Restroom Senator L. Craig: "intent to resign" is not equal to "I will resign"

[Ladewig]

The distinguished colleague from Idaho apparently was playing word games on Saturday when he gave his press conference. He mistakenly left a detailed phone message about his "resignation" after dialing a wrong number.

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7032745

Quote:

Craig sent word to Republican Party leaders that he will resign his seat only if he fails in his bid to withdraw a guilty plea in Minneapolis by the end of this month.

Tonight we have audio from a phone message that Craig left on a machine stating he may *not* resign, the phone call was made just fifteen minutes before he held his Saturday press conference talking about his "intent" to resign...take a listen.

Quote:

Senator Craig Voice Message, "uh Arlon Spector is now willing to come out in my defense arguing uh uh that it appears by all that he knows I've been railroaded and all of that, having all of that we've reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on September 30 um I think it is very important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon and I would hope that you could make it in front of the cameras. I think it would help drive the story that I'm willing to fight that I have got quality people out there fighting in my defense. And that this thing could take a new turn a new shape has that potential. Anyway give me a buzz or give Mike a buzz. We're headed to my live press conference now."

[andyandy]

lol

is there any part of this that hasn't found its way into the media?

police transcripts
signed confessions
taped interviews
phone messages

if i were him, i'd quit while i was behind and take a long trip to Bhutan....

[Puppycow]

Indeed. If he comes back, the press won't give him a moment's peace. It won't be like before when he was just a low-profile senator from a polical backwater. There will be hundreds of uncomfortable questions that reporters will want to ask.

Instead, he should think about starting his memoirs. Working title: I am SOOO NOT GAY! and other things I think you should know about me

[timhau]

You know, there was a time when I almost felt bad for this guy for going from a senior senator to a joke. Now it seems like he's determined to be not just a joke, but a whole damn stand-up act.

[corplinx]

He's not gay, he was trying to get cockslapped in a dirty airport bathroom to empathize with how average american's feel on tax day.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Instead, he should think about starting his memoirs. Working title: I am SOOO NOT GAY! and other things I think you should know about me

No, he'd write the best-selling autobiography, "How I Would Have Done It If I Were Gay"

[Ladewig]

George "heck of a job, Brownie" Bush will not defend Craig in public. The president still says positive things about Gonzales and just ignores questions on Craig.

[Katana]

How is this any different than his saying that pleading "I'm guilty" isn't the same as saying that "I did it"?

This guy just needs to stop.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Katana

This guy just needs to stop.

But he can't. Stopping would be so gay.

[Kilgore Trout]

Makes sense to me. Just like tapping a foot and waving to a guy in the next stall doesn't mean 'I want to have hot sweaty sex with you in the men's room.'

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Makes sense to me. Just like tapping a foot and waving to a guy in the next stall doesn't mean 'I want to have hot sweaty sex with you in the men's room.'

Craig should have said that he was running a sting operation! It's like you see on TV shows all the time, where an undercover cop is doing some sting and the guy on the other side of the transaction is an FBI agent. They flash their badges, have a good laugh about overlapping jurisdictions, and so on. That's why Craig flashed his Senator Biz Card and said, "What do you think about that?"

[timhau]

I wonder what kind of a response he was expecting when he showed that US Senator Business Card. "Wow man, you lawmakers really turn me on?"

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Makes sense to me. Just like tapping a foot and waving to a guy in the next stall doesn't mean 'I want to have hot sweaty sex with you in the men's room.'

Are you saying that it couldn't possibly mean I'd like to have hot sweaty sex with you in a hotel?

Sorry for the downer questions.

[dudalb]

The Democrats have got to be loving this.
Nothing is better then watching your opponent destroying himself in public.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Are you saying that it couldn't possibly mean I'd like to have hot sweaty sex with you in a hotel?

Sorry for the downer questions.

It's only a "downer" question only in the sense that we might expect more from you than baseless apologetics.

But I'll give you a chance. If you can provide any basis for your contention that gay people use these types of activities/gestures in a bathroom stall as a means of finding a date, I might ultimately consider it possible, albeit unlikely. As of now, I have not heard any of the parties involved or those that are in the know claim that this was just a case of "finding a date." Then again, I'm not up on secret gay subculture handgestures. So educate me.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It's only a "downer" question only in the sense that we might expect more from you than baseless apologetics.

