I don't know about everyone else, but I don't want my senators toe-tapping people in the restroom. I listened to the tapes, and I think he was trying to do what the police say he was trying to do. If I had been running the sting, I would not have arrested him until he made more incriminating statements or did something more out of line. Female prostitues have to say they want money for sex before they get arrested. Considering the totality of circumstances, I think you are pretty safe in saying Craig was trying to have a "close encounter of the third kind."<g> So, he was tapping the other guys toes for what? Yecht! If someone taps my toe when I'm in a stall, one of us is going to the hospital, and I don't think it will be me.




>Except that to my knowledge, Craig never had any sexual contact in the restroom. No money exchanged hands and no verbal offer or acceptance ocurred either. Initially I trusted the police 100% and assumed he was completely guilty. After listening to the tapes I'm not convinced any longer. I'm not convinced he's innocent either. What does concern me is that he was going to be prosecuted based on supposed signals (commonly known to homosexuals who frequent restrooms supposedly, but I don't know that and never heard of these 'signals') when no real offer or acceptance or act took place. He pled guilty to a lessor charge (disorderly conduct) to avoid the publicity. It's the fact that he was brought up on charges based on these 'signals' alone that bother me. That is scary...
>
>Do signals exist between female prostitutes and their male customers? Can customers be brought up on charges for signals alone with no discussion of any act or money or any act taking place?
>
>