LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

So Sen. Craig refuses to step down despite his loss in Minnesota court to have the guilty plea he voluntarily signed rescinded. Craig says he wants his turn in front of the Senate Ethics Committee to clear his name, and continues to blame a Boise newspaper for all his troubles. He adamantly denies he is gay or has "ever been gay", and says the whole incident for which he was arrested was misconstrued.

Personally, I think this is great, and I for one truly look forward to a televised hearing. Hopefully the Minnesota vice cop who made the arrest will appear, and perhaps the Ethics Committee can construct a full-scale model of the side-by-side stalls so Sen. Craig can demonstrate exactly how his foot came to tap the foot of the cop in the next stall. I'm not sure how wide a stance a person can actually take, sitting on a public toilet, before one's foot crosses over into the adjacent stall and onto the next person's foot, but I promise to give Larry the benefit of the doubt until I get to see the re-enactment. I also look forward to his explanation and demonstration for how he reached over with his left hand to pick up a piece of paper off the floor in the stall to to his right, displaying his wedding ring. Finally, I will expect to hear an explanation to his statement on the audio tape I heard elaborating exactly why a Senator from the state of Idaho who resides in D.C. happens to use that particular restroom in Minneapolis "all the time". Does he fly to the great state of Minnesota, perhaps, because they have the soothingest restrooms in the U.S.? Or maybe it is the only one Senator Craig has found that always has seat covers and two-ply t.p.? Certainly it CAN'T be because the restroom in question is infamous for regular complaints about lewd and lascivious homosexual conduct.

Let's all remember that in our great country a person is innocent until proven... wait, make that a person is innocent until he pleads guil... no, that ain't it either... a person is innocent until he can prove that an unpublished newspaper article alleging immoral and hypocritical behavior is completely false. Yeah, that's the ticket!

This could be almost as valuable as President Clinton's testimony on how to entertain an Intern in the Oval Office!

Say what you want, but I still have a hard time seeing how he's guilty of something unless he actually did something. If two guys meet at the airport, go into the men's room with the intent to have sex there--which is illegal--and then decide that it's not a good idea because it's illegal and decide not to have sex, has a crime been committed? I sure don't think so.

So how is Craig's situation different? Well, he's likely a big hypocrite, and he's famous, but did he actually break the law? Some of their "evidence" against him sounded very thin. He put his suitcase in front of the stall door "to block people's view"? Where else are you going to put a suitcase when you're in the stall, on your lap? He tapped his foot? If that's illegal, arrest us all!

Now if he'd gone into the other stall and whipped it out, sure, arrest him. But I'm having a hard time seeing what he allegedly did as breaking any law.

So then why did he plead guilty? Because he's gay, and he knew the punishment he'd get if that leaked out was far greater than what he'd get for pleading guilty. In other words, he was punished more harshly than would a straight man have been if he'd done the same "propositioning" in a coed bathroom. The woman cop would have threatened to charge him with lascivious conduct, and the straight guy would say, "Yeah, whatever. Try to prove that my toe tapping is a crime in court" and that would have been the end of it.

Lax ref, he exhibited all of the signs necessary to conduct the sting operation. 3 "signals" were given: the peak, the tap, the hand. In Canada undercover police are allowed to use drugs (they changed this a few years ago) if the situation arises as this is the one way drug dealers always use to find out if the people involved are cops. What should the cop have done in this case? He was involved in sting operations for days and this was the pattern. One out of the three ok, but all of these combined are more than a little suspicious. We’ve all flown and know what public restrooms are like……..has anyone even come close to doing some of these things?

Lax Ref - "did he actually break the law?"

Yes, the courts have already found a person has an expectation of privacy in the bathroom stall.

Peering in an occupied stall for a minute, and putting your hands underneath the divider is by definition, breaking the law.

He plead guilty, which is also a pretty good indication of guilt, in my opinion.

I watched the end of a cable news segment yesterday that interviewed someone (a psychiatrist?) who says that Craig is obviously in deep denial. He publicly states he won't resign because he has reached a position of seniority within the Senate, and as ranking member and committee minority chair he can still exert powerful influence on behalf of his constituents in Idaho. But his own GOP caucus has stripped him of these positions, and there is zero chance he will be restored to them before his term expires. He has become yet another huge embarrassment to his own party going into an election year.

The interviewee stated his own belief that Craig's bizarre actions and denials are actually for his own family's benefit only -- that if he resigned it would be a tacit admission that he really HAS led a double life as a seemingly happy heterosexual family man (and professional gay basher) who also likes to have anonymous homosexual sex. He is desperate to prove to his wife and kids that all the charges are false, and his decision to have his guilty plea overturned and prove his innocence is so his family will believe that he "has never been gay". How truly sad.

Anybody want to take a bet that his wife will divorce him within the next few years, despite standing by her man right now?

Dan Wishengrad wrote:Anybody want to take a bet that his wife will divorce him within the next few years, despite standing by her man right now?

Well if Craig had cheated on her with a woman...she could run for president....

Adam Gamradt wrote:Lax Ref - "did he actually break the law?"

Yes, the courts have already found a person has an expectation of privacy in the bathroom stall.

Peering in an occupied stall for a minute, and putting your hands underneath the divider is by definition, breaking the law.

He plead guilty, which is also a pretty good indication of guilt, in my opinion.

I'll agree that peeking into a stall and entering the stall by reaching into it are illegal if you agree that foot tapping and baggage placement are not by themselves crimes and that he's guilty only of those offenses he actually committed. In other words, if the law says you can't do things that he actually did, he's guilty, but he's not guilty of violating the laws against having sex in a public place (this time) just because he probably wanted to.

