Captain's Quarters -

[Deleted -- off topic. Please read the privacy policy for rules on comments. EM]

The implication has been that this was some sort of routine police operation.

Without making any allegations, I'm curious to know whether that is true. How often are people charged with this sort of offence in this district? How many men has this officer arrested in this fashion?

Perhaps somebody in Minneapolis can find out. It would be interesting to know if this was routine. And obviously it would be interesting if it was not.

Craig, on some very questionable evidence, is being forced to fall on his own sword while Barney Frank continues to serve. What nonsense.

I'm not, for the moment, saying Craig is innocent. Lets assume he is gay and was trolling for sex in the bathroom. The question is, was this a sting aimed at catching this specific target?

If not there should be many instances of men being busted on this charge in this location.

This cop had attitude ... why does he think that the people he is arresting should "respect" him by agreeing with everything he says. My gut tells me he would only be so upset if he was not confident that his story would be believed and was getting upset at having to take a case to court or explain it to his bosses.

Larry Craig pled guilty.

And, his reputation on the Hill carries with it a strong stench of homosexual activity; since he was accused way back in 1982 of having sex with underage pages. At that time, he wasn't married. And, he gave a similar defense to the one he's using, now. "He's not gay." And, the quote on tape, (which I just saw on the Internet), has him "outraged," just because he's a batchelor. So there's this "innuendo."

There's also a book, written by a page, that didn't find a publisher; but is in the Library of Congress. Where one page, who is on the TV clip disguised; says that Craig was one of 20 homosexuals elected to congress. No surprises, in that.

WHere the harms come in, has to do with the GOP. And, you either care about that, or you don't.

Remember, too, the priests all said there were no alter boys, ever, who were molested. And, they hung with that story for a very long time. Before it unravelled.

Up ahead, is an election.

And, because someone posting at Lucianne had a link to a Bill Maher episode, where Barney Franks was one of the guests.

So, like it or not, the water, with the frog in it, is heating up. True. The frog doesn't even feel the heat.

But Barney Franks pointed out how tenuous it is to even have laws that allow homosexuals to be active, "as long as they are two consenting adults."

Throwing fire? The homosexuals, both those who vote for GOP candidates, and lots who don't; recognize the "signals" that go on between men. Where the straight world is clueless.

Unless, of course, guys go to the rest rooms in public places, to find homosexuals have taken them over. Which is how the complaints to the vice squad, arose.

The cop wasn't thorough? How does this help?

Barney Franks has already called religous folks hypocrits. So the longer it takes for Larry Craig to go, the long this story is alive. ANd, no, it doesn't make the GOPster's look "thoughtful."

Barney Franks talked about how close it was in the Supreme Court, when the 5 to 4 decision, reversing Texas' sodomy law, came down. He said, this is way too close; and people should pay attention. "Because the GOP wants to deprive you of your rights."

In other words?

Franks said read Scalia's dissent. It's a flaming beauty. And, at the time? Bush was governor of Texas, and is on record as saying he thought homosexual activity should be kept illegal.

Franks then said, IF Stevens, who is 85, is gone while Bush is still in office, homosexuals can kiss their rights, good-bye. Because Bush would select someone more like Scalia. And, that throws the 5/4 decision, in the other direction.

The GOP doesn't need this headache.

It didn't need to put a face on this one. Where the advantage, in terms of voters, actually doesn't go to the religious right. Larry Craig is the wrong man to "save."

He probably won't get to keep his seat. And, even if he tries to do this; he can't run, again, in 2008. A very tight senatorial race for the GOP, because they have two dozen seats up for grabs, while only 12 Bonkey senators need to get re-elected.

By the way, to argue how men pick each other up; is to confuse heterosexuals, who think there are all sorts of "courtship" postures. Ain't so.

In the 19th Century, men who had Oscar Wilde's urges, would often marry women. But they never really brought their libido's to bed.

Instead?

If a man stuck a green carnation in his lapel; he was signalling to another man, that he'd be ready. And, with basically, hand gestures, and stuff no one else is supposed to see; two men would go marching off into the public bathroom.

Again, here, the GOP is on the defensive. Keeping Craig? Or making believe the "cop didn't have the goods?" Why did Larry Craig plead guilty? (He's a LAW-MAKER! He didn't know the rules?) Or did he see this one as one he could "win?" Even if it hurts the whole party?

Don't get confused, here. There's a big election coming up. And, the Bonkeys want to run against Bush! From Texas. Whose on record as saying Texas was right to have sodomy laws.

Larry Craig should have told the truth in June. Gone to others and looked for a way out so this story wouldn't erupt. That's not what he's gone and done! Instead? He went to Mitt Romney, and got the #2 spot on his campaign.

Larry Craig is sure pro-active when it comes to taking care of his own ass.

Now?

Gee, nobody wants to look like they're about to start a forest fire. Mitt Romney's remarks are about as honest as you're gonna get. And, most politicians, even when "honest," behave like cowards, if they can.

By the way. Remember Monica? Remember how so many on the right were saying, "it wasn't the sex, it was the lying."

How can ya go out now and say there's no lying involved here? While a lot of people are making popcorn.

I found Craig's explanations convoluted and unbelievable. He said he reached down to pick up toilet paper. Who picks up anything from a public bathroom floor unless its your priceless family heirlooms let alone TP? Then he said he is a wide guy and has to spread his legs so his pants don't slide. Fair enough but unless the Minneapolis stalls are narrow, he would have to spread them very wide indeed to go into another man's stall. How could he do that with his pants stretched tight to keep from sliding?

But of course he plead guilty so its a mute point anyway.

First of all, it sounds to me like the cop is telling Craig NOT to worry about being publically shamed and that he is not going to the media. And it would appear that he didn't since it took many months for this story to come out.

Second, it is ridiculous for people to think they were targetting Craig. How would that even be possible? Did someone force drinks down his throat on the plane so he would have to pee? In a state he neither lives in nor works in. Get real.

There have been plenty of news reports saying this bathroom was NOTORIOUS for being a pick up spot and that it was even listed on gay web sites as a good place to pick up men. Another paper (I think the NYTimes)listed the many types of men to be arrested in that restroom including Revlon executives, etc... Craig knew before he walked in there what he was looking for.

People at the airport complained about the activities taking place there and the police were called in to break it up. They were doing their job.

As a person who used to work for DSS doing child abuse investigations, it is very common for an investigator to basically state the other person is lying (esp. when they are) in order to illicit a confession. Craig had his miranda rights read to him and could have lawyered up at any time. The officer was extremely specific and credible in his report.

Captain, I think you owe this cop an apology for in any way insinuating that he was crooked. He got stuck doing a crappy job (no pun intended) and did it in a professional manner. Nor did he go running to the papers with the story. I doubt that if a DEMOCRATIC senator had this happen to him you would be dragging the police officer's name through the mud.

cmon, this has to be the vaguest gay come on in history. NO words exchanged, there's a foot touching which could or could not be completely innocent and it obviously sounds like the cop is trying to coerce him into admitting something.
And even if he is coming on to the officer, is that a crime. what would be lewd is if he pulled out his penis and tried to have sex in the bathroom. having two people hit it off as it were and not do anything in the bathroom surely is no crime. It would have to rise to the occasion of the senator trying to ask for sex or be caught masturbating for it to be criminal.
What we have here is someones feet touching someoes feet and a hand going below the stall. And thats it.
The senator should not lose his job over this. This is a sex scandal without sex, wihtout touching or talking, or anything even remotely sexual. IT's nothing but innuendo.

some of the police officer's words could suggest he is prejudiced/racist:

"I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood..." [italics added]

i think a lawyer could have sliced and diced that comment to suggest the police officer's own baggage prejudiced his behavior in this arrest.

When this stupid event blows over, all of you trigger-happy lilly-white purists will see how over-reactive you are. We don't have to go to the polls to get kicked out of office-- Republicans will do it to themselves. The Dem's are busting up watching it.

That cop's a stooge and player, I know these a thing or two about vice officers!

cmon, this has to be the vaguest gay come on in history. NO words exchanged, there's a foot touching which could or could not be completely innocent and it obviously sounds like the cop is trying to coerce him into admitting something.
And even if he is coming on to the officer, is that a crime. what would be lewd is if he pulled out his penis and tried to have sex in the bathroom. having two people hit it off as it were and not do anything in the bathroom surely is no crime. It would have to rise to the occasion of the senator trying to ask for sex or be caught masturbating for it to be criminal.
What we have here is someones feet touching someoes feet and a hand going below the stall. And thats it.
The senator should not lose his job over this. This is a sex scandal without sex, wihtout touching or talking, or anything even remotely sexual. IT's nothing but innuendo.

The cop is a kid!

Go ahead, use that as your form of attack! You think he liked this assignment?

For all you know, Larry Craig went out of his way to make the cop UNCOMFORTABLE. And, it's great, if you're an anti-war freak from the 1960's. Rational people will view the "hard" right as a group of bigots, just the same.

There's no "up side" to defending this creep! If it's gonna take an ethics investigation, so be it.

Bill Clinton should set the example for you, at how good a trained politician is, when the subject's about him. And, he can lie.

Again, if you want to see the right as the most popular segment of society, in all of America, there is nothing I can do to help you see things a bit differently.

But unctuous folderole isn't gonna cut the mustard.

Too many homosexuals have been using closet tricks for ages.

And, it's similar to going out and saying, "you think priests would lie?" Look at the kids. At how they're the ones telling "tall stories."

Today, that Vatican tune cost the Catholic Church about a billion dollars.

Getting slammed as hypocrits is one of the things the Bonkeys will do, because the mainstream just might want to agree? Phonies in church? Waving around their Bibles? You're walking straight into the real trap.

