Audio: Larry Craig’s post-arrest police interview

posted at 5:13 pm on August 30, 2007 by Bryan

Our source is the esteemed Washington Times. Our content is a discussion of the meaning of shoe bumps, glances and the width of a stance.

Meanwhile, Rep. Barney Frank is speaking up for Craig.

“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.”

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 3

Okay, at the risk of sounding like a shrieking Libertarian: am I the only one a little troubled that you can get arrested for tapping your foot?

This reminds of the story at AofS the other day with the guy arrested for carrying money. No crime – just the money.

But this … this seems almost worse. He tapped his foot. That’s it.

Nothing was said. No money was passed. No explicit conduct was requested.

I dunno. If it weren’t that for that guilty plea, I’d really be troubled. If the big dummy goes and pleads guilty, I’m not sure what else you can do … but still. Arrested and charged for a tapping foot.

It’s like being busted for solicitation of prostitution, but not when money changes hands, or when you tell the prostitute you’ll pay her — more like getting busted when you tell your buddy you’re thinking of hiring a hooker.

No, that’s not even right. More like you were tapping a code with your foot that may – or may not – have been telling your buddy you were feeling frisky.

Yep. I sound like a Libertarian. But, man, I’d feel a lot better if they’d waited for the esteemed Senator to pull out his schwantz before they threw the cuffs in him.

And I’m going to be very, very careful about listening to my iPod in the crapper from now on. One wrongly tapped foot and I could be a blog article.

Okay, here’s the exit question I’m looking for: why does it seem like the police suddenly and simultaneously have ridiculous powers to arrest people based on vague actions or “thought” crimes … and no power to arrest terrorists, illegal aliens, and pedophiles?

I don’t get it.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM

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 can be trusted to go to the bathroon by himself. It’s when he’s not by himself that he can’t be trusted. Duh.

Oh yeah, and he should resign, not because he’s corrupt in the classic sense but because he’s an irresponsible moron and a moral train wreck. Of course that standard opens up the possibility of mass resignations of many our elected Political Overlords. Here’s hoping.

Thomas the Wraith on August 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM

The part in the transcript that shows his guilt is when he says to the policeman:

LC: You solicited me.

To me this indicates he was saying, well you started it.

Dersu on August 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM

I for one am sick already of this story

Good job MSM for the overkill this will flame out and die fast

William Amos on August 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Blather, had he not pled guilty, he probably woulda been fine and most would agree with your concerns, I agree with them too. Its hard to make that case now. In theory, yes, but when he’s pled, its near impossible to go back and argue it to the public.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

It really seems like a he said she he said type of thing. Not that I believe the Senator, but I was not impressed with with the police officer in that tape at all and I agree with Professor Blather.

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM

How did a man his age reach his left hand under the right side of the stall? I think this is a bunch of crap. Was he a good senator? I don’t know much about him but I could care less if he is trying to get a little action in the bathroom? Since when did “showing interest” become criminal? It might be creepy, but criminal? I am a lot more unhappy with the big spenders in the Rebuplican party than a few perverts.

bopbottle on August 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Blather, had he not pled guilty, he probably woulda been fine and most would agree with your concerns, I agree with them too. Its hard to make that case now. In theory, yes, but when he’s pled, its near impossible to go back and argue it to the public.

Bad Candy on August 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Yeah, I agree completely. The guilty plea makes the rest sort of moot.

But now that I listened to the full tape, I’m even more troubled. It sounds like there’s an implicit suggestion there that if you hurry up and plead guilty, we can keep this quiet.

I hope he was guilty. I really do.

Why is the undercover guy interviewing him? Is that SOP? Seems a little hinky.

That said … if his judgment is this bad – bad enough not to call a lawyer, or understand where this was headed – that’s probably enough to say he shouldn’t be in the Senate.

I’d prefer a pervert to somebody with this poor of judgment.

————-

Wait. The cop was just sitting on the toilet all day waiting for this to happen? Huh?

I can’t believe this is where my tax money is going. The Senator should have just claimed to be an illegal alien so they’d leave him alone.

————–

What I learned most from this tape? Why lawyers exist. This guy was a complete moron to agree this interview without a lawyer.

I can’t believe a U.S. Senator let himself be led around so easily. He sounded about ready to fess up that he hid Saddam’s WMDs personally.

If I’m ever arrested, even if I’m innocent – especially if I’m innocent – I’m saying four words: Get me a lawyer.

What a maroon. What wide-stance-having, toe-tapping, no-judgment-having maroon.

Now what I want to know is how many man hours and tax dollars per year go to cops sitting on toilets at the airport?

Compared to, I dunno, enforcing immigration laws?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM

But this … this seems almost worse. He tapped his foot. That’s it.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM

No, it’s not. There’s also peering into the stall repeatedly, touching the cop’s foot and reaching into his stall.

That and his having pled guilty.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM

That and his having pled guilty.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM

But that’s such a small detail, isn’t it?

