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

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

Always goes the same way …
PERP: She told me she was 19.
HANSON: Her screen name was “12yo6thGrader.”
PERP: “We weren’t going to have sex.”
HANSON: “Then why did you bring condoms and … uh [examines label of product] Aphrodisiac Hot Lube?”
PERP: “I’ve never done this kind of thing before ….”

Ali-Bubba on August 30, 2007 at 6:55 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

Immaterial?

C’mon. Suppose you give one of your kids a chore to do. An unpleasant chore that might take a long time, in an unpleasant place.

13 minutes later, he tells you its finished.

You’re not a little suspicious that maybe he cut a few corners? Seriously?

And read the report: He sat down. 13 minutes later, the tap fest begins. 4 minutes later the arrest.

Are there really restrooms where you’ll be hit on within 13 minutes of sitting down? And you’re a cop?

It seems awfully … fortunate for the cop. Convenient, even. In 13 minutes, he bagged a suspect – and a sitting U.S. (Republican!) Senator no less.

Please add this to my list of things that’d make me feel better: I’d really like to know that the cop did this for a few days, and had sat there for many hours that day.

13 minutes. Total. To get hit on (never happened to me a lifetime of crapping), and he bags a Senator.

I – wait for it – question the timing.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 6:57 PM

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

Of coarse he was targeted. Why do you think it came out the same time as the Hsu story? Why do you think it was leaked to “The Hill” and not a local paper as would normally be the case? He was set up and they held it until they needed it. If it wasn’t for Hsu it would have been released during another time cover was needed or, just before the election.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 6:57 PM

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

I understand your position but how many perverts are you willing to catch if you have to endure some creepy guys schwantz being waved at you every time? How many times do you have to go through the ritual of eye contact through cracks to invade your privacy followed by a toe tapping ritual followed by footsies followed by hand gestures followed by…? There is a firm pattern of behavior that is well documented that Craig did. The odds of someone doing all those things in systematic order but by accident is probably astronomical.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM

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

Ok.. my bad, “disorderly conduct” then. He was arrested for the act of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor, kind of like getting a parking ticket. In the eyes of the arresting officer he committed a misdemeanor, he plead guilty and was fined. Why all this sympathy for Craig, especially in light of the fact he plead guilty ?

If I would have been falsely accused of something like this I would have fraught it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Of coarse he was targeted. Why do you think it came out the same time as the Hsu story? Why do you think it was leaked to “The Hill” and not a local paper as would normally be the case? He was set up and they held it until they needed it. If it wasn’t for Hsu it would have been released during another time cover was needed or, just before the election.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 6:57 PM

BigOldDog, that doesn’t fly. He plead guilty remember? If he felt he was set-up and he didn’t fight it, it’s still his fault.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:01 PM

I understand your position but how many perverts are you willing to catch if you have to endure some creepy guys schwantz being waved at you every time? How many times do you have to go through the ritual of eye contact through cracks to invade your privacy followed by a toe tapping ritual followed by footsies followed by hand gestures followed by…? There is a firm pattern of behavior that is well documented that Craig did. The odds of someone doing all those things in systematic order but by accident is probably astronomical.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Right. It’s a thought crime.

So if we’re going to enforce thought crimes, let’s be consistent. The obvious analogy is solicitation for prostitution. If you’ve ever seen Cops, you know the standard: there has to be either an exchange of money or an explicit agreement to exchange sex for money.

Instead, let’s just start arresting people who drive up and down streets frequented by prostitutes. Or perhaps more accurately – let’s arrest them the second they approach a woman who appears to be a hooker.

After all, you know they’re thinking about. Well, probably. So why exactly do we have some pretty specific standards for probable cause in that case? Why can’t we arrest the johns the second they approach a prostitute?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM

C’mon Blather. Wasn’t the officer on the crapper before Craig entered? How could it be a set-up?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

BTW, I speak with some authority on this subject, having been propositioned in a truck stop on I-5 last week. First time.

Creepy.

(I declined.)

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Blather- I now agree with you. But couldn’t be a set-up.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:01 P

He is guilty. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t set up. You think he showed up at that bathroom at that time, in that stall and randomly decided to hit on the guy next to him? A guy so cautious he kept his homosexuality hidden from everybody, including his gay neighbors for 15 years?

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:05 PM

This story has legs merely because of the prurient interests of certain people. Its getting old and boring.

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 30, 2007 at 7:06 PM

If I would have been falsely accused of something like this I would have fraught it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM

You aren’t an aged U.S. Senator with a great deal to lose who is implicitly told by the arresting officer that it can be kept completely quiet if you’ll just plead guilty already.

Have you listened to the full audio?

