# Another Washington embaressment



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We seem to keep a running count without score of elected and appointed government figures getting into 'youthfull indiscretions.' Gonzales? No, I'll let somebody else deal with him. I'm matching Wayfarer's Democrat who clotheslined an airport employee recently. It seems Senator (R) Larry Craig of Idaho was also in an airport, the mensroom to be exact. And Larry tapped his foot in the stall. And this policeman recognised it as a Gay mating call followed by Larry producing his impressive Senate card before the cop presented his. OOPS! He pled quilty to a reduced charge of public misconduct after another charge was dropped, paid a $500 odd fine and is on unsupervised probation for a year.It seems this story only became known because a gay rights activist has been trying to 'out' Craig. Craig now says it was a misunderstanding and he was wrong in not fighting it. He has resigned from Mitt Romney's campaign. Sad, if he is gay, why not come out as a Log Cabin Republican instead of an outhouse? So much for Barney Frank's single representation of Gay America in our capital.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)




----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Kav said:


> And Larry tapped his foot in the stall. And this policeman recognised it as a Gay mating call...


Reminder to self: Don't listen to happy toe tapping songs on iPod in airport restrooms.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

If Craig was doing what we think he was doing then he's a hypocrite but until the good people of MA and the Democratic Party disavow themselves of Ted Kennedy (No need to list his sexual pecadillos or brush with manslaughter, is there?) then I have a difficult time being outraged by a deeply troubled man (Larry Craig) cruising a men's restroom.

Karl


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

shouldn't this cross post to the necessity of adding tips to shoe soles?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm not outraged, but jeez, doesn't he realize he's a Senator? There are dozens of discreet ways he could probably have gotten his jollies.

He is really hypocritical, though. I do feel for his wife and children who have to be monumentally embarrassed by this.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> There are dozens of discreet ways he could probably have gotten his jollies.


What if that involves picking up guys in airport bathrooms?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Being niether Reublican or Democrat My observations are a sad nuetrality. In all fairness, the Ventura County Green Party leader is still a pedantic fool.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

jbmcb, I really wouldn't know.

I just know that what he did was monumentally stupid.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Kav said:


> Sad, if he is gay, why not come out as a Log Cabin Republican instead of an outhouse? quote]
> 
> One huge reason is that he was a very up front "Family Values" guy. A very big part of Craig's platform to voters was an anti-Gay agenda.
> 
> The man is a huge embarrasment and hypocrite, and I feel no pity for him.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

*Craig Oh boy...*



rnoldh said:


> Kav said:
> 
> 
> > Sad, if he is gay, why not come out as a Log Cabin Republican instead of an outhouse? quote]
> ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The issue shouldn't even be about sexuallity. It's about public behavior. Imagine Cary Grant passing a note to Debora Kerr to meet him in the Ship's head.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Maybe he was just canvassing for the Romney campaign. Given the recent sexual scandals in the GOP, perhaps the men's room vote is the key to the nomination.

Karl


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Given the action Cary is hoping to get from Deborah, maybe the "head" is the appropriate place!!

I honestly think that the Senator just dug himself in deeper with his press conference yesterday. I wonder what wearing casually dressing in a short sleeve shirt was supposed to do. I'm sure a handler had some message. 

Of COURSE, he dragged his wife in to try to convince us that he couldn't possibly be gay. (Does she get some extra bucks in the divorce settlement for doing this?)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Karl, are you trying to tell us that in a tie, the nomination goes to the man with the cutest nads?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I think this whole thing is funny as hell…especially because he wraps himself in the conservative agenda so much. I was listening to his press conference on NPR yesterday. An episode from South Park kept running through my brain…the one where Mr. (now Miss) Garrison kept running around town trying to convince people he wasn’t gay. He suffered a nervous breakdown and went into hiding in the mountains. You could hear his voice calling repeatedly from the mountains…”I’m not gay!” There wouldn’t be this “witch hunt” (as he described it) if there wasn’t some truth to the rumors. His career is toast. Maybe he’ll go to that counseling camp (the one that fundamentalist preacher went to) and get “cured.” The next scandal? We’ll find out that Barney Frank is really straight.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

TMMKC said:


> I think this whole thing is funny as hell&#8230;especially because he wraps himself in the conservative agenda so much. I was listening to his press conference on NPR yesterday. An episode from South Park kept running through my brain&#8230;the one where Mr. (now Miss) Garrison kept running around town trying to convince people he wasn't gay. He suffered a nervous breakdown and went into hiding in the mountains. You could hear his voice calling repeatedly from the mountains&#8230;"I'm not gay!" There wouldn't be this "witch hunt" (as he described it) if there wasn't some truth to the rumors. His career is toast. Maybe he'll go to that counseling camp (the one that fundamentalist preacher went to) and get "cured." The next scandal? We'll find out that Barney Frank is really straight.