But I'll give you a chance. If you can provide any basis for your contention that gay people use these types of activities/gestures in a bathroom stall as a means of finding a date, I might ultimately consider it possible, albeit unlikely. As of now, I have not heard any of the parties involved or those that are in the know claim that this was just a case of "finding a date." Then again, I'm not up on secret gay subculture handgestures. So educate me.

"Apologetics"?

Craig is a hypocrite and an ass. I take the police officer at his word.

• I'm libertarian.
• I believe that laws should be substantive.
• Wink wink, nudge nudge, IMO is not substantive.
• What you are targeting is speech that will potentially but not definitively lead to unwanted sexual activity in the bathroom.
• I don't think expression should be illegal unless the expression is a specific violation like propositioning a prostitute. It's perfectly legal to ask a prostitute for a date. It's not legal to offer her sex for money.
• There should be no law against picking up people in the bathroom.
• Laws against sexual activity in the bathroom are fine.

Ultimately I'm not here for anyone's approval. I ask honest questions and engage in discussion that I think is relevant. When shown wrong I have demonstrated that I'm willing to concede and when I offend I'm capable of apologizing. My record speaks for itself.

So, please skip the ad hom. I'm not an apologist for this a-hole Craig. I don't engage in sexual activity in the bathrooms. I've committed not to vote Republican in the next election and I would prefer a Democratically controlled congress right now so could you just stick with logically valid argument?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Ultimately I'm not here for anyone's approval. I ask honest questions and engage in discussion that I think is relevant.

You have yet to explain why it is relevent.

Is there ANY indication _at all_ that he was just "looking for a date"?

You keep proffering this as an explanation, but you haven't provided anything to suggest that his actions were consistent with someone looking for a date.

I could just as well ask if it couldn't possibly mean that he wanted to have the guy accompany him to the local pet shop to buy a goldfish.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by RandFan

[*]I don't think expression should be illegal unless the expression is a specific violation like propositioning a prostitute. It's perfectly legal to ask a prostitute for a date. It's not legal to offer her sex for money.

Let's not project here. If you're offering her sex for money, you are the prostitute.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Indeed. If he comes back, the press won't give him a moment's peace. It won't be like before when he was just a low-profile senator from a polical backwater. There will be hundreds of uncomfortable questions that reporters will want to ask.

Instead, he should think about starting his memoirs. Working title: I am SOOO NOT GAY! and other things I think you should know about me

And a companion advice volume: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Potty Booty.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

"Apologetics"?

Craig is a hypocrite and an ass. I take the police officer at his word.

• I'm libertarian.
• I believe that laws should be substantive.
• Wink wink, nudge nudge, IMO is not substantive.
• What you are targeting is speech that will potentially but not definitively lead to unwanted sexual activity in the bathroom.
• I don't think expression should be illegal unless the expression is a specific violation like propositioning a prostitute. It's perfectly legal to ask a prostitute for a date. It's not legal to offer her sex for money.
• There should be no law against picking up people in the bathroom.
• Laws against sexual activity in the bathroom are fine.

Ultimately I'm not here for anyone's approval. I ask honest questions and engage in discussion that I think is relevant. When shown wrong I have demonstrated that I'm willing to concede and when I offend I'm capable of apologizing. My record speaks for itself.

So you think the only way to prevent sexual behavior in bathrooms would not be through under cover work, but waiting for two men to actually be getting it on?

This seems much less efficient than a police officer waiting to be propositioned.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you think the only way to prevent sexual behavior in bathrooms would not be through under cover work, but waiting for two men to actually be getting it on?

If men having sex in public restrooms is such a big problem that it requires undercover sting operations, then it must happen fairly frequently, yes?. So, I would think it should be pretty easy to catch them in the act.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

If men having sex in public restrooms is such a big problem that it requires undercover sting operations, then it must happen fairly frequently, yes?. So, I would think it should be pretty easy to catch them in the act.

But there is an issue of how frequent is frequent. You will have many fewer arrests, and conversely much more serious charges, they could quite easily be labeled as sex offenders and have to go on various lists.

But if they get a report of it say every few days then that could well be a problem restroom, but you are requiring more resources,(surveillance in a restroom might well have serious legal problems, expectation of privacy and all, warrants might well be needed and I would not think easy to get as it is not targeted to any individual).

How do you resolve these pratical and legal issues?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You have yet to explain why it is relevant.

