But … is it true? My apology to Larry Craig.
By Leverkuhn Posted in Archived — Comments (169) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A couple of nights ago I wrote a diary entry commenting on the bizarre and troubling story out of Minneapolis concerning Senator Larry Craig’s alleged attempt to solicit sexual favors from an undercover police officer. I concluded my commentary by dismissing Senator Craig’s belated protestations of innocence and calling for his resignation. [1a] I now believe I was wrong.
From the beginning of my academic career until now, I have tried to incorporate one cardinal intellectual principle into everything that I write for public consumption: before you argue any point, large or small, be absolutely sure of the facts. I have often failed to live up to that standard, but never more egregiously than when I wrote the aforementioned diary calling for Craig’s resignation. I allowed my dislike of Craig as a politician, and my disdain for his apparent homosexuality to cloud my judgement. In so doing, I added my voice to a growing chorus of people who seem to want to dispose of his political career for reasons that have little if anything to do with what may (or may not) have happened in a Minneapolis restroom two months ago.
Before we proceed, let’s set a few ground rules for this discussion. First, whether or not Larry Craig is gay has no bearing on what happened between him and Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer, at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Second, Senator Craig’s politics are not at issue. If you are a conservative and you want Craig’s head because he voted for immigration reform, shame on you. If you are liberal, and you want Craig gone because he voted against gay marriage, shame on you too. The only questions at issue here are evidentiary ones. Did Senator Craig solicit Sgt. Karsnia for sexual favors in the airport restroom? Did Craig engage in lewd behavior in the restroom?
First, let’s review the timeline. Many of the media reports following Craig’s arrest give the impression that the Senator spent an inordinate amount of time in the restroom engaging in suspicious behavior. But according to Sgt. Karsnia’s own arrest report, the entire sequence of events leading to Senator Craig’s arrest occurred in a six-minute span of time from 12:13 PM to 12:19 PM, on June 11, 2007. [1] At 12:13 the police officer reported noticing Craig looking into his stall. We should note that Craig was only standing outside the stalls for two minutes (12:13 PM to 12:15 PM), that the stalls to the right and left of Karsnia were occupied, and that Craig entered the stall to the left of Karsnia after the man in that stall departed.
Reports have circulated on several political blogs that Senator Craig was actually “peeking” into Karsnia’s stall through the crack around the door of the stall. [2] These are clearly distortions. In fact, Sgt. Karsnia’s report states that he was standing “about three feet away” from the stall. In spite of the distance, and the obstructed view, Sgt. Karsnia claims to have been able to see the color of Senator Craig’s eyes. On this point, I think there is some grounds for doubt. First, I don’t know if it’s actually possible to identify the eye color of someone through such a tiny space. Second, having examined several photographs of Senator Craig, I am not certain that his really are blue. Eye color is a hard thing to judge. It often appears different in different lights, and it can change over time. But I’ve looked at a half dozen photographs of the Senator. I’ve even saved and blown up those photos on my computer to get a better look at his eyes, and from what I can tell he appears to have very dark eyes. They may be brown in fact, or brown with some green or blue mixed in. I could be wrong, but here is a link to a photo of Senator Craig at his arrest so you can judge for yourselves. [3] If anyone can provide more definitive evidence concerning Senator Craig’s eye color, I would be glad to see it. In any event, it seems highly unlikely to me that Sgt. Karsnia, sitting on a bathroom stool in an enclosed space, could look through the crack next to the stall door and correctly identify the eye color of a man standing three feet away from the stall. I find that especially doubtful since, according to Karsnia’s own report he only caught glimpses of Craig’s eyes when the Senator was looking in the direction of his stall. In retrospect, it appears that the observation about Craig’s eyes was added retrospectively in an attempt to spice up Karsnia’s narrative and enhance its credibility.
The next problem I have with Karsnia’s narrative concerns the four-minute period (12:5 to 12:19) in which Senator Craig occupied the stall next to him. Karsnia claims that the first evidence he had of Craig’s amorous intentions came when the Senator tapped his right foot. Sgt. Karsnia says that he “recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.” In response Karsnia moved his own foot “up and down slowly.” Karsnia does not explicitly whether his own actions would have been recognized “by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct” as an affirmative signal, but I think we can assume from the context that they would be. At that point Karsnia reported that Senator Craig’s foot touched his own foot.
Now let’s pause here to ask a few questions about Karsnia’s narrative thus far. Even assuming that Karsnia’s recollection of the events is exact, the most striking thing about this account is the paucity of actual evidence that Craig intended to make sexual advances toward him. Is taping your foot on the bathroom stall really a sign of sexual interest? I have been around plenty of guys who tap their feet when they do their business on the stool. Some people tap their feet when they are under stress. Some people tap their feet when they have a tune stuck in their heads. And some people tap their feet because they have restless leg syndrome or other nervous disorders. [4] There could be a hundred different explanations, most of them having nothing to do with soliciting sex. As for Karsnia’s claim that Craig’s foot touched his own, again, what exactly does that prove? I’m sure that most of us who fly frequently can attest to the fact that some of the stalls in those airport bathrooms can be pretty small. The restrooms are, after all, designed to accommodate large numbers of people on a daily basis. I suppose it depends on what airport you are in, and how big the bathroom is, but can anyone deny the definite possibility of incidental contact between feet?
Karsnia goes on to relate how Craig then began running his hand up and down the bottom of the stall divider (a point which Craig disputes). Karsnia also claims that it was Craig’s left hand making this motion. This was the point in Karsnia’s narrative that first gave me reason to doubt his version of the events. He claimed that he could tell it was Craig’s left hand based on the position of his thumb in relation to the rest of his fingers, and because at one point he saw Craig’s wedding ring, which was on his left hand at the time. But in order for Craig to do that he would have had to move his arm across his body and reach down to the bottom of the stall divider. Try it yourself, dear reader, and I think you will realize that this is a very unusual and unnatural physical posture. Even if you assume that Craig really was trying to send a sexual signal to Karsnia, wouldn’t it have been more convenient to use his right hand?
Craig himself pointed this out in his post-arrest interview with Karsnia [5]:
David Karsnia: I saw your left hand and I could see the gold wedding ring when it when it went across. I could see that. On your left hand, I could see that.
Larry Craig: Wait a moment, my left hand was over here.
DK: I saw there's a...
LC: My right hand was next to you.
DK: I could tell it with my ah, I could tell it was your left hand because your thumb was positioned in a faceward motion. Your thumb was on this side, not on this side.
LC: Well, we can dispute that. I'm not going to fight you in court and I, I reached down with my right hand to pick up the paper.
DK: But I'm telling you that I could see that so I know that's your left hand. Also I could see a gold ring on this finger, so that's obvious it was the left hand.
As you can see, at this point in the interview Karsnia was absolutely adamant that not only did he see Craig’s hand, but he also knew that Craig used his left. In his post-arrest report he never mentions having any doubt about that point whatsoever. HOWEVER, later in the interview he actually seems to backtrack and question his own recollections [6]:
LC: But I didn't use my left hand.
DK: I thought that you...
LC: I reached down with my right hand like this to pick up a piece of paper.
DK: Was your gold ring on your right hand at anytime today?
LC: Of course not, try to get it off, look at it.
DK: Okay. Then it was your left hand, I saw it with my own eyes.
LC: All right, you saw something that didn't happen.
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
If Sgt. Karsnia really was certain that Craig used his left hand to motion to him under the bathroom stall divider, why did he then ask Craig if the wedding ring had been on his right hand? He originally said that he could tell Craig used his left hand based on the position of the thumb vis-à-vis the fingers. If that were true, then he wouldn’t have needed to see the ring. But if he did see the ring, and he did see the fingers, then why would he question the Senator about whether the ring had been on the other hand?
On the other hand, let’s assume that Sgt. Karsnia’s memory was not as precise as his written report seemed to indicate. Let’s assume that a young airport police officer who finds himself doing an unpleasant and somewhat degrading job (like trolling the public restrooms for deviants) doesn’t always approach his task with the most zeal and enthusiasm. Maybe he was tired of sitting on a stool waiting for somebody to solicit him. Maybe he felt bad for himself and wished he could be anywhere else doing anything else. And then an elderly man sits in the stall next to him and does some of things he’s been told could be signals of sexual interest. Perhaps he also knows that nine times out of ten the arrested man will feel so mortified at the thought of a trial for indecent behavior that he will gladly cop and plea and pay a fine rather than face a judge. But something goes wrong. All of a sudden the young cop discovers the accused is a U.S. Senator, and he worries that his superiors will be breathing down his neck. So he writes a report including details that he thinks he remembers, but isn’t absolutely sure about, because he knows that his bosses will want this thing tied up nice and neat before in case it goes public: “Was it the left hand or the right? I guess the left … yeah, the left. Was there a ring there? Wait, maybe he put it on his right hand. No, there’s one on his left hand now, so it must have been there at the time.”
There are other items in Karsnia’s report and his subsequent interview with Craig, which I consider red flags. For example, the interview opens with Craig asking the officer “Am I gonna have to fight you in court?” which seems to indicate that they were exchanging words prior to the time Karsnia began recording. Unfortunately, we don’t know what was said, or if it would have had any bearing on the case, but I do think that since karsnia obviously had a recording device available it would have been better for us to know everything that was said. Also, the two talked for at least a minute or two before Karsnia reads him his Miranda rights. Prior to that point Karsnia explained to Craig that he could either plead guilty thereby avoiding a trial, or go to trial and fight the charges. I will leave it up to the lawyers who visit this website to tell me whether he should have read Craig his Miranda rights first before discussing his legal options.
Beyond the obvious factual questions I have about this case, I would like to make a broader point about the way people (and I include myself here) have reacted to this case based on their assumptions about Craig, his politics, and his sexual orientation. I think it would be fair to say that the majority of people on both sides of the political divide now believe that Larry Craig is gay. Probably a similar number of people also believe that gay sex is immoral, and that gay people are inherently more prone to engage in lewd and/or risky sexual behavior than the rest of us. (For the record, I agree with the first statement but not the second.) Unfortunately for Craig, he is a public figure, and the public – i.e., voters, viewers, bloggers, etc. – functions in a very real sense as his jury. Although it is terribly unfair, the court of public opinion has convicted Craig of being a sexual deviant based primarily on our assumptions about him as a politician and a person. Is Larry Craig gay? Based on three decades of rumors and anecdotal evidence I have to say I think he probably is gay. Did he engage in lewd behavior in an airport bathroom? When I first read about this story I honestly thought he did. After the initial reports came out I assume, like many other people, that the cops had even more damning evidence at their disposal. But after seeing the evidence, I am not so sure, and I should have required far more proof than one policeman’s subjective interpretations of Craig’s furtive foot movements before joining the digital lynch mob that has effectively ended his career. Although my part in this ugly affair was relatively small, I sincerely regret it and wish I had acquitted myself better.
