttle]

94. "subjective codes"....LOL

If I'm on the toilet in a public restroom and the guy next door reaches his foot over so that it's touching mine, I know that he's not suffering from Restless Leg Syndrome.

Hetero guys in public restrooms (well, those hetero guys who aren't curious about switching teams) do not make any sort of contact with other guys. Hell, they don't even make eye contact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. You Forgot The Part Where Craig Watched Him On The Crapper For Two Minutes And Waved At Him...

eom

[uppityperson]

115. Where is waving in this police report? I don't see it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. The Paragraph Next To The Last

eom

[uppityperson]

119. AH, so you are interpreting "swiped his hand" as "wave"

See, ambiguous. Is a swipe a wave? Why did he swipe? What was it he did? What is a "swipe". Why didn't the cop say "wave" if he meant wave, why did he say "swipe"?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. It's Circumstantial Evidence

And circumstantial evidence is accepted in every jurisdiction in the nation...


If you isolate any of his behavior you can come up with benign explanations...But not when you add it all up...It becomes cumulative...

[Skip Intro]

128. I don't think anybody's apologizing for the guy, just curious about what the crime is.

[uppityperson]

85. People plead guilty when they are not. It happens. Not that he is saying no, I want

GOOD evidence and don't get the "secret code" stuff they have talked about. I want good hard evidence, clearcut unambiguous evidence. If someone can be convicted on "secret code" stuff, don't you think this is a bad thing? How about "secret codes" at peace meetings that really mean "overthrow the gvt"? All sorts of shit can be made up and is just isn't objectively proveable.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

88. I agree the news account is thin. Since he did plead guilty however, I'm going to guess that

there was more behavior that was obviously a solicitation to sexual activity than footsie, seeing as how he's a U.S. Senator and not some unsophisticated person with no legal knowledge. But what's currently in the record doesn't support much, aside from the GUILTY PLEA.

[FredScuttle]

92. Are you fucking kidding me?

"people plead guilty".....yes - dirt poor people without a pot to piss in and no political muscle in the world with a shitty-ass public defender plead guilty because they realize that, even if they're innocent, the prosecution has much more money, time and effort to expend on putting their ass in the clink for a lot longer than if they don't take the plea bargain.

Now, in this case, we're talking about a goddamn U.S. Senator! You mean to tell me that this powerful DC legislator was so intimidated by Minneapolis PD that he copped a plea even though he was innocent? That he wouldn't have fought this to the bitter end if he thought he was innocent of the charges?

Have I stumbled into Bizarro DU?

[uppityperson]

99. It happens and insults don't help here.

Do you think this goddamn US Senator wanted the publicity fighting this would bring? Seriously?

[FredScuttle]

106. As opposed to the publicity he's enjoying now?

I don't get your reasoning at all...if this was all truly such a big misunderstanding, Craig would have been on all the cable networks proclaiming his innocence and decrying these trumped up charges. Much like Cynthia McKinney did when she was accused of assaulting a Capitol officer.

I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but frankly, I'm insulted that you would be taking up for a necon clown who is getting the public outing he richly deserves.

[uppityperson]

111. I'm not taking up for him. I don't care about him, I care about legal evidence.

This is like saying if you don't have anything to hide, don't worry about your phone calls medical records library records being looked at. The hard, objective evidence seems to be missing and THAT is my problem here. Mr. Craig can jump off a cliff for all I care. I want good evidence, not ambiguous stuff.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. He Had The Right To Confront His Accuser In Court And Punked Out...

What part of guilty do you not understand?

There have been rumors circulating him for nearly three decades...

There's a point where the evidence becomes cumulative...


How can someone find the smell of pee and poop erotic?


Ewwwww

[uppityperson]

125. Some people do find poop/pee erotic. Hence "golden showers" and other such stuff

There is a wide range of what people find erotic. Are you now wanting to hang someone because they find something erotic you find distasteful? It's not appealing to me, but so long as it is consensual and no one gets hurt, they can do the urine/feces thing.

[FredScuttle]

129. Until you've been in a public men's bathroom

you have no background, no experience and no expertise to comment on what's "appropriate" and what's not.

Sorry.