That's terribly malicious. Really - think about it - you think the "whole thing is funny"?. As a conservative I have to say - if you're going to beat the "family values" drum you're fair game for the press to prove your hypocrisy. I don't feel sorry for this guy - I'm disgusted by him. I mean staring at a guy in a bathroom stall through the gaps in the wall? Bumping his foot and making hand gestures under the barrier indicating sexual acts - it's really disgusting. He deserves to have his career ruined for being a hypocrite and for cruising sex in a public toilet - it's just nasty.

BUT - the "whole thing" is not funny. Not when you think of the humiliation of his wife and children who are completely innocent. I feel terribly sorry for the wives - whether it's McGreevey's wife or this guy's - the amount of personal pain, humilitation, and betrayal - all aired in public - that these wives and children must go through is incomprehensible. Those poor women stand there next to these guys at the press conferences and try to put on a brave face - I think it's heart breaking.

Craig should take what little dignity he has (and it's VERY little after this story) left and scamper out of Washington ASAP.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's a shame his entire press conference isn't being aired. One station played it from the beginning, starting with " I'd like to thank everyone FOR COMING OUT TODAY.."


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

As a new Idaho resident, having never actually voted for Craig, I am just wondering what on earth is going on here? It is bad enough that Idaho may have (does have, but I am open-minded on the issue) the worst drivers I have ever been on a road with (I have been hit from behind while stopped at a red light, hit and run twice in supermarket parking lots, the one place they actually drive fast, and had the rear window of my car bashed in with a baseball bat, one of 48 cars vandalized, by youth with nothing better to do with their free time, and all in less than 2 years!), but now we are scorned by a Senator playing footsy in a bathroom stall? I had to use a bathroom stall once at a park that was known for having similarly minded perverts (Craig) using them (holes made in the partitions so they could get a peek at little kids, according to the sheriffs department). Sure enough, one of the pervs followed me in and stuck his eye into the hole where he got a large dose of pepper spray. He ran crying out to his car where I was able to get his license plate number and report him to the sheriffs department. Is this Senator out of his mind? ic12337:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I think this whole thing is funny as hell&#8230;especially because he wraps himself in the conservative agenda so much. I was listening to his press conference on NPR yesterday. An episode from South Park kept running through my brain&#8230;the one where Mr. (now Miss) Garrison kept running around town trying to convince people he wasn't gay. He suffered a nervous breakdown and went into hiding in the mountains. You could hear his voice calling repeatedly from the mountains&#8230;"I'm not gay!" There wouldn't be this "witch hunt" (as he described it) if there wasn't some truth to the rumors. His career is toast. Maybe he'll go to that counseling camp (the one that fundamentalist preacher went to) and get "cured." The next scandal? We'll find out that Barney Frank is really straight.


My wife was predicting the 12 hour cure that that preacher got.

They've been talking about an Ethics Committee investigation. Aside from the ethics involved in the criminal conviction, does anyone know if he is potentially in violation of ethics rules for not reporting his conviction to the Ethics Committee?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Does this cure involve behind clunked on the skull and falling backwards?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> That's terribly malicious. Really - think about it - you think the "whole thing is funny"?. As a conservative I have to say - if you're going to beat the "family values" drum you're fair game for the press to prove your hypocrisy. I don't feel sorry for this guy - I'm disgusted by him. I mean staring at a guy in a bathroom stall through the gaps in the wall? Bumping his foot and making hand gestures under the barrier indicating sexual acts - it's really disgusting. He deserves to have his career ruined for being a hypocrite and for cruising sex in a public toilet - it's just nasty.
> 
> BUT - the "whole thing" is not funny. Not when you think of the humiliation of his wife and children who are completely innocent. I feel terribly sorry for the wives - whether it's McGreevey's wife or this guy's - the amount of personal pain, humilitation, and betrayal - all aired in public - that these wives and children must go through is incomprehensible. Those poor women stand there next to these guys at the press conferences and try to put on a brave face - I think it's heart breaking.
> 
> Craig should take what little dignity he has (and it's VERY little after this story) left and scamper out of Washington ASAP.