UPDATE: As one of the commenters just pointed out, the actual arrest occured on June 11, not June 26 as I had originally said. I was misled by the fact that Sgt. Karsnia edited his report on June 26, two weeks after the incident happened. That leads me to ask another potentially damning question about the way this investigation was handled. If Sgt. Karsnia's memory is as precise and flawless as his report indicates, why did he have to edit it so long after the event took place?
[1a] http://www.redstate.com/blogs/leverkuhn/2007/aug/28/for_real_i_mean_that...
[1] http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/
[2] http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/?iref=mpstoryvie...
[4] http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/restless_legs/detail_restless_legs.ht...
[5] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3543062&page=3
[6] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3543062&page=4
And it is partially Larry Craig's fault that we'll never know, because he did plead guilty (although not to soliciting sex, btw). On the other hand, it's also our fault as bloggers, part of the "new media," because we were too busy disposing of his political corpse to ask if he actually did what the airport police accused him of doing.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
If you didn't read up on it you'd swear Larry Craig pleaded guilty to the lewd behavior charges. The media has never once pointed out he pleaded to lesser charges that do not specifically indicate any lewd behavior.
Even though I think Craig is prob guilty I think the arrest is totally bogus. Cops should be arresting people for flashing and sex in public, not being thought police.
If some guy makes a pass at me under the stall I'll urinate on his foot. If he reaches his hand underneath the stall he'll get a handful of dirty TP.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
the liklihood that we will never know all the details of this incident
"I don't know if I can bear it."
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I haven't paid a lot of attention to this story, but I did hear Larry Craig say emphatically "I never have BenGay™ "
He just needs to go to WalGreens and buy a tube. Then with relief he can say "I have BenGay™ "
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
As I've pointed out on another thread when that BenGay point was raised, Craig doesn't use BenGay. He prefers HeadOn, and he recommends it to others. In fact, he probably just offered to give that cop HeadOn, and that's where the whole crazy misunderstanding started. Then things got more confusing when Craig told the cop he wanted to "apply it directly to your forehead".
On Hugh hewitt a guest said that it was a team rules violation for football players to attend class at Clemson!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Larry Craig could have a future gig as spokesperson for BenGay™
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
K-Y Jelly
and I am not proud of myself
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
But you have one basic fact very wrong:
It happened on June 11, not June 26.
That was my mistake. The arrest report was entered on June 12, and edited on June 26 by Sgt. Karsnia himself. I put down June 26 by accident. I don't think that changes any of the points I've made, but you are right in pointing that out and I will change my diary accordingly.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
... a serious injustice. Worst of all by people on his own side.
I don't know whether we should allow ourselves to credit the thirty years of rumors as having much validity either. A person I know was once accused of theft many years before, and even though it turned out it wasn't him, it was heard so far and wide, that it simply stuck and became a reference point. Anytime anything got missing, he was at the top of the list of suspects, and each incident was just added to his backstory so that it was KnownFact™ he was a thief even though 90% of the time, whatever was missing got found - misplaced or taken by someone else, and nothing was ever found with him.
I find it remarkable that in all those years, including today where being gay is treated like a mark of sainthood, no one has stood up and claimed to have had sex with Larry Craig. If indeed he is in the habit of cruising public toilets for anonymous encounters, enough to have picked up the "code", he must have encountered a Democrat at some point!
The other things that bother me about this story is that virtually no-one has tried to look at it, considering that maybe, just maybe, Craig is telling the truth. He sat on the toilet, tapped his foot while doing it and bent to pick something up from the floor of the stall - it is not unknown for a toilet in an airport to be dry and clean enough for one to do that without thinking too much about it.
What time was his flight out of the airport? Was he travelling alone or with someone else who was waiting for him outside? How busy was that particular toilet? How many people have been caught doing what it was he is accused of doing in that toilet? There are all sorts of questions we're neglecting to ask in our rush to tsk-tsk at his "behavior," all during a period of six minutes in which he entered a toilet, waited for someone to leave a cubicle, sat down to do his business and tapped his foot.
But then again, this is politics, and perception is all that matters in this game. He has been tried and already found guilty in the court of public opinion thanks to Leno, Stewart and the newspapers and anchors who pushed this story, all of whom started from the basic presumption that he is lying.
He may be, indeed. He may have indeed made a pass at the wrong person. But the fact is that even if he did not, he has become an albatross around her necks and chances are, that, Republican that he is, he cannot salvage himself in time for 2008 and may end up dragging some seats down with him.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
This world may be a figment of imagination. Maybe we didn't really land on the moon!
But back in the real world, what's really likely here? A deeply closeted gay man is arrested in a bathroom in which there has been a history of men using it for illicit purposes. Not to be crude, but where else do you think that Sen. Craig has been getting it?
And does continuing to debate and parse every word of the police report, transcript and Sen. Craig's statements really in the interest of Republicans or conservatives?? As interesting as it is to debate the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin, I would think that the sooner the affair, so to speak, is over, it couldn't come too soon for the Party (not that I have a pony in that race).
As for any guilt you feel, that's really a separate issue from whether he "did it" or not. Given that Sen. Craig helped to create the very environment that led to immediate calls for resignation, you probably don't have much to apologize for. In fact, Sen. Craig -- pre-arrest -- would have wanted everyone to deal harshly with anyone who found himself in his, uh, position.
But back in the real world, what's really likely here?
He entered a toilet stall, sat down and tapped his right foot. Make sure there's no tune playing in your head when you enter a public bathroom - you might tap your foot and find yourself under arrest. And following your logic, there would be no question that you were looking for sex.
If you don't like Craig for his gay marriage stance, fine. I don't like his stance on immigration. But I won't use it as leverage to prop up what on second examination is not so well supported an allegation.
As interesting as it is to debate the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin, I would think that the sooner the affair, so to speak, is over, it couldn't come too soon for the Party.
No. There comes a time when throwing people under the bus at the first opportunity becomes counterproductive in the long and short term.
As for any guilt you feel, that's really a separate issue from whether he "did it" or not. Given that Sen. Craig helped to create the very environment that led to immediate calls for resignation, you probably don't have much to apologize for. In fact, Sen. Craig -- pre-arrest -- would have wanted everyone to deal harshly with anyone who found himself in his, uh, position.
It's still an injustice. And I would not think a lynch mob is justified even if the victim would have been one of them if the target had been another person (which is solely your opinion, anyway).
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
He wasn't busted because he was just tapping his foot. Read the report. He slid his foot under the partition into the policeman's stall. And the bit with the hand.
Honestly, if you really want to believe that Sen. Craig is innocent, it's perfectly ok, but if you're going to try to convince others of your belief, it's going to be a long, tough road. And probably counterproductive, from your point of view.
When it's a Republican that gets arrested for something. I think it's a little unhealthy to have 100% confidence in the actions and accounts of a single police officer, who is operating alone and unchecked, with no witnesses or physical evidence to back up his account. Especially when he provides an incomplete accounting of his actions in the report.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If it wasn't so obvious that Sen. Craig was a deeply closeted gay man.
I'm actually pretty trusting of the police all the time. You?
Oh yeah, you think the vice ones are a "menance." Whether we should be looking for and punishing folks like Sen. Craig, or "johns" looking for love, is another story. Somehow, I suspect your position on that is a lot different than mine, unless it's a Republican senator that is the perp.
I'm actually pretty trusting of the police all the time. You?
Not at all. If I was that trusting, I guess I wouldn't see much need for the whole beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof. I mean, if a cop says he knows a guy did it, even if he's got no evidence and even if there's holes in his story that should be good enough, right? Send him to the chair on the cop's say so! I've known cops who were total pr*cks who got into the job for the power. I've known cops who abused their authority to obtain favors. Cops aren't any more saintly than the rest of us.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
For being imprecise. I mean that I trust the police all the time, whether the suspect is a democrat or republican or white or black etc.
I probably trust them most of the time generally, too, though. I would trust their testimony in court, as long as it was in line with the other facts in the case. Probably about the same as any other person, so I'd have to agree with you that they're no more saintly than the rest of us.
But hardly a "menace." You get to own that one.
A deeply closeted gay man is arrested in a bathroom in which there has been a history of men using it for illicit purposes. Not to be crude, but where else do you think that Sen. Craig has been getting it?
So, your argument is that "deeply closeted gay men" who tap their toes in public restrooms must, ipso facto, be deviants trolling for sex? Not to jump right to the obvious question, but how do you know that? Where did you come by your insight into the sexual habits of toe-tapping gay men? Are you a toe-tapper. Are you tapping ... now?
Oh, but I suppose I should thank you for not being crude.
And does continuing to debate and parse every word of the police report, transcript and Sen. Craig's statements really in the interest of Republicans or conservatives?
No, you're right. It's not in our interests to save the career of a political albatross. It's in our interests to throw him to the media hounds baying for his blood. Thank you for the lesson in Machiavellian ethics.
On a related note, did anybody know how much money we can save on the cost beef by eating Irish babies? My friend Mr. Swift thinks I could save enough money in six months to buy a new iPod!
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Everyone who thinks that deeply closeted gay men - especially when they happen to also be U.S. Senators -- look for sex in furtive places must be deeply closeted gay men themselves. You got us! Don't you feel kind of silly, though, for not figuring it out until now?
(As for whether they all do, I don't know, but is it a stretch to think that some do? I guess we have differing points of view).
And please, keep the "debate" going. When you're done, I think OJ can use the help, though.
No, you're right, it's not a stretch to think that some closeted gay men "look for sex in furtive places." On the other hand, if you're going to prove that this particular gay man looked for sex in this particular place at this particular time, well, you need more than toe-tapping and furtive hand gestures.
As for OJ, he needs far more help than I can offer him.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Read the facts as you like, but there are some things that you can't win. This is one of them, but it's not my place to keep you from the effort, so good luck!
... Craig's career is dead, regardless of what I do now. But that doesn't make it right, and since I played a (small) part in making that happen I figured I owed him my best effort at making this right.
BTW, I'm not reading that facts as I like. I am reading them as they are, and the facts as they are do not constitute sufficient evidence of a crime. I would have liked it better if I had not been wrong about this case in the first place.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
The arrest record is incomplete. The officer admits to tapping out the morse code signals with his foot, or however that works. He does not say what he was spending the rest of the time doing.
Say Craig was really there for that purpose and peeped in on him for 2 minutes. What was the officer doing in response to this? He doesn't say. Surely he didn't present the response of someone that wasn't interested. That would defeat the purpose of the sting... you can't net anybody if you don't play the game convincingly. So what did the officer do to make Craig think he was interested? It's not unreasonable to think maybe he was putting on some kind of show in the stall. He did admit to making eye contact with the guy... also not what I would call a normal response.
It's entirely possible that the officer's actions were actually worse than what Craig was accused of. He was there doing, as part of a planned operation, the exact same thing he was supposedly there to stop. That's one reason I have a real problem with sting operations of this kind or any other. The officer, by setting himself up in that position and pretending to be looking for a good time, was just as much of a menace as the people who were actually there for that purpose, if not more so, since he certainly wasn't going to be subtle about it.