There’s no question that he should have fought it. But now imagine for a second that you’re completely innocent. Imagine the costs of fighting this misdemeanor nothing that you know you didn’t commit.

That cop tossed an imaginary life vest to a man who thought he was beyond rescue. He grabbed it. He thought it was a chance to save his career and his reputation. If he chose to fight it, they were all lost anyway.

This thread is proof – even if he was innocent, even if he’d fought it, most of you (who somehow have expertise in gay public sex signals) would have at least assumed he was probably guilty.

So would his wife. And his constituents.

I agree that the guilty plea was stupid. But when I put myself in his place, and listen to that tape, I can sure understand it.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Easy. It was a preplanned rendezvous. You think a guy from Idaho, who spends most of his time in DC just so happens to enter a particular bathroom and a particular stall at a particular time and just start hitting on the guy next to him?

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM

C’mon Blather. Wasn’t the officer on the crapper before Craig entered? How could it be a set-up?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:03 PM

C’mon JiangxiDad. The prostitute was already on the corner. How could it be a set-up?

:)

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Entrapment! Are you nuts?

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

My opinion has changed on this completely since listening to the tape. He may have been looking for sex,, maybe,, maybe not.. If he was looking for sex,, what did he do that was illegal?? All of this is down to the officers interpretation of a possible foot bumping or tapping and a possible hand touching a stall wall. Also,, I no longer look at the above quote as a sure sign of guilt, nor do I any longer find it comical. Craig was forced into answering stupid and embarrassing questions about something as ridiculous as his feet placement as he was sitting going to the bathroom. Personally,, I have always thought Craig seemed a little strange,,,, and at best,, he has displayed some poor judgment,,, but it would not be the first time a man who was a little strange and lacked good judgment was accused of doing something they were innocent of! And it would not be the first time the Dems or some Libs or just a couple loser cops,, wanted to take down a seemingly vulnerable, yet innocent, Republican.

JellyToast on August 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM

(I declined.)

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Well, dude, now we need details! Seriously. Was there foot tapping involved?

No, really. Was it obvious or what? What’d you do?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:09 PM

I think I’d better put up a post at JYB. Wouldn’t want to bring down the level of expertise around here.

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM

You can see the prostitute. How could the supposedly crooked cop ensure that Craig would choose to sit next to him.

Doesn’t add up.

Old Dog: I thought he was changing planes. You think he made a “date” to meet somebody in the bathroom, stalls 3 and 4 on the right, and then had to use morse code?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM

C’mon JiangxiDad. The prostitute was already on the corner. How could it be a set-up?

:)

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Your argument convinces me that the police do NOT have a clue how to enforce laws pertaining to public restrooms. Craig was a victim of entrapment. No money was exchanged, nor an agreement for money to be exchanged for sex.

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM

hahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:14 PM

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Roger that. I’ll check it out.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:14 PM

You can see the prostitute. How could the supposedly crooked cop ensure that Craig would choose to sit next to him.

How do the cops know where to place their fake whores? Clue-in!

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 30, 2007 at 7:15 PM

Andy- they’re visible. The cop was sitting in a closed stall. If the cop was the bait, how was the fish supposed to find him?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Thought crime? All those sequences of events were in fact physical actions. The only thought involved was the meaningful way that Craig’s “thought crime” was put into play. A plan if you will.

However if you want to go down the thought crime road then I would propose that the pervert that communicates with your daughter and intends to lure her away to rape and then kill her but is caught when his thoughts (plans) are discovered. She lives and he is deterred. Isn’t that guy also being accused of a thought crime? He didn’t actually DO anything. Right? It happens every day.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM

You can see the prostitute. How could the supposedly crooked cop ensure that Craig would choose to sit next to him.

Doesn’t add up.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM

How does an undercover cop in a prostitution sting know somebody will hit on her?

Of course it adds it up.

Now move that street corner into a bathroom with a few stalls. It would be simple to set someone up.

By the way, keep in mind that when I say “set him up,” that doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty. What I mean is that they might have known he went to that bathroom looking for trouble, and put the cop there as fishbait.

Otherwise, I have to believe that in 13 minutes a cop managed to get hit on in a public restroom and arrest a (Republican) senator.

13 minutes.

It would make a lot more sense of they knew the Senator was headed for that bathroom, and stuck the cop in there right before he showed up.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM

We’re not talking about minors. We’re not talking about crimes of physical violence/murder, etc.

We’re talking about whether one male adult can hit on another male adult, THESE DAYS, and whether that is a big deal or not.

