Why was the cop working alone?

[itsrobert]

Wouldn't he have a better case, if he taped it via audio or video or both?

Or had a partner as a witness?

Shouldn't he have waited until they were in the same stall together? I don't know how this transaction works. Was the "cop" suppose to crawl into Craig's stall?

Maybe the police department is holding back some evidence?

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Given that Craig PLED GUILTY, I think the cop's case was good enough

[itsrobert]

3. But the TV lawyers

said Craig could of gotten "off" (sorry for the pun) with a decent lawyer.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Oh I'm sure he would've gotten off

:rofl:

Ahem... but, typically cops working undercover to bust people for solicitation work alone - how else can they pose as "prospective clients?" Their testimony of the event is not doubted unless there's a VERY good reason to doubt the cop's credibility. I suppose Craig could've argued in court that he was just innocently reaching for dropped TP (EW) or whatever, but obviously there was guilt there or else he wouldn't have pled guilty just to shush the whole thing up.

Of course a decent lawyer can acquit even an obvious murderer - look at OJ. Doesn't mean that Craig is innocent.

[itsrobert]

7. Don't they usually wear a wire

with the partner listening from a distance. Or is that just tv?

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. That's probably just TV

I would imagine wires are only deployed for serious shit like an organized crime informant or something. The Florida pervert Republican who was arrested for solicitation of a blow job a month or so ago - same deal, a lone cop arrested him after being solicited in a public restroom. The perv knew better than to argue that the cop was making it up, but instead claimed hilariously that it was a "misunderstanding."

What IS it with pervert Republicans and soliciting sex in public bathrooms?

[blogslut]

10. I can't speak with authority

But yeah. That's just teevee.

Did you listen to the interrogation? It's right here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/30/audio-of-larry-craigs-bust-coming/

[Hepburn]

30. I am a retired lawyer and my office did criminal defense....

...my law partner did a lot of "john" and hooker busts. When the vice cop is female and is playing a hooker, she ALWAYS wears a wire because of the fear that some of the johns are looking for rough sex or are looking to harm hookers rather than solicit them, etc. On gay john busts, male cops some times do and some times do not wear a wire. Mostly the wire is for PROTECTION of the vice cop and not to prove up a case.

The above is just what went on where I practiced law....other places could be different and I have nothing that that tells me that this is how it is where Craig was busted.

Just my two-cents worth! :hi:

[goodhue]

35. There is no point in wearing a wire when communication is all non-verbal!

Eye contact, foot tap, and hand gestures are not the kind of conduct a wire will capture

[havocmom]

12. TV lawyers, arm chair quarterbacks, were not there. A panicked Senator was

He tried throwing his weight around - handing that card showing who he was- to the cop then asking 'whadda ya think of that?' When the attempted intimidation didn't have the desired affect, there was a Senator in trouble and probably in panic.

Seems likely he just wanted it to end so he didn't mount much of a defense. Mounting a defense would have meant a lot of attention. An innocent man probably would want his day in court. A guilty one in Craig's position (heavy on family values rhetoric and high profile in a state with pretty Conservative tastes) would just go along and try to keep it all quiet.

The cop had him and he knew it. He tried to convince the cop he didn't have a case, but, again, he was blowin smoke and trying to intimidate. The tape was very interesting. Typical and the cop on that audio was spot on with the comment about why things were going 'down the tubes'.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Is there a link to the audio?

I've heard about it but I have only seen a partial transcript online.

[havocmom]

17. Raw Story has it. MSNBC has it. I suspect others have it up

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ On the right side of page

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Police_audio_recording_of_Senator_Craig_0830.html

http://www.crooksandliars.com/ down a bit

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Awesome, thx (nt)

[havocmom]

21. Da nada

Have fun. I caught most of in on Abrams this evening. After they played the tape twice, I went outside cuz I was laughing so hard my sides hurt.

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. Yeah I just listened to it

His defensive tone says "BUSTED" so hardcore :rofl:

[havocmom]

23. Did everything but debate what the meaning of 'is' is

It's a keeper.

[rodeodance]

37. MN has a first time Provision whereby had Craig known about it he would not

have had to cop a plea.

That is if he was a good boy for a year.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

46. ... Uh huh..

... My husband, also a lawyer (prosecutor) said if he had not pled guilty any half-assed defense lawyer could have made it all go away "POOF!"

Too bad

So Sad

Haaaaa!

[krispos42]

2. 'cuz there's only one toilet per stall!

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!

[Selatius]

4. If Craig had decided to fight in court, he could have won and been exonerated, but...

there's a saying that you can win the battle and lose the war. The court case would've been an awful mess for his reputation, so he probably felt pleading to a lesser charge was the best route. In a criminal case, the standard is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of one officer is likely not enough to convict, not without corroborative evidence.

[itsrobert]

5. True

I wonder what the conviction rate of this cop is for similar arrest?

[TahitiNut]

9. I'd pay to have the video of him demonstrating the technique for keeping his pants up.

:rofl:

Especially if it showed the reactions of the judge and jury.

Man ... talk about "viral video."

[northzax]

11. probably not, actually

he would have been hard pressed (sorry) to fight the invasion of privacy charge, since he was standing outside the stall looking though the crack in the door for several minutes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. No Pun

The best he could have hoped for was a mistrial or "hung jury"... There's no way he convinces twelve people there's no wrongdoing...