Yes, those poor wives and kids. I bet you were first in line calling for the investigation and impeachment of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

As for Craig, what is infinitely more reprehensible than playing footsie with an undercover cop, is doing so while advocating and legislating to deny gay people the right to civil unions, protection from employment discrimination etc. In my view, if he burns in hell it won't be because he was starved for sex or because he preferred one set of plumbing over the other. Heck, according to the Catholic Church, gay sex doesn't even count as adultery.

If there's a silver lining to this story, the age old double standard -- where soliticiting sex from women is somehow less of an offense than soliciting sex from men -- appears to be finally evaporating:

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3214655.shtml

"In reality, Republicans now are just mad because this one is gay," Sloan said. "That is the only difference here between Vitter and Craig. I guess family values are not undercut by soliciting female prostitutes, but they are by soliciting male ones."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In this whole thing, all I can think of is how much it must suck to be that cop and have to sit on a toilet trying to bust gay sexcapades in airport bathrooms. That guy deserves a handshake...oh wait, isn't that what Craig was trying to give him? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Yes, those poor wives and kids. I bet you were first in line calling for the investigation and impeachment of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.


\

Per usual, FrankDC, you go off on some illogical tangent. In the first place, if you'll remember Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment (I had nothing to do with that and did not instigate the suit). He was desposed in that lawsuit and allegedly perjured himself (and, apparenlty, there was sufficient evidence of perjury to later (a) get him impeached and (b) get him disbarred in the only state in which he was licensed to practice law).

So, in answer to you assertion - yes, once the independent counsel, appotined by Janet Reno, determined that there was some likelihood that an officer of the court AND the President of the United States had committed perjury, I was OK with that being investigated.

You see, FrankDC, it was about the perjury (i.e., you know, lying under oath in a legal proceeding) not about sex. But, I know you can't get that through your head so, I'll leave the subject.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> .
> 
> If there's a silver lining to this story, the age old double standard -- where soliticiting sex from women is somehow less of an offense than soliciting sex from men -- appears to be finally evaporating:


Dude, it's not just that he was soliciting sex, or even that he was soliciting gay sex - it's that he was freaking peeping into occupied stalls and that he was seeking sex in a public toilet for G_d's sake. If you can't see how disgusting and depraved that is - I'm sorry for you. Soliciting some prostitute, male or female, would almost seem wholesome, in contrast. If I'm in some public bathroom and some pervert starts scoping out my stall, he's gonna get a [email protected] pen in his eye socket and if his hand swipes under the barrier he's going to lose it.

It's not about soliciting - it's about invasion of privacy and depravity. Go to bar and hit on someone.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with your last post, Rocker. 

Only on the surface was the Clinton-Lewinsky thing about perjury. It was about humiliating a politician that Republicans disliked because he outmaneuvered them a few times.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

F2K,

Fair enough but Clinton had a choice to spare the country the agony that was the impeachment process by either admitting to the affair OR refusing to answer any question about it. But instead he did commit perjury and did divide the country, creating a division that still hurts us. Had Clinton told the truth or kept his mouth shut Al Gore would have certainly been elected in 2000 and everything would be perfect, at least according to the Democrats.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Dude, it's not just that he was soliciting sex, or even that he was soliciting gay sex - it's that he was freaking peeping into occupied stalls and that he was seeking sex in a public toilet for G_d's sake. If you can't see how disgusting and depraved that is - I'm sorry for you. Soliciting some prostitute, male or female, would almost seem wholesome, in contrast. If I'm in some public bathroom and some pervert starts scoping out my stall, he's gonna get a [email protected] pen in his eye socket and if his hand swipes under the barrier he's going to lose it.
> 
> It's not about soliciting - it's about invasion of privacy and depravity. Go to bar and hit on someone.


Read the police report and tell us whether this is a case of depravity or entrapment:

https://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...071craig1.html

What exactly did Craig do? He stood three feet from the toilet stalls waiting for one to become available (which doesn't qualify as "peeping", regardless of what this idiot cop claims), and likewise, the rest of the story depends entirely on interpretation. This is specifically what Craig "admitted" to:

He is a commuter.
He went into the bathroom.
He was standing outside of the stalls for 1-2 minutes waiting for one to become available.
He has a wide stance when going to the bathroom.
He is unable to take the wedding ring off of his left finger.

Wow. Call the freaking FBI. We have a terrorist on our hands.

By all accounts the restroom was crowded. If you were going to solicit sex in a public restroom, would you want the stalls on both sides of you to be occupied?