Granted, a public restroom where minors are present is out of bounds. But if it was elsewhere? You’d probably just punch the guy or tell him to f-off, or say no thanks.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Also,, the most obvious question I would ask the officers if I were a lawyer,,, if he was soliciting for sex,,, why would they not wait until he actually exposed himself,, exchanged money or made some kind of solid verbal offer, entered the stall with the officer,, something other than foot movement and hand movement??? The officer states, even brags about how experienced he is at catching all kinds of perps,, yet, he arrests on foot movements and hand movements that are open to interpretation?? No exposure or actual lewd acts??? It doesn’t make sense!

JellyToast on August 30, 2007 at 7:20 PM

However if you want to go down the thought crime road then I would propose that the pervert that communicates with your daughter and intends to lure her away to rape and then kill her but is caught when his thoughts (plans) are discovered. She lives and he is deterred. Isn’t that guy also being accused of a thought crime? He didn’t actually DO anything. Right? It happens every day.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM

You’re obviously mixing apples and oranges.

If your hypothetical guy communicates with my daughter online and explicitly solicits her for sex (already a crime of action not thought) or sends her lewd photographs (already a crime of action not thought) and then shows up at my house with condoms in his pocket, a case of beer, a couple weapons and some rope – he’s already taken actions towards the commission of a crime.

None of which is remotely like what Craig did. If the same guy tapped his foot near my daughter and waved his hand at her in a manner that may or may not be interpreted to indicate the guy’s sexual intentions … um, no. That’s a thought crime. You can beat his ass for me and I won’t tell me, but I’m not calling the cops.

And let’s not forget something – ALL of these supposed hand-wavings and foot tappings are based solely on the officer’s claims of his own perceptions of what he saw – and if you listen to the tape, Craig had a very different version.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Of coarse. They either knew his habits by tailing him and laid in wait for him or they prearranged it through some message board or chat session. Either way, he was set up as a Mother. They threw him the lifeline so they could hold it in their back pocket until they needed it, just like Foley.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

You aren’t an aged U.S. Senator with a great deal to lose who is implicitly told by the arresting officer that it can be kept completely quiet if you’ll just plead guilty already.

Have you listened to the full audio?

There’s no question that he should have fought it. But now imagine for a second that you’re completely innocent. Imagine the costs of fighting this misdemeanor nothing that you know you didn’t commit.

That cop tossed an imaginary life vest to a man who thought he was beyond rescue. He grabbed it. He thought it was a chance to save his career and his reputation. If he chose to fight it, they were all lost anyway.

This thread is proof – even if he was innocent, even if he’d fought it, most of you (who somehow have expertise in gay public sex signals) would have at least assumed he was probably guilty.

So would his wife. And his constituents.

I agree that the guilty plea was stupid. But when I put myself in his place, and listen to that tape, I can sure understand it.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I have listened to the full audio. Did you read the full arrest report ? It’s here, you should read it. I see no reason to doubt this cop. This bathroom was a pick-up hot spot for gays, and the undercover operation began as a result of many complaints by persons being solicited.

I’m not going to go the “poor little Senator” route. He’s a power man in a responsible position with many connections and more than adequate resources to fight something like this if he felt set-up. If he truly was innocent and he didn’t fight it, I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

Not only would such a decision be cowardly but it’s just plain bad judgment which disqualifies him from his position of authority. He plead guilty, he needs to go.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Now move that street corner into a bathroom with a few stalls. It would be simple to set someone up.

No, it’s not. If I’m Craig, how am I supposed to find the bait. How do I even know there’s bait there?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:20 PM

I never said minor. I said daughter. But in your defense I can see why you would automatically assume a child.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Okay,this is a Witch Hunt period,this has been like a firestorm through the media.
I’ve looked at the transcript,this police officer by his own
words about the “Hood”is a racist.(absolute no disrespect to any police officers,but him.)
There is also “I respected you”,”Your not telling the truth”.

I’m telling you this smells of DNC,The Clinton War Machine,
forget the ins and outs (no pun intended)of the bathroom new
soap opera.(By the way conspiricy kooks live on the liberal
side)
I have no idea,nor care about anybodys orientation.
I think the media,DNC,are so bitter,that they thought the Clinton years were the new Camelot,but instead of parties everynight,and living in Liberal Utopia,every liberal pundit
from Stephanopoulos,Paul Begala,Leon Penetta had to defend
the very guy they hoped and trusted.

American people will not tolerate a liar and a cheat period.
It’s election season and from here to the polls,democrat political h!t teams are going full steam to make it look,
by perception that Republicans are cheats and liars.
And we know better,because Republicans are honest and trustworthy,

One more tidbit,remember the old couple minding their own
business just driving around.
Yeah,they somehow listened in to Newt’s conversation on the
cell phone,oh and by some miricle had a tape recorder.
Oh and they had a duty to immediately turn it over to the
DNC.

How long did it take to hit the media,12-24Hrs. maybe.