All that said, Craig did need to resign for the good of the party. I do have some sympathy for the man, though. He deserved better than to have his reputation ruined over this. He'll never get that back.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I haven't kept track of this story a whole lot, nor have I sifted through the long blogs here on it. However, has no one pointed out the obvious? If he has told the truth to the public and did not engage in the behavior he is accused of, then he lied by pleading guilty.
There is no alternative. Either he engaged in the behavior, or he lied in court. Either way, the violation is serious enough to warrant something more than an apology.
Pleading guilty to something one didn't do is no more moral than doing the things he was accused of. This should be the first response to his comments.
Then you would know 1) what he actually pleaded to (hint: the words lewd or indecent don't appear anywhere in the offense) and 2) he didn't even go to court, much less "lie in court."
Pleading guilty to something one didn't do is no more moral than doing the things he was accused of.
Wow. So you've never paid a ticket you didn't believe was fair? Unless you go to court and fight it, you are admitting guilt. Whether or not you have, you think it would be immoral to do so?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Well, I'm going by the parts that I heard. I would think "guilty plea" means telling a judge or making a sworn statement that one broke the law. I can't image what law could be violated that he never later denied violating. I'm not too into it though (and I don't want to be) so I'll refrain from further comment.
Actually, I've never gotten a ticket. Of course, I don't drive either. However, I don't believe silence is an admission of guilt. The person with the ticket is not saying whether or not he or she did anything and is not signing an admission of guilt as far as I know.
and totally unqualified to comment, because of that ignorance... nor have I bothered to read anything relevant that anyone else, who might possibly be less ignorant than I am...but what the h*ll...here is what I THINK!
(to paraphrase)
You're right about one thing. If he did not do anything wrong he shouldn't have pled guilty. In so doing he did a disservice to himself and the people he represents. He should have fought the charges rather than trying to cover them up.
On the other hand, cowardice is not the same thing as sexual deviance or sexual exhibitionism, is it? And that fact that he was weak does not excuse us from our responsibility to ask the fundamental question we should always ask about stories like this. Is ... it ... true?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
It seems to me one might decide to simply pay the fine in order to avoid the inconvenience of showing up in court in a state where you neither live nor work. And if you're a politician, $500 bucks to make this go away seems like a perfectly reasonable decision.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this, but recommended nonetheless, in order to promote the alternative viewpoint.
Very interesting...
Two minutes only sounds like a short time beacuse you are focusing on the "two" and not the "minutes."
If you think its so short a time, do an experiment and go down to the local airport and stand outside an occupied stall for two minutes. You will find that the stall door will hit you in the face unless the guy in the stall is hurling.
And when the occupant exits the stall, see if the guy gives you a strange look.
And I don't know about you, but rarely do I go into a stall and commence to start picking up scraps of toilet paper off the floor.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I've been in airport bathrooms where I've been waiting for five or more minutes to use a stall because all the stalls were occupied. It happens all the time in busy airports. And the door wouldn't have hit Craig in the face as he was standing far enough back to avoid that (about three feet).
You should read the arrest report. Both the stall the Karsnia's left, and the one to his right were occupied. As soon as one of the occupants left Craig entered that stall and began doing his business. As for picking up scraps of toilet paper laying on the floor, as far as I'm concerned that's good bathroom etiquette, not evidence of sexual deviancy. Of course, that is unless you want the other users to leave the stall trashy for you.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
As a lawyer, and I understand by way of annecdote that you are a good lawyer, what do you make of a police officer who edits his arrest report two weeks after the arrest takes place? What do you make of that when, as in this case, the policeman already knew that the accused would not contest the case in court?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
with the profile; that his answers in the interrogation are those of man that knows the man questioning him knows what he was doing; and that he plead guilty because he knew he was morally guilty in his own mind as he is a good man at heart that knows he violated his own values and his wife and family.
I think it is obvious that he was trying to hook up.
But, I can't see that he committed a crime.
I have no problem with the police amending reports so long as the amendments are truthful and documented as amendments.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You seem to have forgotten the difference between proof and supposition (a curious lapse, given your chosen profession). We may suppose that gay men wanting a sexual partner will make certain foot and hand gestures, but it is another thing entirely to say that a particular man who makes those signals intended to solicit sex at a given time and place. You can use profiles to identify suspects, but not to convict them.
As for Sgt. Karsnia’s tardy editing of his report, I can hardly believe you. Gamecock, you are a lawyer. If Craig went to trial for lewd behavior and he hired you as his attorney (assuming you took the job), I know you’d demand to see the original report. And if it wasn’t available, we both know you would rake the cop over the coals. Unfortunately, this case isn’t going to trial, but if it did Karsnia and the St. Paul-Minneapolis Airport PD would have to answer for a lot of things they’d probably rather not talk about.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
and commen sense. I stated earlier that I doubt he committed a crime and that he would probably have been acquitted had he gone to trial.
But the issue is why he resigned.
We have evidentiary rules in trials because in court, the state seeks to deprive one of their liberty.
Craig was convicted.
The police properly arrest people all the time who are guilty in fact, but that they can't convict. That does not mean that the police did not properly arrest the defendant. The evidentiary standard for stop and frisk is reasonable suspision and for arrest is probable cause.
There was probable cause.
There was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt
EXCEPT to Craig, because he knew he was guilty.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
... and I also haven't forgotten how uncommon common sense really is. Two quick points and then I must sleep (you should too, btw):
1) No, the issue is not why he resigned. He resigned because almost all of his colleagues, including most of his own party, have demanded it. They have ended his career despite a thirty-year record of respectable public service and a paucity of evidence that he committed any crime. The fact that he works with the world's most exclusive club of pricks doesn't make him guilty of anything ... except possibly being a prick himself, but I digress.
2) No, Craig wasn't convicted. He pled guilty to "disorderly conduct." And we've already gone over why pleading guilty isn't the same thing as being guilty.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
record. So do jury verdict. One's criminal record doesn't make distinctions between jury verdicts and guilty pleas.
Craig resigned. He was not impeached. I suspect he knew he couldn't explain why he picks up pieces of toilet paper off public restroom floors, for then the next question is, Do you also take your hankie and sop up the urine as well?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
... perhaps he dropped the piece of toilet paper himself. Or perhaps he just likes to leave a clean stall. Maybe, being a gay man, he's just more of a neat-freak than you or I.
And yeah, I know he resigned rather than being impeached. Let me know when it's my turn to state something obvious.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
When a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, that defendant has been convicted of the crime. A defendant is convicted of a crime whether he pleads guilty to the crime, is found guilty of the crime by a judge following a bench trial, or is found guilty of the crime by a jury following a jury trial.
Mr. Craig has been convicted of the crime of disorderly conduct.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I am aware that it goes on his record as though a conviction had taken place in a court room. But I still think saying that he has "been convicted" (note the passive voice) is misleading because it implies that someone else, namely a judge and jury, has proved him guilty and sentenced him. That didn't happen, and from an historical perspective that's important.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Sen. Larry Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct. By doing so, he admitted that he was guilty of disorderly conduct. He is now convicted of disorderly conduct.
According to a CNN article available at the following link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html, "Craig, 62, paid a $500 fine when he entered his guilty plea on August 8 in Hennepin County Municipal Court in Bloomington, Minnesota, according to state criminal records". That article seems to indicate that his conviction did take place in a courtroom. I don't know whether it did or not. However, I do know that Sen. Craig has now been convicted of disorderly conduct.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I believe that Craig was trying to solicit, and I also believe that the cop was way to quick to bust him on flimsy grounds.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Maybe that's right. Maybe, if the cop had strung him along a bit, he could have gotten Craig to verbally acknowledge his amorous intentions. On the other hand, he didn't do that.
Instead, what we are left with a crappy case based on insubstantial (and disputed) evidence. Nobody should lose their job on these grounds.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
getting fired. The evidence for that is self evident. That there is no evidence he committed a crime is irrelevant.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
you honestly believe that he chose to resign because he "disgraced himself"? Hmm, maybe it is just me, but I think the conviction, media, and political pressure played at least a small role in his decision.
Molon Labe!
what caused the disgrace. Had he plead guilty to a minor offense of the same gravity (or lack of same) in which the underlying behavior
was not disgraceful, there would have been no media and political pressure.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
When did I say he was being fired? I said that he has lost his job, which apparently will happen on Saturday.
As for you're assertion that he "disgraced himself," I assume you mean that he disgraced himself by being a homosexual. I concede that he is gay, but you and I will have to agree to disagree about whether his homosexuality, by itself, constitutes a disgrace. But I can not fathom why you think that the lack of evidence for any real crime on his part does not matter. In fact, it is the only thing that matters now. Senator Craig has already lost everything he spent his entire career working for. He can only hope to regain some part of his reputation, provided that people (like me) who failed to think clearly in the heat of the moment, have the grace to think soberly in hindsight.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
adulterous partner that would violate his marrige vow; expose his children to ridicule should he be caught and generally engage in reckless behavior that could jeopardize his livelihood, family and state.
Craig considered the evidence sufficient to plead guilty. But 'Kuhn, many people plead guilty because they want to atone, even when their is not the admissible evidence that a jury might require.
You see, the main evidence that Craig KNOWS is true and so BEYOND a reasonable doubt to him, is that he was guilty.
Craig has not lost "everything." Craig can redeem himself by being faithful to his wife, if she stays with him and bt being a good father to his children. And by reserving his animal desires to marriage. Controlling himself so as to rise above the lower mammals.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
In this country we don't exclude people from positions of power and responsibility for being adulterers or bad fathers. Maybe the world would be better if we did, but we don't live in that world and many Republicans have reason to be grateful for that fact (cough, Rudy Guiliani).
On the other hand, we DO exclude people from office for committing crimes. As you yourself admitted earlier, there is no evidence of a crime in this case. Now you contradict yourself by claiming that his guilty plea proves that he did the deed. To make that argument you would have to presuppose that everyone who pleads guilty to a crime is guilty. That might be a reasonable assumption to make ... except for the fact that it's totally wrong. There are many, many documented cases of people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit. They do it to save time, to avoid other charges, because they don't want the embarrassment of a trial, or just because they're morons. Fortunately for them, the law protects morons too.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...of it is summed up by GC's last comment. He pled guilty. Period, dot, the case is closed.
Any protestations are pure crap, and were to be made beforehand -- and any equivalizing or equivocating by our side to try to defend a guy by saying that he is innocent despite pleading guilty is a bunch of crap at best.
This, in my opinion, is NO DIFFERENT than someone writing an impassioned defense of Michael Vick, saying that he's still innocent and was trapped by police - despite his guilty plea and subsequent conviction.
Sorry. Doesn't wash - and continuing to argue this just makes those on our side who are doing it look both like they are ignorant, and just don't give a **** about the rule of law.
Craig needs to go - thrown under the bus by those whom he betrayed - and our breath and energy needs to be saved for those who actually deserve it, which he does not.
He sure doesn't deserve your efforts here.
1) It's simply not true that pleading guilty always means the person in question did the deed. You can deny that fact all you want. You can deny it with oaths and imprecations. You can deny it upon the stone. But the fact remains that people do sometimes confess to crimes they haven't committed. They do so for a variety of reasons both sordid and innocent. Just ask John Mark Karr or the shade of JonBenet Ramsey.