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 5:36 PM

That and his having pled guilty.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Already covered in my posts. Twice.

As for the rest – that’s not how the Senator told it in the interview. Did you listen to the whole thing?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Boy that policeman sure is good at picking up people in the bathroom.

Vincenzo on August 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

Police tip their local papers to stories. Who called The Hill?

Is it a coincidence that this story which happened months ago comes out the day the Hsu story breaks?

Questions, questions…

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

No, it’s not. There’s also peering into the stall repeatedly, touching the cop’s foot and reaching into his stall.

Are those the “lewd” acts he was arrested for? It sounds more like he should have been charged with Conspiracy to Commit Lewd Acts, if there is such a thing.

BohicaTwentyTwo on August 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Professor Blather, I agree, this is all just too weird. Call us simpletons, but for us conservatives in flyover country, a tap of the foot is pretty much just that. That said, the guilty plea was stupid. Maybe he is a cruisin’ freak, who knows, it’s all quite unfortunate.

I will say having Barny Frank come to his aid won’t help his case much. I think he’s done.

CP on August 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM

After listening to that audio I’m not at all sure that the cop isn’t the guilty party. It sure sounded like there was some doubt. Maybe this cop is a charter member of moveon.og.

duff65 on August 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Boy that policeman sure is good at picking up people in the bathroom.

Vincenzo on August 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

I just want to know how long he had to sit on that toilet seat before he got a nibble on his bait. So to speak. Hours? Every day?

And who did he piss off to pull that doody duty?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM

I can’t believe the amount of coverage this story is getting. I’m glad the tape came out. It shows this was not some black and white standard crim occuring.

The media needs to let it go.

Vincenzo on August 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Now what I want to know is how many man hours and tax dollars per year go to cops sitting on toilets at the airport?

Yeah, and what about those incidental expenses like shiny black shoes, magazines to read while in the stall, and foot-tapping lessons…? What does all that cost?

CliffHanger on August 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Embaressing indeed.

VolMagic on August 30, 2007 at 5:43 PM

So when he came out to arrest him, did they lock the door, becuase for an airport there is really noone using that bathroom. Sounds like the perfect place to find a clean toilet.

And what about squatters’ rights! Oh yeah, that’s landlord/tenant law.

Vincenzo on August 30, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Is Barney Frank moving in with Senator Mensroom? BTW I did not like Senator Mensroom’s vote for Shamnesty, which shows he has had two lapses in judgment this summer.

saved on August 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM

While sitting in the adjacent stall, what if Craig said “Hey, you want to go to my place for a drink”?

Is that illegal??

Is it illegal if you say it at a nightclub?

For G*d sakes, there was no contact, no discussion, nothing. What happens if you bump into someone in a crowd and its a cop looking for queers and he thinks you did it on purpose to send a “signal”?

This is way out of hand. Blather is right.

I’m not gay, but you single gay guys out there might want to have a big support march or anti-gay hunting protest.

AZCON on August 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

I can see both sides of the argument but the fact that he PLED GUILTY pretty much seals it. Don’t you think? This cop seems like he knows what he was doing. I’m sure (by his statement early in the interview) that the fact that all of his earlier arrests all admitted guilt. Just like Craig did. A 100% conviction rate in itself gives credit to the cop

Who in the hell picks up paper from the bathroom floor?

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

So, in public restrooms, when you go #2; do you sit on the toilet or do you kinda lean into it for fear of cooties?

lorien1973 on August 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

COP: “I don’t want to get into a pissing match.”

Did he really say that?

HAHAHAHAHA!

mattshu on August 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Professor Blather, I agree, this is all just too weird. Call us simpletons, but for us conservatives in flyover country, a tap of the foot is pretty much just that. That said, the guilty plea was stupid. Maybe he is a cruisin’ freak, who knows, it’s all quite unfortunate.

I will say having Barny Frank come to his aid won’t help his case much. I think he’s done.

CP on August 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Yup.

He just reminded us of what every politician alive should already know: when you try to cover something up, it always ends up worse than if you’d just faced it.

I suspect know these cases are very hard to get convictions on. Even when the defendant isn’t a sitting U.S. Senator.

He decided to try to keep it quiet instead of fighting. And paid the same price they always pay. If he would have fought it, at least some people would have believed he was innocent.

What choice are we left with after a guilty plea?

Like I said, he’s a maroon. Either a maroon that picks up dudes in public restrooms, or a maroon that doesn’t have the foggiest idea how the justice system works or the media operates.

Either way, I’m glad he’s not my senator.

And I still want to know how long Officer LongDong Silver has to sit on the crapper every day. Does he get overtime? Hazard pay?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Looking at the screencap;

Cr3PO is a standard protocol droid designed to serve humans (sometimes its a little too familiar) and is fluent in over six million languages (including the the one known as BS).

Death to the Jedi (deleted Politically incorrect euphemism)! Oh! What did I say?

This was an entirely fictional representation.