You do NOT have to commit the actual act to be guilty of a crime, LaxRef. "Johns" are arrested and prosecuted successfully for simply PROPOSITIONING an undercover vice cop to pay for sex. If they could only make an arrest during or after the sex act itself, it would place an impossible burden on our police and prosecuters. Senator Craig was clearly propositioning for illegal homosexual acts by using the ALL the signals that are supposedly well-known in the gay community (I wouldn't know) for how you do so. If it was all so innocent, please explain why he used that particular bathroom "all the time" (as he said on the audio tape) and then used all the "moves" one makes to accomplish the desired end. If it was all so innocent, why did he plead guilty TWO MONTHS after the incident, despite the crystal clear instructions that by doing so he was forfeiting all rights to claim innocence later?

You can't separate his actions. When taken together in context, his behavior rises to the level of solicitation. He is guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

The lunacy of his ongoing public facade demonstrates a level of hypocrisy usually reserved for the mentally unstable. His past behavior as an anti gay crusader is unbecoming of a upstanding public servant. Even without the benefit of hindsight, his recent outburst of temporary homosexuality, and his attempt to deny wrongdoing, proves Senator Craig isn't even worthy of further discussion, much less worthy of being a US Senator.

I see "Free Larry Craig" shirts on the horizon. They should be popular in gay communities across the country.

Dan Wishengrad wrote:You do NOT have to commit the actual act to be guilty of a crime, LaxRef. "Johns" are arrested and prosecuted successfully for simply PROPOSITIONING an undercover vice cop to pay for sex.

I'm not a legal expert, but with Johns isn't the crime agreeing to pay for sex (the whole thing where they have to get them to name an act and a price, or so they say on TV)? By using the foot tapping signal, how do we know that the intent was to have sex there? Maybe he was trying to break the ice so he could take him to a hotel.

Most likely, he has done this sort of thing before and is not "innocent." But I believe people should be punished for crimes they are actually caught doing (peering into the stall) and not for crimes they committed in the past but were never caught doing even though they probably wanted to do it again (having sex in the stall).

As to why he plead guilty, I already answered that: he plead guilty because he didn't want people to find out he was gay.

Frankly, the thing that disturbs me most about this is that I could potentially have gotten arrested for tapping my foot on the ground without having any idea what it meant. I mean, who doesn't absentmindedly tap their foot occasionally? Because of this, the reliance on "supposedly well-known signals" in this case bothers me. Could that really be a basis for convicting someone?

But as to the other stuff: if he took a lengthy peek into an occupied stall and that was observed by a cop, he's guilty of that. If he plead guilty to that, it should stick. But if he was pressured into pleading guilty to something he wasn't guilty of and it was implied that his sexual preference would be kept secret if he did so, that seems wrong to me.

BTW, a friend of mine told me that the arrest might not have been legal because you can't arrest a congressman on his way to a vote (since people could try to do this to influence the outcome of votes). Does anyone know any more about that?

Good points, Laxref, and I agree that foot-tapping is not and should not be a crime. But Senator Craig (according to the cop) didn't just tap his foot up and down, he slid it underneath the divider into the adjacent stall and tapped onto the other person's foot repeatedly. I haven't tried this myself, but I have used public restrooms and it sure seems almost impossible to do so "accidentally". Craig said on the interview "Did my foot touch yours? I don't remember it that way but if you say so I guess it happened..." The cop was getting very angry, saying that Craig was lying about what happened. Larry was so clearly scrambling for damage control and instantly doing what people like him do -- practicing revisionist history. Craig stated that he is a "wide guy" and takes a wide stance to keep his pants from sliding down. Do you or anybody else REALLY believe that this explains how he came to tap the foot of the cop in the next stall with his own? Isn't there a clear difference between tapping your foot up and down and invading someone else's private space in the adjacent stall?

Dan Wishengrad wrote:Good points, Laxref, and I agree that foot-tapping is not and should not be a crime. But Senator Craig (according to the cop) didn't just tap his foot up and down, he slid it underneath the divider into the adjacent stall and tapped onto the other person's foot repeatedly. I haven't tried this myself, but I have used public restrooms and it sure seems almost impossible to do so "accidentally". Craig said on the interview "Did my foot touch yours? I don't remember it that way but if you say so I guess it happened..." The cop was getting very angry, saying that Craig was lying about what happened. Larry was so clearly scrambling for damage control and instantly doing what people like him do -- practicing revisionist history. Craig stated that he is a "wide guy" and takes a wide stance to keep his pants from sliding down. Do you or anybody else REALLY believe that this explains how he came to tap the foot of the cop in the next stall with his own? Isn't there a clear difference between tapping your foot up and down and invading someone else's private space in the adjacent stall?

I agree that the totality of his actions make it clear what his intentions were. I don't have the legal expertise to conclude whether those intentions are themselves a crime. But I'm okay with him being prosecuted for peeking and invading the other stall.

LaxRef wrote:Frankly, the thing that disturbs me most about this is that I could potentially have gotten arrested for tapping my foot on the ground without having any idea what it meant. I mean, who doesn't absentmindedly tap their foot occasionally? Because of this, the reliance on "supposedly well-known signals" in this case bothers me. Could that really be a basis for convicting someone?

Well according to this story for another Republican soliciting sex ( http://www.first-draft.com/2007/10/another-toe-tap.html ) - the guy tapped on the officer's foot. So unless you reach your leg underneath the stall wall and tap on the guy's foot in the stall next to you, I think you're ok. I'm not sure what info the cop in Craig's case got, but the one in this one seemed to have been collecting a lot to make sure the guy was asking for sex and not just some spare toilet paper.