2) Michael Vick confessed to very specific acts (killing the dogs, funding the gaming ring, etc.). The Senator confessed to "disorderly conduct," a category of behavior that the law deliberately leaves vague and undefined. There is a reason why the airport police in Minneapolis charged everybody they arrested during their sex sting with "disorderly conduct." If they charged them with specific crimes they would have had to fight it out in court, and they would have lost ... a lot.
3) Don't worry about "our side." Our side is taking care of itself just fine. Nine out of every ten people on "our side" are more than willing to throw him "under the bus," as you say. By next fall Larry Craig will have become a distant memory, and as far as GOP electoral prospects are concerned that's probably for the best. But don't ask me to be proud about it.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
HE. PLED. GUILTY. TO. “DISORDERLY. CONDUCT.” WHICH. NOBODY. CAN. DEFINE. ANYWAY.
SORRY. WAS. IT. MY. TURN. TO. PLAY. THE. ANNOYING. ALL. CAPS. GAME. IN. WHICH. WE. STATE. THE. OBVIOUS. AND. PRETEND. WE'VE. SAID. SOMETHING. CLEVER. BY. PUTTING. A. PERIOD. AFTER. EACH. AND. EVERY. WORD.? BECAUSE. THAT. GAME. NEVER. GETS. OLD.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
a man with his pants down in a public restroom stall. See Dis-Order
Order would be not tapping the toe.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
no charge
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
there is absolutely nothing in this whole story that would lead me to convict the guy had I sat on his jury.
First, I had two cops perjure themselves in court to assure my conviction of a lousy little speeding ticket. Idiots. Radio dispatch tapes proved they were lying. Both ended up getting suspended for lying to internal affairs. The DA wouldn't prosecute though IT recommended it. Cops lie, I got proof.
Second, do cops really sit on toilets for entire shifts with their pants around their ankles hoping a gay cruiser sits down next to them? They would have better odds of catching crooks working at a local stop and rob.
Third, how does anyone expect to get away with sex,(with a partner) in an airport restroom at noon?
Fourth, I really am starting to tire of the tar and feather routine of the left and MSM and I really question the piling on I see here.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Third, how does anyone expect to get away with sex,(with a partner) in an airport restroom at noon?
I don't know, but obviously there are practitioners of that type of recreation who do it anyway until word of police attention gets around.
He wrote in his report that he was waiting for two suspects to come out of their stalls to be arrested. Then a third suspect near urinals exposed himself to the officer with a smile. One of the suspects, according to the report, was "known" around the airport for lewd acts in the restrooms.
Police nabbed a few of the suspects by other means, such as responding to posts on Internet sites by men looking to arrange a quick hookup as they passed through the airport.
Washington Post
In June, when Mr. Craig, Republican of Idaho, was charged with making overtures for sex to an undercover police officer, a Web site that lists places for gay sex worldwide included this alert about the Minneapolis airport beside the words “Heads Up!” in red letters: “Airport police sting here in progress. Four arrests so far this week.”
...
At least one other gay site lists a bathroom at the Minneapolis airport as a popular place for sex....his arrest has shed light on the use of some airport men’s rooms as meeting places for gay sex and on the coded behavior that can accompany the activity. Some airports report widespread problems, while others say it has not been an issue.
...
Keith Griffith, the owner of the gay sex Web site, said foot-tapping in a bathroom stall “seems to be an almost universal method of letting the person next to you know that you’re interested.”Mr. Griffith added: “You can probably go through airports all through the country and find it. It’s a little unspoken code, a ritual, so to speak.”
NY Times
I also saw that article a little while ago. And it highlights the concern I have about these kinds of police tactics. Apparently, they are arresting many, many people on flimsy and insubstantial grounds. Undoubtedly, many of the people they are arresting are guilty of the crimes they're charged with. It is equally certain (in my mind) that with such flimsy evidentiary rules other people have been arrested who did nothing wrong.
I find the annecdote about gay toe-tapping especially revealing. As a heterosexual man I had no idea, before this Larry Craig story broke, that toe-tapping was a gay signal. I guess I need to be careful about taking my iPod into the stall with me now.
But the bottom line is this. Some gay men may be bathroom toe-tappers and sexual exhibitionists. But not all toe-tappers are sexual exhibitionists or even gay.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
The story indicates that it takes more than toe tapping to get busted. Just don't reach into the next guy's stall; it's hard to do that unthinkingly, no matter how good the music is.
To continue my comment above...
It is equally certain (in my mind) that with such flimsy evidentiary rules other people have been arrested who did nothing wrong.
The evidentiary rules here aren't anything unusual. The crux of your defense of Craig is that the cop is lying, overstating what he saw. Lots of criminals are properly convicted on the basis of just one eyewitness' testimony, whether that witness is cop or a civilian. Juries decide whether the testimony is credible, weighed against the credibility (or lack thereof) of the defendant's story.
If the police report is truthful, Craig is clearly guilty of what he was charged with - peeping into somebody's stall and reaching into it qualify for the invasion of privacy and disorderly conduct statutes he was charged under. He was not charged with soliciting sex.
Craig's anti-litter defense sounds a lot less credible than the cop's story. I leave open the possibility that maybe a jury could be convinced there's reasonable doubt, but it's still far more likely than not that Craig did what the cop said he did.
The part in the transcript that shows his guilt is when he says to the policeman:
Quoting the transcript:
"LC: You solicited me".
To me this indicates he was saying, well you started it.
That part comes very early in the transcript. You will note that the transcript appears to have cut out the early part of the conversation between the cop and Senator Craig (there's nothing more in the audio tape either). You will also note that the cop doesn't deny what the Senator said, but says they will "get into that." We never find out exactly what this exchange meant, which only makes me even more suspicious that something important was not recorded.
Besides, let's say that Senator Craig was saying that the cop started it. Well, did he? If he did, then that's entrapment and as far as I'm concerned he should lose his badge.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Wouldn't it have been nice if OJ had pled guilty to manslaughter due to a guilty conscience even if he thought he could get acquitted via the race card?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Under the circumstances it may have been best if the police had warned the senator of his behaviour i.e. that said behaviour was bordering on lewd conduct, while at the same time it was sufficiently ambiguous (which to my way of thinking, it was) to not warrant further action. This would have at least scared the poor man into never doing this type of thing again, if he was indeed soliciting, or to appreciate that it certain signals can be misinterpreted.
I think the career of a good republican was needlessly sacrificed.
... and moreover, I think the careers of too many "good republicans" have been needlessly sacrificed over the last couple of years. I refer, of course, to Harriet Myers and Scooter Libby.
Even beyond partisan aspect of these situations, the real tragedy is that this country is supposedly a place that gives people a fair shake, especially in the court system. One of the drawbacks of the internet is that we're becoming a place where our justice is dispensed as quickly as our food, and where the media (the "new media" in particular) has become a hanging judge.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
public restroom)
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Recommended for your thoroughness, careful analysis and quest for objectivity, even though I disagree with some of your analysis and have reached a different conclusion regarding probability of guilt. Laudable objective and an excellent post.
1-I do think that the cop would have been better advised to issue a warning
2-I don't think the cop was uneasonable
3-People don't pick up shreds of toilet paper off public restroom floors unless they are employed by the airport as a janitor and are wearing gloves
4-Craig took a risk that he could be found out and is solely to blame for ruining his own career
5-I don't care about the private lives of congressmen. Character is mostly irrelevant since they vote on written bills that I can read. All I care about is how they vote.
6-I was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton: wish the story was never revealed; but do think he should have resigned, as character does matter in a President
7-I don't care if Craig resigns or not. But Craig has chosen to resign. Why? Because he knows that people have heard the tape, know he pled guilty and he knows he can't convince people that he was not trolling for a ho in a public restroom
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I don't believe Sen. Craig's ridiculous version of events.
I do believe that Sgt. Karsina was trying to do an honest job as a police serving the public.
Here is a link to an AP article that appeared in the online version of the Idaho Press-Tribune entitled "Officer who arrested Craig has reliable reputation": http://www.idahopress.com/news/?id=399 .
Here is a copy of a small portion of that article:
Karsnia grew up in International Falls, on the Canadian border, and worked as a butcher’s assistant at Karsnia Meats and as a produce clerk at a grocery store, according to employment records kept by the airports commission.
He got a two-year degree at a community college in International Falls and then in 1998 moved 320 miles south to get a bachelor’s degree in 2000 in law enforcement at St. Mary’s University in Winona. Last year he earned a master’s degree in criminal justice, leadership and education at Concordia University in St. Paul.
One of his law enforcement professors, Matt Vetter, learned on Thursday that Karsnia was the officer who arrested Craig.
“In some ways it doesn’t surprise me that it was him, because he didn’t let too many things get by him,” said Vetter, who is now retired. “When things were awry, or things needed to get done, you could always count on him to get things done.”
I'm impressed with the background of Sgt. Karsina. He didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's worked hard to obtain the position he holds and has even obtained a master's degree in criminal justice.
Then again, Sen. Craig might try to convince us that the jobs of butcher's assistant and produce clerk are jobs that Americans just won't do.
I absolutely believe that Sen. Craig lied to Sgt. Karsina when he told him he was picking up a piece of paper. I don't believe that Sen. Craig's foot accidentally touched Sgt. Karsina's foot.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Gamecock, you are absolutely correct. Sgt. Karsina was a total "pro".
He treated Sen. Craig professionally, even though Sen. Craig repeatedly lied to him.
After being lied to repeatedly by a United States senator, some police officers would have leaked the facts of the encounter to the press. Sgt. Karsina did not do so. I would not blame if he had have leaked the information to the press after Sen. Craig lied to him.
Sgt. Karsina could have arrested Sen. Craig if he had wished to do so.
I am impressed with Sgt. Karsina's background.
Apparently, some are more impressed with a lying senator than an honest police officer. The article available at the following contains information that would support the conclusion reached by Sgt. Karsina about Sen. Craig's actions:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html.
I do not believe Sen. Craig's lie about picking up a piece of paper.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
unless they are the janitor
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Wow, a character straight out of Norman Rockwell. He's an All-American kid and a stand-up guy if you ask me. Of course, none of that means that he doesn't suck at his job and didn't screw this investigation up.
But hey, maybe that explains why he edited his report two weeks after the fact. He was probably reading to blind kids at the YMCA.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
trial. Hardly a screw up.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Just wanted to tell the author I am really impressed that an admission of perhaps moving too fast for the facts was made.
A rarity in the world I hear and see most of the time.
There are a few things the arresting officer could do that would perhaps help to answer any questions about his veracity. Perhaps make some money for the airport and the police department at the same time.
1] He could agree to a re-enactment of the event.
2] Run a test on live television. Make the conditions the same
as those at the time of the event. Use the same bathroom
stalls.
3] Have (x)# of men with differing varieties of eye colors, the same
height as Craig stand outside the same stall, the same
distance from the stall.
4] Have the same officer identify their eye color from inside
the same stall under the same conditions he did when he saw
Craig's eyes were blue.
