Craig attempts to change Guilty plea

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by scbelle

From what I understand of the case, it is not a "sex crime". The bathroom at that airport had become known for a place for men to hook up with each other and have consensual sexual encounters. If sex had taken place, then a crime (sex in a public place-- lewd and lascivious conduct??) would have been an appropriate charge. But since there was no sex, I really don't see what the problem is. That's not to say that I find the Senator's behavior unbecoming of an elected official; not because of his homosexual tendencies, but because of his dishonesty and hypocrisy.

When I was growing up, my grandmother's preacher got caught in a sting operation at an adult bookstore. He had approached an undercover agent and solicited PAID sex, so obviously, that's a big no-no. But I don't think Craig was looking to pay for it, was he? And I don't think he was being an underage predator, either. But, I get snippits of US news over here, so I could be wrong.

This link details what happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/wa...tJi8RgJbQtJvcQ

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

This link details what happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/wa...tJi8RgJbQtJvcQ

Thanks, but that still doesn't completely clarify to me if the "lewd conduct" complaints made that led to the sting operation were due to consensual hook ups, or if it is a case of male prostitutes working the bathrooms. My thought is the former, because if it was the latter, I'm sure the story would have been that Craig was attempting to hire a prostitute.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by scbelle

Thanks, but that still doesn't completely clarify to me if the "lewd conduct" complaints made that led to the sting operation were due to consensual hook ups, or if it is a case of male prostitutes working the bathrooms. My thought is the former, because if it was the latter, I'm sure the story would have been that Craig was attempting to hire a prostitute.

I wonder if he was set up........

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by scbelle

Thanks, but that still doesn't completely clarify to me if the "lewd conduct" complaints made that led to the sting operation were due to consensual hook ups, or if it is a case of male prostitutes working the bathrooms. My thought is the former, because if it was the latter, I'm sure the story would have been that Craig was attempting to hire a prostitute.

I believe we're talking consensual acts here. Just public ones. The ACLU is on Craig's side in that there is no reason why one can't solicit sex in the bathroom, as long as they're not having it...

[scbelle]

Silly musings


It’s not a crime to make a pass at someone in a public place, but it could be a crime to engage in conduct that elicits “alarm or resentment” in others. Asking for a phone number in a bar: OK. Implicitly offering sex in an airport bathroom: Not OK.

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I believe we're talking consensual acts here. Just public ones. The ACLU is on Craig's side in that there is no reason why one can't solicit sex in the bathroom, as long as they're not having it...

That's my problem with the whole thing. He was set up in a place where men were known to hook up. I don't think that makes him a criminal.

[LPIDelta]

It sounds to me like the majority here think he is "guilty" and that he was in fact trying to hook up with someone? Is my perception accurate?

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

It sounds to me like the majority here think he is "guilty" and that he was in fact trying to hook up with someone? Is my perception accurate?

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

well you sure can't hook up with a woman in the men's room....LOL

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

well you sure can't hook up with a woman in the men's room....LOL

Who says???

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

It sounds to me like the majority here think he is "guilty" and that he was in fact trying to hook up with someone? Is my perception accurate?

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

No, I could care less if he was "guilty" or not of trying to hook up. It's not the fact that he may or may not be a homosexual. And I do wonder about the legality of the whole sting operation. Foot tapping is not against the law. What bothers me is that he did plead guilty to something. Whether it's because he knew he was engaging in questioning behavior or because he was eager to shield his wife and public (and thereby himself) from the embarrassment of the situation, he plead guilty. That should count for something. He's now trying to circumvent the justice system by vacating his plea so he can stay in congress. I just think that's wrong. He's acting like the rest of lawmakers-- they think they are above the laws they create, and it's a sickening trend.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

I am still not convinced that he was in fact looking to hook up with a man. Someone would have come forward by now if this was something he had done in the past. Does that change whether he should resign, even though he did plead guilty?

As has been noted, there have been men who have talked to the press, but have not gone public. This is DC after all, and it's not inconceivable that any men in question have their own reasons for not wanting to go public.

Originally Posted by Sugar08

That's my problem with the whole thing. He was set up in a place where men were known to hook up. I don't think that makes him a criminal.

As for being "set up," I just don't buy that. The bait may have been offered, but nobody forced him to bite.

The man pled guilty, not nolo contendere. I don't know about Minnesota, but where I am, that's not just a simple matter of saying "okay, I'll plead guilty to get this overwith, see you later." The judge questions you pretty specifically with questions designed to make sure you understand the implications of pleading guilty. The judge also has to find that there is, in fact, a factual basis for believing that you are guilty, such as a statement from you that actually did what you have been accused of doing. These questions are designed to make sure that a defendant is receiving due process and is not being coerced into pleading guilty.

I'll be very, very surprised if he gets is allowed to withdraw that guilty plea at this point. I get the sense that he will be surprised as well.

[KSig RC]

Not to be a douche about all of this, but there's kind of a pattern forming:

-In 1982, he preemptively denies nailing Congressional pages a la Mark Foley

-Last year, he's named as someone who cruises for gay sex, implicated in three occasions: a.) Union Station, which apparently is known for 'cruising' behavior; b.) at an REI in Boise (which is loltastic); and c.) in college

-He is then arrested for following a moderately intricate process of "signals" that apparently are spread on the Internet as the way to signal "I would like a manly blowjob in this bathroom stall, what do you say ol' sport"

Not that this all couldn't be a coincidence, but I think it's very important to note his denials - he vehemently denies being gay, which isn't the issue here. The issue is whether he's getting blown by men, which while a homosexual act, could definitely be something enjoyed by an (otherwise) "straight," married man. He's treating it like an impossibility, when it's really not.

The attempt to change the guilty plea is a true shot in the dark, but hey - more power to him, I suppose. The pattern here, though, would make me think there's more here than a "setup" by Minneapolis police, who probably couldn't care less about a Senator from Idaho.

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As has been noted, there have been men who have talked to the press, but have not gone public. This is DC after all, and it's not inconceivable that any men in question have their own reasons for not wanting to go public.

As for being "set up," I just don't buy that. The bait may have been offered, but nobody forced him to bite.

The man pled guilty, not nolo contendere. I don't know about Minnesota, but where I am, that's not just a simple matter of saying "okay, I'll plead guilty to get this overwith, see you later." The judge questions you pretty specifically with questions designed to make sure you understand the implications of pleading guilty. The judge also has to find that there is, in fact, a factual basis for believing that you are guilty, such as a statement from you that actually did what you have been accused of doing. These questions are designed to make sure that a defendant is receiving due process and is not being coerced into pleading guilty.

I'll be very, very surprised if he gets is allowed to withdraw that guilty plea at this point. I get the sense that he will be surprised as well.

I don't think he should be allowed to change his plea, unless they can prove that he didn't know what he was getting into.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Sugar08

That's my problem with the whole thing. He was set up in a place where men were known to hook up. I don't think that makes him a criminal.

it has to be proven that his behavior was criminal from the jump and that's the part that has this whole thing in a pickle.

Dependent on who you talk to, men hooking up in airport restrooms is allegedly a common practice.

Atlanta International and BWI have also been known to have a few issues as well