You say that like it would be a bad thing.

As horrific as Michael Vick’s crimes against innocent dogs, we all participate in the far greater crime currently being perpetrated on our planet via atmospheric pollution.

Why our psyches are so easily displaced is hard to say, but salacious details always seem to capture our attention.

I wondered about videotaping too– that is just plain scary! should it be true. do we gals have to worry about video tapings in bathrooms? Also, I was trying to imagine having someone put a foot into my stall, or have someone with blue eyes peaking through the door crack at me for a couple of minutes– would freak me out! then I was able to understand the violation aspects that I had sort of been thinking “no big deal” about.

The officer only would need to have a videocam within his own stall to get sufficient evidence. But no such cameras are noted in the depositions. Maybe they are mentioned in cases where others “fought” the arrests.

Can anyone find out about whether anyone fought the charges and what the outcomes of those cases were? Seems like a real mix of fairly high profile and lower level airport employees were caught in the “sting”. Might be interesting…and also give the name of the Asst. DA that handled these cases. He would know if Craigs lawyers actually called him, as well! Or if Craig handled it all by his lonesome.

Who picks up stray paper items in the stall of a public restroom?

No T.P.? Yeah, that’s it! There was no T.P. and he was simply trying to get the attention of the next guy over by making the “fondling gesture”…that was actually a well-known sign for “gimme some paper”. His silence was because he was holding his breath after a particular bad stinker.

And his toe tap was frustration that there was no paper! He resorted to using his foot to get the attention of the other guy.

And he was just about to blurt out “NO…toilet paper” when the officer showed him his badge. He only finished the first word when he was stunned into silence.

He didn’t even have enough time to flush when the cop told him to go to the holding area!

Of course he pled guilty…who would want this degrading treatment by the cops…making the Senator wander around in his own feces without even the grace of giving him a “Vitter Diaper”…be made public!

LS @ 90

Here’s what I find weird. Just because a cop in a stall next to you says this, this, and that happened, doesn’t make it so. Then Craig ends up taking a guilty plea. There was no “proof”. None. He did some things that might fit perfectly into the “pattern” of solicitation or not, but there is no “proof” – just one guys word against another. So, other than not wanting publicity, why would he plead guilty?

Unless, unless it was videotaped.

are you buying the he said he said defense? BS!

Exactly…the problem with the “he said…he said” defense of Craig is that in terms of SWORN statements Craig and the officer AGREE!

Craig admits that he “had a wide stance” and put his foot into the other cubicle, touching the officers foot “accidentally”. He also said that his reaching down was to “pick up a piece of paper”. He didn’t deny that these events happened…he simply had “excuses” for them.

But when you realize that his “picking up the paper” required him to reach across with his LEFT hand (wedding ring) PALM UP one sees the flimsiness of his assertion. The officer was able to see the ring knuckle, which means that Craig projected the hand faily far under the partition. Try this (in an empty bathroom, please) as an experiment.

I think a judge would have nailed CRAIG.

I think CRAIG contacted his lawyers with the police reports…and I suspect THEY contacted the Asst. DA in charge of the case (Craig called the police for his number and said twice it was for his lawyers).

I suspect that Craig may have contacted someone in the Minnesota Governmet or the MN Republican Congressional Representation to “fix this”. That’s why the PUGS want to stanch this BEFORE it gets too heavy…they could lose others!

Here’s what I find weird. Just because a cop in a stall next to you says this, this, and that happened, doesn’t make it so. Then Craig ends up taking a guilty plea. There was no “proof”. None. He did some things that might fit perfectly into the “pattern” of solicitation or not, but there is no “proof” – just one guys word against another. So, other than not wanting publicity, why would he plead guilty?

Unless, unless it was videotaped.

The arresting officer MAY have used a small videocam to support his evidentiary claims…but that’s not mentioned in the statements he gave. Generally, though, a sworn officer is given higher credibility that a defendant in such cases.

I would also point out that about the time that Craig was arrested a gay-sex chatroom posted a report from a “user” of that Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport toilet announcing the “sting” and asserting that the police were “entrapping” people by “tapping their feet” and “reaching under the stalls with their feet, touching your foot”.

Now this sounds precisely what Larry Craig is ACCUSED OF DOING. So was someone telling the “truth”? Or was someone attempting to start a rumor that the police were doing this so that there might be some legal ground to have cases dropped. I wonder if Craig’s emails can be checked to see if HE was the one that sent that “notice”!

Last time I took a crap- I tried out Larry’s “WIDE STANCE”- ta keep em from “sliding”..

Ah couldn’t make em slide in any event- wonder where he gets his sliding trousers?

Larry Craig must wear those huge bottomed hip-hop slacks in order to get his feet so spleyed that he could use that “wide stance” to get his foot under the partition!

Anyone ever try to cr*p like this? It’s absurd!