Speakup on August 30, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Ok, so let me get this straight – you mean, a dude can go into a bar, solicit another dude for sex, they go home, commit lewd acts and no one goes to jail. But if that dude goes into a public restroom, taps his foot a few times, reaches down to pick up some toilet paper, he gets arrested for lewd behavior??
Only in America…

pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM

I’m with Blather all the way on this one.

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM

I’m not gay, but you single gay guys out there might want to have a big support march or anti-gay hunting protest.

They would except that this happened to a Republican.

CliffHanger on August 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM

While sitting in the adjacent stall, what if Craig said “Hey, you want to go to my place for a drink”?

Is that illegal??

AZCON on August 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

It shouldn’t be. Obviously.

But you’ll definitely get your ass kicked.

Make sure you check out the thing on bathroom etiquette at Ace’s if you haven’t seen it. Pretty funny.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM

I’m not so wound up that we have police trying to cut down on illicit sex in public places. I don’t want to be around that, and i have a little boy that I certainly don’t want to be around that.

When is this guy going to give up and resign already?

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 5:50 PM

And I still want to know how long Officer LongDong Silver has to sit on the crapper every day. Does he get overtime? Hazard pay?

or Ring-Around-the… nevermind.

CliffHanger on August 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM

I wonder if anybody is using the bathroom in that airport now?

d1carter on August 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM

I understand this is transcript, but are they seriously arresting people that tap their feet or run their finger along a stall?

If I did these things and an officer tried to arrest me for it, I’d be asking on what grounds am I under arrest?

Ive sat in a stall and punched away on my blackberry. Was I soliciting anyone by doing this? Maybe I accidentally communicated in morse code that I was looking for random sexual encounters.

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM

So Allah…what song are you going to use in the inevitable mash-up?

Slublog on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM

I NEVER let my little boy go into a public restroom alone. I drag him into the ladies room with me, kicking and screaming. Poor kid, he’ll be 25 before I let him out of my sight now.

pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM

I wonder if anybody is using the bathroom in that airport now?

Yes, but the flashing red neon sign had to be taken down.

CliffHanger on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Agreed, he was stupid for pleading guilty, but the cop almost seemed to be blackmailing him to get a guilty plea. He was promised it was just paying a fine, and no one finds out about it. Heck, the cop even said at one point that he wasn’t one of those that calls the media … There’s a point where it sounds like he is threatened with jail if he doesn’t guilty?

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

All that’s missing is the “Dateline NBC” camera crew.

Ali-Bubba on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

So Allah…what song are you going to use in the inevitable mash-up?

Slublog on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM

The Inevitable Mash-Up — great name for a punk-rock band.

Ali-Bubba on August 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM

the comparison between asking someone to leave with you and sending signals indicating you want to commit lewd acts in public doesn’t pan out. And we can get all sideways about the seeming innoccuous-ness of the signals, but if those are indeed the signals, then let’s give the officer some credit for having done the research to know them. I have never run my hand along the edge of a bathroom stall, let alone repeatedly. Nor looked thru the crack of a door in at someone, and he did it over and over.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Ok, so let me get this straight – you mean, a dude can go into a bar, solicit another dude for sex, they go home, commit lewd acts and no one goes to jail. But if that dude goes into a public restroom, taps his foot a few times, reaches down to pick up some toilet paper, he gets arrested for lewd behavior??
Only in America…

pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Well, probably not if he’s a liberal. Or a minority.

Or an illegal alien.

Or just a really hunky guy with some fabulously shiny shoes.

/snark off

You raise a good point. Sure it’s gross and disgusting, but theoretically and legally – why exactly can’t I pick up a dude in a public place?

Interesting question. If it happens in a bar … is he arrested?

More importantly for selfish reasons … if I tap my foot next to a cute honey while I’m waiting for a table at Applebee’s … am I risking arrest? What if my thoughts are mostly pure? What if she’s Jessica Alba?

Whoever said the gays should be marching is right. Also right that they won’t be – because of the partisan politics.

Does somebody have a list of places where I am prohibited from meeting people in public? (Let’s stipulate that I’m thinking naughty thoughts at the time) How about the library? That seems particularly naughty!

Actually I remember this one time at the U of Michigan law library … well, let’s just say there wasn’t much foot-tapping. We skipped that part.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Agreed, he was stupid for pleading guilty, but the cop almost seemed to be blackmailing him to get a guilty plea. He was promised it was just paying a fine, and no one finds out about it. Heck, the cop even said at one point that he wasn’t one of those that calls the media … There’s a point where it sounds like he is threatened with jail if he doesn’t guilty?

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Agreed 100%. My opinion changed completely after listening to that tape in full. And you have to listen – the transcript doesn’t cut it. The voice inflections are pretty important. That dumb Senator really thought he was going to keep this quiet by pleading guilty.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Poor kid, he’ll be 25 before I let him out of my sight now.

pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM

His wife is going to hate that.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 5:59 PM

I want this guy gone from the party, but I have to say they picked him up for doing what seems like behavior that you could have interpreted either way. I would tend to go with the cop though, especially given Craig’s history… but the cop, in this interview, sounded like a whiney bitch. Why was he crying about Craig lying to him… what’s the difference? You’re not his parent (in fact you sound young enough to be his grandkid), if you’ve got the goods on him you’ve got the goods, end of story.

