[Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea

[Sunil Ramalingam]

No Pat, 'the liberals' aren't after Craig, his party is.  Mitt Romney one of 
the libs?  You haven't noticed this?

Sunil


>From: <pkraut at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at mail-gw.fsr.net
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
>Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:04:00 GMT
>
>I would sure like to know what the truth is...or at least closer than I
>think I do now. So much garbage out there it is hard to zero in on any one
>story. And than of course there is the gossip I have heard for
>awhile...that the libs are going to go after the higher ranking
>conservatives and get them out. But it is hard for me to believe that some
>officer does not have better things to do than sit on the john and hope
>Craig comes in. But then again maybe not.......
>
>
> > Why fight it at this point?  Larry Craig pled to a lesser charge and 
>paid
>a>  fine.  Why not just move on and finish out his Senate term?  The shock
>fac> tor has already worn off.  George W. Bush pled guilty to a DUI, paid a
>smal> l fine, and had his driver's license suspended.  This is far more
>serious
>t> han a guilty plea for disorderly conduct and yet the DUI didn't
>disqualify
> > Bush from the presidency.
>
>-Scott
>
>----- Original Message ----
>Fr> om: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>Cc:
>vision2020 at moscow.> com
>Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:45:02 PM
>Subject: Re:
>[Vision202> 0] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
>
>Paul,
>
>Craig was
>off> ered a one-for-one: Plead to one, the other goes away.  It's a
>standard
> > offer here too.  I'm inclined to agree with you that the conduct
>involve> d in the charge he pled to is not particularly egregious; if you
>came
>to>  me and had been charged with only that one count, we might well want
>to
> >
>fight it on a number of grounds.  And yes, the cop could have built a
> >
>stronger case by waiting it out.  Perhaps he was tired of sitting there
> > with
>his pants down.
>
>But you're looking at it in a vacuum; you
>can'> t ignore the other charge,
>which is the more dangerous one for Craig.
>Y> es, it's possible that one
>stares into space.  I do it too, but not
>thro> ugh a crack between toilet
>partitions behind which sits a man I would
>as> sume to be defecating, or at
>least half-naked.  I'll bet you don't do
>th> at often either.
>
>The officer's testimony would contradict that
>explana> tion; he says Craig was
>deliberately staring at him.  It's possible
>he's>  wrong, but if Craig gets
>his plea back and goes to trial, seems to me
>h> e would have to take the stand
>to refute the cop's testimony.  Does he
>r> eally want to be cross-examined on
>that point?  I don't think so.
>
>S> unil
>
>
> >From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> >To: Tom
>Hansen>  <thansen at moscow.com>
> >CC: 'Donovan Arnold'
><donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> >,  'Sunil Ramalingam'
> ><sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>,
>vision2020 at mosco> w.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty
>Pl> ea
> >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:00:46 -0700
> >
> >I've posted on this
>befo> re, but I might as well do it again, I guess.
> >
> >I don't think that
>Sen> ator Craig should be punished by the law for
> >something as stupid as
>bum> ping another man's foot, looking through a crack
> >in a door, or moving
>h> is hand under the partition. Couldn't the officer
> >have done whatever
>wa> s expected next, which I presume is to come over to
> >his stall, and
>wait>  for him to make an undeniable request for sex (verbally
> >or bodily)
>bef> ore arresting him?
> >
> >As for the peeping through the door thing, am I
>t> he only person around here
> >that will sometimes stare into space when
>I'> m thinking about something
> >deeply, only to "come to" with the
>realizati> on that I've been staring at
> >someone the entire time? I'm not saying I
> > do this every day, but I've done
> >it before. I can't be the only one.
>I'> m not saying that is what happened to
> >Craig, but it's definitely
>possib> le.
> >
> >I can also see an occasion where someone might want to plead
>gui> lty to
> >something they didn't do in an attempt to avoid certain people
>f> inding out
> >about it. That doesn't speak too highly of him if he did
>tha> t, but a guilty
> >plea to a misdemeanor doesn't mean the person did it
>ab> solutely. If you
> >think he is the kind of guy that solicits sex in a
>pub> lic bathroom, why is
> >it so unbelievable that he might have lied to
>gain>  a perceived advantage?
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
>
>=========> =========================> =====================
>  List
>ser> vices made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities
>of>  the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
> >
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>======> =========================> ========================
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.com/
>
>
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================