Let alone all the homosexuals who'll line up for the ethics hearings. (No. I don't think it's gonna get that far.) I actually think Larry Craig can be "reasoned with" ... if a nice job shows up somewhere, in some think tank. What he doesn't expect is the GOP, itself, to spot the truth.

You think the stuff you hear on the media is designed to "halp" Larry Craig. Please. Think about this some more.

At least don't be like that frog in the pot; oblivious to the increase in heat; as he's about to become "dinner."

Going after a young cop, trying to pull his arrest to pieces, still doesn't explain why Larry Craig pled guilty. And, he did! After thinking about his options. That man doesn't think very much of you, folks. Or he'd have chosen to come clean way back in June. And, not in pubic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3543062&page=1

...

DK Okay Urn, I just wanna start off with a your side of the story, okay. So, a

LC: So I go into the bathroom here as I normally do, I'm a commuter too here.

DK: Okay.

LC: I sit down, urn, to go to the bathroom and ah, you said our feet bumped. I believe they did, ah, because I reached down and scooted over and urn, the next thing I knew, under the bathroom divider comes a card that says Police. Now, urn, (sigh) that's about as far as I can take it, I don't know of anything else. Ah, your foot came toward mine, mine came towards yours, was that natural? I don't know. Did we bump? Yes. I think we did. You said so. I don't disagree with that.
...

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

This guy is a creep and a liar, and has NO PLACE in public office. And I do refer to the Senator from Idaho.

leftnomore nails it with this:
all of you trigger-happy lilly-white purists will see how over-reactive you are. We don't have to go to the polls to get kicked out of office-- Republicans will do it to themselves. The Dem's are busting up watching it.

I can see being strong on ethics and holding people accountable, which is rightly a virtue, but throwing someone under a bus at the first whiff of impropriety has whiff of a trigger happy posse that will hang the guy prior to trial, and it doesn't strike me that its a principled stand at all.

I heard a part of tape on the radio this afternoon, where Craig said something to the effect, "I don't think there should be any entrapment."

Other Voice: "There was no entrapment."

Clearly there was NO ENTRAPMENT.

That Craig would say that is an implication that just goes to show a whole lot more about Craig than anything - and it is something a man protesting his innocence DID NOT MEAN TO REVEAL AT ALL.

"ENTRAPMENT"????????

Theresa, there are bathrooms on all public aircraft. AND, the senator could have gone to the VIP loungem once he got off the plane. Instead, he heads for this queer Disneyland, place. Really. Why did he choose a toilet that's gained a reputation as a place where homosexuals go?

How do I know the toilet had that reputation? Because the police got complaints, and they sent this "kid" in as a decoy. VICE.

I've seen the ways the vice teams work; when you see them out on the streets. They look like "real merchandise." OLD MEN NEED NOT APPLY.

It's actually evidence that Larry Craig was NOT set up! If his colleagues knew him as a "normal man," who didn't have a "gay" reputation among the staff; the first thing Larry Craig would have done in DC, is call for the cop's scalp.

Anyway, it's not what YOU know. It's what Frist, Lott, McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the other GOP "turkeys" know.

Obviously, IF this had been a set-up, and Craig's record was clean? Oh, my gosh. The senator had clout. But those doors didn't open.

Go ahead, wonder why.

Cops are allowed to lie when interrogating suspects. They can try and push buttons, figure out what motivates someone, get them to 'fess up. The police officer was smart, he correctly surmised that Craig wouldn't want this to be in the papers or have it drag on any longer than necessary.

This is why it is always prudent to invoke your right to counsel immediately whenever the police wish to question you about your possible involvement in a crime. Don't ever believe a cop when he tells you he's just trying to help you out here, that he shares your pain, that he knows you're really a good guy. And the police will always try to get you to cop to the operative elements of the crime so no surprise that he wanted Craig to admit to soliciting for sex. Makes the case easier to prove.

What this officer did is pretty much SOP I think.

This is as lame as Anita Hill saying Clarence Thomas put a pubic hair on her coke. Wow their feet touched. HIs hand went below the stall (even though he wears his ring on the wrong finger so the cops story doesn't exactly jibe with the facts). Did any gay words pass between them. ANy proposition of any kind?
I'm wondering if this is what passes for lewd behavior, maybe the whole glut of gays having sex in the bathroom is the figment of bigoted cops imagination.If there were 100 arrests of gays behaving lewdly in a bathroom and 97 of them simply involved peoples feet touching maybe the cops are trying to pad their numbers like they do with parking tickets.

He pled guilty? The cop said if he paid the fine it wont get out to the press. Do you think maybe he didnt want it to get out to the press because he knew what the reaction would be from the reactionary right?

What does the sexuality of Craig have to do with whether a crime was committed or not? Whether he is gay or not isn't the issue. The issue is wheter the actions by Craig constitute a crime. If this is a sex crime,the it's the first "G" Rated sex crime I've ever heard about. There's no sex in it!

I read the Transcript of the police interview. It doesn't take much to be considered gay by the Minn. police department. That doesn't surprise me. It doesn't take much to get a ticket when they set up speed traps either.

I was among the first to condemn Craig, but after listening to the tape I am now not so sure. I am involved in law enforcement and this talk of 'respect'does not ring right. For this, THIS, his life and career are ruined?

Too bad, TV will replay and replay until he resigns.

I know he pled guilty, but it was almost with a promise from the cop it would not be made public.

How many cops are wired? Is the state patrolman who pulls you over recording what you say?

How do you spell railroad?

The comment about this being the behavior of "the guy in the hood" was pretty shocking, but even the race-obsessed Minneapolis left won't make anything of it.

Why? It's a simple matter of psychological conditioning. The salience of the one aspect, i.e., the chance to score a hit against a republican and therefore against President Bush, overshadows all auxiliary aspects of the situation, making them less salient, mere surplus stimuli, even imperceptible.

It would be like winning the lottery on the same day you get a $5.00 coupon in the mail for Border's Bookstore. Any other day the $5.00 would be a cause for celebration. It would for me. But on a day when you've won a million dollars, it's just another piece of junk mail.

Do you think maybe he didnt want it to get out to the press because he knew what the reaction would be from the reactionary right?

From what I can see, his main problem is with the bigoted left. They are the ones jumping up and down over this.

Who has heard the whole tape? Is the part about showing his Senator's card on it? I did not hear it, and if its not on the tape, why not.

Sure. It's hard to believe a married man, with kids (all be it his wife's kids from another marriage), would go into the bathroom for a blow job.

It's Bubba, all over again.

You found it easy to believe Monica, who was fat, could get the President of the United States to unzip?

Well, it happened FAST.

IF Larry Craig really had a heterosexual reputation in DC, he'd have had more friends rallying around. And, we wouldn't be talking about how fast a "signal" can pass between two willing adults.

Did you know you could also buy drugs with signals like this? You think people don't try to avoid arrest?

Sodomy laws tend to make homosexuals very, very careful. And, if caught? Especially if married. They can say "why no, they're not gay." Uh huh.

Except your stuck defending the indefensible.

If Larry Craig wasn't known for the activies he does, do you think Mitt Romney would have slammed him so hard?

Of course, for Mitt the stakes are higher than they are for the senator from Idaho. Larry Craig could'a taken out the "contendah."

While just like with Monica, when blow jobs make the news, the kids will hear all about it. So, too, the prudes who just "never knew."

Why do men want to go into toilets for sex? It sure doesn't sound romantic. Maybe, you have to be born with these desires? In the world of sex without foreplay, who knew? It seems there are women, here, who think Craig should have at least asked the cop for his phone number.

The homosexual community is alert. And, worried. They don't want to lose the gains they've gotten. They don't want to lose respect. Larry Craig's a hypocrit in their books, long before he becomes one among Idaho voters.

You'd be surprised. But this isn't a low-stakes game.

Better or worse? I think worse.

Though this really does look like entrapment to me. If he hadn't pled out he could probably have won in court. But can any politician survive this?...

************
LC: Positioned them, I don't know. I don't know at the time. I'm a fairly wide guy.

DK: I understand.

LC: I had to spread my legs.

DK: Okay.

LC: When I lower my pants so they won't slide.

DK: Okay.
************

At first I thought, no way. Then I thought about all the disgusting personal details we learned about Bill Clinton during the Monica affair and thought... okay, maybe a politician can survive this kind of public embarrassment, and even get re-elected.

But then I thought... If Monica had been a boy, Hillary would not be running for President.

So it's not the arrest, or the entrapment, or even the guilty plea. It's the whiff of gayness (plus hypocrisy) that will doom the Senator.

This is really an interesting thread. So many people seem shocked by how the police handled things here. I don't understand this. Senator Craig is not poor and illiterate, he wasn't sick or drunk or unable to communicate or understand what was being said. He wasn't beaten or abused or forcibly coerced into answering questions.

He's a United States Senator for heaven's sake. Who made his position known. He was treated far more civilly than many suspects are. And he plead guilty. He did that. On his own. His choice. It wasn't like he had to do that, not like many defendants. Plead or face life.

Would so many people be sympathetic if he had been some guy from the 'hood?

Not much to tell from the conversation. Without video of the actual incident it's still one word against another.

The "don't lie to me" bit is routine in most encounters. And believe it or not, on a minor offense with such feeble evidence being completely truthful out the gate can sometimes get you off with a lecture and scare. But it also amounts to an open confession, and there's no way to know how the officer will go.

In court, this would've been a loser of a prosecution, but it would've been frontpage news. Craig was boxed in--he'd get savaged in the press if he went to court. Only the guilty plea had any escape chance. And yes, officers do sometimes lie, and sometimes "misremember" actual incidents under testimony, and sometimes misinterpret and mis-perceive things at times. It's not the ordinary course of events but it does happen. No way to tell.

Seems like a lot of trouble to get in for flapping your hands and shuffling your feet. Without an open verbal proposition or naughty bits exposed, this is "lewd?" Heh.