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 6:01 PM

So if I have this right, the Officer arrested the Senator on some sexual charge which was changed to a disorderly charge, and the Senator pleaded guilty and hoped it would all go away.
Too bad he is a Republican.
The Officer in the interview lost more of my respect with each passing minute. The Senator’s arrest doesn’t pass the smell test for entrapment imho, and relies on the Officer’s “interpretation” rather than clear evidence of intent.
So what is left but try to humiliate and shame the Senator … enter audio and transcript: stage left.
I need a shower.

Randy

williars on August 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM

“I’m a fairly wide guy. I tend to spread my legs when I lower my pants so they won’t slide.”

Reminds me of a Richard Prior punchline. “First Guy: “Damn,The water is cold. Second Guy: “Yeah and it’s deep too.”

Zaire67 on August 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM

You raise a good point. Sure it’s gross and disgusting, but theoretically and legally – why exactly can’t I pick up a dude in a public place?

I disagree. These are, apparently, specific signals which indicate that the plan is to commit lewd acts right there. How are we all missing this tiny little difference?

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM

I NEVER let my little boy go into a public restroom alone. I drag him into the ladies room with me, kicking and screaming. Poor kid, he’ll be 25 before I let him out of my sight now.

pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Excellent parenting. I don’t have sons, but if I did, I’d be doing what you’re doing and if it got too difficult to drag him in the women’s bathroom, then I’d go in the mens with him.

Though, I guess I might get arrested? Oh well, you do what you gotta do. Thanks to all the freaking perverts.

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM

am I the only one a little troubled that you can get arrested for tapping your foot?

After listening to this tape,, I have to agree this whole thing is just insane!! With all the real sex supposedly going on across America in bathrooms,, all they could arrest this guy for was bumping the officers foot and putting a hand under the stall,,, which Craig disputes??!! This is it???? Is it out of the realm of possibility that this was plain and simple entrapment?? Is it that crazy to think that these officers were aware that Craig came through this area weekly and were setting him up??? Craig stated on the tape he had to catch the flight he was waiting for,, implying he was possibly under pressure and willing to do whatever he needed to end this. Poor judgment,, yes,,, but who has never been guilty of that?? perhaps he is not the brightest guy in congress,,, and perhaps that is precisely why he was targeted!! I have to ask as well,, is it against the law for anyone’s foot to cross that invisible line??? Is it a violation of the law to touch the bottom of the stall wall?? No exposure?? No verbal or written solicitation?? Nothing indecent??? Just possible and disputed foot bumping and possible hand touching the stall wall?? Well, with these tough new standards in place I guess it will be pretty easy from here on out to clean up congress!

JellyToast on August 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM

TexasDan, I agree with most of what you are saying, except that he didn’t commit a lewd act. Had he been caught in the heat of the moment, so to speak, then that’s a different situation. Last I checked, foot tapping (no matter what its meaning) was legal.

pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM

By the way, there seems to be somewhat of a parallel between what happened here, and “To Catch a Predator” on Dateline.

I love the show To Catch a Predator, it’s hilarious, but I can’t help but feel a little sorry for some of these guys, because there aren’t really millions of cute 14 year old girls waiting to bang disgusting toothless 40 year old trailer trash they meet on the internet, I’m sorry, they just aren’t out there. They’re much more in to, I don’t know, dating the cool senior guy at school.

The point is, Dateline is creating a problem that doesn’t really exist. Half of these people have seen the show and suspect they may be on it, but I get the feeling they’d never even thought there was an industry of 14 year old girls wanting sex with old scumbags if it weren’t for the show… I feel like the show creates an industry that doesn’t exist.

Don’t get me wrong, these guys deserve everything that happens to them for showing up, but the whole thing is a little weird. When was the last time you heard about anyone being caught for this, outside of that show?

Similarly, the cop created the environment for Craig from the sounds of it. Admittedly, it’s a little different because gays have some need to screw in public bathrooms all over the place, so there is an actual industry here… but it’s the same as To Catch a Predator, in that Craig would have likely moved on if someone weren’t there enticing him.

Again, I want him and everyone like him out of office if they have an R next to their name, and he’s a sick bastard… but I just thought that was sort of interesting.

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 6:09 PM

I disagree. These are, apparently, specific signals which indicate that the plan is to commit lewd acts right there. How are we all missing this tiny little difference?

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Quoted for emphasis.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 6:10 PM

DK: I will say every person I’ve had so far has told me the truth. We’ve been respectful to each other and then they’ve gone on their way. And I’ve never had to bring anybody to jail because everybody’s been truthful to me.

LC: I don’t want you to take me to jail and I think.