LIBERAL DEMORCRATS want to win at any cost!

canopfor on August 30, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

You don’t have to doubt the cop. Assume for the sake of argument it’s true. He was still set up. His lifestyle made the setup possible.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

You made the same mistake JiangxiDad did.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM

They either knew his habits by tailing him and laid in wait for him or they prearranged it through some message board or chat session. Either way, he was set up as a Mother. They threw him the lifeline so they could hold it in their back pocket until they needed it, just like Foley.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

It is pretty strange that the newspaper had a year long investigation of this guy and then the guilty plea takes a couple months and then it stays quiet until now?

Even if I didn’t question the arrest, I’d sure question the timing of the publicity.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM

I just asked my husband what he would do if a man in the stall next to him put his foot into his stall. He said he would stomp it.

When the senator was peering into the stall, what was the officer doing? Sitting on the pot with his pants on? Is that why the senator would have thought it was okay to give him the signals? Would you just give signals to anyone next to you to see if they responded? We need a gay guy to help us understand bathroom sex, I think.

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 7:25 PM

I’m telling you this smells of DNC,The Clinton War Machine,

canopfor on August 30, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Bingo! They knew he was gay – probably been following him for awhile. They set him up and then they held the arrest until they needed it. When the Hsu story broke, out comes this story. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM

And who it was leaked to. The Hill? Cops leak stories to local papers, not Pubs like The Hill. This stinks to high heaven.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

I did indeed read the full report – and it further reinforced my opinion that there were real problems here.

What specific part are you talking about? Maybe I missed something.

Again, let’s keep in mind that the arrest report is the officer’s version; I have to compare it to what I heard Craig say with his own voice. Other than the officers report – is there any corroborating evidence of any of it?

And again – you can’t rely on totality of the circumstances, because the officer didn’t know who his subject was.

UNLESS it was all a set-up. Which is perfectly possible.

You made the same mistake JiangxiDad did.

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM

A little less vague, please?

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

The man is an idiot for not getting an attorney…

Pam on August 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM

UNLESS it was all a set-up. Which is perfectly possible.

Craig didn’t use the word “entrapment” for nothing.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:31 PM

No, it’s not. If I’m Craig, how am I supposed to find the bait. How do I even know there’s bait there?

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Pay attention.

They know Craig is gay. They know he likely solicits gay sex in public restrooms. They know about this particular restroom and the fact that Craig is likely headed there.

Just like a john who habits one particular street corner.

They stick a cop in the john a few minutes (say 13) before Craig arrives.

Simple. If he was really trolling for gay sex, and they knew it, setting him up would have been a piece of cake. Like that little white cake in the urinals.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM

When the Democrats have a pervert (Clinton) they circle the wagon and protect him.

When the Republicans have a pervert (Craig) they demand his resignation.

I ask you: Which is the Morality Party?

Incidentally if Craig was a Democrat homosexual groups would be screaming “discrimin

MaiDee on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM

You don’t have to doubt the cop. Assume for the sake of argument it’s true. He was still set up. His lifestyle made the setup possible.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 7:23 PM

The Senator’s ACTS made the arrest possible, and he didn’t fight it. He plead guilty, which means in the eyes of the law he IS guilty. He knew what he was doing. Now he has to accept the consequences of his actions, just like anybody else.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM

The man is an idiot for not getting an attorney…

Pam on August 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM

That is the part that bothers me more than anything else. What in the name of God was he thinking? Guilty or innocent – get me a lawyer.

That’s the unbelievable part. That alone would have made sure he never got my vote.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Your example is about rape and murder. This is about solicitation (asking for) sex.

I’m not really used to it because I’m no kid, but it certainly seems to me that any and every sexual topic is fair game these days in practically any setting.

The rules seem to have changed. I didn’t change them. Maybe that’s why this type of behavior only gets a misdemeanor. Had he approached a minor, obviously he would be jailed.

Guess this is why libertarians don’t believe in criminalizing prostitution.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Looking at the transcript it would have been so easy to fight in court. Craig said he reached around to his right to get a piece of paper behind him. To do that, he would have naturally braced himself with his left hand, palm upward, and it would have been very natural to say he didn’t remember bracing himself. I would have been totally believable to say his foot swung over into the next stall while he was doing that. (Why he would do that for a piece of TP is a different matter, but that’s what lawyers are for.)

If news of that broke, every one here would be defending him as a victim of a crazy cop and a vindictive newspaper.

I just don’t know what could have gone through a US Senator’s mind to plead guilty to something like that if they had no intent of doing what was claimed.

If he is innocent, I just can’t see how someone that dim could function as a US Senator.

pedestrian on August 30, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Continuation:

If Craig was a Democrat, homosexual groups would be screaming “discrimination” but since he it not their silence is deafening.