I really like the bag in the front of the stall as an indicator of gaydom trolling. Where the hell else do you put your bag in a strange airport loo? Leave it outside the stall to be stolen? Not a lot of places BUT right there to put it.

Remember Nifong.

From:
Craig not the only high profile arrest in airport bathrooms
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=263620

excerpt:

A foot-tapping ritual was a common thread in many of the 41 arrests reported during a four-month airport bathroom sting that snared Sen. Larry Craig. An undercover officer would take a seat in a stall. Soon another man would sit in the stall next door and start tapping his foot, perhaps moving it closer to the officer's. The officer would move his foot up and down slowly. The suspect might then extend his hand under the divider between the stalls, sometimes repeatedly. That would be enough to get the man busted. Airport police reports obtained by The Associated Press gave strikingly similar accounts of the events that led to the 41 arrests officers made for alleged lewd conduct in public restrooms in the main terminal of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport during the May-August sting. 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. Craig insisted that his actions were misconstrued, according to the police report on his June 11 arrest. But the Idaho Republican quietly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct earlier this month. After word of his arrest finally surfaced this week, Craig insisted he had done nothing wrong, that he regretted pleading guilty and indicated he might try to withdraw his plea. He also insisted he is not gay. In several of the police reports, officers wrote that they knew from their training and work experience that the foot-tapping was a signal used by people looking for sex. The reports said the department had received complaints from the public and made numerous arrests. Craig's alleged conduct closely followed the pattern described in several of the arrests.

I guess its good that Republicans like the Captain and JPod are discovering a new found love of civil liberties after all. I guess they'll be marching at the next Gay Pride parade and pushing to stop cops from entrapping gay men in
bathrooms. ;) Maybe y'all could add that to the next party platform!

It's the whiff of gayness (plus hypocrisy) that will doom the Senator.

I notice that hypocrisy is never a problem for Democrats, when the hypocrite is a Democrat.

Why, it's almost hypocritical!

From:
Craig not the only high profile arrest in airport bathrooms
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=263620

excerpt:

A foot-tapping ritual was a common thread in many of the 41 arrests reported during a four-month airport bathroom sting that snared Sen. Larry Craig. An undercover officer would take a seat in a stall. Soon another man would sit in the stall next door and start tapping his foot, perhaps moving it closer to the officer's. The officer would move his foot up and down slowly. The suspect might then extend his hand under the divider between the stalls, sometimes repeatedly. That would be enough to get the man busted. Airport police reports obtained by The Associated Press gave strikingly similar accounts of the events that led to the 41 arrests officers made for alleged lewd conduct in public restrooms in the main terminal of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport during the May-August sting. 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. Craig insisted that his actions were misconstrued, according to the police report on his June 11 arrest. But the Idaho Republican quietly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct earlier this month. After word of his arrest finally surfaced this week, Craig insisted he had done nothing wrong, that he regretted pleading guilty and indicated he might try to withdraw his plea. He also insisted he is not gay. In several of the police reports, officers wrote that they knew from their training and work experience that the foot-tapping was a signal used by people looking for sex. The reports said the department had received complaints from the public and made numerous arrests. Craig's alleged conduct closely followed the pattern described in several of the arrests.

Re: The Business Card
Maybe this has been covered a hundred times in your earlier posts, but might not the point of handing the police the business card be Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution?

"They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Is "disorderly conduct" a breach of the peace?

Re: The Business Card
Maybe this has been covered a hundred times in your earlier posts, but might not the point of handing the police the business card be Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution?

"They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Is "disorderly conduct" a breach of the peace?

Completely wrong.

Deliberate unwelcome touching of somebody is battery. That covers everything from unauthorized surgery to poking a clerk while arguing. It is a crime because it is a provocation to actual violence.

And touching a man while he is urinating is definitely provocative.

From this transcript, Craig admits he did touch his foot and did stick his hand under the stall. He did stand outside peeking at him. If you want to invent innocent reasons for this, you are a few months too late, as Craig has already plead guilty.

This congress-critter sells himself as "anti-gay!' He's one of these people from the Christian Right, who waves his Bible around, to boot.

That's why it's similar to the charges, made against priests, where the Vatican thought it could bluff its way through.

Did those kids sound believable? How so? Many didn't even tell their parents! And, they were older, and with lawyers by their sides, when they came "out." Again, the Catholic Church thought it owned the outcome. Not so!

Larry Craig told NO ONE.

If he were really innocent, you don't think he wouldn't have gone to the GOP leadership, explaining what happened?

OBVIOUSLY, DC is full of homosexuals. So the story of going "by accident" into a strange men's room, that's so over-the-top the vice squad is there; makes ya wonder about Larry Craig's NOT GOING AND TELLING THE ADULTS!

He sure knew how to protect his own career. But whom else is he involving?

The Bonkeys won't make an issue of this? They're the affirmative action people. And, they have the gains they've made to protect. Why be angry at them? To them, this is a windfall.

But it's only a windfall IF the GOP is as stupid as the Vatican. ANd, they buy into the same Red Velvet; and Cardinal's Hats. Other than that? There's a good chance the parties call in experts. And, there's a lot of discussion on how to handle THIS HOT POTATO.

Oh, John, Nifong LOST. Is that what you want the GOP to do? To hang tough so they can lose voters?

Priests didn't fair that well when people figured out, even though it took a long time for the truth to come out; that the people compaining, weren't lying.

Again, up ahead, should Larry Craig not resign, will be the much attended Ethics investigation. Both sides are going to be running to the MSM with stories! Nobody's gonna think they've got to save the institution of marriage, here.

And, this is what Larry Craig brought into the room.

The cop? He didn't know it was a senator's hand going through the pick up motions. He was just doig his job.

It reminds me of McGreevey. Remember him? The governor of New Jersey, who had an Israeli lover; while he wife was on the delivery table. Didn't matter. Now, he talks openly about his homosexuality. And, the fake marriage? With kids. Dissolved.

I guess Suzanne Craig can now write a book, huh?

flenser... for Dems, hypocrisy doesn't enter into it. They are allowed to be openly gay. Their voters don't mind, so they aren't forced to hide their real selves.... or go trolling in men's rooms.

I wish Republicans would adopt the same respect for the privacy of individuals who represent them. I honestly can't understand why conservatives should get so bent out of shape over victimless crimes. It seems paradoxcical to me.

"...for Dems, hypocrisy doesn't enter into it. They are allowed to be openly gay. Their voters don't mind, so they aren't forced to hide their real selves.... or go trolling in men's rooms."

This is why Mark Pryor, for example, out of Arkansas would have no trouble announcing he's gay. Or Jon Tester out of Montana. Or Jay Rockefeller out of West Virginia. Because people who voted these guys (all Democrats) into office would have no problem if they turned out to be gay. Because all Democrats everywhere are enlightened and openminded.

This is just silly. If Evan Bayh (D) out of Indiana was caught in a men's room (allegedly) cruising for sex and then plead guilty to disorderly conduct, the people of Indiana would probably not be any happier about that than the people of Idaho are about their Senator.

Sure the cop seemed a bit testy, but cops often do when they are being lied to directly to their face.

I read the transcript and some interesting things come into focus. All men (I am not being sexist, just asking men who have attended men's bathrooms) please ask youself if you have EVER had this course of events happen to you in a public bathroom:

1. You enter a public bathroom, and another man gets close enough to touch your foot (foot touch number 1).

2. The same man then turns and looks directly into your eyes. I can tell you I do not notice guys generally making ANY eye contact in public restrooms).

3. Ok, so you enter the stall to umm "do your business" and suddenly you notice that the same man seems to have selected ONLY the stall next to you.

4. Somehow your feet touch AGAIN. I am pretty flexible but I can tell you I have never even noticed another person's foot close to the partition. The distance has to be at least 3 feet out of normal position, although this is a guess. (foot touch #2)

5. Okay, lets say that all these events occur by chance, which would be fairly unlikely, then we are to believe that one man would put his hand under the partition to the point that you could see his gold ring? Again, I have never seen this happen...has anyone?

In Summary, Senator Craig was signalling for some sort of sexual encounter, this is obvious. The Police officer was simply miffed because he was denying everything that was obvious.

Bennett... if somebody "turns out to be gay" then clearly he/she has been lying up to that point. Voters dislike being lied to, certainly. But I do think an openly gay politician has a better chance of being elected as a Dem (okay, maybe not in Montana :-)...which makes them less susceptible to this particular type of scandal.

The affirmative action party has made a lot of gains. But I doubt we'll go forward with more.

As to the ways the vice squads, responding to complaints, go about their business, is strictly a police matter. Governed, from above, by the courts.

I doubt if anyone is gonna "increase" the license, for gay men, to just go into any toilet; and not even need secret signals. Ain't gonna happen. It's not on the agenda.

As to how both parties now handle this thing, keep in mind, it's out in public. And, the GOP doesn't want to seem "brute-ish." In tight elections you don't go looking for positions that peel away voters.

There's also a lot of innocence, showing up, here. As I said, it seems people brought up to believe in sanctified relationships, can turn up clueless in the rough-and-tumble world.

Oscar Wilde, a genius in his time; tried to sue the Marquis of Queensberry, who had accused him of buggering his son. Wilde lost his case. He wasn't innocent of homosexual activities. (And, yes, he was married. And, the father of kids. Too.)

If you think our laws are harsh now, you have no idea how harsh they were "then." IF Wilde had been accused of homosexuality, he'd have been hung.

The other thing you're dealing with is the "secret signalling."

As a matter of fact, the Mason's, terrorized of arrests, when they were only discussing Englightment topics; had a very secret society. you couldn't even apply to get in. You had to be asked. Full of secret rituals. Including one, where an armed guard was placed in the doorway. To signal that there was a meeting? A circle was drawn in the dirt, outside. Again, IF you know what the signals mean, they're not secret.