DK: I’m not gonna take you to jail as long as your cooperative but I’m not gonna lie. We…

DK: Okay. So we’ll start over, you’re gonna get out of here. You’re gonna have to pay a fine and that will be it. Okay. I don’t call media, I don’t do any of that type of crap.

That’s the part I found strange

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 6:10 PM

As for the rest – that’s not how the Senator told it in the interview. Did you listen to the whole thing?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM

The Senator didn’t exactly come across as innocent- especially when he accuses the cop of entrapment.

I’ve no reason to believe his ridiculous assertation that he reached into an adjacent stall to pick up an invisible piece of toilet paper in an airport bathroom. There’s not enough soap in Minnesota to make me feel clean were I to touch the floor of an airport bathroom.

I also don’t buy the “wide stance” bit- how the hell do you have a “wide stance” if you’re pulling down your pants or have them down?

I don’t believe he was repeatedly staring into an occupied stall to see if someone was coming out- I’d rather stare into the sun with binoculars than try to see another guy taking a post-crap wipe.

Craig acted guilty. Craig sounded guilty. Craig pleaded guilty- two months after the arrest. The only miscarriage of justice here is that the pervert hasn’t resigned yet.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 6:10 PM

the comparison between asking someone to leave with you and sending signals indicating you want to commit lewd acts in public doesn’t pan out.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM

And …

I disagree. These are, apparently, specific signals which indicate that the plan is to commit lewd acts right there. How are we all missing this tiny little difference?

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM

I need this explained, because it fascinates me.

Suppose he had sat down and said out loud: “Strange dude, would you like to go home and get freaky with a Senator?”

Would *that* be legal? Better? Why or why not?

So if he said that it’d be okay … but if he said “let’s not wait until we get home” then it’s a crime?

What if he’s just a big tease, and really planned to wait until he got home? Hey, what if didn’t even like the cop but was leading him on? Where exactly does the thought become the crime, and when did Orwell come into vogue?

What if the cop misinterpreted the signals? What if he was just picking his nose and wiping it on the floor? And how did I get so gross?

If I walk up to a woman and ask the same question, hey baby, wanna hook up with a Senator (except for the Senator part … no, wait, that might be a good line!) … will I be arrested?

Or will I only be arrested if I ask her to do it right then and there? What if plan to take her home but we can’t wait? What if DO plan to ravage her right there in the men’s room, but we change our mind and head home?

I had the same thought didn’t I – the same intent?

Does it have to be in a bathroom?

I’m sorry, kids. If you can see this one in black and white, if you don’t see all the legal, moral, and ethical gray areas here, you ain’t paying attention. If you can still be black and white after listening to that tape and that cop, I’m worried for you.

Any of YOU ever gotten it on with the Mrs. in a public place? Fess up now. Maybe even a bathroom at a restaurant? (Am I about to find out that Republicans are as straight-laced as liberals claim we are?)

I can personally count half a dozen times I apparently should have been arrested. And if you toss in times I was subtly signaling to some coed that I’d really like to jump her bones right then and there … well, its probably hundreds.

What gives? Is it cuz he’s old and white? A Republican? Because it was gay instead of straight?

Or is it what bugs me most … the public airport bathroom (shudder)?

I just don’t get it. But it’s been educational. I’ll never listen to that iPod on the crapper, never tap my feet, always pay close attention to Ace’s rules of bathroom etiquette …. and I will always, always insist on a lawyer if a cop wants to talk to me. Especially if I’m not guilty.

And I still want to know how many hours that cop sat there spending taxpayer dollars? Wouldn’t it be easier to just install cameras? Or hire one of those dudes who hand out mints?

Bah. Double bah. The whole thing. Nothing but a big bah. Meanwhile, another thousand illegals just came over the border.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Okay, at the risk of sounding like a shrieking Libertarian: am I the only one a little troubled that you can get arrested for tapping your foot?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM

bopbottle on August 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Both of you guys need to read the arrest report over at the Smoking Gun. Craig did a lot more than just tap his foot. He was making obvious and even intrusive advances to another man in a public bathroom.

To ignore this kind of thing and allow it to go unchecked is to encourage it. It would quickly lead to far worse than someone being embarrassed by an arrest and having to pay a fine.

I’m glad he was arrested and he should have been. I don’t want to worry about this kind of thing when I enter a public bathroom. Somebody… maybe me, or maybe the other person could get hurt really bad if it got too intrusive. This type of behavior should never be tolerated by the public or the law. If Craig would have done this to the wrong person, he could have suffered much worse than some humiliation and a fine. And why shouldn’t suffer those things, he was the perpetrator and responsible for his own actions.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM

A total idiot. Get rid of him.

But, has anyone checked this copper out yet?

As much of an asshole Craig is it still sounds like entrapment to me.

But he still has to go.

LtE126 on August 30, 2007 at 6:13 PM

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 6:09 PM

I agree completely on the Dateline show. We watch it, too, but I have the same feelings sometimes.

