The obligatory “Craig denies everything to the Idaho Statesman” post; Update: Craig’s airport restroom rated top notch!

posted at 1:07 pm on August 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s been up all morning at Drudge so most of you have probably seen it, but if not here you go. If nothing else, you can count on the big A to sweep up the Fedora’s table scraps.

The Statesman spent the last five months investigating the myriad gay innuendo about him over the years and found three sources among 300 interviewees whom they deem credible, one of whom claims Craig come onto him when they were in college. The “strongest” source:

On May 12, two days before its interview with Craig, the Statesman finally interviewed Rogers’ “best source,” the man who says he is certain he had a brief sexual encounter with Craig at Union Station, which is two blocks from Craig’s office. The man said the sex occurred in two restrooms on a weekday afternoon. He estimated the encounter lasted three or four minutes.

The man’s motive was twofold. A lifelong Republican, he recently had re-registered as a Democrat because he’s angry with what he sees as the GOP’s gay-bashing. Second, he was tired of Rogers picking on congressional staffers and offered him the chance to “out” a senator.

He was tired of Rogers trying to out closeted Republican staffers … so he decided to egg him on and make him famous by helping him out a senator?

It would all be darkly funny if not for this:

In the May 14 interview, Craig and his wife listened to a four-minute excerpt of the Statesman’s interview with the 40-year-old man who first spoke to Rogers. At first, Craig objected to the man’s anonymity, but agreed to listen. The man’s voice was disguised…

Suzanne Craig’s eyes reddened and filled with tears as she listened. After her husband’s denial, she said, “I’m incensed that you would even consider such a piece of trash as a credible source.”

To which Craig added, “Jiminy God!”

Before moving on to the next question, Craig turned to his wife and said, “Sorry, Hon.”

Assuming the rumors are true, I wonder if she suspected. Hard to believe she didn’t:

Most of Craig’s college friends say he was disciplined, studious and serious, even if he was awkward with women.

One woman who dated him off and on for a year asked not to be named, but said, “I don’t imagine that he ever held my hand. He was into the gotta-hold-the-door-for-the-woman sort of thing. But I always felt like I was an accessory. I might as well have been his briefcase.”…

McClure, whom Craig succeeded in the Senate, said Craig’s formal manner of speaking has fueled rumors. Craig was taught by an old-school orator — the late D.L. Carter of Weiser…

“Larry’s speech patterns are very precise,” said McClure. “They’re not what you expect from a rancher from Midvale. His speech patterns say, ‘Hey, here’s a guy who’s a little different.’ And he is, he’s a little different. But that doesn’t mean he’s homosexual for heaven’s sakes! You have to jump from prejudice to suspicion to I don’t know what to give the rumors any credibility.”

But what about the all important gaydar test?

Last fall, Craig’s neighbors at a Washington marina expressed disbelief at Rogers’ attempt to out him. Ed Johnson is an openly gay man, former local elected official and has been an acquaintance and neighbor of Craig’s off and on for 15 years. He is president of the Gangplank Slipholders Association, a neighbor to the smaller Capital Yacht Club, where Craig lives.

A Democrat, Johnson works for the American Humanists Association, which he describes as “the godless, liberal, left-wing atheists.”

“If I thought there was truth to the rumor, I’d be first in line to out him,” said Johnson, who agrees hypocritical public officials should be exposed.

“But after 15 years in a close-knit community where everybody knows everybody’s business, to be that clandestine and never have anything said — it’s just hard to imagine. I mean, if somebody has a fight and breaks up with their boyfriend or girlfriend, you know it the next day.”

Read the whole thing, especially the part about how the rumors about Craig first surfaced in 1982. Bizarrely, he implicated himself in a page sex scandal by publicly denying his involvement — even though he hadn’t been accused yet. And then, almost as bizarrely, he did an expert enough job at damage control to become a three-term senator. Here’s the clip from 1982 of his denial that’s making the rounds.

Update: Turns out the airport restroom in which Craig had his “misunderstanding” is notorious for gay trysts. What bad luck.