So, I'll bet the only changes ahead will occur between homosexuals, who will now work out "new signals."

You'll notice, too, to clean up the airport bathroom, the police were not arresting on lewd behaviors. Just "disturbing the peace." Innocuous, by comparison.

Drugs, too, can pass hands the same way.

And, that means the police will be pressured into finding ways around how the crooks try to make the sales "unobservant."

Anyway, I doubt most people even knew this stuff went on. And, now? There's a lot of conversation.

The Bonkeys will look to use this issue; hoping to find voters. No question.

And, that's why education is so important. So you don't fall for it when someone tries to pull the wool over your eyes.

DC is the kind of town where aberrant behaviors exist. Just like hollywood! But the people aren't as good looking.

Even thinking that Craig kept getting elected, again, and again, is no more proof that he's straight, than his marriage. Inside the beltway?

Heck, Barney Franks, on Bill Maher's show, said it. He knew Craig was gay. And, then he added "and, he's a hypocrit."

Well, now you know how this story will probably proceed. And, the MSM, I think, smells a ratings bonanza. That's why the GOP has to carefully weigh it's options; and then? Not listen to its Cardinals.

Isn't it interesting, too, how far we've come, that a senator isn't seen as the most upstanding, honest man, around. I guess there's only so much you can do with an empty suit.

harleycon5,
not necessarily.If two people are at the urinals next to each other its very possible that feet could touch and that there might be eye contact as in "hey sorry our feet touched". if its a long footsie kind of touch then you might rightly perceive it as a pass.
In this case though they were separated by a wall so there was no eye contact. Further, the cop states that the senator was staring into the stall and the senator said he was waiting for a stall to open up. If he's expecting someone to come out of the stall and has to go to the bathroom he might look at the door of the stall for a few moments and his hands might fidget because having to wait when you have to go might make someone ansty.
But if we're going to arrest people for lewd behavior and ruin their careers can we at least get some lewd behavior. Feet touching is not lewd. George Michael masturbating is lewd. There's a hell of a difference.

flenser, I answered your question over at PL, but here goes again. During a 4 month operation, the MPD nabbed 39 pervs in that one bathroom. A lot was going on there. So, there must have been a grapevine that this was a place for action.

To address Captain's contentions of intimidation by the officer... On the contrary, it appears that the officer kept his promise to not air the incident.

At any rate, as distasteful and damaging as it all is, 'tis better Craig's conduct is out in the open. I feel so badly for his family most of all.

"But I do think an openly gay politician has a better chance of being elected as a Dem..."

If he lives in one of a handful of states then yes, absolutely. But in those states the electorate probably wouldn't be willing to vote Republican anyway. There's a reason why Barney Frank is able to be openly gay but it's not because Democrats as a whole are so tolerant. It's because he lives in Massachusetts. Politics is always local. What sells in New York doesn't always get bought in Kansas. Target audience might be the same demographic but their sensibilities are sometimes a little different.

Many Democrats are not as liberal as everyone thinks and not all Republicans are as conservative as everyone thinks. That's the problem with the ideology labels.

One thing I'm curious about, the back and forth about using the left hand under the devider. Both the officer's insistence that Craig used his left hand and Craig's denial, and the fact that it was a sensitive point for Craig. Part of a code? If so that would be the most telling part of the interview. And would probably count as solicitation - after all one could presumably get busted for using Amslang to solicit as well as any other pre-agreed code.

filistro

for Dems, hypocrisy doesn't enter into it. They are allowed to be openly gay. Their voters don't mind

First, you assume that "hypocrisy" can only have to do with gayness, or sex in general. That is not the case. Democrats are hypocrites all the time about a number of topics. Isn't it a bit much for the wealthiest people in America to go around attacking the rich? For jetsetters to lecture the rest of us on our carbon foorprint?

In any case, Dems are not allowed to be openly gay, outside of a few cities on the coasts. The majority of Democratic politicians are not and could not be openly gay. You think if Johnson of SD came out as gay the voters of that state would be cool with it? Some of them are undoubtly closet gays.

I wish Republicans would adopt the same respect for the privacy of individuals who represent them.

Why don't you put your political future where your mouth is? There is an open Senate seat coming up in Colorado. You guys run an openly gay man for it. Since only a handful of close-minded homophobic Republicans have a problem with this, you have nothing to lose. Am I right?

You are being a hypocrite even here, filstro.

I honestly can't understand why conservatives should get so bent out of shape over victimless crimes.

Very amusing. The people most bent out of shape about Craig are liberal Democrats. The hate and venom practically jump off the page. You tell me, why are you people so bent out of shape over a victimless crime?

Many Democrats are not as liberal as everyone thinks and not all Republicans are as conservative as everyone thinks. That's the problem with the ideology labels.

Yes, probably true. I've read in several places today that Idaho Republicans have a strong libertarian streak. They believe in "mind your own business, live and let live." So maybe when this all simmers down (and that police tape is dissected and digested) maybe Craig COULD get re-elected there.

I doubt this would be good news for the party nationally, though.

I'm thinking his stall may have been out of toilet paper and he was asking for some from the next. I had no idea their was such a code language out there, will have to be very careful in public restrooms from now on. Whatever happened to just asking and getting slapped ,or not?
Hell, I heard the transcript and it sounded to me like he didn't even ask for , well, relief.
Foot tapping , hand waving certainly more insidious than accepting 50 large, minimum, from a fugitive on the run and a postman making less annually than he contributed.
What the hell is this a poor episode of the "Twilight Zone"?

jr565,

Throwing somebody under the bus at the first hint of impropriety saves a whole bunch of trouble later.

Consider ex-President Clinton as the ultimate case in point -- we had ample warning while he was in the Arkansas governor's mansion that he had an integrity problem.

Had he been thrown under the bus then, we wouldn't have had the later problems with interns or trading knowledge with foreigners in exchange for campaign contributions. The guy was a sleaze-bag and never should have been President.

I really do hope Hillary gets the nomination -- us conservatives really need a big wake up call.

JR you have to understand that there is an actual MO to the people who are trolling these bathrooms. This is what the police are using to bust these guys. I posted a while back how they found that certain bathrooms seem to be "popular" among some segments of the gay community.

You also did not answer my question, "Has this ever happened to you?" Next time you go to a public bathroom, please take note how far you (and the other fellow in the stall next to you) would have to actually extend your leg to actually get them to touch. If some dude was to stick his foot into my stall I would dare say I would not move mine close, I can tell you that;)

If a man uses the right words to an undercover police woman he can be arrested for solicitation. If a man uses the right hand signals to an undercover police man, he can be arrested. Lawyers out there, how is a hand signal different from words when each have clearly understood meanings?

So maybe when this all simmers down (and that police tape is dissected and digested) maybe Craig COULD get re-elected there.

No way, Jose.

Assuming he made it past the GOP primary, which would not happen, his wonderful open minded tolerant Democratic opponent would destroy him with anti-gay attack ads.

Just look at the racist attacks they make on Republican's of color.

And you remember how they branded Foley a "pedophile". How is his trial coming along, by the way?

"...Flirting isn't a crime, or at least it shouldn't be."

Well, last time I checked the Sexual-Harassment Guidebook, it certainly seems that it can be a major crime.

Context is everything, and Larry just doesn't seem to have any in his favor.

He needs to go; Now!

It would not bother me if he stuck around until primary season, which is almost upon us. Let the voters deal with him.

I don't think that will happen though.

Bennett, I have also read the interview transcript and agree that the technique is absolutely standard procedure on the part of the cop.

Since this particular bathroom was already being monitored by police for lewd homosexual behavior and propositions, the entrapment defense would not work.

Carol! Your insight re the VIP Lounge is right on! Being of the privileged class, a Senator would head that way absolutely and not bother with the common public restroom.

Also, as far as other legislators being aware of Craig's proclivities previously, you bet. And, they are quaking in their loafers as we speak.

One thing though... Not being an ethnic "minority," Craig will feel the full brunt of this with no chance to continue his career.

The Yell, everyone bumps into people many times over a lifetime. The overwhelming majority of those times, it is completely accidental. One might admit to such contact, even express regrets for it, but that does not constitute an admission of guilt for a battery or sexual assault charge. Sen. Craig did not admit to a DELIBERATE contact between his (shoed) foot and the officer's foot. Why do you talk about urinating? These two guys were in toilet stalls. Men who just have to urinate use urinals. There is a great deal more vulnerability while standing at a urinal, to a sexual proposition. And your comment about it being too late, that Craig already pled guilty, indicates that you believe that entrapment and other illegal or questionable action is justified if the cop can just get the arrested person to cave in. End justifies the means, huh? Oh, video is now out showing the stalls in question, and you'd have to have damned good eyesight and have your eye pressed against the gap to see anything, and the officer stated that Craig stayed three feet away, during the two minute wait for a stall to open up. The peeping tom gross misdemeanor was bogus.

To msr,I would have to agree with you. It is common practice among congress critters to flash their congressional identification to get them out of minor jams. That is a perk that was written into the Constitution to protect the citizens from having their representatives taken out of the political arena. If it is sometimes abused, that is a small price to pay for a guarantee of civil order.

Cops in my county, a hundred miles west of Minneapolis, are often accused of being hostile to Hispanics and Somalis. One of them warned me that, given the old clunker that I drove, I would probably be pulled over multiple times for "driving while Mexican". I was, and each time there was no valid reason to be pulled over, and the cops were surprised to see a pale Norwegian behind the wheel. One time, after closing my department on Thanksgiving morning, I got pulled over by a deputy who got nervous as hell when I asked him for the grounds for the check. He stammered that I had been driving close to the white stripe on the right side. I asked him if I had crossed it even once. No was the answer. I asked him if he would rather I risked a collision with other vehicles by driving closer to the lane divider, and he said no. A week later I found myself driving behind this same deputy, and he was driving a foot or more over the white strip on the right lane. I resent it when cops bend the rules in any situation.