[uppityperson]

138. Go tell that to the poster who keeps asking me if it's appropriate.

[FredScuttle]

167. You're the one who's agitating that it may be "appropriate"

You're defending this guy's behavior in a men's room without the slightest clue of what's considered "appropriate" or not in a men's room.

[uppityperson]

171. Not defending, looking for concrete evidence. There is a difference

perhaps to subtle for some to see.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

175. The Passive Agressive Defense

Craig should have used it...

[FredScuttle]

178. You wouldn't recognize the evidence

because you've never been in a men's public restroom. The evidence was pretty concrete for Senator Cruising because he took the plea.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. If Someone Is Into Scat That's Their Right

But their right to be into scat stops at my right to poop in privacy and peace...

[uppityperson]

113. dupe again, connection goes in and out. argh

[Beausoir]

105. "Bizarro DU" is right. Trying to excuse this guy is just plain goofy.

He solicited sex in a public bathroom.

He got caught.

He pled guilty.

He tried to hide it from the world.

He got caught again.

Case closed.

[uppityperson]

110. NOT trying to excuse him at all, just wanting Hard evidence, not secret stuff

If subjective evidence can be used against someone, it can be used against others. This guy is a jerk. Fine. But what goes around comes around and I want good evidence, not secret code stuff. That is what I am trying to get at here. NOT excusing anyone's behavior, but wanting good, objective evidence, evidence there is no doubt about (was the ft tapping a secret code or a tapping foot? sometimes it can be either. hard to prove)

[FredScuttle]

118. Did you read the arrest report?

The arresting officer makes several references to the fact that Craig exhibited a number of "signals" that would indicate he was there for more than just to relieve himself. The odd behavior of tapping one's foot is not in and of itself an illegal act, but Craig was escalating in his actions - stalking the stall, peering in, tapping his foot, reaching his foot over to make contact and finally giving hand signals under the divider - that convinced the undercover officer that he was soliciting. Any man on the jury that would have heard the case would apply a layman's assessment that this is not ordinary or usual behavior in a men's room. The officer would have testified that he had busted 100 guys that had done the same thing and Craig's nuts would have been in the ringer.

Stop being so obtuse. The asshole is guilty as sin and the world now knows that another anti-gay crusader has been exposed.

[uppityperson]

123. Yes I did. He waited until the stall was empty before entering (stalking or waited?)

That is the problem. I don't care about him. Another anti-gay crusader has been exposed is good. I want all of them out of any sort of power and embarrassed as well. What I am getting at has nothing to do with Mr.craig personally but the law. Evidence. That is what I am trying to get at. Evidence. Law.

Did he wait for the stall to be empty or stalk it? Were they secret codes or fidgeting? If someone is busted, they need to make sure they have evidence beyond secret codes and insinuations but into real provable stuff. Do you get it yet? I don't care about anti-gay assholes except to get rid of them and stop them. This is NOT about Craig but about evidence. About the law. About unambiguous stuff that is provable in a court.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. I'll Make It Easy For You...

My girlfriend is flying in from L A for the Labor Day weekend... I have to go to Orlando Int'l Airport to pick her up... If I have to defecate at the airport I don't want my senator watching me through the crack in the door for two minutes, then sitting in the stall next to me, then trying to play footsie with me, then putting his hand under the divider and on my side of the stall...

[uppityperson]

131. I'm not going to argue with you anymore

You seem to be ok with ambiguities and insinuations being used as evidence. You keep trying to make this personal, rather than looking at legalities. Best of luck to you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. What You Call Ambiguities And Insinuations Is Indirect Evidence Or Circumstantial Evidence

If circumstantial evidence can put people on death row it's good enough to put a GOPU senator on probation...

[uppityperson]

137. Not circumstancial evidence but ambiguous, unclear evidence.

Not good enough for death row. Not good enough at all.

[FredScuttle]

155. Ambiguous to you maybe

but not ambiguous to anyone who's ever been in a men's room and definitely crystal clear to Craig as he pled guilty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. I Guess You Have Never Been On A Jury...

You are instructed that indirect evidence is as good as direct evidence ...

Let's go over the evidence piece by piece...