Look, none of us were there and none of us know the real story. But the more I read about it, the more it looks like the only mistakes Craig made were 1) not standing up for himself and 2) not completely ignoring this cop. If he had, the conversation would have gone something like this:

Cop: Your foot! It tapped! And it touched mine!

Craig: Sorry. It's these damned herrorhoids. Did I break the law?

Cop: Uh, no. But your hand! It slid on the bottom edge of the stall!

Craig: Yeah, I have to use my other hand to wipe. Is that against the law?

Cop: Uh, no.

Craig: Then please get out of my face.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Had he thought quickly, he might have been able to pull that off.

However, he probably wanted to try to be discreet in the hopes that this would not be revealed in the media. 

Had he done what you suggest, he might have earned himself a citation for resisting arrest and had this come out publicly immediately (and in a severe situation, he could have been physically subdued and handcuffed.)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl, aren't you a bit confused about who should have kept her mouth shut?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

How right you are! But perhaps Clinton's biggest crime, was that as the most powerful man in the world, one who could have almost any woman in the world, he chose Monica. She must had one hell of a personality!

Karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Here's an interesting piece of information about the ever-vigilant bathroom cop, Sgt. Karsnia, Protector of the Powder Room, Defender of Dumping Decorum, brave Sentry of the Sh*t House.

It's the story of a bicyclist, a violinist, an enviro-enthusiast, who was arrested near the Minneapolis airport for ... bicycling in the wrong place.

Well, he said the wrong thing to a cop (something along the lines of "I disagree with you.") and got tackled and tazed for it.

Then, Brave, Brave Sir Karsnia showed up on the scene, and dutifully disregarded the bicyclist's complaint (who by that time was forced into a kneeling position, roadside). Sir Karsnia naturally backed up Mr. Itchy Trigger Finger, as all good policemen are supposed to do when one of their own decides to bully and taze a bicycling violinist who isn't sufficiently submissive to cops who give illegal, harassing instructions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Had he thought quickly, he might have been able to pull that off.
> 
> However, he probably wanted to try to be discreet in the hopes that this would not be revealed in the media.
> 
> Had he done what you suggest, he might have earned himself a citation for resisting arrest and had this come out publicly immediately (and in a severe situation, he could have been physically subdued and handcuffed.)


Whether this cop would have forcefully detained Craig is anyone's guess. Based on the cop's other actions I don't think he would have. There was no actual presentation for sex, or anything close to presentation for sex, and solicitation/lewd conduct was clearly a matter of opinion.

Even if the cop pressed the matter, had Craig retained a lawyer at the start, instead of taking a "I'm a Senator and am above the law" attitude, both charges (instead of just one) would have almost certainly been dropped.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You may have a point there.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

I read the police report Frank provided and now I have to admit I am wondering if someone was a little overzealous here? I did not realize, until now, that their was very specific protocol for waiting for a bathroom stall to open up, for sitting on the toilet properly, and such, otherhwise, your actions could be interpreted as soliciting sexual favors?

I mean, seriously, we need an *A*sk *S*omebody, *S*eriously, *W*hat *I*s *P*ermitted *E*tiquette when is a public restroom to make sure we do not do something in a stall that will get us in trouble. Everyday, it seems, I learn all sorts of new rules for behavior that I had no idea even existed, much less were necessary.

So just to be clear:

1. No taking a peek to see if the stall is available;

2. No foot tapping, even if humming to music, especially "YMCA;"

3. No picking garbage off the floor of the stall (actually, I already knew this one, I mean, does this need further explanation?);

4. Hands must be contained within shoulder area, definitely do not place hand under the partition.

If anyone is aware of other rules that one should know to avoid possible misunderstanding in the mens room, please post here. Thanks.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Umm, I'm a bit busy and have not read the police report - thanks for providing it, FrankDC, I ill read it tomorrow - you may well have brought up some valid points.

But I must ask - is it not usual when looking to see if a stall is being used, to look a bit (from a distance) under the front door for the sign of shoes and dropped trousers? My understanding was that the cop could identify Craig's eye color it was plugged so closely to the stall in his alleged attempts to see if someone was in it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Whomewhat,

All of your bathroom etiquette questions are answered here.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Umm, I'm a bit busy and have not read the police report - thanks for providing it, FrankDC, I ill read it tomorrow - you may well have brought up some valid points.
> 
> But I must ask - is it not usual when looking to see if a stall is being used, to look a bit (from a distance) under the front door for the sign of shoes and dropped trousers? My understanding was that the cop could identify Craig's eye color it was plugged so closely to the stall in his alleged attempts to see if someone was in it.


I don't know what's usual, but in my experience most guys don't bother stooping over to look underneath, they just glance through cracks in the stall doors. But in any case I don't think any laws exist which dictate a procedure.


----------



## red96 (Jun 26, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> That guy deserves a handshake...oh wait, isn't that what Craig was trying to give him? :icon_smile_big:


Craig keeps saying that the cops "misconstrued his actions." I'd love for him to tell us how exactly we should construe his actions - playing footsie under a stall door isn't typically how I'd ask someone to pass some toilet paper or whatever...


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Look, none of us were there and none of us know the real story.


Actually, Craig was there and knows "the real story." He pled *guilty*, remember?

T3G


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Title III Guy said:


> Actually, Craig was there and knows "the real story." He pled *guilty*, remember?
> 
> T3G


I agree. I don't believe his story about pleading guilty to just make things go away. BS if you ask me.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Title III Guy said:


> Actually, Craig was there and knows "the real story." He pled *guilty*, remember?
> 
> T3G





Laxplayer said:


> I agree. I don't believe his story about pleading guilty to just make things go away. BS if you ask me.


I'm interested to see what happens. The issue of guilt aside, the way Craig handled it (and is handling it) seems to be beyond pathetic. So who knows, maybe he really did risk a lifelong career in the U.S. Senate for the chance at a quickie with a stranger in a crowded public restroom.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm interested to see what happens. The issue of guilt aside, the way Craig handled it (and is handling it) seems to be beyond pathetic. So who knows, maybe he really did risk a lifelong career in the U.S. Senate for the chance at a quickie with a stranger in a crowded public restroom.


I don't think the fact that the bathroom was crowded would make any difference at all. Most people don't pay any attention at all to what is going on around them. My cousin and I had a prostitute come up to us once and ask if we wanted a "date" for the evening. This was around 7pm inside a gas station and 4 other people were standing in line. 
Remember the Dateline special on sexual predators? How many men did they talk into coming over to the house? One of them even stripped down before entering, just as he was told to do in an email. Nothing surprises me anymore.

I just find it hard to believe that someone who is not guilty would plead guilty in a case like this. We're not talking about a traffic ticket here, and he certainly had enough money to fight the charge in court.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Your party is in retreat. You have had past allegations made of sexual misconduct ( clarification, usually a married man is not gay, he is bisexual) by a gay activist and others. You have a high profile for being against gay unions. You enter a public restroom and encounter a policeman who isn't Andy of Mayberry. This is either hubris or stupidity. The people of Idaho would be better served by a man who represents a major State crop, except he's now made in Red China.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Slate Magaizine's recreation:

https://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid988327350?bclid=1037705321&bctid=1155290759


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

*Barney Frank's response:*

By Associated Press
Thursday, August 30, 2007 - Updated: 06:35 AM EST

WASHINGTON - Bay State Rep. Barney Frank said yesterday that embattled Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is a hypocrite on gay rights issues, but he doesn't think the Republican senator should resign.

Frank's comments came as some Republican lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, called on Craig to step down after being caught in a men's room undercover police operation.

But Frank (D-Newton), one of two openly gay members of Congress and a prominent voice on gay rights, said Craig should serve out the remainder of his term. The third-term senator is up for re-election next year.

"What he did, it's hypocritical, but it's not an abuse of his office in the sense that he was taking money for corrupt votes," said Frank. "I think people should resign when they have clearly done the job in a way that is dishonest."

Added Frank: "It's one thing to say that someone can't be trusted to vote without being corrupt, it's another to say that he can't be trusted to go to the bathroom by himself."

Craig pleaded guilty in August to disorderly conduct after his June 11 arrest in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport. A police report alleged he attempted to engage in a homosexual encounter with an undercover officer.

Craig has since recanted his guilty plea, and said on Tuesday that he did nothing wrong.

He also said he was not gay.

"This is the hypocrisy - it's to deny legal equality to gay people, but then to engage in gay behavior," Frank said.

Frank said people who are wrongly accused, particularly members of the Senate, usually do not plead guilty. He called Craig's denial "implausible," given the facts of the case.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Living in Idaho I can tell you that their is no way Craig gets re-elected next year if he does not resign and chooses to run. I cannot turn on the local television without hearing anti-Craig conversations non-stop. Local businesses and residents have signs up all over the area calling for him to resign. He is through in Idaho! Since I have only lived here since November of 2004, I can honestly say I have never voted for him, thankfully.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Living in Idaho I can tell you that their is no way Craig gets re-elected next year if he does not resign and chooses to run. I cannot turn on the local television without hearing anti-Craig conversations non-stop. Local businesses and residents have signs up all over the area calling for him to resign. He is through in Idaho! Since I have only lived here since November of 2004, I can honestly say I have never voted for him, thankfully.


This morning I listened to the audio interview between Craig and Karsnia. Everyone else can reach their own conclusions, but I think your description of Karsnia as "overzealous" is an understatement:

https://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/9478442.html

Even if Craig was dumb enough to allow himself to be railroaded into pleading guilty to "disorderly conduct", I'm glad he at least accused Karsnia of entrapment in the interview. E.g. Karsnia admitted his own foot was close to the stall partition etc. And it came down to an argument about which way Craig's palm was pointed in the stall. Good lord.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> This morning I listened to the audio interview between Craig and Karsnia. Everyone else can reach their own conclusions, but I think your description of Karsnia as "overzealous" is an understatement:
> 
> https://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/9478442.html
> 
> Even if Craig was dumb enough to allow himself to be railroaded into pleading guilty to "disorderly conduct", I'm glad he at least accused Karsnia of entrapment in the interview. E.g. Karsnia admitted his own foot was close to the stall partition etc. And it came down to an argument about which way Craig's palm was pointed in the stall. Good lord.


One does not have to be a politcal genius to know that his career was over, rather, it was obvious from all the local reaction. I did read the reports you provided and listened to all of the audio tapes and I do think this was a case of entrapment. It does not mean that Craig did not have sleezy intentions, he may have, but I just think it is a very dangerous thing when we punish people because of what we think they were going to do or might do rather than for actual crimes. Truthfully, I think the cop is even more sleezy than Craig.

I think Craig acted incredibly stupid and would compare it, although to a much lesser degree, to Michael Vick. When you have so very much to lose then you must really go above and beyond to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing, or you lose it. Vick lost hundreds of millions of dollars in income because he had a problem with cruelty to animals and now Craig has last his seat in the US Senate because he is stupid, pure and simple.

Like I said earlier, someone was inappropriate with me in a bathroom stall once and they got an eyeful of pepper spray, not to mention arrested when the police caught him later. If this cop had tried to play footsy with me in a public restroom he would have gotten broken toes. I wonder, in that case, if I would have been arrested for assaulting a police officer? If you go along with it, you get arrested for lewd behavior, if you resist and hurt the guy, you get arrested for assault on a police officer. I just find the whole thing rather distasteful on every level.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Guilty or not, and the transcript of the interrogation certainly sounds like entrapment and giving the Senator an "out" to plead guilty, the best advice was on one of the talk shows.

An attorney said, this is a great example of never taking to the police, but always contacting an attorney immediately!!


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

*Frank Rich making sense about the Craig affair*

I'm bumping this thread because Larry Craig is once again in the news. "On Wednesday, a Minnesota court will hear Mr. Craig's argument to throw out the guilty plea he submitted by mail."

Frank Rich makes more sense on this issue than anyone else I've read:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23rich.html?hp

An excerpt:What Mr. Craig did in that men's room isn't an offense . . . He didn't have sex in a public place. He didn't expose himself. His toe tapping, hand signals and "wide stance" were at most a form of flirtation. As George Will has rightly argued, if deviancy can be defined down to "signaling an interest in sex," then deviancy is what "goes on in 10,000 bars every Saturday night in our country." It's free speech even if the toes and fingers do the talking.

  The Minnesota sting operation may well be unconstitutional, as the A.C.L.U. says. Yet gay civil rights organizations, eager to see a family-values phony like Mr. Craig brought down, have been often muted or silent on this point. They stood idly by while Republicans gathered their lynching party, thereby short-circuiting public debate about the legitimacy of the brand of police entrapment that took place in Minnesota. Surely that airport could have hired a uniformed guard to police a public restroom rather than train a cop to enact a punitive "Cage aux Folles" pantomime.
​


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Good Points 44. And if I hold guilt in starting the threads tone I apologise. These stories, and they are often as much story as fact, happen so fast under the spin of media people are convicted as much for who they are as what they did or did not do. Who was the republican a while back who was finally vindicated and asked the media " where do I go to get my reputation back?"


----------

