[Vision2020] Craig's official statement

[Sue Hovey]

I think you are right.  I was on campus when Craig graduated with his 
Bachelor's degree and I don't remember that he returned for a law degree. 
He was on the U of I debate team and was Class President, but if he got an 
advanced degree, I don't believe it was from U of I. And he was pompus even 
then...but obviously popular and plenty bright.

I remember lobbying him in the Idaho legislature when he voted against the 
kindergarten bill.  Felt children were better off at home with a mother who 
stayed there.  Things haven't changed much have they?

Sue
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement


>I don't believe Larry Craig has a law degree.
>
> Sunil
>
>
>>From: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>
>>To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Craig's official statement
>>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:37:49 -0700
>>
>>Roger,
>>
>>That Craig merely touched someone else's foot seems to go against the
>>information in the police report that Tom posted, as well as information 
>>on
>>the
>>CNN website found here:
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html
>>
>>Tell me, why would they charge Craig for "lewd conduct" if all he did was
>>touch another man's foot with his own foot? Why would Craig -- someone 
>>with
>>a law degree -- plead guilty if this is all that happened? It doesn't add
>>up.
>>
>>Notice that on the CNN website it says: "A police officer who arrested him
>>June 11 said Craig peered through a crack in a restroom stall door for two
>>minutes and made gestures suggesting to the officer he wanted to engage in
>>'lewd conduct.' ... 'Craig would look down at his hands, "fidget" with his
>>fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again,' Karsnia
>>wrote in
>>documents accompanying the arrest report."
>>
>>Tell me, do you give Michael Vick the benefit of the doubt? Do you say,
>>"Well,
>>he just plead guilty in order to save himself some trouble. That doesn't
>>mean
>>he is guilty of any crime." Or do you take his case for what it is, i.e., 
>>a
>>genuine admission of guilt. And if you treat Vick differently, why?
>>
>>--
>>Joe Campbell
>>
>>---- lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>
>>=============
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>