Comments (8)

Anonymous wrote on September 10, 2007 1:54 PM:

WHAT!!!!! The media did not even know about it for several months. Just another bald faced lie from a sleazy politician who will say anything to keep his face in the public trough..

Mark Richards wrote on September 10, 2007 2:13 PM:

Dear Larry:

In Paragraph 1 you state: "I am a United States Senator..."

Sorry to spring this one on you but this is not who you are - this is what you happen to do for what is commonly known as "work". It's your occupation, however pathetically you've performed so far.

If stating who you are, try: "1. I am a human being". Some would suggest this point debatable. Regardless, in this instance I'd leave your current occupation out of play.

Clearly nobody particularly cares about your current occupation. The police officer who arrested you deserves an award for the depth of his disinterest and our appreciation for voicing his disgust.

You remain very lucky so far. Another police officer might have added to your dossier the charge of "abuse of office", whereby you attempted to get off (in the legal sense) by throwing your pathetic Senatorial credential around. Come to think of it, you did it right here in your deposition. Surely you aren't that stupid.

Maybe stating "I am a United States Senator" puts you at even greater risk. Perhaps the Court will reflect on this, plus your little business card flaunt (an unspoken and arrogant "do you know who I am?"), and consider it a challenge. Maybe the Court will recommend that the District Attorney convene a Grand Jury to determine if an Abuse of Office charge be brought. If you have to choose Stall 1, 2 or 3, this is one I'd try to avoid.

Give it up. Let Butch appoint a replacement "yes man" - someone who uses a restroom for what it was intended: the call of nature, rather than for want of nurture.

JEP wrote on September 10, 2007 2:34 PM:

Larry and Butch?

Sounds like a two-faced, potato-head monster, one homophobic, the other on the cruise...

Dee Illumuinati wrote on September 10, 2007 2:39 PM:

At our family reunion we were split in our opine of this story, my Dad Rich Illuminati and my Mom Anne Illuminati were supportive of the Senator, Beatrice (Bee) and myself feel he is guilty. The way my Dad saw it, maybe there was a sudden bowel movement dysfunction, similar to vocus flacus that the senator suffers from, maybe he was just failing around on the toilet seat as he struggled with a large piece of excretement before his next flight. But my parents the Illuminati said, if Arlen supports him, well he has to be OK if he is none-the-less ridiculous and in need of some ruffage.

Bee and myself would just like to see him retire peacefully and gracefully and represent the cucumber and vaseline lobby after his senate term is finished.

The illuminati family couldn't stop jawboning about this news item, it was as if it were a slow news day and we had already formed our conclusions on Iraq and hadn't been passed by a Mexican trucker.

Rich Illuminati concluded, look the man went to great lengths to state that he wasn't a homosexual. He repeated this often. And though his mouth was moving I doubt he lied.

I guess inquiring minds are wondering what will happen next and if the senator will make a gastranomical defense, hire specialists such as proctolgists, and if the re-trial will be on Court TV.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Sincerely, Dee

fuzz wrote on September 10, 2007 3:11 PM:

This case would be so much fun to prosecute. The stall mock-up. The mannequin. The pants.

"Senator, could you show us on the mannequin exactly where the waist of your pants was located as you widened your stance?"

D. Washingtonq wrote on September 10, 2007 3:27 PM:

There is one aspect of Craig's affidavit that should either help or impeach his credibility. Craig claims he was anxious about missing his flight when he entered the bathroom and he offers that tidbit to explain why he peered into a stall. Craig Aff., ¶ 4. The press, the police, or both should be able to verify that excuse by simply comparing the time of his arrest with the time of his flight's departure, as well as the proximity of that bathroom to the departure gate. If his flight wasn't scheduled to take off in the next 15 minutes, then why would he be anxious about it? And if he had more than, say, 30 minutes, then one would suspect he would have enough time for a quickie in the bathroom. On the other hand, if his flight was really leaving soon, say less than 15 minutes, then that would bolster his credibility since presumably even that would be too short of a timeframe to have a bathroom encounter and still make the flight (although perhaps as a frequent flier, he would be willing to catch the next flight depending on his luck in the bathroom).

P.S. Craig's motion glosses over the passage of nearly two months between the arrest and his actual guilty plea - he tries to make it sound like he pled guilty within moments of his arrest. In fact, he wasn't even formally charged at that time so he couldn't have plead guilty. He entered his plea two months later. Does he expect the Court to find that he was in a "state of fear" for two months?
P.P.S. Like Craig, I am over six feet tall - my foot has never come close to the foot of the person in the next stall and I don't see how that would be possible "accidently." Any other 6+ feet tall people out there have their foot touch the foot of the person in the next stall by mistake?

drv wrote on September 10, 2007 3:27 PM:

Didn't he have 2 months to mull over his plea? He didn't sign anything at the airport; he received a form which he, presumably, read and thought about then signed and mailed in. How can he credibly argue that he was under stress for 2 months? And, if he's truly not gay, as he has stated quite vociferously many times, how could a newspaper article bring such harm to him that he pleads guilty to a crime? Why is it such a stigma to be called "gay"? Has he ever been called something he isn't before? What did *that* cause him to do? The whole thing is unbelievable.

d

Dave Bowman wrote on September 10, 2007 5:54 PM:

This is a farce--Craig's defenders have been making excuses which may sound good in a vacuum, but which fail the laugh test when viewed in light of the police report, the written guilty plea, etc.

The whole 'I'm not gay' thing reads like an article from The Onion, as in 'i'm not gay, I just likes me some man meat on occasion.'

Good luck with that one, Larry...