I've heard a lot of interesting discussion about the validity of Craig's arrest on such silly charges. I'm not a fan of our country arresting people while they are on the toilet, nor am I a fan of hypocrites... but I see a totally different issue here.

I am shocked at the apparent lack of legal sense of out foot tapping congressman. Claims of a wide stance at the toilet or of elusive TP dangling beneath the stall divider should be made in the courtroom (or best not at all!), but not AFTER pleading guilty to the charges and effectively admitting that such actions amount to disorderly conduct.

Then later he concedes that he should have consulted legal counsel but decided to plea guilty in haste. How many weeks did he have to make that decision?

I'm willing to give Craig some credit, enough to recognize that he had to know that the charges were ridiculous and would be easily defeated in court. But that assumption forces me to believe that there is something buried a lot deeper in this case, dirty enough to be worth a guilty plea to keep quiet.

I'd like to see the press take an interest in this side of the issue. I think we all agree on the rest of the story anyway.

"But that assumption forces me to believe that there is something buried a lot deeper in this case, dirty enough to be worth a guilty plea to keep quiet.

I'd like to see the press take an interest in this side of the issue."

Was Craig an easy blackmail target for the fascists who bankroll him, helping them to control his votes?