Sen. Craig ... & Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

If this is the new standard, then every Republican, guilty of any sin, must resign now. You are guilty until proven innocent.

for staring through the
cracks of the stall. How obnoxious and low life can a person get? If someone did that in a womens' RR the stuff would really hit the fan.

So Why should men have to put up with some pervert staring through cracks of the stall at them while they are doing their business, while fidgeting with his pants, and then getting in the adjacent stall, and sticking his foot and then his hand under the stall our your side?

By the way, this is about the 3rd time that someone has accused craig of sexual misbehavior. why has this (sexual misconduct accusations) happened to craig three times?

It doesnt happen to most people even once in a lifetime.

I might could give him the benefit of the doubt if this was the first time ever...but even here, his foot touched the officer's foot, he admitted that fact in the transcript-and that's not something that could happen accidently. it requires a wide lateral stretch of the leg under the adjacent stall for that to happen.

how many people have ever accidently touched somebody's foot-or had that happen to them??
thats a reaslly far fetched "accident".

whether hes technically guilty of a statutory violation, I dont know the Minnesota law. He would definitely be guilty of peeping tom in my home state of georgia.

And despite what all the Johnny Cochran wannabees say, the guys got real problems and anyone with a grain of sense can see that.He could have gone to court if he was comfident of his innocence. No one makes a US Senator do anything he doesnt want to do...

BTW: Trying to intimidate the detective by flashing his US Senate ID was also low class bluster.

Craig needs to stop lying to himself about being gay and seek seem some professional help, and stop humilating himself and his poor wife.

I want to thank both of you for taking the time to read, and comment, on the post.

Craig is not guilty of being a peeping tom at all. Listen to the audio of the interrogation, and Craig says he saw movement in the stall next to the officer. He then noticed the man was getting up. That's not peeping, and it is common to notice movement in stalls. If you are standing in front of a stall waiting ... it is easy to notice movement, or be mistaken for peeking. We don't have any evidence that he is guilty of that.

Touching the officer's foot is not a crime. Even if it is a code for requesting sex. There is no crime in asking someone for sex. If he offered to pay, or they were engaging in sex in public, then there would be crime. However, no crime was committed.

I checked on your accusations that this is his third time having someone accuse him of sexual misbehavior. This doesn't appear to be true at all. Nor do I know what you mean by 'misbehavior'.

One person in 1994 accused Craig of "cruising" for sex at an REI store, but never provided any proof. Nor is that a crime either. All other accusations stem from various points in Craig's life that he may have engaged in homosexual activity ... not that he assaulted anyone.

There is potentially an ethics violation in this case, but there is no actual crime committed. As I said in the post ... this is some of the worst police work I've ever seen.

One last thing ... Craig showing his Senate ID was no worse than the things the officer said during the interrogation. At one point the officer even said something to the effect of 'I'm not trying to be all powerful.' What's that about?