[Kingshakabobo]

36. I've been wondering about that privacy deal.....

.....when it comes to those shoddily constructed stalls, in EVERY bathroom across the country, that have about a half inch gap space between the jam and the door. If one were to stand at the right angle, which I'm sure Craig did on purpose, you can see in to the stall with little or no effort. I have, and I'm sure others have, been embarrassed when walking up to a stall only to find it occupied. It's kinda creepy and makes you feel uncomfortable as though you DID violate someone's privacy.

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure Craig was rootin around for sumtin, sumtin......and I couldn't be happier about seeing a rethug hypocrite exposed.........

....but.....Where is the criminal act when you "violate" privacy that doesn't REALLY exist? We're told, day in and day out, that we are not entitled to privacy WHENEVER we enter public spaces........of course, Fat Tony Scalia thinks we don't even have privacy in our own homes.

Absent any act or proposition, was Craig arrested for being a creepy creep?

Again, I'm not defending this creep but I have to wonder how many people have been arrested without making any overt acts or propositions.

[goodhue]

38. Well he stuck his left hand underneath the stall

Just one of his overt acts

[Kingshakabobo]

43. Again, I'm not defending Craig. It's pretty clear what HE was up to.

I'm wondering how you are charged for "privacy violation" for "peeping" through a crack that is visible to anyone standing in line for the toilet?

[goodhue]

44. I don't think there would be a charge for privacy violation for the peeping alone

n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

45. One of the attorneys on Abrams indicated that was the more serious charge....

.....he would have to defend against should he decide to re-open the case.

[goodhue]

47. The privacy charge is more serious, it is a gross misdemeanor

I doubt they would have charged the violation (or even arrested Craig) without subsequent conduct.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. How Do You Know He Would Have Won?

Most District Attorney offices have ninety percent plus conviction rates...

[Selatius]

48. That's because in this particular case, it boils down to what Craig said vs. what the officer said.

Try getting a 90 percent conviction rate in situations such as that. You're better off aiming at 50 percent in these types of cases where evidence is slim.

[Fearless]

13. He does have prior problems a la Mark Foley.

In 1982 he was accused of inappropriate conduct with Congressional pages. He got off.

All I have to say is that once is a coincidence. Twice... I don't think so.

[Hardrada]

27. Wait, he also got "off" in 1982.

Anyway that's twice in this thread he's been getting off or trying too!

[Fearless]

50. Evidently he was accused of some sort of inappropriate actions

with Congressional page(s) back in 1982. It's killing me trying to find a good link to it, you could google it, NYT has something on it, a prior article, but it costs money to read... so I scratched that.

Try this...it's the best I can find...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Larry_Craigs_proRomney_video_taken_down.html


also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

[lligrd]

14. Craig Could Have Easly Won The Case IMHO

but he feared the publicity and the questions it would raise (again).

[alittlelark]

16. I would imagine cameras in the restroom are a legal 'no-no'

As for a person, or witness as you suggest........

I believe these trysts are done w/no other bathroom occupants (I assume...).

As for waiting until they were in the same stall together... would you ask that of an undercover FEMALE. Think about it.

PS _ What 'evidence' do you think the police dept. is holding back?

[MnFats]

18. many many people take a plea to make it 'go away.'

all kinds of weak cases end in conviction simply because people involved want to get it over with and behind them, and figure the less said the better.
happens all the time
law enforcement knows this and uses it.
airport police said they got 40 people in this "sting." I am willing to be very nearly all of them pleaded guilty and hoped it would go away. I'm sure none involved expected a senator to bring more public attention on the whole thing...

[BattyDem]

20. The cops know what the signals are and apparently ...

Craig used several of them. "Accidentally" stumbling on to one of the signals is certainly possible, but what are the odds of "accidentally" stumbling on to several signals.

Peeking into another stall, having a "wide stance" that puts your foot into that same stall and reaching your hand under the divider - that's three "accidental" privacy breaches of the same stall. Are we to believe that this man's usual public bathroom habits just happen to be identical to gay solicitation signals?

I understand what you're saying about having a witness, but I don't see how that's possible. Wouldn't the man seeking a tryst want to wait until no one else was in the bathroom?

[azurnoir]

24. Minneapolis cops work alone

even the uniforms work in single officer squads, it is to increase "visibility". This cop I take it was undercover, they rarely have partners. They do not wear a wire because(they claim) sometimes their target frisks them before making any offers.

[goodhue]

32. He was not a Minneapolis cop

He was an airport cop

[ConsAreLiars]

25. the audio "explanation" and the signed confession weren't enough???

Sheesh.

[HughMoran]

51. I've never seen a spectacle like GD has been the past couple of days

I don't even give much of a crap about this whole incident other than enjoying the sheer hypocrisy of yet another Republican, but the knee-jerk seeming defense of his actions here is getting somewhat bizarre. I can't hide the threads fast enough.

[Mind_your_head]

26. Three would be a crowd?

:shrug:

[Skittles]

28. I don't think audio or video in a public restroom would be prudent

not at all

[Spinzonner]

29. They didn't have the budget for Menage's

[goodhue]

31. He was not working alone!

Detective Nelson was seated outside the restroom waiting

[rodeodance]

40. Does not matter, as I said above MN has a First time Provision whereby he

did not have to plead guilty-----had he a lawyer to tell him this.

He would have to be a good boy to get this provision (no record) for a year.

[goodhue]

42. What doesn't matter?

I think I'm missing something

[Beelzebud]

39. Republican Senator Craig thanks you for your passionate defense of his actions.

[rodeodance]

41. cops are always suspect.

[sabra]

49. Detective Noel Nelson

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Craigtranscript.pdf