The restroom where Craig was arrested is well known among men who seek sex in public places.

Squirt.org is a site that runs a bulletin board for such men. “If you enter from the terminal, turn left and go past wash basins, urinals to the back where the stalls are. This place is THE most cruisy public place I have been,” wrote one poster. “Just passed thru here the other day. This place is so hot. This place has a constant flow and variety of hot guys,” wrote another. Even another poster wrote, “This is the best spot for anonymous action I’ve ever seen.” Of all the postings in Minnesota, the airport restroom was ranked the top by that website.

The details of Craig’s arrest are not unique. According to a post in June at cruisingforsex.com, another public sex site, “Twenty people were arrested within the past week. Plainclothes officers wait in the stalls and tap their feet and even put their foot on yours and then arrest you when you look under the stall wall.”

Actually, does that make it easier for him to claim it was a misunderstanding? Not that anyone’s buying it, but if the place is crawling with cops who are looking for “signals,” they might be more likely to interpret innocent gestures as non-innocent.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation for his behavior. Maybe he has restless leg syndrome and likes to watch other guys in the john while practicing his sign language.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Jiminy. I gotta say, if you spend this much of your life denying that you’re gay, something’s up.

Although I noticed that the article refers to oral sex repeatedly, but not traditional buggery. Maybe it’s just a confusion of terms – maybe Craig doesn’t think that having oral sex with men makes him gay. He must be using the Clinton definition of sex.

Enrique on August 28, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Seriously. Who cares if he’s gay? Not me.

He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. I care about that, but not a lot.

The most important thing about Larry Craig is that he supports open borders.

jaime on August 28, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Idaho’s Larry Craig on the issues:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

I hate hypocrites, the GOP has way to many.

zane on August 28, 2007 at 1:26 PM

My favorite (so far) from Jonah Goldberg

“He’s not gay, he’s just got a wide stance”

BobH on August 28, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Also nice:

“As wide as your stance on immigration?”

BobH on August 28, 2007 at 1:29 PM

fork—–>stick
curb—–>kick

RushBaby on August 28, 2007 at 1:29 PM

“He’s not gay, he’s just got a wide stance”

BobH on August 28, 2007 at 1:27 PM

I thought that was a prerequisite for being gay.

James on August 28, 2007 at 1:30 PM

The pink mafia is flexing its muscle.

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Uhh… as a 48 year old man, who travels quite a bit… with weird schedules and not so great eating habits…

Ever had to go and couldn’t?

Tell me, just where do you put YOUR luggage when you hit the john in the airport??? Oh… where you can watch it?

Tell me, what do you do when you see someone stareing at YOU in the bathroom… don’t you look back? (or move on… but sometimes you can’t…).

And its pretty amazing that tapping your foot is trolling for Gay sex!!! Crap… I’ve apparently been trolling for years and never knew it… and ya know?? haven’t been approached except in bars…

Whole thing smells like Yesterdays diapers…

Romeo13 on August 28, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Whole thing smells like Yesterdays diapers…

Romeo13 on August 28, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Senator Vitter chooses not to comment at this time…

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Maybe he has restless leg syndrome…

He meant to exclaim “Jimmy Leg!” not “Jiminy God!”

Brat on August 28, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Whole thing smells like Yesterdays diapers…
Romeo13 on August 28, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Read the arresting officer’s report. This wasn’t just looking for a place to go. Dude was acting strange, and acting in a way consistent with others who engage in this behavior on a regular basis.

Plus, when caught, he tried the “do you know who I am?” defense, which never impresses me all that much.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Whole thing smells like Yesterdays diapers…

Romeo13 on August 28, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Read the police report off Smoking Gun. Do you also peer into occupied stalls and reach your hand over to the stall next to you? He was pretty clearly up to no good.

I also find it highly unlikely a Senator is going to plead guily to such charges if he was just innocently tapping his foot while dropping the kids off at the pool.

Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Do you also peer into occupied stalls and reach your hand over to the stall next to you?

Too bad the cop didn’t have a square to spare…not even a ply.