I think you really have this backward. I'll give you a bit of slack since you might not be an American citizen.

1. In America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
2. It's not my job to prove Craig's innocent.
3. I'm offering a possible explanation for Craig's actions.
4. Just in case, Yes, innocent people do plead guilty but that is not relevant.
5. I'm not saying that Craig is innocent of a specific law.
6. If I go into a bathroom is it illegal for me to pick someone up with the intention of taken them back to my hotel room? Can you prove Craig wasn't doing the same?

Quote:

Is there ANY indication _at all_ that he was just "looking for a date"?

This is an entirely irrelevant question. Why you keep asking it is beyond me. I've never asserted that he was looking for a date. It's not relevant to the point at hand. My question is in the abstract. I'm offering a possible alternative and demonstrating that an innocent person could be arrested for simply wanting to find a date in a bathroom.

Can you prove what Craig's intentions were? Yes? No?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you think the only way to prevent sexual behavior in bathrooms would not be through under cover work, but waiting for two men to actually be getting it on?

This seems much less efficient than a police officer waiting to be propositioned.

Is efficency the only issue at hand? No other rights are applicable? Freedom of speech? Assumption of innocence? I'm amazed at how readily we as a group are to jetison rights. Yes, I include me in that group sometimes.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But there is an issue of how frequent is frequent. You will have many fewer arrests, and conversely much more serious charges, they could quite easily be labeled as sex offenders and have to go on various lists.

But if they get a report of it say every few days then that could well be a problem restroom, but you are requiring more resources,(surveillance in a restroom might well have serious legal problems, expectation of privacy and all, warrants might well be needed and I would not think easy to get as it is not targeted to any individual).

How do you resolve these pratical and legal issues?

Good question. How do your resolve the issue of presumption of innocence and freedom of speech? How do you know what Craig's intentions were.

This law would not have survived liberal supreme courts of the past. Given how conservative the court has become I don't know about today.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Is efficency the only issue at hand? No other rights are applicable? Freedom of speech? Assumption of innocence? I'm amazed at how readily we as a group are to jetison rights. Yes, I include me in that group sometimes.

So saying "I want to suck you off in this bathroom now" is now protected speech and can not be viewed as intent to actually perform sex acts in said bathroom?

He was working through a code, that made his intent clear. It did not involve leaving the bathroom for sexual activities.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Good question. How do your resolve the issue of presumption of innocence and freedom of speech? How do you know what Craig's intentions were.

This law would not have survived liberal supreme courts of the past. Given how conservative the court has become I don't know about today.

I am not so sure. You would need to well establish the nature of the code and exactly what various things mean, but why should that be any different from directly propositioning an illegal activity(namely sex in the bathroom)?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So saying "I want to suck you off in this bathroom now" is now protected speech...[

Did Craig do this?

Quote:

He was working through a code, that made his intent clear. It did not involve leaving the bathroom for sexual activities.

Prove this.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I am not so sure. You would need to well establish the nature of the code and exactly what various things mean, but why should that be any different from directly propositioning an illegal activity(namely sex in the bathroom)?

Hand gestures don't work in prostitution stings. The communication needs to be clear.

Prove that the various gestures would pass the reasonable person test.

[dudalb]

Randfan said it straight:Regardless of whether he commited a crime or not,Criag has proven himself a hypocrite and a ass in the way he has handled this.
If innocent,he should have fought it in court,instead of pleading guilty and hoping this would never get out..which was,IMHO, a very unrealistic expectation.
From all I have read, it is going to be very difficult for him to be able to reverse his Guilty plea. That is almost never allowed.
Craig,aside from other issues,is not very bright.
I don't understand why he wants to stay in congress. He is going to be a pariah in his own party...and not just on the Bathroom Sex charges. Many will consider his whole reversal on resignation to be doing severe damage to his won party to satisfy his own ego,and that is something no political party will fogive.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Randfan said it straight:Regardless of whether he commited a crime or not,Criag has proven himself a hypocrite and a ass in the way he has handled this.
If innocent,he should have fought it in court,instead of pleaing guilty and hoping this would never get out..which is,IMHO, a very unrealistic expectation.
From all I have read, it is going to be very difficult for him to be able to reverse his Guilty plea.
Craig,aside from other issues,is not very bright.
I don't understand why he wants to stay in congress. He is going to be pariah in his own party...and not just on the Bathroom Sex charges. Many will consider his whole reversal on resignation to be doing severe damage to his won party to satisfy his own ego,and that is something no political party will fogive.