Jr565, let me start by saying I have no idea how men can be in pubic, just unzipping, and aiming for the urinal's center. While other people are nearby. Women would freeze. We couldn't do it.

Searching for toilet paper, after you've sat down, by the way, is not uncommon. In women's bathrooms. Sometimes, you hear someone opening stall doors, and commenting there's no toilet paper. And, very occasionally, you're asked to share a few sheets, if your stall has some. Women do this with each other. So, it's gonna be a big surprise to women that hand signals can flash at the rim of the stall's door. Heck, if most women saw hands? They'd start to scream. Thinking a thief was coming after their pocketbooks. Or packages. REALLY!

So the signalling setup; with the hand run on the rim of the stall's side was NEWS TO ME. The vice cops knew. While most women didn't have a clue.

And, I do remember reading a Dave Barry piece, once, about how men, when they go into the men's room to pee, NEVER stand next to someone already busy peeing. But tend to gravitate to the urinal furthest away. He got a whole funny article out of this. So, someone looking over another guy's shoulder? It could get a man killed! Dave Barry said so.

Yes, homosexuals use men's rooms, though, for sexual encounters. Dunno why. Some of these public spaces become unusable by others. And, it's terrible when it happens in parks. Near where kids play. So as a general topic, this story is picking up traffic.

It's also the reason cops get complaints. Where they then assign vice squads to clear this up. Or it would be out-of-control. Let me make myself clear; I do not think Larry Craig was "set up." I think, instead, this is how he's "cooking it up."

Also, as long as the arrest doesn't involve "lewd conduct," cops aren't forced to show their own penises. And, they don't have to pull out their cameras, to take a photo of the "dick in question," in order to make an arrest. Is this why Larry Craig thought he'd "get away with it?" Not enough evidence, here? Some people are saying that. And, you can believe what you want to believe. But you'll be seeing comments where people disagree. "Nothing wrong with that."

One thing about these vice sweeps, the cops are hoping to chase away these perverts, one at a time, so that they decide NEVER TO COME BACK! Did this create this "excuse heaven, here?"

For Larry Craig that means "not to fly into Minneapolis/St.Paul. And, then if he does? Not to head to the public john, but to look for the spaces reserved for VIPs. It's strange he didn't do this, ya know? Let alone, on board the plane, how kind the stewardess would have been, if he "flashed his business card," and asked for a head's up, when the bathroom cleared. I'd even venture to guess? She'd let him use the bathroom in first class.

Not that Larry Craig isn't adept at lying.

And, that's the bottom line. Wanting to get away with it; blaming the Idaho Statesmen, newspaper; or the cop, is worse than lame.

And, if we didn't have vice cops, people? There would be no safe streets to walk in the commons. The cop, here, should be commended.

(The reason the lewdness charges aren't there is that the cops don't want to "get naked" to catch the perp. The laws are elastic enough to create this trade-off.

Drew, sexual harrassment is a tort,technically speaking, and not a crime. A tort can result in a lawsuit, not an arrest.

"...maybe Craig COULD get re-elected there."

The problem is it seems pretty clear HE didn't think so. He wanted this all to go away quietly.

I just cannot feel sorry for this man. Thousands of people everyday are arrested by the police. Many of them are just working stiffs, not poor enough to qualify for a P.D., not wealthy enough to afford a great lawyer. And some of those people, what do they do?

They fight. They mortgage their homes, flush the 401K, borrow from mom and dad and get themselves the best lawyer they can and they fight if they think the charges are wrong. Think of the school teachers we sometimes read about who are falsely accused of child molestation. Their reputations are ruined as soon as the charge is made (often of flimsy grounds), they lose their jobs, their friends, their entire lives are turned upside down. And they fight it through and are vindicated but their reputations are never fully restored.

If Larry Craig was wrongly accused then he's no different than countless other people who got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. But unlike them he had the resources to fight for his rights. He didn't choose to do that. I'm saving my sympathy for someone a whole lot more deserving than this man.

So Cap'n Ed, what about carrying large amounts of cash on one's person? That is a drug subculture behavior that on its face seems innocuous right? Phone calls, e-mails, public restrooms, hey if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about huh?

Too bad, I can't trace where I read it; (it might have been a link at InstaPundit). Where a man had $23,000 in cash. In his trunk. The cops stopped him. And, asked if they could "search his trunk." Where they found the money. And, took it.

The money's been turned over to the Drug Enforcement people. Why? Because the man couldn't prove what the cash was for. Or how he got it.

That drugs are peddled? You bet.

That IF you carry a large stash of cash in your car? Learning something new every day, I just learned, the other day, that cops can take the cash. You're given paperwork if you want to get it back.

I think both drugs and vice are things we're asking young cops to stop, as if the stuff is done in stores as straight out as Wal-Marts.

I also think that people who live in neighborhoods that are infested with drug traffic? They support the cops.

Just like people don't want perverts running loose in public toilets.

I guess with all our cameras now hanging out there, there will come a day you'll need to be caught "doing it." Before false walls open, and cops come in to do a "bust."

Till then? This is what we've got. Imagine being a young cop having to sit on the john, pants down; knowing a pervert is staring at you through the crack in the door frame.

Someone said, here, that it must have frustrated the cop, no end, knowing what Larry Craig wanted. And, knowing Larry Craig KNEW! So the first lies were done looking into the cop's face.

Again, I guess it all depends on your comfort levels with lying? Larry Craig's a pro. Now, it's just a question with "how soon does he gotta' go." And, no, he can't stop into the public toilet, first.

Where would we be if we didn't have these laws in place?

Look, I recognize that gays probably used the bathroom for sexual trysts. But having a sexual tryst in a bathroom and flirting with someone in a bathroom are two far different things, and I'm not even suggesting that he Craig did such things.Flirting is not a crime, and flirting usually requires stuff like I don't know, verbal communication.As does solicitation for sex.
Maybe the cop should have waited until he actually came into the stall for the sex before springing the trap on him, because I'm sorry, I'm not down on the gay code but touching a foot and moving your hand under a stall are pretty inocuous.
Also, they may legitimately be signals within the gay community that signify you want to have sex in a bathroom stall, but a) if all you do are hand gestures and don't have sex in the stall there's nothing lewd about athat so you shouldn't be arrested for it and b)as Podhoretz mentioned, the "code signals" are pretty inocuous by themselves. If you didn't know what to look for you woudldn't be offended by them. but because they're so commonplace you may not realize you actually did them if you are not down with the code. Having a foot touch another persons foot in a stall. I don't think I ever did it,but if I did, for example when standing next to someone at a urinal, I most likely wouldn't be conscious of it. If my shoe bumped someone else they might think its a signal, but to me it would be from the fact that the stalls are very close together and totally unintentional on my part.
If the code words were pig latin it would be one thing, but if the code is simply hand gestures and whatnot then unless you know the code you might do something that is construed as a gay comeon that to you is simply picking up a piece of paper with your hand.

It's clear we had an out of control radical left wing cop out to get a 'republican' senator he knew came through the airport. Give both of them a series of lie detector test, given by different people, and see how they match up. A cop would go to jail with not free get out of jail pass. Besides this is the Radical Islamic loving state of Mn and the senator has probably made a remark about radical Islam.

Not long ago I was driving along, late for work and trying to keep my speed just as close to legal as I could, but I got stopped anyway.

I did not think I had been speeding, but it was easier to pay the fine than take a day off work and fight the ticket.

Maybe Craig just did not want to make a federal case of the whole thing. I was not there, I don't know what happened, but like the Captain I fail to see the crime here. It just seems silly to me. If Craig was willing to show the cop his card supposedly to silence him, why would he have been there looking for sex with a stranger in the first place? Talk about risky.

I know people have their compulsions, but I am wondering if this whole thing is just some kind of bizarre misunderstanding. I know I have never heard of all this finger waving foot tapping stuff.

Terrye,
Agree whole heartedly with your statements.

One more quick point. In the transcript is the following. Now he's already stated he's late and wants to get out of there. The cop says the following:

Officer: Okay, so let's start over. You're going to get out of here, you're going to have to pay a fine, and that'll be it.
Craig: Fine.

Officer: I don't call media, I don't do any of that type of crap.

The cop is saying all he has to do is pay a fine. No media. Is he accurately conveying to Craig what he's actually going to have to deal with if he says its simply paying a fine and will never be brought out in the media.

If people are busy or in a rush they will often pay the fine, even if they don't think they've done wrong, because its just a fine.
This is why so many people pay traffic tickets rather than contesting it in court. They may not have sped, but the fine is a hundred bucks and they have to work so screw it. If all it is is a fine its easier and costs less to simply pay it,even if its unjustified than to take off work and fight it.
This cop simply said you'll pay a fine and it wont go beyond that. If that's all that's involved and it doesn't get in the media then I could see why someone might go along with it.
However, he never admits to the cop that in fact he was trying to solicit sex.
It's all you have to do is pay the fine and that's it and you can get your plane and Craig says fine.
Was he entraped and then misled as to what he was even signing off on?

"I did not think I had been speeding, but it was easier to pay the fine than take a day off work and fight the ticket."

That's too bad because the cop probably wouldn't have shown up to testify and you would have gotten out of it! Although sitting around in traffic court, no not something to seek out.

But if it had been your third violation (or whatever your state calls for before your license is suspended), and you really thought you weren't speeding? Then maybe it's a harder choice about what to do.

The Senator had a lot at stake here. And he couldn't possibly have thought this wouldn't come out, if he did he was delusional (that's it, an insanity defense!).

The more at risk, the more one would fight I'd think. But I agree, maybe he thought it wasn't worth it. And that was his choice. Although according to him now, he wishes he had fought the charge.