5] Next have a man the same age and physical description as
Craig occupy the same stall as he did. Replace both stall
doors with plexiglass. Next have place the exact same type
of luggage in the exact same manner as described by the
officer.
6] Now have the man swipe his left hand under the dividing
wall. Televising all the while his movements to do so.
Those two experiments should put to rest any doubts about the officers account of what he saw prior to the arrest.
It would be interesting to see how many correct eye colors he could identify through the crack in his stall door of men the same distance away.
I believe even more interesting would be to see just how easy it is for a man of Craig's size and age to move around in the stall. Avoiding the luggage to swipe his left hand under the opposite wall from his hand.
paper off public restroom floors (excluding employed janitors with gloves).
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
But frankly the last thing I want to watch on television right now is a series of quasi-scientific reenactments of gay public restroom cruising behavior. The world is voyueuristic enough, and there's always YouTube.
Leverkuhn, this is an admirable attempt at ex-post facto hypothetical balance and circumspection, but I still don't buy Craig's story. I realize that some of the questions you raise are questions that a good lawyer would have brought up in court to plant seeds of "reasonable doubt", but on close examination many of them are pretty arcane and grasping, particularly this one:
...let’s assume that Sgt. Karsnia’s memory was not as precise as his written report seemed to indicate. Let’s assume that a young airport police officer who finds himself doing an unpleasant and somewhat degrading job (like trolling the public restrooms for deviants) doesn’t always approach his task with the most zeal and enthusiasm. Maybe he was tired of sitting on a stool waiting for somebody to solicit him. Maybe he felt bad for himself and wished he could be anywhere else doing anything else. And then an elderly man sits in the stall next to him and does some of things he’s been told could be signals of sexual interest.
That's an awful lot of assuming to have to do to exonerate the Senator. And most of your other speculations fall along the same lines.
I agree, Craig's lawyer could possibly have made a lot out of these doubts in a court of law. But Craig didn't want to fight this rap, he wanted to cop to it and have it be over with, watch it sink beneath the waves. He's a United States Senator, and my first assumption would be that he knows more about the law and the ways in which he could defend himself than the cop did. And he still plead guilty.
A lot of gay cruising protocol is intentionally ambiguous, as anyone who has been cruised in a public place can tell you. It's usually not explicit, particularly in a public restroom, and that's part of the game. I lived for six years in one of the largest gay neighborhoods in the midwest and I was personally cruised enough times to know. I realize that the Senator should have the presumption of ignorance, but he surrendered that presumption when he chose to plead guilty.
Case closed. If someone wanted to raise doubts such as the ones you're raising, Craig should have offered that opportunity to his lawyer. The fact that you're writing this column even after an admission of guilt should tell everyone that Craig certainly would have had a fighting chance of beating the rap if he had tried.
It's a sad story. On the balance, though, knowing what I know and recalling some of the experiences of the places I've been and lived, he doesn't sound innocent, and I think his plea reflected that realization.
I have to say that I do admire your effort here and your conscience in trying to hold out the possibility, though.
He would have had more than a fighting chance of beating the rap. I truly think he would have beaten it hands down. On the other hand, he probably knew he couldn't beat the rap in the court of public opinion. Given what has transpired in the last few days, do you really think he was wrong about that?
And no, I don't think my assumptions are all that unreasonable. In the passage you quoted I was attempting to construct an alternate narrative that could explain the sequence of events better than Karsnia's report. Of course, my narrative doesn't have to be correct for his to be wrong. And I am certain it is at least partially wrong, because it's just so dang full of holes.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Craig was charged with Disorderly Conduct, not "soliciting." That seems like a hairsplitting distinction but if he was truly innocent or believed he was innocent he should have fought the charge.
The court of public opinion isn't something I try to predict when it comes to things that should be decided in a court of law. Craig doesn't have a publicist as a Senator, but the short answer to this:
Given what has transpired in the last few days, do you really think he was wrong about that?
is:
Yes, I really, truly do. The most important rule when it comes to preserving your rights and freedoms, not to mention defending your name and maintaining your own credibility, is *never* to plead guilty to something you didn't do, *regardless* of what you think the repercussions in the "court of public opinion" might be.
It would have been an ugly situation no matter what, but let's look at that for a second: even though he's a senator who has has a history of drawing these kinds of allegations, my feeling is that you still *absolutely never* plead guilty to something that didn't happen. In fact, since he has drawn these kinds of allegations before, I would say that he should have fought this one *even more* vigorously.
It was a minor charge and Craig had plenty of time to conduct his defense before the next election. Given what you've written above, I think there's a very good chance he could have beaten the rap, discredited the allegations in court, and still been reelected. Most importantly, he wouldn't be on record admitting to this type of thing. What did he honestly think the result of that would be the *next time* he was accused? This is not the first time questions of Senator Craig's sexual proclivities have been raised in public. In his own mind, what did pleading guilty to this offense set the stage for the next time he was accused? Something like this:
"Oh, well, sure -- I plead guilty to disorderly conduct and cruising in a bathroom the last time, but *now* I'm innocent!"
No, No, No, No. I agree that the court of public opinion is a terrible mistress, particularly when you're a Republican being accused of something sordid these days, but you still *never* plead guilty to something that you're innocent of. Ever.
There are holes in Karsnia's report, but a lot of it is open to interpretation. For example, the "...am I going to have to fight you in court..." part is easily something I can imagine him saying, guilty or not.
Narratively you're doing a great job here, but I just don't buy the story. I've also read reports that Craig had to walk something like a quarter of a mile inside the airport to get to this particular restroom, which was a known cruising ground. Modern airports have lots of restrooms, and if the stalls in this particular one were full, I'm sure there were other ones he could have used.
The bottom line for me, Leverkuhn, is that you're doing a better job of defending Craig than Craig himself did. He could have turned this thing around if he had just called you and asked you to defend him in court and in the court of public opinion. But he didn't.
about anything substantive. We both agree that Craig should not have pled guilty. We both agree that he would have won his case in court. We disagree, I guess, about the political ramifications of a trial for "disorderly conduct." I think he would have been screwed even if he fought the charges, but we'll never know now.
I guess I don't have much to add to that.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Let's consider what might have happened if Craig had chosen to fight this instead of trying to "make it go away."
He would have had to go to court. It would have made the news, and there would have been a lot of people trying to construct narratives about him, as there have in the past. But he could have said:
"This arrest was outrageous, I wasn't guilty, the cop was wrong, he edited his own reports, and I'm going to fight this to clear my name."
People would have constructed their narratives (as indeed, they are doing anyway) but I also think that a lot of his supporters would have rallied around him. Instead, he foreclosed that opportunity and *still* invited all the narratives by trying to make it disappear.
It was at the very least a terrible decision. Our justice system is very good at giving the accused (particularly when they're a United States Senator) a chance to argue their case and refute charges. With a little moxie and a vigorous defense, Craig could have prevailed. And even though the "court of public opinion" would have been a bumpy road, my view is that he should *still have fought* the charge.
Unless, that is, he really believed he was guilty at the time. It's a terrible precedent for anyone, but particularly a Republican Senator, to start pleading guilty to things just because they want them to "go away."
In fact, if Craig had wanted to really stand up to the "court of public opinion" he could have plead not guilty and hired Alan Dershowitz as his lawyer.
Not only would have been one of the easiest cases Dershowitz has ever won, Craig would have formed a new bond with Harvard and just by dint of that alone would have drawn a few people not normally inclined to help him to his side.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
of Harvard Alumni in Idaho, waiting for the right conservative to appeal to them.
(Sorry, just got up, haven't finished my coffee yet!)
run down to the nearest airport and pick of shreds of toilet paper in the stalls to pass the time...because I like to do this in sanitary places ...
see SoapBaseballCommissionerGuy above and below
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
That was weird.
No [sigh] he wasn't. Read the diary. First three sentences of the fifth paragraph.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
Some Cops lie. Some Senators lie, especially Senators caught acting like lowlifes. Comparing the stories of the cop and the Senator, this is clearly the latter case of a lying lowlife Senator.
Your supposed refutation of Craig illegally peeping into the occupied stall is without substance, even if not as laughable as the story Craig made up.
In any event, it seems highly unlikely to me that Sgt. Karsnia, sitting on a bathroom stool in an enclosed space, could look through the crack next to the stall door and correctly identify the eye color of a man standing three feet away from the stall.
Whether Craig was 3 or 6 feet away* from the cop, it's easy to identify someone's eye color from that distance if you get a good look. Whether the gap between the door and frame was wide enough or the lighting good enough to see at that distance varies between public restrooms. You haven't cited any evidence that this restroom's environment would make it hard for the cop to see what he said he saw.
I find that especially doubtful since, according to Karsnia’s own report he only caught glimpses of Craig’s eyes when the Senator was looking in the direction of his stall.
You're making that up. The police report says no such thing. In fact the obvious reason for the cop to include that detail in his report, that he saw the eye color when Craig was peering in, was to make the point that Craig looked in long enough for the cop to get a good look at his eye color.
Here's what the report actually says about the peeping charge:
At 1213 hours, I could see an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall. Hew was standing about three feet away and had a roller bag with him. The male was later identified by (REDACTED) driver’s license as Larry Edwin Craig (REDACTED). 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. I was able to see Craig’s blue eyes as he looked into my stall.
* Another thing you made up, probably another case of you unintentionally confusing your opinion with verifed fact, and then using that mislabeled opinion as "factual" support of your opinion:
Sgt. Karsnia’s report states that he was standing “about three feet away” from the stall.
When you have to add your own words after what you actually quote from the report, you need to be careful whether you're just paraphrasing what the report really said (ok), or adding your own opinion and falsely claiming that the report said it (not ok). A more reasonable reading of the report is that Craig standing outside the stall door was "about three feet away" from the cop sitting in the stall. But since the actual wording is ambiguous, it's possible your interpretation is correct, just don't present it as fact. And either way, Craig was plenty close for the cop to see what he testified to.
Three points:
1) You argue that ".... it's easy to identify someone's eye color from that distance if you get a good look. Whether the gap between the door and frame was wide enough or the lighting good enough to see at that distance varies between public restrooms."
Sure, the size of the crack might vary from a quarter of an inch to half an inch, but that's still an extremely small crack. I agree the distance between the two men was not great, but it is a significant distance when you only have a tiny, small crack.
2) Then you have the temerity to suggest I'm making something up. I said that Karsnia's own report indicates he caught "glimpses" of the Senator looking in the direction of his stall. That is true. The report says the Senator looked down, figited with his fingers, looked up, and repeated the process. He did not stare into the stall for an unbroken period of 2 minutes. Also, keep in mind that Sgt. Karsnia had to be recording all this somehow (or else, how did he have such a detailed timeline and detailed notes?). That means he wasn't looking out the crack of the stall the whole time himself.
So we have a a period of just two minutes (120 seconds) and break it up several times with finger figiting and note taking. Then we have to consider that Senator Craig probably looked in the direction of other stalls as well, either because he was looking for other prospective partners or because he simply wanted to find a stall to use. So what are we left with? Glimpses.