James on August 28, 2007 at 1:45 PM

All the good Senator has to do is change his party affiliation. Problem solved.

Next!

Wuptdo on August 28, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Assuming this dumbass resigns or doesn’t run again, how at-risk is a Senate seat from Idaho going to a Democrat?

Hoodlumman on August 28, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Do foot tappings and hand motions also indicate trolling by lesbians in women’s restrooms or are there some other signals used by them?

Brat on August 28, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Has anyone actually read what Craig was accused of doing and, inexplicably, plead guilty to?

As near as I can tell, he touched the police officer’s foot with his foot and waved his hand under a toilet stall.

That’s a crime?

What kind of a country do you people live in?

Christoph. From Canada. Often a much saner place.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 1:53 PM

This kind of thing common in Canada?

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Christoph. From Canada. Often a much saner place.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 1:53 PM

And yet they call their dollar a looney. :-)

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 1:56 PM

This kind of thing common in Canada?

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM

madatory.

zane on August 28, 2007 at 1:59 PM

/mANdatory

zane on August 28, 2007 at 1:59 PM

I’m sure he’s gay and may, if left to his own devices, have committed a lewd act.

But read the report, loser. Where’s the crime?

THAT is a crime in your country?

What ACTION did he take that was lewd? Touching the foot of another person?

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:01 PM

As near as I can tell, he touched the police officer’s foot with his foot and waved his hand under a toilet stall.

That’s a crime?

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 1:53 PM

In the context of trolling for sex in a public restroom, apparently so- especially combined with the peering in the stall, foot tapping (apparently a known signal) and other behavior. If not, he’d have fought it. I sure as hell would if falsely accused of trolling for gay sex- wouldn’t you?

Occam’s razor, dude- the most simple explanation for him pleading guilty was that he was guilty. We’re not talking about some scared kid too dumb to ask for an attorney or someone too poor to hire a decent one.

Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 2:02 PM

But read the report, loser. Where’s the crime?

Who exactly are you responding to here?

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:03 PM

This whole thread is just so…. gay.

roux on August 28, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Slubog, JayHay. And anyone who believed that was a crime.

Hollowpoint. “In the context of trolling for sex…”

How does one determine this to a reasonable degree of doubt? Don’t they have to prove this?

Your country is messed up. Hell, you were imprisoning naval officers for oral sex with their wives in the 90s (Georgia).

Seriously, love America, but your religious nuttiness is beyond the pale.

Love Jesus, but Jesus wouldn’t charge a man with a crime for this sh*t.

Jesus. Pun intended.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:06 PM

…he had a brief sexual encounter…

Surely the 5 second rule applies to buggery too?

Dip the tip = not gay
Go balls deep = gayer than choir school

Oy vey

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 2:06 PM

As near as I can tell, he touched the police officer’s foot with his foot and waved his hand under a toilet stall.

That’s a crime?

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 1:53 PM

No, but it has consequences if you’re a politician with a marriage for show.

AtomicAmish on August 28, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Yeah, I’m sure he’s really gay, Atomic. But to give a man a criminal record for touching another’s foot. It’s insane. The potential for mistake and horrible negative repercussion is just too high.

Insane.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:08 PM

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

I hate hypocrites, the GOP has way to many.

I fail to see how these positions make him a hypocrite. He can be homosexual (closeted or not) and still believe that same-sex marriage, hate crime legislation, and government interference in employment decisions, are bad ideas.

DrMagnolias on August 28, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Yeah…well…um, at least our milk doesn’t come in bags!

Seriously, though, I think at minimum staring at someone who’s in the privacy of a toilet stall is bordering on harassment. There’s just something not right about that.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:09 PM

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Maybe he believes that marriage is fundamentally about procreation and therefore, should be practiced between a man and a woman.

I know plenty of women who’ve had a bit of bisexuality. So do a lot of your brave soldiers. It’s the year 2007. Good people too in many cases.

Maybe he’s attracted to men, but loves families and believes a man and a woman is the best thing for them. It is. According to all empirical data.

As far as the other points go, maybe he believes in freedom of people to make up their own minds, even if he doesn’t necessarily agree with them.