But there’s a difference: those guys actually drive (sometimes hundreds of miles) and show up with condoms and alcohol; and most of them send nude pictures to what they think are minors, which is a crime in and of itself (I won’t even get into the argument about how can it be a crime if there’s no actual minor involved).

The bottom line: the Senator was arrested for an alleged thought. For the cop’s interpretation of actions that supposedly indicated a thought.

That really ought to trouble every American. It’s another thought crime. If you oppose hate crimes for that very reason, not sure how you can like this.

A simple question: would it really have hurt to wait for the guy to drop his drawers or commit some other overt act before slapping on the cuffs?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:15 PM

except that he didn’t commit a lewd act. Had he been caught in the heat of the moment, so to speak, then that’s a different situation

But if it’s solicitation, then he’s fair game to arrest. The police (presumably) base their policy on the actual activities of gays soliciting sex. So it’s not the policeman’s fault that the gay community has settled on foot tapping. Plus bottom edge of stall rubbing with hands, and looking into stalls repeatedly.

Do any of you seriously think you’re going to accidentally send gay sex signals and get arrested? I’ve heard that in a park near me they back their cars in backwards and leave the headlights on. Of course if you’re soliciting somethin illegal like this the signals are going to be innoccuous. But also they’re going to be a bit unusual for everyday behavior. It’s tough to second guess the cop’s judgement after the fact, but based on what I read (I can’t listen to the audio now) I’m not all in a lather about the process used to make the arrest.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Agreed, he was stupid for pleading guilty, but the cop almost seemed to be blackmailing him to get a guilty plea. He was promised it was just paying a fine, and no one finds out about it. Heck, the cop even said at one point that he wasn’t one of those that calls the media … There’s a point where it sounds like he is threatened with jail if he doesn’t guilty?

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

That argument might fly if not for the fact that the guilty plea came 2 months after the arrest and this recording was made.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Look up “soliciting lewd acts in public.”

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

All that’s missing is the “Dateline NBC” camera crew.

Ali-Bubba on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Hi, Senator, I’m Chris Hanson … would you have a seat? Oh. You’re already seated … well, have a cookie.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:17 PM

That argument might fly if not for the fact that the guilty plea came 2 months after the arrest and this recording was made.

Hollowpoint on August 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

True story

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM

(I can’t listen to the audio now) I’m not all in a lather about the process used to make the arrest.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Make sure you listen to the full audio. Maybe it won’t give you pause. But it changed my opinion 100%.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Virgin air chairman Branson bragged the other day about his membership in the mile-high club. So do a lot of our celebrities.

Since this took place in an airport bathroom, do mile-high rules apply?

Any HA members?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM

I didn’t realize he plead guilty two months later? Seems strange.

wytammic on August 30, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Since this took place in an airport bathroom, do mile-high rules apply?

Any HA members?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Yeah, but Branson’s planes undoubtedly have very large, very nice bathrooms. Lucky bastard.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Look up “soliciting lewd acts in public.”

I don’t think he ever was charged with that.

bnelson44 on August 30, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Make sure you listen to the full audio. Maybe it won’t give you pause. But it changed my opinion 100%.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:18 PM

fair enough.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Texas Dan,

These are, apparently, specific signals which indicate that the plan is to commit lewd acts right there. How are we all missing this tiny little difference?

I don’t mean to cast aspersions, but how, exactly, do you know this?

Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 6:25 PM

What an embarrassment.

congsan on August 30, 2007 at 6:27 PM

I don’t mean to cast aspersions, but how, exactly, do you know this?

Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 6:25 PM

I’m using my powers of inference, hence the word “apparently.” Or is it deduction? Anyway. Plus, I know the car headlight thing from a newspaper article about how the police were dealing with complaints of lewd acts in a local park.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:27 PM

The bottom line: the Senator was arrested for an alleged thought. For the cop’s interpretation of actions that supposedly indicated a thought.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:15 PM

The Senator was arrested for an ACT, not a thought. Several Acts in fact, that constituted solicitation.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM

I don’t mean to cast aspersions, but how, exactly, do you know this?

Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 6:25 PM

Oh no you didn’t!

I don’t think he ever was charged with that.

bnelson44 on August 30, 2007 at 6:21 PM

He wasn’t. He was charged with peeping and disorderly conduct; he pleaded to the latter misdemeanor charge.

Nonfactor has never been one to worry much about the actual facts.

;)

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Police tip their local papers to stories. Who called The Hill?

Is it a coincidence that this story which happened months ago comes out the day the Hsu story breaks?

Questions, questions…

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM

I was thinking that too.

CrimsonFisted on August 30, 2007 at 6:30 PM

The Senator was arrested for an ACT, not a thought. Several Acts in fact, that constituted solicitation.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM

If you believe that, then you agree that he was arrested for foot tapping and hand waving – right? Not the thought that was allegedly the motivator for said tapping and waving?

Out of curiosity, how many taps and waves is criminal? In what order?