According to Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of "glimpse" is "to get a brief look at [something]." If there is a better word that to describe Sgt. Karsnia's view of Senator Craig's eyes I don't know what it is.
3) Lastly, you suggest that Sgt. Karsnia's report might in fact indicate that Senator Craig really was peeking with his eyes right up to the crack of the stall. Unfortunately for you, that reading is simply not possible if you: a) understand basic rules of English grammar; b) have ever been in a public restroom in any airport in America. This is what Karsnia's report actually says:
At 1213 hours, I could see an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall. He was standing about three feet away and had a roller bag with him.
EMPHASIS ADDED
Now, the immediate antecedent of the phrase "three feet away" is the word "stall." If Karsnia wanted to say that Craig himself was literally three feet away he would have said "three feet away from me."
But maybe, you're thinking, Sgt. Karsnia is just a careless writer. That would not be surprising since he is also, IMO, a careless cop. But we can't judge what he might have meant. We only know what he actually said.
Furthermore, unless the stall Sgt. Karsnia was sitting in was extremely small, and by "extremely small" I mean "built for midgets," he simply could not have been just three feet from the door of the stall. Now I have an extremely small bathroom in my apartment, as small or smaller than any stall I've ever seen in an airport. But even in my tiny little apartment bathroom I am about 4 1/2 to 5 feet away from the door when I sit on the toilet.
Moreover, keep in mind that the police were staking out this particular restroom because it was known as a place where gay men engaged in lewd sexual bahavior. Now, unless all the gay men having sex in those stalls were contortionists as well as deviant exhibitionists, I'd assume that the stalls in question had to be at least 4 feet by 7 feet, and probably larger. A 4x7 stall would still be a very small stall on average, but a man sitting in such a space would be at least 5 feet from the door, even if he were leaning slightly forward to take a dump.
All of this seemed rather obvious to me, and I didn't see the need to spell it all out like this, especially since my post ran to four single-spaced typed pages as it was. But I suppose there are some people for whom nothing can ever be too simple.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVhMzdiZWNmNGNjYTAyMTBmOWEyYjRhZDQ...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
(the senator, not the evil org opposed to 007) on FNS this morning do give me some pause at the haste with which some gop senators jumped on Craig to resign. I may still lean that way given that I just think Craig lied based on all the facts, but, Levin is quite persuasive.
see link in above comment to 'Kuhn
I would rather semi-agree with you this early in the am after college football wild life last night (back with girlfriend...) than be cross examined by you on the value of societal denunciation of what I MAY have done last night vs monagamy. I am right of course, but simply can't bear up now under the pressure of Vacuum Cleaning from Clemson!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You argue that the cop must be lying in his police report when he says he saw Craig peering into his stall well enough to determine the color of Craig's eyes. But you can't find anything that is inconsistent with that testimony, except by plugging in your own assumptions that aren't supported by any evidence.
Sure, the size of the crack might vary from a quarter of an inch to half an inch, but that's still an extremely small crack.
Keeping the gap at half an inch or less sounds like better design than I typically see in airports' cheap restroom stalls, but whatever the measurement (I haven't put a ruler to them), I've been seated in restroom stalls where I could see a stationary or slow moving object outside significantly wider than an eye. Regarding restrooms popular among restroom sex fans, it's reasonable that they choose ones with gaps wide enough to check out the stalls' occupants.
I agree the distance between the two men was not great, but it is a significant distance when you only have a tiny, small crack.
The width of the crack limits how wide your field of vision outside the stall is, but it doesn't diminish your ability to see what is within the field of vision. The cop's statement says Craig was "standing outside my stall," i.e. he was stationary. Looking at a stationary eye less than 10 feet away, it's easy to tell what color it is, and not being able to see what's to the right or left of that eye doesn't make it any harder; if anything, that concentrates your attention on what you can see through the crack.
Then you have the temerity to suggest I'm making something up. I said that Karsnia's own report indicates he caught "glimpses" of the Senator looking in the direction of his stall. That is true. The report says the Senator looked down, figited with his fingers, looked up, and repeated the process. He did not stare into the stall for an unbroken period of 2 minutes.
You claimed "according to Karsnia's own report he only caught glimpses", while the actual text of Karsnia's report doesn't say anything about him not getting a good look.
It doesn't take 15 seconds to see what color an eye is. If the eye is what you're looking at, it takes a second or so.
Also, keep in mind that Sgt. Karsnia had to be recording all this somehow (or else, how did he have such a detailed timeline and detailed notes?). That means he wasn't looking out the crack of the stall the whole time himself.
Yeah right, like a cop playing bait for restroom cruisers is going to catch anybody if he has a steno pad on his lap taking notes. All he had to do was discretely glance at his watch and mentally note the time. The report cites two clock times during the period Craig could see the cop from in front of the stall. The details in the report are something he could remember writing it up an hour or two later (even if he didn't jot down some notes when Craig couldn't see his hands, being busy picking up litter from a public restroom floor in the adjacent stall).
So we have a a period of just two minutes (120 seconds) and break it up several times with finger figiting and note taking. Then we have to consider that Senator Craig probably looked in the direction of other stalls as well, either because he was looking for other prospective partners or because he simply wanted to find a stall to use.
No, we don't need to consider what you think Craig probably did, when your claim is about what the police report itself said Craig did. This is what I objected to, you plugging your own assumptions into what you claim the police report said.
It may well be that Craig spent the entire two minutes between doing what the report said he did: looking into the stall and looking down at his hands. It's also possible that Craig also looked elsewhere during those two minutes - the police report doesn't say whether he did or not (nor does any other source that I've seen). If that's your opinion, it's fine to state it as such; but when you assume that unsupported possibility and then incorporate it into what your claim of what the police report said, that's what I mean by "You're making that up."
But OK, let's insert your assumption, and pretend the police report said Craig spent half of those 2 minutes looking where you said he looked, and divided the other half of the 2 minutes between looking in the 2 directions the report actually did say he looked. That leaves 30 seconds each looking into the stall and looking at his hands. If he repeated the cycle 5 times, looking in the stall then looking at his hands (as the report said) then looking at other stalls (as said by you but not the report), that still leaves 6 seconds in each cycle where he's looking into the stall. Even if you unrealistically suppose 10 cycles with Craig's head bobbing around like a ping pong ball, 3 seconds each cycle is plenty of time to determine eye color.
Of course the police report doesn't say how many cycles or how long each interval was. The only thing we can attribute to the police statement about how long Craig continuosly looked into the stall is that it must have been long enough for the cop to see what color Craig's eye's were. You can disbelieve that, but you can't claim the cop said the opposite.
So what are we left with? Glimpses. According to Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of "glimpse" is "to get a brief look at [something]."
Count off 6 seconds while you're looking at one thing. Nobody would call that a glimpse. Even with the exaggerated assumption that the cop only got 3 consecutive seconds (10 times) looking at Craig's eyes, that's still not brief enough to call a glimpse. In fact there's nothing in the report that says Craig's cycles of looking into the cop's stall were all the same length, so you can't even claim the report says there wasn't an interval of Craig looking into the stall for 30 consecutive seconds. (I myself doubt he that looked that long, but the report doesn't say whether he did.)
Lastly, you suggest that Sgt. Karsnia's report might in fact indicate that Senator Craig really was peeking with his eyes right up to the crack of the stall. Unfortunately for you, that reading is simply not possible if you: a) understand basic rules of English grammar; b) have ever been in a public restroom in any airport in America. This is what Karsnia's report actually says:
"At 1213 hours, I could see an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall. He was standing about three feet away and had a roller bag with him."
Now, the immediate antecedent of the phrase "three feet away" is the word "stall."
You distort the rules of grammar almost as badly as you distort the police report. If you're going to lecture someone on grammar, saying "your grammar sucks," it's prudent to at least minimally know what you're talking about. You could start with the dictionary definition of antecedent, "a substantive word, phrase, or clause whose denotation is referred to by a pronoun (as John in "Mary saw John and called to him"); broadly : a word or phrase replaced by a substitute"
In the statement you quoted, your purported antecedent "my stall" has no pronoun referring to it in the "He was standing about three feet away". Without such a referring pronoun (the anaphor) there is no antecedent.
If the police statement had said "He was standing about three feet away from it", obviously "it" would refer to the stall as antecedent, and you would have been accurately paraphrasing the report when you said:
Sgt. Karsnia's report states that he was standing "about three feet away" from the stall.
However Karsnia did not append "from it" or "from the stall" when he said "He was standing about three feet away." You made it up.
If Karsnia wanted to say that Craig himself was literally three feet away he would have said "three feet away from me."
Oh that's brilliant logic. Karsnia could have explicitly said "three feet away from me," or could have explicity said "three feet away from the stall." Instead Karsnia said just "three feet away" without explicitly saying from what, and that entitles you to insert your "from the stall" into the statement and claim that Karsnia said it.
But maybe, you're thinking, Sgt. Karsnia is just a careless writer. That would not be surprising since he is also, IMO, a careless cop. But we can't judge what he might have meant. We only know what he actually said.
And what he actually said in that phrase was ambiguous, with the grammar and context allowing either interpretation. Have you made up some new rule of grammar, that if the phrase is ambiguous, it must mean whichever interpretation you find most convenient? The ambiguity of the cop's sentence entitles you to criticize his writing skills (and try to get whatever mileage you can out of that), but it doesn't entitle you to put words in his mouth.
Furthermore, unless the stall Sgt. Karsnia was sitting in was extremely small, and by "extremely small" I mean "built for midgets," he simply could not have been just three feet from the door of the stall.
Baloney. In airport stalls I typically hang my carry on bag on the hook inside the door. There have been times while seated on the toilet I've reached into its outside pocket to check my itinerary or the like. If I had to lean far forward or stretch to reach the bag, I would give up and wait until afterwards. (Maybe that's happened at airports with bigger stalls; I don't recall). I don't have long arms, so the door couldn't be more than about 3 feet away for me to reach it that easily while seated.
Now, unless all the gay men having sex in those stalls were contortionists as well as deviant exhibitionists, I'd assume that the stalls in question had to be at least 4 feet by 7 feet, and probably larger.
I'm not sure exactly what they do in there, but just as most of us recoil from the idea of picking up a piece of toilet paper from a public restroom floor, I presume the restroom cruisers aren't inclined to lie on that floor to copulate. With three or even less feet between door and the toilet, there would be plenty of room for a quickie Lewinsky between a seated guy and one standing in front of him.
All of this seemed rather obvious to me... But I suppose there are some people for whom nothing can ever be too simple.
Kind of like what Reagan observed about liberals, a lot is obvious to you (e.g. logic, grammar, "Craig wasn't convicted. He pled guilty"), but unfortunately so much of what is obvious to you is contradicted by reality.
... We just had the Duke Lacrosse fiasco in our backyard. At one point we had this silly idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Not saying it wouldn't have been a circus if he pled guilty, but this whole thing seems weird and meaningless.
Why are airport police, our domestic front line in the War on Terror in an age of Orange Alerts, hanging out in bathroom stalls trying to hook up? We pay people for that?