There is no proof of hypocrisy here, at least not with the points you raised.

But a crime! Touching a fellow’s foot. God.

America sucks.

Today. In this instance.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Seriously, though, I think at minimum staring at someone who’s in the privacy of a toilet stall is bordering on harassment. There’s just something not right about that.

Probably. And if it was an assault charge (application of a force) or if a threat was uttered or or if a part of his body was exposed or a private area of the other man touched… then yes.

But read the report. He touched the other fellow’s foot with his.

Dumb. Could see him getting a black eye over it. But there are too many instances where another person could touch another’s foot accidentally – or even in a clumsy or sly attempt at flirting – that making it a crime is nutty.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:14 PM

But read the report. He touched the other fellow’s foot with his.

I read the report. The creepiest part was the staring into a toilet stall for two minutes. There’s just no good excuse for that.

It is a crime to have sex in public places. If the officer saw saw something in Craig’s behavior that was consistent with other men who engage in public toilet sex, then he was within his rights to at least question the behavior he witnessed.

The crime isn’t playing footsies with an officer.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:20 PM

And according to the police officer’s report, his words, Graham tapped his foot, the police officer moved his closer, and only then did Graham touch the other man’s foot.

Hell. This sounds a lot like flirting.

If I’m at a party and a woman touches her foot to mine is she going to jail now? She gonna get a criminal record? She gonna lose custody?

Bastards!

You Americans are nuts.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Fair enough, but I expect the rhetoric will die down later.

AtomicAmish on August 28, 2007 at 2:23 PM

zane on August 28, 2007 at 1:26 PM

It’s that kind of twisted logic that allows people like you to conclude that African Americans couldn’t possibly really be Republicans and therefore give your side license to call them uncle Toms and trot out the most vile racial stereotypes. In the case of homosexuals it gives you license to “out” them and run stings on them. Now that’s hypocritical and vile.

TheBigOldDog on August 28, 2007 at 2:23 PM

“he was within his rights to at least question the behavior he witnessed.”

Absolutely.

However, people have a right to sexual relationships. If homosexual men use a ritual as above, which I don’t personally use, and a bit of foot tapping is involved, following by the police officer moving his foot closer in a sign of acquiescence, then having his foot touched and promptly arresting the other person.

That’s total bullsh*t.

You just ruined a man’s life for being gay, NOT for committing a lewd act.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:23 PM

If I’m at a party and a woman touches her foot to mine is she going to jail now? She gonna get a criminal record? She gonna lose custody?

Your fixation on Craig’s foot movement ignores the rest of his behavior. No, you won’t go to jail for touching someone’s foot here in the states. However, if you repeatedly engage in behavior that is consistent with that of people who troll for sex in public restrooms, then yeah – cops are going to get suspicious.

You Americans are nuts.

And you guys are responsible for Celine Dion.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:24 PM

But a crime! Touching a fellow’s foot. God.

America sucks.

Today. In this instance.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Your rhetoric has a shrillness of its own.

AtomicAmish on August 28, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Your fixation on Craig’s foot movement ignores the rest of his behavior. No, you won’t go to jail for touching someone’s foot here in the states. However, if you repeatedly engage in behavior that is consistent with that of people who troll for sex in public restrooms, then yeah – cops are going to get suspicious.

Suspicion is fine. And justified. There was no crime, no evil act.

I would be very suspicious of the whole thing, suspicious the other man wanted sex, suspicious of flirting, suspicious of the bastard cop, the slimy little sucker, egging the other fellow on. But there was no lewd act. It was a circumspect method of flirting where Craig waited for other man to respond then played footsie.

That should not be a crime or the woman who touches my foot when I give her a body language gesture of acceptance should get a criminal record too.

The copy, his boss, the prosecutor, the judge who allowed this travesty, and your country should feel ashamed about this.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:28 PM

The copy, his boss, the prosecutor, the judge who allowed this travesty, and your country should feel ashamed about this.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Look, are you going to quit the America-bashing anytime soon?