If you actually want to argue an act – try the peeping he was initially charged with. That – if it happened – is at least a criminal act.

Although we’ve all been guilty every time we checked to make sure a stall was empty. Better hope Officer Dudley Doright isn’t in there next time you need to pinch a loaf.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Plus, I know the car headlight thing from a newspaper article about how the police were dealing with complaints of lewd acts in a local park.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Car headlights?

God, I’m so naive.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Although we’ve all been guilty every time we checked to make sure a stall was empty. Better hope Officer Dudley Doright isn’t in there next time you need to pinch a loaf.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Dude. You do not either peep into a stall to see if it’s empty.

You either look for feet or give the door a tug. You’re the one who mention Ace’s ettiquite guide earlier.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM

You either look for feet or give the door a tug. You’re the one who mention Ace’s ettiquite guide earlier.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Give the door a tug? Are you insane? Forget misdemeanor disorderly, you do that to the wrong door and you’re looking at attempted rape charges.

And quit peeping at my feet, perv.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:36 PM

Entrapment! Are you nuts? I can guarndamntee you that if I were the one going into that stall I would not have been arrested…and if I had been, I would NOT have pled guilty of ANYTHING and a large CIVIL action would now be under way against the Minneapolis Airports Commission, The Police and anyone else I could think of! He is in trouble because he was trying to get a Monica in the bathroom and we all know it and he needs to go NOW!

sabbott on August 30, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Oh, Blather, come on.

This is an airport bathroom which, as Allah pointed out in the headlines a while back, is written up on gay-cruising websites as a hotbed (!) of activity.

And it’s not a case of an offer to “go back to my place”, it’s sex in the stalls. Where mommies wait outside while their little boys to go to the bathroom. Where the rest of us just want some peace and quiet and not a re-enactment of the basement from Pulp Fiction.

I think it’s quite reasonable for a cop to be in there trying to bust the regular offenders. I’m not quite liberal enough to think the MPLS taxpayers are required to provide an unmonitored playground for the quickie crowd.

Then Craig: the man dodged just dodged a political bullet at the last election with a claim about this sort of behavior. The Idaho Statesman, he knows, is after him. He’s been bucking gay rumors since 1982. You’d think he’d be a little more careful about rubbing some dude’s foot in the adjacent stall. He can’t be that clueless.

And finally: overt actswere required for an arrest? This is the crowd that, I thought, believed in pre-emption, and in arresting terrorists before they’ve actually committed terrorism, even if that makes it harder to prove in court.

Totality of the circumstances, folks. He admitted guilt, there was a long history of these rumors, the bust was reasonable. The only things I need to see before I’m 100% comfortable with this are whether this is the only such sting to come out of the airport bathrooms recently, and who the detective has given campaign money to.

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM

I think we need to work on the definition of “tug”.

And how did you know they were your feet?

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Blather-
I think I finally get what you’re saying, even tho I can hardly believe it.

What you’re saying is that nowadays, “solicitation” is kinda part of normal adult life.

If so, and maybe it has become that, there ought to be bathrooms for minors.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM

oh dear god. the emphasis was on “your” when I hit send.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:40 PM

I agree completely on the Dateline show. We watch it, too, but I have the same feelings sometimes.

But there’s a difference: those guys actually drive (sometimes hundreds of miles) and show up with condoms and alcohol; and most of them send nude pictures to what they think are minors, which is a crime in and of itself (I won’t even get into the argument about how can it be a crime if there’s no actual minor involved).

The bottom line: the Senator was arrested for an alleged thought. For the cop’s interpretation of actions that supposedly indicated a thought.

That really ought to trouble every American. It’s another thought crime. If you oppose hate crimes for that very reason, not sure how you can like this.

A simple question: would it really have hurt to wait for the guy to drop his drawers or commit some other overt act before slapping on the cuffs?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Excellent post, and I completely agree about To Catch a Predator.. I don’t mean to say in any way that these sickos shouldn’t be tried and convicted for the obvious crimes, but I think you and I both see that the show is creating an industry that doesn’t really exist.

And while I maintain that Craig is a sicko (he’s had these allegations following him for 40 years), I want him out of our party and out of office, you did raise a really interesting point.

I agree with those who say “but he was soliciting because he used the signals”, but at the same time, do we all have to worry about doing things that might be mistaken for signals? If I’m in a disgusting airport bathroom (First of all, what turns people on there… the stench? The fact that it looks like a wet dog just shook off in there?), I spend extra time… building a nest on the disgusting seat. What if hanging my backpack on the hook then as I build the nest my feet face the toilet for a minute, until I’m ready to lay my golden eggs, at which time my feet face the other way. What if all of this is interpreted as a signal, because a certain bathroom established it as one?

Bottom line, we should all adopt George Costanza’s idea for the bathrooms at Yankees stadium… stall walls that go all the way to the floor.

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 6:41 PM

In case y’all missed it up above, there’s a WaPa article on all this stuff I never wanted to know about.