MaiDee on August 30, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Prof. Blather:

Good job counselor. Your client is guilty, but of what?

Did you mind Vitter keeping his job?
What if one of his trysts was with a guy, in a squalid room, instead of with a hot high class female hooker.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM

The Senator’s ACTS made the arrest possible
Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Foot-tapping in the third degree. Throw the book at him!

For the record, no one disputes the guilty plea or the consequences. It’s the arrest and the interview that are troubling. For Craig, it’s too late – that guilty plea stands alone.

And I think you two are getting confused about the word “set up,” or you’re using it in two different ways. I think BigOlDog is using it like Craig IS gay and WAS cruising for sex … but that the cops specifically targeted him.

Not that he was falsely set-up. Just that he was set up because of who he is. If he’s guilty, he’s still guilty.

But I’m not sure I’d want the cops picking who they go after based on politics.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM

No matter what this guy did in the restroom, from listening to that recording, I can’t believe this is considered ethical by law enforcement. He basically implied he had to plead guilty or else there would be calls to the media, among other outrageous things. The officer basically promised just plead guilty and this will all go away. That seems to me like unlawful detention with a requirement to plead guilty to get out. How is that ethical?

No matter what, the Congressman is still gross. Who picks up pieces of toilet paper off the floor while sitting on a public toilet? and what did he then do with it? That was never asked!

Resolute on August 30, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Color me old fashioned but is it too much to ask of our elected officials that they refrain from:
- soliciting BJs in public restrooms
- frequenting prostitutes
- hitting on teenagers and/or government employees
- receiving BJs in their offices?

Maybe I’m wrong but I really don’t think this is a high standard.

Thomas the Wraith on August 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Why would the senator think the officer solicited him? Was there eye contact when the senator was peering into the stall that made him think it was okay to give him the signals? How many of you guys have been hit on in this manner while in a public bathroom? Do they just solicit any and all who walk through the door?

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Well of course Barney Frank doesn’t think Larry Craig should resign. Frank wants Craig to stay put so the media can milk this story for weeks on end.

paul006 on August 30, 2007 at 7:44 PM

To be clear to everyone, I don’t fully go out on the limb Prof. does, because Craig is a sicko and has a history, so his intent is clear… but this does raise a concern for people to be arrested for “potential signals” of things they aren’t even aware of. I mean, it’s not like Craig was making use of a glory hole. He’s not a good guy here, but this should make other people worried that they’re going to mistakenly give “a signal”.

RightWinged on August 30, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Prof. Blather:

Good job counselor. Your client is guilty, but of what?

Did you mind Vitter keeping his job?
What if one of his trysts was with a guy, in a squalid room, instead of with a hot high class female hooker.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 7:37 PM

I don’t want either of them keeping their jobs. Their either both perverts and hypocrites, or both idiots, or one’s a pervert and one’s a hypocrite, or maybe its vice versa.

But Craig is an even worse idiot for how he handled everything. I’m not even sure if its worse if he’s guilty or innocent. I think I’d prefer a pervert with good judgment to a non-pervert who shows this kind of poor judgment.

If he is innocent, I just can’t see how someone that dim could function as a US Senator.

pedestrian on August 30, 2007 at 7:35 PM

I agree. I can almost guarantee that he wouldn’t have been convicted; in fact, I seriously doubt the prosecutor would have gone to trial. (Hey – what party does the D.A. belong to, anyway? Does he know Mike Nifong?)

But if he was innocent, I can understand – after listening to that tape – how he’d think pleading guilty might be the best course of action.

If he fought it, the whole world would know. He stupidly thought a guilty plea could keep it quiet. In a way, it almost makes me thing he was innocent. If I were him, and I was guilty … I’d have fought it. If I was innocent … I’d be terrified of the false accusations.

Who knows?

He’s unquestionably guilty of being a dumbass in the second degree.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:44 PM

What specific part are you talking about? Maybe I missed something.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

(From the written report there was the following)
Well there was the foot touch thing, which Craig seemed to admit. There was the hand waving under the stall, which Craig more or less denied. There was the peeking into the stall which Craig denied. There was the accusation from the officer … in so many word … that Craig actions were overt.

That’s pretty much it.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:45 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.

Note to self: Wear adult diaper next time I travel or hold it in until I get to my destination.

CliffHanger on August 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM

OK, here’s another story where the details is what sells and that makes it seem like ‘sex’. The Clinton issue with Lewinsky was only about sex because that was what was reported in the media.

I stopped listening to this in the middle before he started describing the incident. How utterly ridiculous that he said anything. He needed to review and exersize the 5th amendment. NO COMMENT.