Wow, the challenging of law enforcement's tactics here for catching criminals is pretty encouraging. So if Lewd Larry's behavior seems innocuous to you folks what do think about applying the same standard to say, Jose Paddilla? After all, did the 30k phone calls tapped by the authorities contain secret codes? Unfortunately we never heard about their specific translation, but they were none the less damning in the whole scheme of things. As John Mitchell said" If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about". Don't you all believe that now?

fly man:

Jose Padilla? What you are smoking?

Bennet:

If it had been my third violation maybe, but this was not the third time the Senator got caught tapping his foot. As if that could be a crime anyway.

I just think he found himself in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position and he knew it would be his word against the cop's. So he paid the fine and hoped the cop would keep his word about going to the media.

"This cop simply said you'll pay a fine and it wont go beyond that. If that's all that's involved and it doesn't get in the media then I could see why someone might go along with it.
It's all you have to do is pay the fine and that's it and you can get your plane and Craig says fine. Was he entraped and then misled as to what he was even signing off on?"

The police are allowed to lie during interrogations. Several US Supreme Court decisions have upheld this. So the cop could lie to Craig about whether or not this would end up in the media. He could lie about just about anything during the interrogation. Cops do this all the time. They tell suspects that their accomplices have already confessed, they misrepresent the evidence, they lie lie lie to get suspects to confess. This is completely legal.

Just imagine, if Craig really didn't know this and he's a US Senator, how many ordinary people don't know this? And it doesn't matter if you didn't know. Mr. Policeman is not your friend when you have been accused of a crime.

Bennett:

Craig might have known that cops can lie, but since this is not the BTK case and there had been dozens of other people busted or whatever in that little sting operation they had going in the bathroom, it might well be that Craig believed him because of the nature of the incident.

One thing is for sure, if he fought it there is no doubt that it would go public.

It's going to be interesting to see if any of those other people who have pled out to charges will be willing to come forward to tell their story. If Craig was pegged guilty for a foot tap,who knows what other actions led to the arrest of some of the other people. Were all of the others foot tappers too or were there other "signals" that we haven't heard of yet? Perhaps the Minn. police department will be kind enough to list for us the subtle "signals" that they use to determine whether a person is "wishing to engage in lewd conduct" so we can avoid arrousing suspicion.

Bennett:

Craig might have known that cops can lie, but since this is not the BTK case and there had been dozens of other people busted or whatever in that little sting operation they had going in the bathroom, it might well be that Craig believed him because of the nature of the incident.

One thing is for sure, if he fought it there is no doubt that it would go public.

Excellent point over at the Corner. Why not just put a uniformed cop in the restroom?

Wouldn't that put an end to all the nasty behavior without the dicey questions of entrapment, secret signals, invasion of privacy, encroachment on rights, etc?

The rule of law is the rule of law and should be applied evenly. Cannot someone with a security clearance be denied that privilege based on potential blackmail? People here, specifically Cap'n Ed, are questioning the law enforcement's interpretation of subculture criminal communications being used in a predatory nature. What's the difference between the evidence presented at the Padilla trial, 30K phone conversations and we were told they were coded, and Lewd Larry's foot tapping? Again If you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about, right?

I spent a career driving a county cruiser up and down the roads of a rural county in Texas. My whole career we'd have to clamp down on um, private behavior in public places. The average civilian has no idea how often the men in the homosexual trysts are married and allegedly straight. Of course when it's a man and a women it's always either a couple of kids or folks married but not to each other.

Understand this, though. Craig had nothing to gain by pleading out. Arrests are a matter of public record, just like convictions and guilty pleas. Does anybody really think that, with all the people who make a living examining public records that no one would ever find this arrest out?

More likely the folks in Hillery's war room are cursing that someone else let this news go public too early. For the Donks it would have been better had this been sprung on the geneal public the day after the primary.

Still, I doubt Craig would have won the Primary this go-round. Folks up in Idaho were already furious over his stance on immigration. We'll forgive a lot but when a Senator tries giving his constituants' jobs to illegals so the corporate bigwigs can save a nickel, he's gone too far.

Craig needs to go, he needs to resign so the Republican who replaces him with have a notch more seniority after the next election.

"but since this is not the BTK case..."

No you're right it wasn't. But I don't think the police care, I think they use the same tactics regardless of the crime.

I think we all see the police as there to protect and serve and they are, as long as you aren't suspected of a crime. Once that happens, the police feel no obligation to look out for your interests beyond what they are legally obligated to do to keep the case from being thrown out.

Bennett:

I am not talking about the police caring, I am saying that this was toe tapping and finger waving. It is not even a felony, it might well have been that Craig thought it was not worth fighting since it was his word against the cop's.

I was caught in a car with my boyfriend years and years ago. The cop gave us a talking to and sent us home.

As for Craig's stance on immigration, I don't think that is as big a deal to voters as some folks think it is. To the people who care about it, it is a very big deal, but to a lot of other people it is just another issue and the other side has failed to come up with anything other than rhetoric anyway. In fact I have heard some people say that the right may have leaked this to ruin the man. If they did, they are no better than the left.

We're just bathe-ing in public opinion, here.

And, what I find amazing by those who've gotten traffic tickets, and such, is the condemnation of the cops who are really only doing their jobs.

Now, when it comes to a politicians professionally able to lie while looking you straight in the eye; I thought that award went to Bill Clinton.

And, then?

People said "it wasn't the sex. It was the lying."

Larry Craig is lying. He figures the laws aren't very clear. He knows he didn't get a blow job. He was just going through the motions, known in the homosexual community, for making "a bid in the toilet."

This happened in early June. And, the senator just sat on it! He goes to Minnesota in early August. ANd, he pleads. ANd, he's sure of his own skills because he's used them before!

His wife, Suzanne, in not such a pro. Drudge has a link to the "couple," since Larry Craig drags her into these photo shots, and the woman just looks miserable.

I think politicians have lied so well that some people are utterly confused when a person who is skilled, lies to them. Knowing he's allowed to set the parameters, where "you can't catch him."

For everybody else? It's been an education. Before this story came along, all I had was Dave Barry's funny piece about how men feel when they go into public restrooms. He said "you stay away from a man whose already busy peeing into a urinal." He then said, he, himself, goes to the furthest away urinal he can find; without being forced to just "pee out the window." (Okay. I made the last line up.)

Men don't even look over at another man's penis! (Again, if the rooms were co-ed? Women wouldn't be able to pee at all. But we'd look! I can guarantee to you women would gaze, mesmerized.)

What bothers me the most is how Larry Craig dares to brazen this out. (While one senator has already taken $2,000 from Craig's senatorial campaign chest, and given it to charity.)

Who just said, above, that there are now congress critters shaking in their boots? Ya know what? I think so. Larry Craig's doing more than just "homosexual risky behaviors, here."

As to his marriage, as I said, his wife, Suzanne, looks so miserable; it's like watching the Governor McGreevey story unraveling all over, again.

Can a homosexual fool a woman into marriage? You bet! Would she stay put if she had 3 kids, and the senator was considered a good catch? Sure, she would. (Would she go blind if he was molesting one of her kids? Well, that's happened before, too. There are moms who really don't like it if anyone rocks their financial boat.) Not saying that's happening here.

But you can be sure Suzanne knew on her honeymoon, Larry Craig had no libido. SHe probably thought this was because she's fat. And, he's so "kind."

Larry Craig bet the wrong horse. This isn't the 1982 "scandals" anymore. Americans are getting very serious about character flaws. Lying scoundrels don't belong in congress.

Okay, right wingers said it first. They said it about Bill Clinton; when the panic set in on the left, that Monica could cost him the White House. Whew. It didn't.

But it's the same old pair of shoes. Now in Larry Craig's closet. (At least Suzanne isn't running for the presidency.)

What if the Bonkey's don't run her? What if they find a candidate, later on, who has appeal? What then?

BTW, I don't think it is fair to say that just because the man disagreed on immigration he was conspiring with big corporations to give jobs to illegals etc. That sounds like something John Edwards would say.

Most of these people don't work for big corporations anyway.

I just think that people look at the issue differently and it would be nice if they could be civil about it and not assume that the other side is out to steal something from someone.

Maybe Craig really thought he was doing the right thing in regards to that issue.

I know that my number one concern is the war that young men and women from this country are fighting and dieing in everyday and I wish the right would stop eating their own long enough to support the war and those young warriors.

Somethings are just more important than migrant workers and a century old problem that people were more than willing to ignore for decades.

I still feel sorry for Craig. It is just so public and excruciating.

Carol:

If the man was one of the other 40 or so men busted for something like this in that bathroom we would not even be talking about it. Do they lose their jobs? I heard one of them was a pilot.

I don't if Craig has lied or not. I really don't.

Terrye, as the story unfolds, the bigger dilemma is how a woman stays married? McGreevey's wife didn't leave. And, he was obviously attracted to fellas.

Is being married just showing up for social events? Hanging out as a married woman? While the love and affection is in short supply?

I have no sympathy for Larry Craig at all. (As a matter of fact, I have none for Bill Clinton, either.)

As to the immigration bill fiasco, that one blew up on the President. And, then it destroyed McCain's chances to make his "last run" for the presidency. He went from "somewhere near the front of the pack" all the way to the end of the line.

That's a "hot button."

Congress critters seem to become aware of them, when a few of their own fall.

Ted Kennedy? He didn't even see it coming!

As 2008 shapes up, ahead, I'm sure the GOP will be careful in selecting a front runner who can garner votes. But what if the Bonkeys really know they won't be putting Hillary up there? Sure. She's collecting money. But, so, too, is John Edwards. Money seems to just flow to politicians. How so?

Ya know, I really don't know how the money comes in, like it does.

Anyway, I hope Suzanne Craig really goes and gets herself some psyhological support. Denial's gone out the window.

Being married to a creep that's happiest as a homosexual? Do women think they're to blame for this?