So I just read the officer’s report and something jumped out: he claims that he went into the bathroom at 1200, was solicited by the Senator at 1213, and made his arrest at 1219.

Besides the fact that this completely destroys my humorous vision of some cop sitting on the toilet for 9 straight hours … is it even possible?

I’ve never been bothered in the crapper in my life. This guy goes out looking to be bothered – and FINDS somebody in THIRTEEN MINUTES?

Seriously? 13 minutes?

Maybe I’m just not that cute. And you gotta admit, the cop’s adorable. Maybe I’m jealous.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:43 PM

The Senator was arrested for an ACT, not a thought. Several Acts in fact, that constituted solicitation.

He wasn’t charged with solicitation. Minnesota doesn’t have a solicitation law. (See The Volokh Conspiracy)

He was charged with disorderly conduct which is, well, colorful and wide ranging. If the cop had played along a bit longer and gotten him to expose himself or to attempt to perform an act on the cop, then we’d have a crime.

Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 6:43 PM

I’m going to steal a line Larry the Cable Guy used to respond to Sheryl Crow’s “one square” suggestion, in response to Seedub’s comments on what he looks for in a bathroom…

Where the rest of us just want some peace and quiet…

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Seedub, evidently you ain’t eatin’ the same thing I am!

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 6:43 PM

stall walls that go all the way to the floor.

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Yeah, put them in at home. Haven’t had sex in years.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 6:43 PM

What he did, it’s hypocritical, but it’s not an abuse of his office in the

Another ignoramus that does not know the meaning of “hypocritical”.

Hey Barney, if a heterosexual supports same-sex marriage is he “hypocritical”? Or does a homosexual have to support the homosexual agenda to not be considered a traitor? Fvckin’ idiot.

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Totality of the circumstances,

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Don’t get me wrong. As I said from the beginning, the guilty plea stops everything – and he probably is a naughty, naughty boy.

But “the totality of the circumstances,” while it might come into play in a prosecution if prior bad acts are allowed, obviously can’t be considered in the case of the arrest – since the officer claimed his subject was unknown at the time.

My problem is the arrest. And that interview after, which is frankly troubling.

Again – what would have been wrong with waiting until an overt, criminal act was committed? If this was seriously supposed to happen then and there, the cop would have had to wait a few seconds.

Sorry. I’m an American – freedom comes first. And I’d feel much, much better about this particular due process exercise if somewhere in the police report it said: “and then the creepy old man pulled out his schwantz and waved it at me …”

The totality of the circumstances were both irrelevant and unknown at the time of the arrest.

Unless he was specifically targeted? (That might explain my last question about the 13 minutes)

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM

oh dear god. the emphasis was on “your” when I hit send.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:40 PM

(snort)

Yeah, but it was way funnier the way it was sent!

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:50 PM

This is growing old! The man made a fool of himself and continues to do so. He should not stay in office. Having said this, I think we can depend on the Dems to destroy him without our help.

jeanie on August 30, 2007 at 6:50 PM

I have decided. This is a bunch of bull. Period.

After hearing the tape a few times, I tried to put myself in Craig’s position. Then I took into account the nature of the Senator (stogy old politician).

Craig said things I would not have said – but I am not Craig. For example: “You solicited me.” – the most troubling part of the tape.

Some people have reacted as though this an indication of familiarity with the crime. However, preceding the released part of the tape, there was a great deal of technical conversation with the cop.

You or I might have said: “You were the one moving your damn foot – dude!”. But a terrified stodgy old politician might respond differently.

The talk about “embarrassment”, etc. was an attempt to intimidate the Senator. Before that the cop lied – first saying he catches people all the time and they tell the truth and go. Then he says he gets people lying all the time, and he shouldn’t be like the others.

The cop sounds like a rookie. When the Senator keeps his cool, it irritates the cop. Finally he gives up and goes for disorderly conduct – for allowing his foot to touch.

GIVE THEM NOTHING – TAKE FROM THEM EVERYTHING!

Agrippa2k on August 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Unless he was specifically targeted? (That might explain my last question about the 13 minutes)

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM

The length of time the cop was in the stall before hand is immaterial.

Craig played footsie with him for five full minutes. Plenty of time for the cop to ascertain that it wasn’t Prof. Blather checking to see if the stall was empty and then innocently feeling around for an extra roll of T.P. in the stall next door.

TexasDan on August 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Unless he was specifically targeted? (That might explain my last question about the 13 minutes)

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Machine Clinton? Democratic slime machine. Vast left wing conspiracy? Wouldn’t doubt it at all.

Why can’t the Rep’s. play the same game? In 8 years they haven’t been able to catch Bill and Hil committing a lewd act.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 6:52 PM

My problem is the arrest. And that interview after, which is frankly troubling.

You would think the gay lobby would be screaming over this. They can’t like the police hitting on gay men in restrooms so they can arrest them and the leak it to the press…. oh wait, he’s a Republican – never mind.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3