I’m disgusted at the thought of what might have happened. I don’t want to know what happened. But the irony here is that if he were gay (which he emphatically denies for some odd reason), he’d have gay rights activists helping him like his buddy Barney Franks. They would be saying this is discrimination and he shouldn’t lose his place in the Senate.

But anyway, I don’t want to hear any more about this. Please keep the programming FAMILY FRIENDLY (and I don’t even have kids). Intimite details of these actions are unnecessary.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Color me old fashioned but is it too much to ask of our elected officials that they refrain from:
- soliciting BJs in public restrooms
- frequenting prostitutes
- hitting on teenagers and/or government employees
- receiving BJs in their offices?

Maybe I’m wrong but I really don’t think this is a high standard.

Thomas the Wraith on August 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM

I don’t know about the first three … but I think that last one makes you a popular sitting President.

Go figure.

It’s been educational, guys. I’ll think of you all the next time I’m dropping a deuce.

Peace out.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Color me old fashioned

Me too. Your private life is my business if you open yourelf up to any sort of blackmail.

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Wear adult diaper next time I travel or hold it in until I get to my destination.

Too bad the female astronaut didn’t think of this excuse. Afraid of public bathroom sexual assaults.

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Foot-tapping in the third degree. Throw the book at him!

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Now your being disingenuous, he got a fine for heaven sake! They didn’t give him ten years in the electric chair. And there was foot tapping and touching and peeping and hand waving and maybe other overt acts. And he plead guilty to the whole thing. That makes it a done deal, next Senator please.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Wow.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 7:54 PM

My tale of tawdry solicitation that I mentioned above is told in lurid detail here.

see-dubya on August 30, 2007 at 7:54 PM

But I’m not sure I’d want the cops picking who they go after based on politics.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM

I don’t want that either and if that is what Craig thought was happening he had a duty to expose it and fight it. He did neither, thus, he is not fit to be Senator.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:56 PM

Non sequitor.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 7:57 PM

Non sequitor.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 7:57 PM

A Senator has no duty to fight corruption ? Is that what you are saying ?

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 7:59 PM

I wasn’t making any political point or even giving a political opinion. I was simply pointing out your use of the “non sequitor” logical fallacy.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:00 PM

I wasn’t making any political point or even giving a political opinion. I was simply pointing out your use of the “non sequitor” logical fallacy.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Which is exactly WHAT nonfactor ? Talk to me like I’m a five year old.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 8:01 PM

If he fought it, the whole world would know. He stupidly thought a guilty plea could keep it quiet. In a way, it almost makes me thing he was innocent. If I were him, and I was guilty … I’d have fought it. If I was innocent … I’d be terrified of the false accusations.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 7:44 PM

If you’re just sitting there doing what comes naturally, and out of the blue comes a police badge, why in the world would you plead guilty to anything? I go nuts when a vending machine gets me for $1. Pay how many hundreds of dollars and sign a guilty plea for what?

If he is so scared of that newspaper, how can he possibly be taking tough stands on legislation? My small experience in politics quickly taught me that how people react to your positions is immensely stressful. I’m more upset with a cowardly turd like that being senator if he’s innocent than I would be with a guy who uses sex as an escape.

pedestrian on August 30, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I wasn’t making any political point or even giving a political opinion. I was simply pointing out your use of the “non sequitor” logical fallacy.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:00 PM

If you’re going to play the usual pompous pseudo-intellectual jackass role that you always seem to adopt, at least learn to spell the phrases you don’t actually understand.

What you’re trying to accuse him of using is a non sequitur – note the “u,” you stuffed-shirt goofball.

And for the record, Maxx’s comment was obviously not a non sequitur. How old are you, kid? Jesus wept.

Beat up on this Harold Lauder wanna be for me, Maxx. (Google it, baby!)

I’m going foot-tapping. Peace out for real this time, you time wasters.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 8:04 PM

We reached those last days when we could endure neither our vices nor their remedies.
– Titus Livy

Thomas the Wraith on August 30, 2007 at 8:08 PM

If you’re going to play the usual pompous pseudo-intellectual jackass role that you always seem to adopt, at least learn to spell the phrases you don’t actually understand.

Professor Blather on August 30, 2007 at 8:04 PM

I would argue that you entrapped me into that spelling mistake.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:09 PM

It does not follow that someone must “expose and fight [cops targeting people based on their politics]” to be fit to be a Senator. It also ignores the possibility that Sen. Craig was not aware that the police were targeting him for his politics, and your entire statement is based on the assumption (baseless I might add) that the cops were somehow targeting Sen. Craig based on his politics.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:12 PM

I’m with everyone on this. I don’t care about this story. The audio is amusing though. Who the hell picks TP off the floor at a public bathroom? If something is dropped on the floor there…it’s a goner unless it’s a precious iPhone. If you also listen careful too the Senator says he never used his left hand but then says he used to to prop himself against the wall to get the TP. Later he goes back to saying he never used his left hand.