You bet, there are politicians in DC, now, who are worried about any investigation that could come down the pike. Because? If there's any indication that the public is watching, you can see how many hits are here, and then compare this to the other topics.

It's getting late. I'll even bet that t'marra morning, people who've arleady gone to bed, will come back to see wazzup. In other words? This one isn't a dead thread.

"I am not talking about the police caring, I am saying that this was toe tapping and finger waving. It is not even a felony, it might well have been that Craig thought it was not worth fighting since it was his word against the cop's."

Then I think I must have missed the point, sorry about that.

A man can be walking quickly up the street looking around in an agitated way. A cop car drives by and he start running. But everything he's doing is perfectly legal. Men can walk quickly, look around anxiously and start running. It's all behavior and none of it by itself is illegal.

But this is an area known for several muggings in the past 6 months and there had been a mugging within the last hour a couple of blocks away. The police find the behavior suspicious and they run after him, catch him, take him down to the station and start questioning him. And the man hadn't mugged anyone. He was late for an appointment and that's why he seemed anxious and then started running. The man didn't even see the cop car.

Should he admit to a crime? Nothing he did was anything more than behavior. And he can explain all of it. He didn't mug anyone. Should he plead out if they offered to knock the charge down to misdemeanor assault?

Okay, I'm not trying to sound like school teacher here. I just don't really understand this focus on the behavior as innocuous and so shouldn't have lead to the arrest. A lot of behavior that leads to an arrest is often subject to an innocent interpretation. If the guy agrees to plead to a crime instead of defending himself, who's fault is that?

Of course - Here we go trying to make it not a crime at all (Re: Capt's post)...
The fact of the matter is that he pled GUILTY to a crime. There is no room to argue this. Was he coerced into pleading guilty? Very little evidence to show that. He pled guilty to a crime, he is now a criminal. There is no argument.

If he pled no contest, then maybe this argument could be held. But he didn't, he pled GUILTY!

Bennett,

My favorite was the patrol guy in Ohio with the credit card roller in his police vehicle. Pulled me over, commented on our California plates, ticketed me for speeding through his town, and then told me I could pay the bail right there, or I could sit in jail until the local judge held court two days from now.

I paid the $30 even though I was innocent. Losing my vacation just wasn't worth the hassle. Did you know that paying and forfeiting bail is an admission of guilt?

Mixing apples and oranges is something that happens in public forums.

I'm still reminded how when the Masons were secret, and they were secret for about 200 years, the way they "signaled a meeting" was to draw a circle out in the dirt. And, then an armed guard stood in the doorway, to kill any bystander who "fell upon the meeting." Secrets are serious business!

And, homosexuality thrives in secrecy.

As to Larry Craig's homosexual past, this one seems to be something Barney Franks KNOWS about! And, he's out there calling Larry Craig a hypocrit.

Hard ball politics will follow this one, around, until Larry Craig leaves DC. But, you bet, there are plenty of homosexuals who aren't coming here, to tell you they now Larry Craig is queer.

The stuff, ahead, will come out of the closet.

Just as it did on Governor McGreevey.

Larry Craig excuses won't fly, though. They've already run into trouble with Mark Steyn.

And, there's growing unrest within the republican party.

What do people want? The sex act caught on tape? Really?

That's not how the vice squads work.

And, the lying PRO ain't the cop!

That's getting to be obvious.

Yes, the Christian Right actually has the problem.

Just, as it turns out, the Vatican, by stalling around on the priests, just moving them to another parish; ended up doing harms.

WHile, here?

I think the general public was in the dark on how the homosexuals were signaling each other. Though green carnations. Red bandanas. Earrings in one ear. Those things are now getting noticed.

Who knows? Ahead, perhaps, men will have tattoos on the ends of their fingers?

Does anyone, here, remember how the Governor of New Jersey, McGreevey, ended up being caught up in his homosexuality? While his wife was in labor. And, he couldn't help himself? So he had some rough sex with his Israeli lover? The guy got mad at him, and tossed him off the boardwalk; breaking his leg.

That story blew up, didn't it?

While here? It seems the GOP isn't willing to force Craig to resign. But the pressure is building. Is Craig looking for a "golden parachute to land safely somewhere, that leaves him with mo' money? Dunno. But I think this story has legs. While I'll bet the Bonkeys want the GOPsters to "take their time." Uh huh.

Anyway, I don't find it strange that the men who do this stuff "have hand signals." And, foot tapping is among them. Having a left leg leaving your own stall, and wandering over into another, though, is a bit extra-ordinary.

And, yes. Craig pled guilty. It's where McCain comes out to land on him. It's also what puts the information out there. Once you plead the law's a public record. Can't blame the cop.

Even people who get tickets, the cop's got an awful job. And, the cops have my sympathies.

If you've ever gone to court, by the way, look around. Because if you see the officer in the courtroom, the judge will let you plead guilty. That's what people do, too. They go to see what the cops do. And, if in fact they do show up.

At some point? Yup. You take your chances.

"My favorite was the patrol guy in Ohio with the credit card roller in his police vehicle."

Primary source of revenue for a lot of small towns and rural areas. Because who's going to want to sit in the hoosegow for 2 days over a traffic ticket?

And honestly no one would question you doing it, so would I (and let's hope my credit cards weren't maxed out or I'd be enjoying their hospitality while I waited for someone to wire me the money! That happened to a friend of mine back in our college days. Stopped in West Virginia. And no one in the car had any money.)

All,

Craig needs to have watched this:

Male Restroom Etiquette

"It sounds as if the officer threatened to haul him to jail and alert the media if Craig refused to make a confession on tape." - em

Any interrogation is an exercise in manipulation. That is the whole idea. Intimidation, psychological manipulation, leveraging hopes and fears, pushing emotional buttons, using any crack to bust down the door. Whatever the officer can use to get an admission or conviction within the constraints of the law - that is exactly what the officer is supposed to do. That is his job. Sounds to me like this officer is pretty good at what he does. I'd like to see more cops like him on the beat.

Frankly this is a very odd post to read from a right of center blogger. Usually the complaint is that the poor officer has been hamstrung by "activist judges" who "coddle criminals." Perhaps the real answer here is to put Larry Craig on a water board. Then we'd get the truth, wouldn't we?

That said, I don't see the crime. Let him stay in office and run for re-election. Leave it to the people of Idaho.

"Any interrogation is an exercise in manipulation. That is the whole idea. Intimidation, psychological manipulation, leveraging hopes and fears, pushing emotional buttons, using any crack to bust down the door."

And there's a reason for this. Confession is the single best piece of evidence that the police can hope to get. With it, they don't really need much else. You said you did it. That's all that matters. They'll do just about anything up to and including the barely legal to get you to say you did it. And if they can't you to say you did the big thing, well then they'll settle for you saying you did something, anything that you can be charged with.

You're right, it's their job. And they didn't need a water board for the Senator. He cracked very easily.

I didnt sound like manipulation to me, it just sounded like the cop couldnt believe Craig was flat out lying to him. He saw Craig's hand, facing up, with a ring, swiping along the stall (not picking up a piece of toilet paper lol); he saw Craigs foot come under the stall and touch his on purpose (not because of "a wide stance")... He just couldnt believe this guy was sitting there telling such obvious lies right to his face.

If you cant see that Craig was just trying to lie his way out of this you are an extremely naive person. What are the chances that a guy that has these rumors about him already then gets wrongly busted for the same thing that has been rumored about? The odds would be astronomical. I mean, come on.

Sen. Craig did not admit to a DELIBERATE contact between his (shoed) foot and the officer's foot.

He did when he plead guilty to disorderly conduct.

Why do you talk about urinating? These two guys were in toilet stalls. Men who just have to urinate use urinals. There is a great deal more vulnerability while standing at a urinal, to a sexual proposition.

Why do you talk about sexual propositioning? Physical contact, in that setting, is not tolerable.

And your comment about it being too late, that Craig already pled guilty, indicates that you believe that entrapment and other illegal or questionable action is justified if the cop can just get the arrested person to cave in. End justifies the means, huh?

I believe that an adult is responsible for his own statements. When you stand up in front of the magistrate, that's the time to holler "I didn't do it." About 80% of the American population manages to do that, even the guilty ones, so apparently it takes a significantly weak will to collapse under the 1st degree.

If you didn't know what to look for you woudldn't be offended by them. but because they're so commonplace you may not realize you actually did them if you are not down with the code. Having a foot touch another persons foot in a stall. I don't think I ever did it,but if I did, for example when standing next to someone at a urinal, I most likely wouldn't be conscious of it.

The angry obscenities from the other stall would probably rouse you from your reverie.

I gotta love the "entrapment" argument. That wicked fascist pig, dangling his luscious footsy right by the partition. How could any red-blooded American resist? /sarcasm

So playing footsie is ok with the center-right. How about a slap on the back? Grabbing a guy's shoulder? A quick kiss on the nape of the neck? At what point do you libertarians construe human dignity to begin? Mine's skin-deep. "Your right to wave your fist ends at my nose". Or Foot.

As I said in this Hot Air thread, I think this officer is a slimy little sucker, and I hate his guts.

This tape does make Craig look better. He's stupid. But he should never have been arrested for tapping the officer's foot assuming one buys the officer's account verbatim.

This cop's an a-hole. I hope he gets his comuppance.

Craig is stupid though, as many others pointed out, for not availing himself of a lawyer at the time or during the two month subsequent period. For that he should resign.

And this was still a miscarriage of justice.

Ed, your post is excellent and I made the exact point using the same word, but with three times the vitriol, about flirting not being a crime. In a sane world.

This is not flirting. I've never seen the signals of flirting escalate to public sex in the same location where the flirting occurs.

Can you imagine the scene.

Waitress: "Uh oh, Sally, that guy and girl at table 7 are almost done with their flirting signals, and we've left two beer bottles and two cosmopolitan glasses on the table!" She rushes towards the table.