Because I could play the Bryan Adams trump card.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Let me make this blunt. If he pulled out his cock and masturbated, there’s a lewd act. And it happens. It’s not made up.

If he tapped his foot, waited for the other fellow to move forward, then touched his foot, that’s flirting, seduction, or making a pass.

Maybe a bad move, but hardly evil. And only for evil or negligence should a person be convicted of a crime in a decent country.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Idaho’s Larry Craig on the issues:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

I hate hypocrites, the GOP has way to many.

zane on August 28, 2007 at 1:26 PM

How does this really make him a hypocrite? I have gay friends that oppose gay marriage and adding the classification to “hate crime”.
The guy’s obviously an idiot, maybe gay…but not necessarily a hypocrit.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 2:30 PM

I agree, tickledragon, including with the qualifier “not necessarily”. Certainly it’s hardly proof and there’s another explanation as you elucidated.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 2:24 PM

I can’t help but think there’s a lot more to this story. It’s hard to believe that Craig would be cautions enough to keep his sexuality hidden, despite all the temptation, from his gay neighbors for 15 years and yet be reckless enough to choose a stall at random in a public restroom in a Minnesota airport.

TheBigOldDog on August 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Just from reading your descriptions on this thread, I tend to agree with your assertion that no crime was committed. But then I have to ask you: why did he plead guilty?

jaime on August 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM

I hear Minnesota is _the_ place to go teabagging…maybe he just had ‘the itch’

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I can’t help but think there’s a lot more to this story.

TheBigOldDog on August 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Yeah, that’s it. Craig was really running a reverse sting on the police.

RushBaby on August 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM

why did he plead guilty?

That was the most plausible part of his blather…he wanted to get processed as fast as possible and get the heck outta dodge…not sit around and drag it out while the media monkeys start jibbering

Looks like the plan failed in the long run tho’

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 2:37 PM

No crime SHOULD have been committed, not even according to the cop’s description, which I linked above and your welcome to read.

However, obviously there is one in this instance according to your rules and practice of law.

The example I gave, incidentally, of a naval Captain, a step below flag rank, getting convicted of a felony for performing oral sex on his wife (most women would give a medal) in the 90s and therefore being kicked out of the military was a true one.

It came out during a divorce proceeding. Prosecutor got wind of it and off to the races it was.

The examples are different, but the unifying trend of religious fundamentalism prevails.

Your country was founded on the idea that people are free to pursue their own happiness.

I pursued mine through much heterosexuality. I now pursue mine through celibacy as my girlfriend lives on another continent.

But I do not pursue mine by telling other people whose foot they can touch while they’re flirting, and threatening their livelihood, their reputation, and their liberty if, by God, they touch someone else’s foot in public after following a hesitant mating ritual the other person has gone along with according to his own written statement.

I leave that level of moral turpitude to Americans.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:40 PM

RushBaby on August 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Ah no, but I wouldn’t doubt that he was lured there. Why would such a cautious guy, who is not from the area, choose that time and place at random? He wouldn’t unless he’s reckless. If he was that reckless his gay neighbor would have known years ago.

TheBigOldDog on August 28, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Thank goodness Inouye and Kennedy only killed and raped women and Frank only used outside the beltway underage prostitutes in his own home – the Senate is safe for the next generation

Personally Vitter, Mr Potato Head, Stevens, Byrd (Murders during his reign as Kleagle and the Charitable millions) Kennedy, Inouye and Hillary should all be held to the Packwood standard of ethics

Now I’m not accusing Byrd of anything but being a manager of a group that routinely killed people go figure

EricPWJohnson on August 28, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Christoph, are you really here to comment, or are you here to bait the Americans? If it’s the latter…”take off, eh.”

It’s getting really gosh-darn annoying. Make your point, and cut the damn insults.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Hey…how come this prick picked my state to troll for some action? I never heard about this going on in the rest rooms at the airport before. A place to now avoid at all costs!

sabbott on August 28, 2007 at 2:47 PM

And by the way, if it weren’t for the insults, I’d be backin some of your arguments. But I can’t get past the idiotic US-bashing.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Hear, hear, EricPWJohnson @ 2:43 PM.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:48 PM

I love America. All my Canadian friends and my Australian girlfriend know this.

I love America’s founding principles, it’s ideas. I had a passionate conversation with my girlfriend two nights ago about the founding fathers of the U.S., their genius, their level of education, and the amazing thing they created.

This was a betrayal of those ideals. It was government and the police being used for, and not against, evil.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Then SAY that…don’t tell us how crazy/stupid/hypocritical/overreligious etc we are.

You were being provocative for no reason.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 2:52 PM

That was the most plausible part of his blather…he wanted to get processed as fast as possible and get the heck outta dodge…not sit around and drag it out while the media monkeys start jibbering

Looks like the plan failed in the long run tho’

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Plausible? He plead guilty 2 months after the arrest- plenty of time to work up a defence and plan damage control.

The notion he was just scared and nervous doesn’t fly considering he wasn’t exactly goaded into pleading guilty on the spot. He had to know this would hit the media once he plead guilty; I’m surprised it didn’t break shortly after he was arrested.

Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Jingoism aside…Christoph has some valid bashing to do, so swing away dude ;-)

AFAICS his ‘bashing’ is not of America per se, but rather the way it has been corrupted by man.

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 2:55 PM

The notion he was just scared and nervous doesn’t fly considering he wasn’t exactly goaded into pleading guilty on the spot. He had to know this would hit the media once he plead guilty; I’m surprised it didn’t break shortly after he was arrested.

He might have felt ashamed and conflicted. But he didn’t commit a crime.

Maybe he wanted to commit a lewd act. I suspect he did.

But he didn’t.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Then why would he plead “Guilty”.

jaime on August 28, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Christoph, are you really here to comment, or are you here to bait the Americans? If it’s the latter…”take off, eh.”

It’s getting really gosh-darn annoying. Make your point, and cut the damn insults.

My point is that this happens in your country and not mine. This is a fault of your country.

My country has faults, but this is not one of them. That is my point.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:00 PM

My point is that this happens in your country and not mine. This is a fault of your country.

Geez. Extrapolate on minor data points much?

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Then why would he plead “Guilty”.

Because, as I said at 2:40 PM, he probably committed a crime. Just like the naval officer whose military career was ruined in the mid 90s because he gave his wife an orgasm.

It was a crime. And that’s the travesty.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Geez. Extrapolate on minor data points much?

This would never happen in country.

I have followed the news vociferously since I was a young teenager. Think of me as Ian Schwartz, but without video and almost two decades older.

I have never heard of this happening in Canada within living memory.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Still, using this story to indict and insult an entire country’s character?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Rhetoric aside, I have clearly not insulted an entire country’s character. You have enormous strengths which I’ve directly referred to.

However, because of these strengths, this should sicken you more.

I wouldn’t expect a member of the Taliban to be angry about your more backward laws, but I would hope an American might.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Still, using this story to indict and insult an entire country’s character?

On the contrary, the Captain is an American. I respect him for his military service and, in all seriousness, for attempting to fulfill his solemn yet joyous God-given duty to please his wife sexually.

I cast aspersions in that case at the laws of the state of Georgia, the men who wrote them, and those who enforced them.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Plausible? He plead guilty 2 months after the arrest

OK…I admit I didn’t realize the timeline, but still…what’s better, pleading guilty and getting things finished pronto, or the whole enchilada trial where all the grubby facts are splattered over the headlines as they are submitted as evidence/testimony?

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 3:11 PM

It was a crime. And that’s the travesty.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:02 PM

The way you describe the event in this thread, it doesn’t look like a crime. No one gets convicted in this country for playing footsy. No one gets convicted if they come up to you and say “let’s have sex” right to your face. In fact, if I walked outside right now, found a cop, and said “let’s have sex”, I definitely would not be convicted of any crime.

I think there’s more to this than either: A) you know, or B) you’re saying.

Otherwise, Craig would not have pleaded guilty.

jaime on August 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM

If I’m at a party and a woman touches her foot to mine is she going to jail now?

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I don’t know Christoph, I guess it depends on whether or not you hold your parties in the stalls of airport bathrooms.

Allah,

That link is broken.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 3:14 PM

The way you describe the event in this thread, it doesn’t look like a crime.

Lazy.

I linked to the cop’s statement and referred to it more than once. You say you’ve read the thread.

You don’t take my description for it — take his.

I think there’s more to this than either: A) you know, or B) you’re saying.

I say again. Lazy.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:15 PM

* have to

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I wouldn’t expect a member of the Taliban to be angry about your more backward laws, but I would hope an American might.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Absolutely, because cops seeking to stop anonymous sex in airport bathrooms before it happens is one step away from a theocratic dictatorship.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:15 PM

*********NEWS FLASH*********

Newsroom “Experts” Re-enact Senator’s Restroom Scenario

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4946.html

Brat on August 28, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Absolutely, because cops seeking to stop anonymous sex in airport bathrooms before it happens is one step away from a theocratic dictatorship.

You can’t stop everything bad from happening. It’s not the police’s job to arrest people before an evil action takes place, but after.

Deter, yes, through strong penalties for actual crimes. But not this. This was so wrong.

If there was actual lewdness, I’d be fine with it.

Proactively charging people with criminal offenses based on a mating ritual involving foot touching that you, in your own statement, acknowledge you went along with by moving your foot closer after the other tapped his and you knew full well what that meant, is sick.

I hate the cop.

I usually like the police. I support them. But here, no way.

This is the sort of case where the Supreme Court needs to step in, like they did in Georgia.

Thank God, and I mean that literally, thank you God that your Supreme Court finally struck down Bowers v. Hardwick with the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

No man or woman should go to jail going down on his or her spouse or do you deny this?

And no one should get a criminal record in a case like this assuming we except the cop’s facts at face value, which I do.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:25 PM

I say again. Lazy.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Like I’ve said, more than once, I’m going by your description alone. I’m not really interested in doing research on the subject. I was interested in your argument. Now I’m not. Good bye.

jaime on August 28, 2007 at 3:26 PM

*accept

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:26 PM

I wouldn’t doubt that he was lured there. Why would such a cautious guy, who is not from the area, choose that time and place at random? He wouldn’t unless he’s reckless. If he was that reckless his gay neighbor would have known years ago.

TheBigOldDog on August 28, 2007 at 2:41 PM

The place, at least, was neither random nor reckless. It was planned and premeditated. I expect we’ll find out that Craig made a number of “layovers” at this airport. Check out AP’s update re that bathroom:

Squirt.org is a site that runs a bulletin board for such men. “If you enter from the terminal, turn left and go past wash basins, urinals to the back where the stalls are. This place is THE most cruisy public place I have been,” wrote one poster. “Just passed thru here the other day. This place is so hot. This place has a constant flow and variety of hot guys,” wrote another. Even another poster wrote, “This is the best spot for anonymous action I’ve ever seen.” Of all the postings in Minnesota, the airport restroom was ranked the top by that website.

As for his neighbor, it’s completely plausible that he was kept in the dark. The pattern we are seeing here is of a man who travels to tryst, and might have gotten away with it since he knew enough not to sh!t on his own porch.

RushBaby on August 28, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:25 PM

I, and many others, would tend to agree with your overall point. What I find a bit off-putting is the additional statements you have made, saying we should be ashamed of our country, that America is crazy and insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you has less discernment than a member of the Taliban.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:29 PM

As for his neighbor, it’s completely plausible that he was kept in the dark. The pattern we are seeing here is of a man who travels to tryst, and might have gotten away with it since he knew enough not to sh!t on his own porch.

Agreed.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:29 PM

less discernment than a member of the Taliban.

No, I said that you have more. I expect more of you.

But anyone who disagreed with me, certainly in my point about Georgia having had and actually recently enforcing laws making literal bona fide career and liberty destroying felonies out of God-blessed, in my humble opinion, oral sex between a man and his wife is crazy.

Ron Paul crazy.

Wacko.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Georgia-crazy.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:32 PM

But anyone who disagreed with me, certainly in my point about Georgia having had and actually recently enforcing laws making literal bona fide career and liberty destroying felonies out of God-blessed, in my humble opinion, oral sex between a man and his wife is crazy.

I don’t think you’ll get any argument from anyone here on that point.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:33 PM

That’s why I said disagreed and not disagrees.

I’m just putting this in context.

I think Craig probably did want to commit a lewd act: an anonymous, cheap, biologically dangerous, family-destructive, betrayal of his wife and children.

But what he actually did was tap a man’s foot after giving him a signal and the other man reciprocated.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:37 PM

But what he actually did was tap a man’s foot after giving him a signal and the other man reciprocated.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:37 PM

And who can blame him, really. Like Ace said, that cop had a real Doogie Howser type thing going.

Hot.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:38 PM

And no one should get a criminal record in a case like this assuming we except the cop’s facts at face value, which I do.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:25 PM

I’ll say this slow for you. He. Plead. Guilty. Two months after the arrest.

Waving your arms in the air isn’t a crime. Yelling isn’t a crime. Saying “I worship Satan” isn’t a crime. Smearing chicken blood on yourself isn’t a crime. However, go to a shopping mall covered in chicken blood running in circles yelling “I worship Satan” will get you arrested for disorderly conduct.

In this case, you could completely ignore the foot tapping, footsie, and reaching into the other stall- his peering into a stall occupied by a stranger would probably be enough if he did it long or often enough. But hey- maybe that sort of thing is completely acceptable in Canada.

Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 3:39 PM

To which Craig added, “Jiminy God!”

I thought it was Jiminy Cricket?

moonsbreath on August 28, 2007 at 3:40 PM

But hey- maybe that sort of thing is completely acceptable in Canada.
Hollowpoint on August 28, 2007 at 3:39 PM

It’s not. I have the black eye to prove it.

Uh…forget I said anything.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Jiminy God?

What, did Jiminy Cricket get a promotion?

corona on August 28, 2007 at 3:42 PM

In this case, you could completely ignore the foot tapping, footsie, and reaching into the other stall- his peering into a stall occupied by a stranger would probably be enough if he did it long or often enough. But hey- maybe that sort of thing is completely acceptable in Canada.

The cop, according to his statement, moved his foot closer when he saw the signal.

So he was playing along.

If two men, or two women, or a man and a woman, or a man, a woman, and a goat, do a little dance back and forth including staring, and then the person instigating the staring makes a move, the other person or animals moves closer, and toes touch… does not a crime make.

If the cop had testified that he moved his foot away – which is the opposite of towards – and Craig pursued him and touched his foot, then you might have assault.

But what the law is saying here is it’s a crime for two men to flirt in public, or in a bathroom, and touch feet.

Yes, I know this often leads to other things. You just can’t arrest someone for touching someone else’s foot, seemingly with consent.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:46 PM

You guys have got to see these jacka**es re-enacting the purported crime. One of them seems REALLY knowledgeable.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4946.html

Brat on August 28, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Jiminy God?

What, did Jiminy Cricket get a promotion?

corona on August 28, 2007 at 3:42 PM

I just thought Jimmy Carter wanted something more than just a Nobel prize ?

William Amos on August 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM

In short… if two men can hold hands, they should be able to touch feet, or whatever else they want to with certain notable exceptions.

If two men want to go to sit side by side in toilet stalls and touch their feet together, this shouldn’t be a crime.

Not until the property owner asks them to leave and then it’s trespassing.

But if these two men are arrested for foot touching or “disorderly conduct” for foot touching, then it’s a form of discrimination.

It’s foot discrimination.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM

He DEFINITELY violated man law. Eyes forward, keep your hands and feet in your OWN stall. Had I been the person in the stall next to him the story would read “Senator breaks foot in bathroom incident.”

As for being gay, who cares. As for trying to get freaky in a public men’s room, STUPID. Somebody should get him George Michael’s number.

Hammerhead on August 28, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Somebody should get him George Michael’s number.

Do you think Craig would stoop that low?

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2