Better yet, who props themselves up by grabbing UNDER a bathroom divider? Wouldn’t you prop your hand against the wall instead? Anyway, Can we all agree that this douche bag has gotta go?

Jiggity on August 30, 2007 at 8:13 PM

It does not follow that someone must “expose and fight [cops targeting people based on their politics]” to be fit to be a Senator. It also ignores the possibility that Sen. Craig was not aware that the police were targeting him for his politics, and your entire statement is based on the assumption (baseless I might add) that the cops were somehow targeting Sen. Craig based on his politics.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Well see… there’s the problem, you made all sorts of assumptions that are not in the text.

Maxx on August 30, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Bingo:
Professor Blather on August 30 2007 at 7:24PM.

And who it was leaked to:
The Big Old dog on August 30 2007 at 7:27PM.

Everybody is danceing around the facts of the bathroom,
there is more to this.
You guys are right Hillary gets caught with her financial
skirt down,and then presto-chango,all of a sudden we have a
New Republican (alleged)scandel.

By the way Barney(I didn’t know my boyfriend was running an escort service out of my basement)Franks.Yeah he’ll be helpful alright.

Oh,I still think this was a set-up.
By the way did anybody ever find out who hired Criag Livingston who ran the White House Secruity,or did Hillary
“I can’t Recall” conviently forget.

This is all about going after Republicans one by one.

canopfor on August 30, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Who the hell picks TP off the floor at a public bathroom? If something is dropped on the floor there…it’s a goner unless it’s a precious iPhone.

Maybe the real reason the cop was paid to be in there was to make sure that no one uses more than one sheet of TP per visit. He just busts perverts on the side.

pedestrian on August 30, 2007 at 8:26 PM

I feel really bad about just believing the biased press against this guy. I thought he was creepy. Now having heard the tape I feel that the guy was brow beaten by the very belligerent cop who said “I’m not going to the media with this” sounds like a veiled threat delivered in a… I’ll do you a favor if you sign… mode.. I can totally see how Craig might have felt threatened especially with that newspaper hounding him about his sexuality. We still don’t know what happened in that bathroom but I can now better understand Craig’s actions (dumb as they were).

Meanwhile Hillary is back to selling out this country to the Chinese for campaign contributions and neither CNN nor MSNBC mentioned it in their online versions yesterday. Only Fox and then the liberals wonder why we choose Fox to get our news from.

Is the US going to hell in a hand basket? We all need to start praying even more.

CCRWM on August 30, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Maybe the real reason the cop was paid to be in there was to make sure that no one uses more than one sheet of TP per visit. He just busts perverts on the side.

pedestrian on August 30, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Or maybe they realized that Senator Craig would need to go to the bathroom eventually and then sent an undercover cop to one of the bathroom stalls in one of the airport’s bathrooms and then had him wait there for thirteen minutes knowing that he would pick a stall next to him so they could arrest him and frame him for doing something he didn’t do to distract the public from a Democratic campaign contributer.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Blather is right. You are a pompous stuffed shirt major league a$$hole.

Andy in Agoura Hills on August 30, 2007 at 8:37 PM

if he is innocent, why would a distinguished gentleman, with the political experience he has, put up with being arrested and interrogated for simply bumping someones foot? He’s guilty

Thomas the Wraith on August 30, 2007 at 8:44 PM

If Craig was a Democrat homosexual groups would be screaming
“discrimination” but since he it not their silence is deafening.

MaiBee on August 30 2007 at 7:36PM.

Your right.

Gay liberals for liberals=Rights Organization

Gay liberals against Republicans=Political Organization.

The only help Republicans are going to get from this liberal gay group,is them helping make the Crucifiction Cross!

canopfor on August 30, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Would you just give signals to anyone next to you to see if they responded? We need a gay guy to help us understand bathroom sex, I think.

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 7:25 PM

From Gay Orbit:

Any gay man who is at least [37] knows what tapping your foot while sitting on the john in a public toilet means. It means you are available. And here’s another thing. Any gay man at least my age knows the difference between some guy in a stall tapping his foot to the beat of the latest song on his Walkman and a

Tap, Tap, Tap

that means you are “looking.”

Here’s the thing: The cops know it, too. If a man in the stall next door goes, tappity, tap, tap, tappity, tap, tap, the cop knows that the person is not looking. If the person is going

Tap, Tap, Tap

it’s plenty obvious.

I have no doubt about what Larry Craig was doing in the bathroom stall at that airport. And I know the cops knew what he was doing.

And he wasn’t listening to his Walkman. No gay person who is at least my age would argue with that if he was honest. We may not have ever solicited public sex in a bathroom, but we definitely knew how to do it if we wanted to.