Flirting signals are completed. The guy sweeps the beer bottles and glasses off the table, she leaps up on the table, spreads her legs, and they go at it. The rest of the lunch crowd doesn't even notice.

Waitress: "Too late, too slow. Now we've got a load of broken glass to clean up!"

The purpose of the restroom signals is discretion. They are a steadily increasing SERIES of signals that drop the probability of accidental accostment so close to zero as to be practically zero. That's its whole purpose. That means guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

This so-called "flirting behavior" in a public restroom is illegal, and the penalties are reasonably small (except for the public shaming, which is their own damned fault).

The pressure techniques the cop used to try to elicit the confession are standard procedure. He'll get into trouble for possibly bigoted statements, but those statements are irrelevant to the Craig case.

The escalating series of signals are enough to convict should he fight the case. Add to that the fact that this is apparently his favorite restroom in the entire world, and is nowhere near the walk for any connecting flights, and is the one notorious restroom for this lurid bathroom sex behavior, and you've got an open and shut case. Craig knew it, and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense. There was no way he was getting out of this one.

He broke the law. And now too many Republicans are trying to muster up a defense, which they NEVER do for most criminal offendors. I despair of Republican integrity on standing up for the law when this happens. If it's a bad law, we advocate changing the law, not breaking it. Nor ignoring people who break it.

Posted by Mike Devx | August 31, 2007 5:36 AM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

EXCELLENT POST, MIKE! MEGA DITTOS.

But,

Posted by Christoph | August 31, 2007 4:12 AM

****************

I'm sure if this were a couple of WOMEN and Captain Ed had to worry about First Mate taking the Little Admiral to a public facility, his opinion would be about OPPOSITE, right now.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT FLIRTING.

IT isn't about anyone's "RIGHT TO FLIRT",even inappropriately - IT IS ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO BE SAFE IN OUR PERSONS and NOT be living in an "ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK" WORLD, when we go out in public places, in our communities.

IN OUR COMMUNITIES - not in some CASBAH OF A "BLACK HOLE" OF CALCUTTA, or BERLIN, or of San Fransisco.

ANY COMMUNITY HAS A RIGHT TO DO AS MUCH AS THEY MAKE US DO TO HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SAFETY AND SECURITY IN OUR PERSONS WHEN WE GO TO REASONABLE PLACES.

We are not talking about flop houses or "those" bath houses, or the prison showers.

We have a right to do AS MUCH AS IT TAKES to secure the General Welfare in our Community - AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT "PAYING PEOPLE TO NOT WORK" when they spoke of providing for the General Welfare.

Old saying - "We can do this as easy as you want to let us do it, or we can make this as hard as you make us do it - but we gonna do it, one way, or the other."

And do not try to tell us any more of this hogwash about "flirting".

They can go "flirt" in a gay bar!

Wag the Dog.... This is simply the Clinton machine trying to take the spot light off Hillary and her connection to the fugitive from China... The MSM will "go to any lengths" to cover for a Democrat; especially a Clinton.

Is it any wonder why "we, the people" have little or no trust in our politicians. These people are in the spot light, and sit on the top of the food chain; they are highly influential to our youth. Way too much corruption going on out there... Way too much sic sexual behavior going on out there... Does "marriage" have any meaning in America anymore? Do any of these politicians believe in the Ten Commandments anymore? Does it appear that "far too many" of these men/woman running our government lack the kind of morals and principles that are the very foundation of leadership? Isn't it odd, that a woman who has a partnership with her husband (rather than an actual marriage) could even be considered for the most powerful position in the world?

When I see G.W. look into the eyes of his wife, I see a man in love with a woman; when I see G.W. look into the eyes of his daughters, I see a proud and loving father. G.W. has pissed me off to no end with his love affair with Mexico, but one things for sure about G.W., the man has family morals and is a man of principle.

Posted by Christoph | August 31, 2007 3:59 AM

************

Oh, NO, Sir!

This cop was sent in there by COMPLAINTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

40 arrests in 2 months and this is the only one protesting his innocence - AFTER WARDS.

Tapping the officer's foot - HE CONFESSED HE WOULD NOT ARGUE WITH THE OFFICER'S ACCOUNT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

NEVER in all my 56 years have I YET to hear of anyone who says their foot was tapped by another in a stall - MUCH LESS that anyone ever even stuck their foot under the wall, or door, or peeped at them through the cracks - AND NOBODY GRABS THE BOTTOM OF THE STALL WALL TO "SHIFT" their stance!

Craig SAID HE DID NOT ARGUE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT.

This officer was doing his job - AND IT IS NOT HIS FAULT THAT THE PUBLIC IS FORCED TO DEMAND THAT THE LAW MAKE OUR PUBLIC RESTROOMS SAFE FOR US AGAIN - and we have had a handful of various park area public facilities in our area IN THE NEWS OF THIS SORT the last 25 years, besides the facilities of entertainment parks and restaurants OF NICE, CLEAN, EXPENSIVE PLACES.

PUBLIC DEMAND PUT THAT OFFICER THERE.

39 OTHER ARRESTS in 2 months WITH PERPS WHO NEVER HAVE ARGUED THE CHARGES BACKS HIM UP.

You freaks do NOT have a right to conduct of which the community objects - IT IS CALLED THE RULE OF LAW.

Surprisingly, no one has asked how this story got to the media. It was apparently leaked to The Hill, an inside-the-Beltway Capital-Hill rag.

Howie Carr, on Boston's WRKO (himself a newspaperman) points out that no normal person would go to The Hill; he'd go to the newspapers, maybe the tabloids (like The Boston Herald, that Howie works for).

The only leaker who would even think of The Hill is a politician or staffer.

The story is months old. So you have to ask, why did it take so long to come out? Was it being held for the right moment? Maybe when a certain female candidate's campaign was coming under fire for taking contributions from felons?

Craig is a disgrace and should resign. But we play right into someone's hands when we focus on him and ignore the bigger story of campaign corruption—maybe even Chinagate 2?

/Mr Lynn

"He would expect this from a guy we get out of the hood"? What kind of racist crap is this? That officer should be reprimmanded and required to take sensitivity training. I'd hate to run up against him and his nightstick in a dark alley.

Christoph, over at Hot Air some folks were asserting that Craig deserved to get arrested for peering into a stall for a long time. I don't have time to register there right now, otherwise I would post a reply. Videos are now up that show the stalls in question, and the gaps between the doors and the frames are extremely narrow. One report had the camera lens right up to the gap, and the toilet couldn't be seen, only the side of the stall. Moreover, the cop stated that Craig stayed three feet away for all of two minutes, and intermittently looked at the gap. That hardly makes for a peeping tom charge. Oh, here in Minnesota, when I was in high school in the late Sixties, a man went to prison for having oral sex with his wife. They had a spat and she reported it to the cops. She tried to withdraw the charge, but the state followed through with the prosecution and got a conviction. And I don't understand the problem some people have with Celine Dion, as expressed over at Hot Air. She's a scrawny, dim-witted twit with strong leftist leanings, but I love her singing and I find her strangely pretty (as opposed to the world class beauty that you Canucks have also given to the world, Shania Twain).

So, if the Senator just walked up to the cop in the bathroom and said "Hi. Would you like to have sex with me?", that would be legal.

But if he taps his foot and shows his fingers below the stall he gets arrested?

WTF?

Posted by Rose | August 31, 2007 7:46 AM

************

Oh, NO, Sir!

This cop was sent in there by COMPLAINTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

The guy's an a-hole. And if the general public believe a man should be arrested for what Les describes below, then they are a-holes too.

And that includes you.

Posted by Les Nessman | August 31, 2007 9:50 AM

So, if the Senator just walked up to the cop in the bathroom and said "Hi. Would you like to have sex with me?", that would be legal.

But if he taps his foot and shows his fingers below the stall he gets arrested?

WTF?

Exactly.

Posted by Mark F. | August 31, 2007 9:00 AM

Christoph, over at Hot Air some folks were asserting that Craig deserved to get arrested for peering into a stall for a long time. I don't have time to register there right now, otherwise I would post a reply. Videos are now up that show the stalls in question, and the gaps between the doors and the frames are extremely narrow. One report had the camera lens right up to the gap, and the toilet couldn't be seen, only the side of the stall. Moreover, the cop stated that Craig stayed three feet away for all of two minutes, and intermittently looked at the gap. That hardly makes for a peeping tom charge. Oh, here in Minnesota, when I was in high school in the late Sixties, a man went to prison for having oral sex with his wife. They had a spat and she reported it to the cops. She tried to withdraw the charge, but the state followed through with the prosecution and got a conviction.

Also happened in Georgia in the 90s and it destroyed a naval Captain's career and sent him to prison for the crime of giving his wife an orgasm, in private. I make several similar points in the Hot Air thread, which I think you read.

As far as the peeping, I don't believe the cop. Two, if I did, he wasn't arrested charged for that so it doesn't matter.

I'm really tired of folks who have no concept of working together to promote a decent community env ironment, that nurtures the posterity.

You think that everything is only about you you you and YOUR "rights of self-gratification" irregardless of the wreckage in your wake.

Well, it ain't.

I'm really tired of folks who have no concept of working together to promote a decent community env ironment, that nurtures the posterity.

You think that everything is only about you you you and YOUR "rights of self-gratification" irregardless of the wreckage in your wake.

Well, it ain't.

You're no friend of freedom.

"You're no friend of freedom."

A Braveheart moment. Freeeddooommmm....

Seriously, I think Rose's point has to do with WHERE one chooses to exercise freedom not HOW.

Free to be you and me...just not in pubic restrooms where others may wish to be free from having to experience your particular expression of freedom.

PUBLIC restrooms...just not in public restrooms....

that was NOT deliberate. Sorry

(but I made myself laugh)