Agreed.

[Tailgater]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Agreed.

I will third that post.

[strathmeyer]

Originally Posted by andyandy

lol

is there any part of this that hasn't found its way into the media?

police transcripts
signed confessions
taped interviews
phone messages

if i were him, i'd quit while i was behind and take a long trip to Bhutan....

Too bad there's no physical evidence.

[Gurdur]

Reminds me of the illogic of a fair few posters here.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Hand gestures don't work in prostitution stings. The communication needs to be clear.

Prove that the various gestures would pass the reasonable person test.

The thing is that the reasonable person needs to know the signal system.

Quote:

The police report says Larry Craig peered through the crack (the one that allows the bathroom-stall door to swing) into the undercover police officer's stall for two minutes. This is what cruisers do in T-rooms. They look through cracks.

Larry Craig sat down on a toilet and subtly tapped his foot several times and waited to see if the guy on the other side of the partition subtly tapped his foot in return. This is precisely how T-room cruisers communicate to each other that they're there to hook up rather than use the facilities.

Larry Craig then took his hand, palm upward, and ran it along the bottom of the stall divider so that the individual on the other side of the partition could see Larry's fingers making an inviting "come hither" gesture. The police report says he did this three times.

This gesture has a precise meaning and is universally understood in the men's-room cruising scene. It translates, "Get down on your knees and place your penis underneath the partition so I can touch or fellate it."

link

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by strathmeyer

Too bad there's no physical evidence.

Given the leaks so far, I fully expect semen stained trousers on ebay and a youtube video of the senator jacking off by next week....

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Hand gestures don't work in prostitution stings. The communication needs to be clear.

Prove that the various gestures would pass the reasonable person test.

carrying out a specific action not possible by chance, nor carried out in any normal public toilet usage, in a restroom that just happens to be frequented for gay rendezvous, which just happens to mean "I want to suck your penis" would pass the reasonable person test for most people.

the defence is akin to being caught in a known drug dealing area, having asked a drug dealer "can i buy some heroine" in Spanish, then protesting that you did not know what "puedo compro a alguna heroína" (babelfished, so likely innacurate ) meant, it is just a coincidence that those words formed in a moment of divine tongues, and it has all been a horrible misunderstanding - hey did i tell you i'm a senator?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Randfan said it straight:Regardless of whether he commited a crime or not,Criag has proven himself a hypocrite and a ass in the way he has handled this.
If innocent,he should have fought it in court,instead of pleading guilty and hoping this would never get out..which was,IMHO, a very unrealistic expectation.
From all I have read, it is going to be very difficult for him to be able to reverse his Guilty plea. That is almost never allowed.
Craig,aside from other issues,is not very bright.
I don't understand why he wants to stay in congress. He is going to be a pariah in his own party...and not just on the Bathroom Sex charges. Many will consider his whole reversal on resignation to be doing severe damage to his won party to satisfy his own ego,and that is something no political party will fogive.

He evidently just had to blow something..............

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is that the reasonable person needs to know the signal system.

link

And this is proof of what? I've read the reports. I'm sorry you don't undersand my point. I've sought to be as clear as I could.

That's fine. So proof is whatever the police says that it is and that's that? So, in the future we don't even need to ask any questions of the perp to make certain there is no missunderstanding and we damn sure don't need a jury. Hell, the guy need not even plead.

Just give him the fine.

Pesky legal system.

Thanks Turtle.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by andyandy

... happens to mean "I want to suck your penis"...

I missed your proof of that. My thanks in advance for providing the proof.

Thanks.

Quote:

the defence is akin to being caught in a known drug dealing area, having asked a drug dealer "can i buy some heroine" in Spanish...

We can buy spanish speaking dictionaries. We can prove that the words spoken in spanish demonstrate what the arresting officers claim it means.

Where is this dictionary for homosexual cruising hand signals? Oh wait, the arresting officer said what these signals meant, that settles it.

I still don't understand the purpose of having a legal system. If the police never make mistakes and if what they say is gospel then why do we waste all of that money.

Yes, I know he plead guilty. I get that. Why did we bother having him plead at all? We all know he was guilty. Why bother with a legal system?