We all did.

Craig, in the audio above:

You solicited me.”

That’s funny, I thought all that happened was that he was picking up a piece of paper and his foot bumped the officer’s.

Where did he get “solicited”? Sounds like he knows the signals.

From the police report:

At about 1219 hours I held my Police Identification in my right hand down by the floor so that Craig could see it. With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded “No!”

No? Not, “What the hell are you doing flashing your badge at me while I’m on the john?”

I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. Without causing a disturbance. I discretely motioned for Craig to exit the restroom…Craig demanded to see my credentials. I again showed Craig my credentials. Craig kept asking me what was going to happen.

Shouldn’t the question be “What the @#*&^ is going on here?” What’s going to happen?

And this from the audio:

DK: But there’s the, there there’s two ways, yes. You can, you can, ah, you can go to court.

You can plead guilty.

LC: Yep.

Yep??

Mr. Senator, you can go to court and plead guilty to something you didn’t do, something that will ruin your political and personal life, OK?

Yep.

Then, in the middle of this interview with a police officer who supposedly set him up to be arrested for something that might cost him everything, he says he “Really [needs] to catch that flight.” Mmmm-kay.

Oh, and he was apparently arrested during an ongoing sting operation at the airport in which 40 other people were arrested:

The 40 others caught up in the sting, according to the police reports, included airport and airline employees, an account executive with Revlon, an IT consultant for Ernst & Young, a 3M executive and a Lands End employee.

In an incident June 25, Karsnia arrested three men at once.

He wrote in his report that he was waiting for two suspects to come out of their stalls to be arrested. Then a third suspect near urinals exposed himself to the officer with a smile. One of the suspects, according to the report, was “known” around the airport for lewd acts in the restrooms.

Police nabbed a few of the suspects by other means, such as responding to posts on Internet sites by men looking to arrange a quick hookup as they passed through the airport.

Some of the suspects were area residents; others were from out of town. Addresses ranged from ordinary local neighborhoods to New York’s Park Avenue. The airport is the headquarters hub for Northwest Airlines, and thousands of passengers connect through it every day.

But please go on accusing as police officer of misconduct.

John from WuzzaDem on August 30, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Better question, why would anyone feel the need to fight the fight the senator didn’t fight for himself?

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 8:54 PM

John,

Thank you for answering my question.

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 8:56 PM

*a* police officer. Me not write good.

John from WuzzaDem on August 30, 2007 at 8:57 PM

John,

Thank you for answering my question.

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 8:56 PM

Hey, I didn’t answer it. I just did some research.

I’m married! I swear!

John from WuzzaDem on August 30, 2007 at 8:59 PM

::grin:: I appreciate you did my research for me. How is that?

Sue on August 30, 2007 at 9:00 PM

this guy is soooo full of crap! he knew what he was doing. wide stance? picking paper off the floor? with his LEFT HAND?!?!? c’mon, gimme a break senator, your wife may buy this crap, but we the public know waaaaaay better!

The Sinner on August 30, 2007 at 9:06 PM

I’m unsure about this incident. However, the Senators assertion about having a wide stance so his pants don’t fall to the floor seems completely plausible. When I’m wearing a suit, and I have to take a sh*t, I too use a wide stance because I don’t want my suit pants to fall all the way to the ground. Especially if I have my keys in my pocket, my wallet in my pocket, some change in my pocket, and a cell phone on my belt. All these items add up to a fair amount of weight and, if your not careful, your suit pants wind up in a pile on a disgusting public restroom floor.

Troy Rasmussen on August 30, 2007 at 9:36 PM

This is almost as dumb as the Pee Wee Herman incident.

Kini on August 30, 2007 at 9:38 PM

This story is boring…. until someone explains how Larry Craig is different from, say, Barney Frank.

petefrt on August 30, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Or maybe… after listening three times to the tape… it was actually mistake or entrapment. That officer sounds like he’s leading the subject.

But regardless, Craig should resign for the good of the rest of us.

petefrt on August 30, 2007 at 9:50 PM

But please go on accusing as police officer of misconduct.

John from WuzzaDem on August 30, 2007 at 8:51 PM

You make a mistake in eliminating the possibility that both the officer enganged in misconduct and Craig is sleezy. One does not exclude the other.

Trying to convince someone, or even threatening, that they are somehow in less trouble if they plead guilty, seems like misconduct to me. Are police supposed to lie and say things like just sign this murder confession and you will only get a week in jail. It doesnt matter if it works or if people are dumb enough to believe it, the question is are things like that ethical? This is what defnese lawyers are there to protect people from and I think he could have his guilty plea overturned on this basis even if he is guilty of the act.

Resolute on August 30, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3