Tuesday, September 11, 2007


I have now read Ol' Lare's affidavit. Synthesized, he's claiming the policeman scared him, he panicked and tossed in a plea. There's also at least an intimation that the Minn. authorities suggested to him there would be no publicity (although, in now typical Craigspeak, he doesn't say that.). He also discloses that he met with an Idaho paper about his alleged gayness BEFORE the Minnesota toilet frolic.

Using his dates, he got tagged June 10 and signed his plea (prepared by the Minn prosecutor) August 1. To believe his suggestion that he was panicked by the authorities, we have to believe that he stayed panicked and misinformed for 52 days, ample time to consider his position and purge any scary experience he had with the nasty police officer. Wrap your own experience with panic and people in tough spots around that claim!.

Tomorrow, we'll discuss this strategy.


At 7:19 AM, September 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I did not have sex with that women!" Besides it's the anniversary of 911 who gives a shit about Larry Craig. Don't you pot stirrers ever take a day off??

At 7:28 PM, September 11, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I explained why this is very different from WJC a few posts back and I'll not repeat that.

The reason this is up today is that the affidavit went up on the internet Last night and I just happened to read it then, because it became public then.

I would think you would agree with me that it even more important than usual for citizens to exercise their freedoms on this anniversary than it is any other day.

A tasteful person like you surely doesn't believe that we must trade liberty for security.

Thank you very much for interrupting your busy day observing 911 to comment with us.

At 8:10 PM, September 11, 2007, Blogger TOOKIE said...

Dude the Hell with Larry !

Ar-Kansas vs Bama

Larry can go to hell for all I care ! Actually every larry on the planet can go to hell .........

Dude it's Ar-Kansas vs BAMA

Uncle Tony I hate to have to "chalkline" straighten you out but damn .

Also lines from "Airplane" are encouraged

At 4:57 AM, September 12, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you just point out which thread that explanation was in, having a little trouble finding it.

Great post.

At 7:14 AM, September 12, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "disorderly conduct" statute to which Craig pleaded guilty provides that one who knowingly “[e]ngages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others” is guilty of the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(3) (2004). More specific criminal charges were not advanced. A charge of interference with privacy was dismissed. Craig was not charged with any other crime, like public lewdness, indecent exposure, public sexual conduct, solicitation of prostitution, harassment, resisting arrest, or assault.

Even if the completed act would be a crime, it's doubtful that merely asking for sex in the restroom would be a crime. Minnesota, unlike some jurisdictions, does not have a general solicitation statute. Mere solicitation of a crime is not a crime. State v. Lowrie, 54 N.W.2d 265, 266 (Minn. 1952); State v. Johnson, 2005 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 352 at *9.

Minnesota does of course have an attempt statute, 609.17, but that requires a substantial step toward completion of the crime, plus the specific intent to commit the crime. I think it's possible but doubtful that Craig's acts would count as a substantial step, and it's also possible but doubtful that you could infer such a specific intent. Or rather — there's some inference there, but it's not strong enough to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

None of this will negate the torrent of bad publicity associated with this story. For that reason, Craig will have a decision to make very soon about running for re-election in 2008. Will people forget about the incident by election day? Not if the Democrats can help it you can be sure. And given the uphill battle for the GOP to hold on to the Senate seats that are up for grabs next year, it would probably be best for all concerned if Craig declined to seek re-election.

He's damaged goods. It would be best for the party if he stepped aside and allowed another Republican to run in his stead.

At 7:42 AM, September 12, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A tasteful person like you surely doesn't believe that we must trade liberty for security."

Do you mean like the illegal "safety checks" the local gestapo makes you go through while traveling the streets of these United States.

Is that what you mean?? and as far as me interupting my busy day observing 911 to comment with you that was simply to let you know how tasteless I thought your comments were about a political matter on such a memorable day. I was pointing out your LACK of taste. Hope that clarifies the matter.

At 9:04 AM, September 13, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Surely glad we cleared that up. Especially that all important connection between DUI checkpoints and 9/11.

I was commenting on a legal matter.


At 9:07 AM, September 13, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Thanks for your constructive input. That raises the question: Which side brings in other gays hit on by Larry. Does the state do it to show that the intent was "obscene" or does Larry do it show that it was merely trolling like any lounge lizard, straight or gay, might do?

Doctor, I get these terrible headaches.....


At 9:11 AM, September 13, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


No wonder you had trouble finding it. It's not a post but a comment under Perverts at the Polls in August.


At 10:58 AM, September 13, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

umr 911

Read more carefully. I wrote "thread" not "post". And I still can't find it. Just post it in this comment thread, smartass.

At 9:27 PM, September 13, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey dumb ass, we were talking about trading liberty for security. I will talk slow for you liberal nitwit. If I can not drive across town without being stopped by the police when I have done nothing wrong I believe my liberties have been infringed on. You are the one who tied security and liberty to my comments on 911, did you forget you liberal snot. I know you think you know everything but give us poor simple people a break.

At 6:37 AM, September 14, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


That was true regret. I said "a few posts back" and it wasn't in a post.

I'm sorry you can't recognize genuine courtesy when you see it.


At 6:43 AM, September 14, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Name calling is certainly a common debating technique. Your focus was on 911 but you want to tie domestic law enforcement techniques to it. If it helps you with your obvious difficulties processing authority, I can accept your pitiful name calling.

Precisely the opposite of what you say, I took up blogging so I could hear from people who know things I could never have known otherwise. You have done a remarkable job of showing you're not one of them.


At 7:07 AM, September 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you can't find it either, then does it really exist?

At 8:46 AM, September 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus, how could I ever enlighten someone with your knowledge. I have visited your blog from time just to see how you spin crap or to see how the very enlighten crowd thinks. Thank you lord for bothering to put up with my ignorance. I am so thankful. Please don't bother to spend anymore time addressing my shortcomings, spend your time on others like me who need you more. Like maybe the school board, city hall, the county board or possibly the stupid governor.

At 9:08 AM, September 14, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


There is something in your post upon which we can agree! That's a start.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home