Now the GOP is seeking an ethics review (via the AP): GOP leaders ask ethics probe of Craig
Senate Republican leaders called for an ethics committee review Tuesday into Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s guilty plea in a police sting operation this summer in an airport men’s room.
Hardly a surprising move.
I must confess, the more I think about it, one does have to wonder about what Craig did and whether it was worthy of arrest (or, at least, whether it would have led to a conviction. Commenter Max Lybbert and TPM’s David Kurtz both rightly note that the described behaviors hardly appear to sum to illegal activities).
From the AP report:
the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame, fidgeted with his fingers and returned to gazing through the stall for about another two minutes.
After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, “which Sgt. Karsnia’s experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall,” said the complaint, which was dated June 25.
The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia’s stall and then moved it into the area of the officer’s stall to where it touched Karsnia’s foot. Karsnia recognized that “as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct,” the complaint said.
Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia’s stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.
Much of that could be construed or explained away as innocent behavior although the hand move is rather creepy.
Kurtz makes a point:
Look, I wouldn’t want to bring my 4-year-old son into the airport bathroom and stumble across two people having sex, gay or straight. It’s tough enough getting in and out of the john without him touching every dirty surface or contributing to the mess with an errant aim. But sex didn’t happen here. Even the propositioning is murky at best. And short of a proposition involving sex for money, what is illegal about inquiring about sex? Tactless, maybe. But criminal?
And the fact that it is described as a “sting operation” is noteworthy. At a minimum one wonders if we are getting the whole story here. Of course, it is possible that Craig was so embarrassed by what he seems to have been attempting to do that he was willing to plea in the (vain) hopes of avoiding publicity.
Update: Note, I am not defending anything Craig did, nor am I trying to excuse it. Based on what I have read, I believe that he was soliciting sex from a stranger in a public restroom, a behavior problematic on a multitude of levels. My point is that if he was innocent, as he now protests, then there was a potential defense to be made here as at least some of the behaviors in isolation could be explained away (all but the hand, really), but clearly he didn’t want to try and make a defense and I think the reason is that he knew he was caught and rather than having to defend himself in open court he was hoping the plea would make it all go away (which was a naive hope at best).
Sphere: Related Content
Gay Larry pleaded guilty to the crime of disorderly conduct. The crime was detailed in the police report.
During his press conference today, Gay Larry only expressed regret that he made the plea.
If Gay Larry claims he is innocent of disorderly conduct then he certainly is guilty of obstruction of justice, since he lied during the plea.
That is a much more serious charge than disorderly conduct.
His statement today was really weird. He seemed to blame the whole thing on the Idaho Statesman.
The whole thing makes Gay Larry seem really pathetic.
Comment by Ratoe — Tuesday, August 28, 2024 @ 4:34 pm
Put aside the fact that Craig’s target was in fact an undercover law enforcement officer.
Surely there is a right not to be peered at through a toilet stall door crack — to the point where the sargeant could tell that Craig had blue eyes.
Surely there is a right not to be intentionally touched by someone else’s foot while in a public toilet stall. In another context that is called “battery.”
Surely there is a right not to have someone intentionally reach into your toilet stall — to the point where the sargeant could see his wedding ring.
And if there are surely such rights, then there is surely some form of legitimate police power to protect such rights.
P.S. I am gay and not a Democrat.
Comment by KipEsquire — Tuesday, August 28, 2024 @ 4:40 pm
Kip,
It isn’t that I endorse any of the behaviors. I simply mean that as a matter of going before a judge, I am not sure that based on the report given that there was enough to convict.
And the only reason I even give it any thought is that he is now claiming he shouldn’t have plead guilty.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, August 28, 2024 @ 7:35 pm
All of the actions by Senator Craig, as described in KipEsquire’s comment above, are creepy. But if every creepy sexual advance were a crime, than a lot of folks, hetero and homo, would be in prison.
When a man approaches a woman in a “creepy” way, she can just say No. No crime has been committed. Likewise, if Sen. Craig were to play footsie with me from the next stall, I would simply let him know I’m not interested. Certainly that would be an unwelcome and uncomfortable situation, but I don’t think it would constitute a crime.
Comment by LaurenceB — Wednesday, August 29, 2024 @ 9:31 am
Certainly that would be an unwelcome and uncomfortable situation, but I don’t think it would constitute a crime.
The “disorderly conduct” statue is sufficiently broad enough to give the officer authority to pick up Gay Larry.
http://tinyurl.com/yntw9g
Of course, this broad definition gives police quite a bit of authority since it covers POTENTIAL effects of behavior–and it is reasonable to suggest that Gay Larry’s behavior falls into this category. I have actually walked into a public bathroom while this type of stuff was going on and I can tell you that it did “arouse anger or resentment” in me [I am a bit uncomfortable using the word ‘arouse’ in this context, but its in the statute!
]
Now, to be actually convicted of a disorderly conduct is a different matter. If Gay Larry had hired a half-way decent lawyer, he probably could have gotten the charges dropped, questioning the “reasonable cause” for arrest.
It is also important to remember that disorderly conduct is a pretty minor crime. The punishment is little more than a speeding ticket.
I am surprised that no one has brought up the Minnesota Vikings boat cruise scandal. Moe Williams got the same punishment as Gay Larry for touching a dancer’s breast.
Also, Vikings cornerback Ced Griffin was arrested last month on a DC charge for failing to abide by a dress code at a nightclub. His case was “continued for dismissal” which means that he was not convicted, but has to stay out of the club for ayear and pay a fine. Unlike Gay Larry, Griffin had the sense to plead not guilty.
Comment by Ratoe — Wednesday, August 29, 2024 @ 12:32 pm