1) Craig watched the cop through a crack in the stall on the toilet for two minutes...

I don't see an innocent explanation for that one...

2) Craig tapped his feet...

OK... We all know what he was up to but we'll call it ambiguous...


3) Craig rubbed his foot against the cop...

OK... Maybe it was an accident....

4) Craig put his hand under the stall of the other occupant....

I don't see an explanation for that...


So out of the four pieces of evidence there are benign explanations for two if you are willing to suspend disbelief but no explanation for the other two pieces of evidence...

The cumulative weight of the evidence is devestating..

A DA on crack could convict him...

[uppityperson]

162. 1) stall was occupied. When it emptied he entered it.

Raising another question which has not come up, why wait for that particular stall? However, it was occupied so he waited. For 2 minutes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. When Waiting For A Stall In A Men's Restroom You Stand As Far Away As Possible...

You never, never, watch the occupant through the crack where the door meets the stall do his business for two minutes...

I can't believe it's that much different for women..

[uppityperson]

176. Until you've frequented women's rooms, you can't compare or have any idea.

Sounds like it is though.
http://www.wanderings.net/notebook/Main/WhatReallyHappensInTheWomensRestroom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

179. It Doesn't Saying Anything About Watching Somebody Do Their Business For Two Minutes...

Look at your watch for two minutes and pretend you are spending that time gazing at a woman through the crack in her stall as she urinates or defecates ...

[Beausoir]

141. Pretty much sums it up.

[FredScuttle]

134. You go on and on about having trouble with the "evidence"

but you're willfully ignoring the statement by the officer, who is much more experienced in solicitations in men's bathrooms than me, and definitely more than you, attest to the fact the Sen. Craig hit the trifecta of bathroom cruising! What did you want the officer to do...lure Craig out in the open and have him whip out his dick in front of a kid?

Like I said before....you are not qualified to comment on appropriate behavior in a men's restroom.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. I Think Craig Wanted To Get In The Cops Pants And Not Vice Versa

eom

[FredScuttle]

147. right

I'm just saying that the Craig-defenders are looking for "hard" evidence of a crime. They would have preferred if the cop got Craig out by the sinks and said "Show me your willy!"

[uppityperson]

152. Once again missing the point, confusing a person with evidence.

Yes, having Craig say "blow me" would be objectively good evidence. Duh.

[FredScuttle]

165. No, my point is that the "evidence" that would have satisfied you

would have involved Craig exposing himself to an officer outside of the stalls, potentially in front of kids.

The officer handled it in a professional manner and I don't have a problem at all with the arrest.

When you spend a lot a time in men's restrooms, then I will be interested in your opinion on what's appropriate behavior and what is not.

[uppityperson]

166. "kids"? Surely you exaggerate

[FredScuttle]

168. Surely I exaggerate?

Surely you're not now making the point that kids never enter public restrooms

Particularly restrooms in the airport. You know, where families take flights here and there?

C'mon....you can't be serious.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

174. Don't You Know We Don't Defecate Or Urinate Until We Are Adults?

eom

[Beausoir]

177. And then....like Republican Vitter....we use diapers.

[Beausoir]

170. Kids don't use public restrooms?

:shrug:

It has nothing to do with gay or straight. It has to do with perverts hanging around in airport bathrooms looking for sex.

[FredScuttle]

173. Thank you

the contortions being taken here to defend Sen. Cruising are astounding.

[Beausoir]

132. He pled GUILTY. Jesus. How much more hard evidence do you need?

He got busted. He admitted it.

What else could you possibly need to admit that the guy is a stall pervert?

[uppityperson]

135. Pleading guilty means he is guilty?

Means that evidence does not need to be of high enough quality? OK. I'll put you down into that camp regarding evidence.

I don't care about craig. I care about having good evidence. Not going to argue with you either since you feel otherwise and it is a waste of my time.

[Beausoir]

136. So...you are saying that he...a white male United States Senator..was railroaded?

Is that really what you are claiming?