...which the media find out about LATER equals a trial by media?
WOW are people reaching for a way to reopen the closed book on this non-case.
- the Senator was apparently connecting with another flight. When was it supposed to leave? I know that Senators are powerful people with high expectations, but do they really expect Sex-On-Demand?
- the restroom was a known place for sexual encounters. How many? How frequently? When - late in the evening as the airport activity winds down? In the middle of the day?
- was the toilet paper dispenser one of those engineering nightmares which requires gymnastic skills to actually get some toilet paper?
- has anyone ever dropped anything in a restroom? I imagine most of us have. Would YOU want to be on the hook legally because you tried to recover something -change, keys, stuff that spilled out of your briefcase- simply because your hand violated someone's "air space".
- given our legal system and the media, is pleading to a non-sexual misdemeanor really so unbelievable for someone who could be innocent?
Think about it.
-He was arriving on an 11:45 flight from Boise, connecting to a 1:10 flight to Washington-National. Do you think that bathroom sex is made by appointment? Of course it's "on demand"; a potential cruiser goes into the bathroom. If an opportunity appears to present itself, the cruiser works the angle to see if he can connect. How else do you think it works?
-It was a very frequent and cruisy site for hook-ups according to websites that cruisers go to for information, at least until June when more arrests occurred and cruising websites that began to give "heads up" warnings about this bathroom. If you look at the comments from before June, you'll see that it was busy at various times of day. I'd give you the URL but it may be against RedState's terms of service. However, it's in a recent Newsweek article if you're interested in looking at the site for yourself (warning: graphic photos there).
This particular bathroom is also not near any gates, but rather in a central part of the airport, near the security entrances, called "Northstar Crossing," that sell rather chinzy tourist items (Minnesota t-shirts and the like). While one might pass it if changing terminals, it is worth noting that Craig, as a very frequent flier on Northwest Airlines, didn't go to the nearby World Club private area for elite and frequent Northwest fliers.
-I don't know anything about the toilet-paper dispenser. He did, however, in his interview, state that he picked a piece of toilet paper off the floor (later in the interview he refers to it simply as "a piece of paper"). I don't think it's very common for people to pick up toilet paper off the floor of a public, heavily-used bathroom, even if the toilet paper hasn't yet been used.
-He wasn't trying to recover keys or change, but rather a piece of toilet paper. The arresting officer also said that Craig's foot touched his and that Craig's hand ran along the inside of the officer's stall divider. So while, yes, I would pick up keys or even change (quarters, certainly) off a bathroom floor, I don't know how that's applicable to a situation in which someone was in a stall for six minutes, running his hand, according to a police officer, along the inside of another's stall.
-Yes, it's a bit odd to plead guilty to a crime that you didn't commit. I don't think that most people would do so, knowing that it becomes part of the public record.
between arrival and departure (and that's assuming the arriving flight was on time), the Senator chose the interval to look for sex in a public restroom in a crowded airport in the middle of the day.
If he was into gay affairs, surely he could make other arrangements, perhaps a variant of the "Mile High" club that has been known to be a venue for conventional sex.
There are a lot of grains of salt that must be taken with the Craig story.
An hour and 25 min is a long time in my book, but then again, I am twice divorced!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
How long do you think most men need to for a furtive sexual encounter? Keep in mind also that not all such encounters necessarily lead to orgasm.
I understand that from your point of view it seems unlikely, and I respect that. From the point of view of somenone who is interested above all else in anonymity and the speed with which the encounter can be had and then forgotten about, it's pretty ideal.
This editorial will also put the arrest into context you may not be aware of: http://idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/147711.html
This article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about the arresting officer mentions another arrest he made - of a guy whose wife was waiting for him at their gate. So to expect that someone somehow need hours between flights in order to cruise a bathroom is incorrect:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1393841.html
You ask why he didn't make other arrangements and the answer seems clear to me. He was someone who spent the vast majority of time either in Idaho or Washington, D.C.: both places where he was easily recognized. In the new climate of outing gay politicians (Foley and so on), when even paid escorts aren't safe confidants (see Ted Haggard), someone like Craig, deeply disceet, would have to be extra careful.
Keep in mind the context, from that Statesman article, that he had been extensively interviewed, in front of his wife, just a month before regarding previous allegations of cruising and homosexuality, by the largest newspaper in Idaho. He was aware people in D.C. and Idaho suspected he was gay. If he were going to cruise and look for a gay sexual encounter, it makes sense to do it in a place where you're less likely to be recognized: and Minnesota fit that bill for him.
However, people will come to whatever conclusion works for them based on the evidence. Considering there are still people who either outright deny or hold wild conspirancy theories about verifiable and major historical events, it doesn't surprise me that some people will still maintain Craig's innonence of the charges, despite a police officer's testimony and Craig's guilty plea.
My advice would be to move on, a quick look at the recent comments would not entice many lurkers to our side. breaking my own advice I will say that "a police officer's testimony" is not proof of anything. Those in the 2A rights community have seen countless times when police officers got it wrong.
but in the end, Craig is gone. This is not Watergate, this is between him and his wife.
Molon Labe!
paper with pics of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, Grant or Franklin.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Question: Isn't patronizing a prostitute a crime (outside of Nevada)? Didn't Vitter admit to doing so? I realize Craig pleaded guilty so in his case it is official, but if Vitter admitted it, it seems safe to conclude he did it. For those who are calling for Craig to be thrown under the bus but not Vitter, is there a double standard here based on heterosexual behavior vs. homosexual behavior, perhaps using the distinction of the guilty plea as just a pretext for applying the double standard? I'm not asking completely rhetorically, but I am wondering.
would not favor Craig's impeachment to force him out. I do think it is right that he resign, just as I did not favor the impeachment of Clinton but did think he should have resigned. The difference to me, with Vitter is that his sin was long ago and it appears he has repented and is not now engaging in same. Craig, like Clinton, is presently engaging in reckless conduct and so is compromised now.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
So if Vitter's conduct had been recent, would you be calling on Vitter to resign (and to be pressured to resign by his colleagues)? Or would you still be ok with him staying in his position if he "repented"?
have to re think my resignation preference. Same for Clinton if he had repented at the outset.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Repent about the crime, about adultery, or about gay sexual activity? In other words, if Craig had had a boyfriend on the side, would he need to repent for you to be ok with him staying in the Senate?
Also, what types of acts (whether crimes or not) would warrant your call for resignation even if a person repents?
For a President, all of the above, as well as adultery (which would include any sex with anyone not one's spouse).
As for acts that should not be redeemed even with repentence and in which I would favor resignation or impeachment, see High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Any attempt to list same would be longer than Leviticus!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
ok, so back to Craig vs. Vitter, if the timing difference is removed, repentence alone MIGHT (or pehaps might not) suffice for you to be ok with Craig remaining in the Senate -- you would have to "rethink [your] resignation preference". If you aren't saying Vitter should resign, why the uncertainty re: Craig. Is it (a) because he pleaded guilty? (b) Because lewd conduct warrants resignation more than patronizing a prostitute? (c) Because of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality? Be totally honest now -- does the homosexuality account for at least part of your difference of opinion?
unlikely that his continuance in office would hurt the party overall, and that would depend on the media and his GOP colleagues in the senate.
What Craig actually did was VERY minor in my book. VERY
I don't blame the police for trying to deter actual lewd conduct a child could walk in on.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Re: impact on the party, that's a political consideration, which is perfectly legit, but I thought we were focusing on what is just, and on what principles should be applied. So let's assume, just hypothetically to get it out of the way, that in either case -- Vitter or Craig -- damage to the party would be equal. Now, if you don't mind (or even if you do, "Mr. Cub") go back to my question and let me know what your rationale is.
Also, please define what you mean by "repent". Does it require an expression of religious faith, or would it suffice for the politician to acknowledge wrongdoing, ask for forgiveness from his constituents and the nation, and pledge not to repeat the behavior? In other words, are atheists, agnostics, or perhaps even any non-Christians just screwed if they mess up?
be the same.
The kind of repentence I would require would not require religious faith.
happy?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
No, I'm not happy. You are being consistent and reasonable. You leave me with nothing to work with. Now I have to listen to my girlfriend and go out shopping with her again. Thanks a lot, man!
getting policies advanced in to law and in picking the right judges. I think of senators like car mechanics. Vote right on laws and fix my car. I wish more senators loved America more than the House of Lords and that the media didn't treat them like they matter so much. They don't
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The party of the governor that would replace them.
Vitter should resign. Patronizing a prostitute is illegal and morally wrong. I certainly hope he doesn't run for reelection.
But, the people that elected him to the Senate would then have their votes for a Republican Senator reversed. And that would be even more wrong than leaving the filthy John in the Senate.
So, the renter of flesh stays.
I do wish that there was a law or custom that would ensure that Congresscritters resigning in disgrace were replaced by someone of the same party, so the balance of power in congress would be determined by the voters, but we could still get rid of the scum.
I like your idea re: requirement to replace with someone from same party.
One question: What if Vitter had "rented flesh" in Nevada (outside of Vegas), where it's legal? How, if at all, would that affect your view of whether or not he should resign?
But I would still want him gone.
Paying someone to degrade themselves for your gratification is abusive. There are exceptions, but prostituton isn't an industry that people go into when they have other options, while the prostitute does consent to have sex with their customer, it's not an equal relationship so it really cannot be fully consenting -- it really is a little bit like rape (just a little bit, but enough).
No one says "I'm a people person, and I like to be physically active -- perhaps I should become a prostitute!"
And, given that he came into office to replace Livingston who was resigning because he had an affair with an amatuer, unless the culture of Loisiana has changed dramatically in the past decade or so, one suspects that hiring prostitutes should disqualify Vitter from holding office if an affair disqualified Livingston.
ok, was just wondering. And your point re: prostitution is something everyone should consider, regardless of where they end up on whether or not prostitution should be illegal or is immoral.
Miranda has nothing to do with this case.
Although Sgt. Karsina read Sen. Craig his "Miranda rights" after he began talking to him for a short time, he was under no obligation to read him his "Miranda rights" at any time during his contact with Sen. Craig. The facts of this case make Miranda inapplicable to Sgt. Karsina's contact with Sen. Craig.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
... he was under no obligation to read him his "Miranda rights" at any time during his contact with Sen. Craig. The facts of this case make Miranda inapplicable to Sgt. Karsina's contact with Sen. Craig.
Say what? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you're not a lawyer, right? As far as I understand it, Miranda rights apply to all arrests in all circumstances, even in really gross circumstances. And besides, if Karsnia didn't have to read him his rights, then why did he read them? Maybe it was ... a conversation starter?
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
make more sure that statements by a defendant may be admitted into evidence by the hearer. Statements by defendants can also be introduced under many exceptions to Miranda.
The main evidence against Craig was not his statements.
Moreover, even absent Miranda, if Craig were to testify at trial differently from staements before miranda, he can be cross examined on them anyway.
Nocharge for this valuable info.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Even if someone accepts as correct the meritless claim that Sen. Craig should have been read his "Miranda rights" as soon as Sgt. Karsina startd speaking with him, that person would have to admit that Sen. Craig could be cross-examined about everything he said to Sgt. Karsina if Sen. Craig testified, regardless of any alleged "Miranda" violation.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
I am an attorney and I am very familiar with "Miranda".
This was not custodial interrogation to which Miranda would apply.
You questioned why Sgt. Karsina would read Sen. Craig his Miranda rights when he didn't have to do so. Many officers read Miranda rights to those being investigated for crimes out of an abundance of caution. Those officers have probably appeared many times in front of liberal judges just looking for reasons to side with the criminal, rather than ruling in favor of an officer. Reading a person being investigated for a crime his "Miranda rights" is usually not a conversation starter. Reading a suspect his "Miranda rights" usually does not make suspects more likely to speak the truth.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
However, I keep coming back to the fact that he pled guilty.
To me that means either:
a) He was guilty of something
or
b) He was innocent but lacked the courage and/or good judgment to realize you don't plead guilty when you are innocent
Either of these two scenarios to me disqualifies him from service as a Senator.
I do however agree with you that people have been far too quick to assume that it is scenario (a).
I recommend this diary because of your honesty and willingness to re-examine your initial response and found yourself a bit too quick to judge. I too have watched the ridicule the man has been subjected to, and thought that the behavior he was engaging in had not YET led to anything illegal. It seems to me that he was on the road to lewd acts, but had not yet done so. He was so mortified at being caught as he proceeded along that road that he wanted it to go away as quickly as possible, so he pled guilty and got the heck out of town. He then tried to pretend to himself that it never happened, while hoping that nobody would ever find out. I admit it is pure speculation, but I bet that Senator Craig has a long personal history of denial and shame involving his sex life, and this was one more chapter. I feel for him and his family.
... thought that the behavior he was engaging in had not YET led to anything illegal. It seems to me that he was on the road to lewd acts, but had not yet done so.
I agree that he hadn't done anything to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was soliciting sex in the restroom, but that isn't what he was charged with. You're mistaken to suggest Craig hadn't already committed the crimes that he actually was charged with.
The charges against Craig were Interference with Privacy, which includes "staring or peeping in the window or other aperture" of a "place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts," and Disorderly Conduct, which includes "offensive" conduct "having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or tend to, alarm, anger, or disturb others".
In the plea bargain Craig pled guilty on the Disorderly Conduct count and the Interference with Privacy charge was dropped. If Craig had taken it to a jury, it would have been a slam dunk conviction on both counts unless he could make the jury suspect the cop was lying. Given how unbelievable Craig's story was, he'd have a hard time challenging the cop's credibility.
A couple of days ago I thought this episode would just go away with Craig's resignation and we could forget about it. Unfortunately some people see Craig as their Julius Rosenberg, creating a mythology of him as the innocent man railroaded into a guilty plea by a lying cop. That kind of fictionalized history is not a healthy phenomenon. It's a lot easier to write him off and do what's best for the future by accepting the reality that the guy screwed up big time, and as a Senator who should have known better, got what he deserved.
I sincerely wish Craig and his family well in the future putting their lives back together, but his selfish insistence on hanging around for another month before leaving the Senate makes it hard for me to feel any sympathy right now.
One other piece of mythology being spun around here is that "Craig hasn't been convicted of anything" because he pled guilty before going to trial. For anyone that doesn't recognize that claim for the idiocy is, I suggest you consider a sworn statement where you're required to list any criminal convictions and ask if you believe you're allowed to omit guilty pleas.
Here's Newsmax's Version
" Watching Sen. Larry E. Craig’s press conference about his encounter with a police officer in an airport men’s room, I wondered how anyone could be so arrogant as to think he could credibly claim that his only mistake was to plead guilty to the charge stemming from the seamy incident."
"Then I remembered "unarresting." Unarresting is not a term you will find in any law. It’s not in any dictionary. But it’s a term known to every officer of the Capitol Police."
Sounds like Sen Craig was looking for this non word, when he handed his card to the police office.
Personally I think Craig is totally guilty. However I don’t see why it is a crime in the first place. Not only, why is it a crime, but why are we paying cops to sit in bathrooms to tap their feet? Come on. I am totally against homosexual marriage but this is just ridiculous. So his crime was soliciting sex in the bathroom? Could I be pulled in for charges for trying to have a one night stand with some girl I meet at a bar? Is that not essentially the same thing as what was going on?
This whole incident is sad. However I feel no need to circle my wagon around Craig. I just feel sorry for his family and what he has brought upon them.
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
Could I be pulled in for charges for trying to have a one night stand with some girl I meet at a bar?
If you do her in the bathroom of the bar -- yes! Take her home -- no!
The first is illegal, the second is merely immoral!
Right on that distinction (in public bathroom is illegal -- and also inconsiderate, unless maybe the chick is really hot).
Wrong that the one night stand is immoral, unless you equate religious rules or mores/customs with morality. Right vs. wrong, which is what morality is about to me, is a matter of consideration of whether an act will help or harm others, and if both, how the effects net out. So, if your concept of "morality" is different, and is simply a matter of following religion or custom, I suggest that you and others who use the word "immoral" in the same way just use "sinful" or "untraditional" or "taboo" instead of "immoral" to refer to acts that you are not claiming harm people, but which violate religious rules or custom. Then we can all use the word "morality" to discuss whether one is being good or bad to others, rather than just being a good Christian or Muslim or whatever or just following custom or not.
show that harm most certainly results when non-marital sex is not minimized by societal public disapproval of same. Whether it be from the spead of disease; the production of fatherless children that ar then wards of the community or state; the breakdown in the trust necessary for successful marriages when everybody knows that that they and their spouse have given themselves in intimate ways to others and may well again;
the list goes no
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
All pretexts, my friend, a smokescreen for equating morality with religious rules and/or custom. Let me put it this way: If a guy and a girl have themselves tested and have no STDs, and even then use all combinations of contraception (the pill, a condom, whatever necessary to make the risk of pregnancy virtually nill -- or let's say zero for the sake of argument), is it still "immoral" in your view? In other words, if you take away the supposed harms you're suggesting, is it still immoral?
Actually, another example could be gay sex if, for the sake of argument, the risk of STD transmission is removed.
Social mores, on their own and as reflected in relious rules, have been forged by economic and other practical necessities or costs/benefits based on conditions that have existed over the centuries and millenia, some of which may not apply completely or in the same way today as when these mores emerged and gained popular acceptance. One example is the risk of unwanted pregnancy from pre-marital or extra-marital sex, and resulting unsupported children (and mother). Needless to say, there have been major advances in recent decades in our ability to decouple sex from pregnancy, so the real rationale for those behaviors being taboo over the centuries/millenia is largely gone. I HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend you get The Lessons of History http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-History-Will-Durant/dp/1567310249/ref=pd_b... The whole book is only 102 pages and it's a quick read. It's an encapsulation of conclusions that can be drawn from the authors' much, much larger work, The Story of Civilization. There's a chapter on morals that discusses what I'm talking about.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Tell you what I'll do instead. I'll scan the chapter on morals and email it to you (It's only 6 pages). If you want to do the same with small section of your book, I'll read it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Might be a few days for me. Gotta get to Kinkos to scan. And remember, let's keep it short -- say max 20 pages.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
_anal ain't I?_
Are you trying to relate this back to the Craig incident?
Hey, and Mr. Banks, you didn't answer the questions I posed above. That's like letting a ground ball go up the middle on the first base side of second base without even moving toward it. Let's see some hustle!
the breakdown in the trust necessary for successful marriages when everybody knows that that they and their spouse have given themselves in intimate ways to others and may well again;
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
So divorce is immoral, too, for the same reason? One has had sex with someone, presenting trust problems in any subsequent marriage, according to your premise.
Also, let's say a guy knows he's not going to get married -- let's say he has a terminal illness and has a few months to live or whatever hypothetical suits you for the assumption that this person will not be marrying anyone -- so your "trust in marriage" issue is taken away -- is it immoral for that guy to have a one night stand with a woman? (Assume the other harms you listed are taken away too via whatever means of "safe sex")
Also, what about the gay sex question, which doesn't fit your listed "harms".
the fact that both individuals and society as a whole benefit from reserving the sex drive, as much as possible, to marriage. This is proven by history without regard to moral precepts in the Bible. The Bible merely confirms that their are good objective results from obeying God's precepts. Control of acts that unite human beings in this intimate way in many ways define civilized man vs wild animals.
I think many people have a problem with this since they want to be able to think well of themselves even as they live like a wild animal.
Me, I have often gone wild and probably will again. When I do so, I am sinning. And I don't think society should equate such activity with monagamy; should not "celebrate" such activity most assuredly; and should frown upon same.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
the fact that both individuals and society as a whole benefit from reserving the sex drive, as much as possible, to marriage.
So is masturbation immoral?
Also, I think what you're saying (if your response was an answer to my hypothetical question rather than just pulling back to a general statement) is that even none of the harms you listed apply to a particular couple, their actions influence the behavior of others to whom those potential harms do apply, making it still immoral. Do I understand your argument correctly?
that heterosexual (see rooster) and homosexual fornicators be regulated to the closet!
Closets can be fun!
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
OK, I see your comment upthread that (I think) indicates your not up for this discussion this morning, so just reply to my comment re: masturbation whenever you want.
Another question you can address at that time: Given your view that sex outside of marriage is immoral because (at least in part, since we're talking about harms as the basis for immorality) even if it doesn't harm the couple, it can harm others' whose sexual behavior can be influenced by the couple's example, let me pose yet another hypothetical (yes, another one -- just using hypotheticals to try to weed out convenient "smokescreen" assumptions from what may be the real reason for your viewing such behavior as immoral, if my hypothesis is correct that it really boils down to just violation of religious rules and/or custom). What if this unmarried couple is stranded on a desert isle, run out of food and water, and (let's assume) there's no chance of rescue prior to their death (let's also assume no one will later determine from their bodies if they had had sex or not). Now, is it immoral for them to have sex, given that their behavior will not influence anyone else in society and given that it won't harm either or them?
Answer when you're up for it, but don't leave me hangin' (Was that last part Craig's line?)
accomplish the breakdown of morals, in order to justify the things they promote. Rather than be accused of the dreadful sin of threadjack I have put my thoughts in a blog.
Well, fortunately Contestphallus and I are having a discussion of the principles involved on their own merits rather than bringing in political partisanship or political ideology. But if you want to do so and take shots at the "left" bogeyman, have fun. I read your post, which apparently implies a causal link between sex outside of marriage (what Gamecock and I are discussing here) and Ted Kennedy letting someone drown and not reporting it, as well as Kennedy not taking a strong stance vs. the Soviets. Thanks for doing so elsewhere.
"Causal", not "casual". And to quote you:
IMO, the complete breakdown or lack of morals is the only way any American can justify; Not reporting an accident in which a human being is left to die in an upside down car in a river, or request aid from the Soviets to defeat America.
it is too bad we will never know, isn't it?