[uppityperson]

140. As far as pleading guilty, I am saying people plead guilty for all sorts

of reasons. Guilt being only 1 of them. Overall here, I do not care about Craig except I am happy to get nasty anti-gay people out of power. I care about good evidence. And just because bad evidence has been used to put people on death row (written elsewhere here) still doesn't make it right, even for bigotted anti-gay republicans who need to be removed. It is the other over-riding thing of evidence. That is what I am posting here about.

and yes, I support the ACLU

[Beausoir]

145. Ok...so there is a pretty in-depth police report AND an admission of guilt. What else do you need?

Be specific.

Video? Would video help?

[uppityperson]

148. He plead guilty to disorderly conduct.

I'm done with you. You are fine with subjective evidence. So be it. Bye

[FredScuttle]

151. Apparently Craig was fine with the evidence too

since he didn't raise a single objection.

Pity the poor millionare Senator who didn't get a fair day in court! :sarcasm:

[Beausoir]

160. He pled guilty. That's NOT subjective evidence. It's FACT.

Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops about this...really.

There certainly are some grey areas here. But to try and claim that this guy has somehow been railroaded into a confession is just beneath you.

[FredScuttle]

149. Do millionaire politicians plead guilty all the time?

hmmm?????

I know that millionaire ex-running backs don't plead guilty when accused of serious crimes. Neither do millionaire husbands of comatose heiresses.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

[electron_blue]

154. The part about pleading guilty that gets me is he was arrested Jun 11 and he

plead guilty on Aug 8. What kind of senator doesn't talk to at least one lawyer, secretly if need be, in the 2 months inbetween to get advice on what to do?

Or maybe that was the advice, dunno.

I would expect a lawyer to tell him to say something plausible, not guilty.

[FredScuttle]

161. Well you know

sitting US Senators don't get access to the best legal counsel....they're at the mercy of the public defender! :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

164. Actually I think many of them think they are Gods, sort of like surgeons do.

[MrMickeysMom]

112. Ding, ding... Give this man the prize!

Like sands in the hour glass, so are the repressed Republicans of our lives. I'm sick of liars who vote for family (man plus woman way to marry) legislation!!!

If you want to be gay, be gay... But, Godamnit, quit lying, writing laws that are webbed in your lies and repressing your sexuality to the point of uncontrolled perversions.

Get the fuck out of legislative branch of government if you can't keep it real and call it a day!

[goodhue]

90. strikes me as a joke that this is not obvious and apparent lewd conduct

[salin]

91. Here is the thing that seems improbable...

sitting on a toilet, one's legs so far sprawled to the sides that it would stretch to the other stall and brushes against the leg of another person.

Not only have I never experienced this (but I am a not-to-tall-female so I guess it is possible), but I have never had anyone I know describe such a phenomenon. And if it did occur "innocently" one would expect an embarassed response such as "I'm so sorry", or "excuse me" or something along a similar line. Why? Because if one isn't cruising in a bathroom - such an event would be extremely embarassing, as generally speaking - strangers in a bathroom expect a sense of privacy, and an unexpected and unintentional violation of such privacy would probably be expressed.

None the less, whatever. The man is a US Senator. Not likely to be "coerced" into a plea deal - given that it would go into the public record - esp a Senator with his record of anti-gay rhetoric and votes.

Watch for him to pull a Doolittle - to deflect the story altogether because it was publicized to pull away from the Gonzo story (as if that makes the story not exist...)

[FredScuttle]

95. He was cruising

no doubt about it. crossing the stall with his foot is the dead giveaway.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. You Forgot The Part Where Craig Watched Him On The Toilet For Two Minutes And Waved At Him...

eom

[BlackVelvet04]

153. "one's legs so far sprawled to the sides that it would stretch to the other stall

and brushes against the leg of another person."

That's not what happened.

[FredScuttle]

159. Right

Craig purposefully moved his foot over into the next stall and made intentional contact with the cop's foot.

[BlackVelvet04]

163. Thank you....

that's what the report said.

[mondo joe]

180. I'm a 6'2" man, and I can assure you, my feet have never come anywhere near

the feet in any stall near mine. I agree with you - it's extraordinarily improbable.

[peacetalksforall]

126. When he's not standing in a toilet stall, which Committees does

he sit on? I guess I mean sitting in a toilet stall.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

172. sit on?

you are awful!:evilgrin: