The Case of the Business Card

A correspondent makes the same point as Mark Kleiman here. One way in which Larry Craig's behavior was worse than Vitter's is that Craig "handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, 'What do you think about that?'"

You have here a pretty clear-cut case of Craig trying to use his official position to intimidate the officer and get special treatment. That's true, and it's certainly inappropriate. On the other hand, I do regard this as somewhat mitigated by the fact that I continue to regard Craig's arrest as fundamentally unjustified. The problem, as Josh Marshall points out, is that there was no way Craig could beat the rap without publicly admitting to being gay, which would have been politically (and perhaps personally) untenable. So first he tried to weasel out of the charge, and then he figured maybe he could plead guilty and keep it hushed up. Now he's in an absurd denial pattern.

Fundamentally, though, for me this seems like a sad story about a bad Senator who's going to go down for no particularly good reason only to be replaced by another conservative Republican who's just as bad.

Comments

No, no, no, you're taking it all out of context. Craig just thought that it was time to show & compared business cards, badges & ID; one nice stranger showed him his cool police ID, and he responded kindly by showing him his business card.

Posted by El Cid | August 28, 2007 4:48 PM

It's too bad you wrote this before Craig's goofy press conference. As far as the cop report goes, I bet there was more to this and the cop tried to help Craig out by not going into more detail. Not whitewashing it, but not letting him off either.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 28, 2007 4:49 PM

If he was on his way to or from the Senate, the fact that he is a Senator would have given him constitutional grounds to avoid arrest. Members of Congress "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" (Art. 1 §6).

(A Volokh commenter noted this.)

Posted by Tiny Montgomery | August 28, 2007 4:50 PM

Well, you're certainly earning your Yglesias Award on this one.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 4:54 PM

Dr. Evil had a secret passage from a public bathroom to one of his hideouts. I don't think the Senate does.

Posted by Njorl | August 28, 2007 4:56 PM

This is a little contradictory, but its my emotional intuition speaking, not my logic-

If he had presented his Senator card and actually gotten off the hook for it, I'd see that as horrible corruption in the criminal justice system, and I'd want him to hang for it.

But since all he did was wave it around ineffectually while the cop ignored him and took him to the station house, its just pathetic and humiliating, and I don't really care.

I know that doesn't make sense in terms of government policy. Attempted bribery has to be prosecuted just as we prosecute actual bribery. But this story just makes me feel vaguely embarrassed for him.

Posted by Patrick | August 28, 2007 4:58 PM

i've been reading a lot of the "what crime did he really commit" stuff today. on one hand, i'm sympathetic since the incident as described doesn't sound illegal.

but then...i'm not a cop/DA/judge in MN and presumably the people that *are* looked at this at the time and considered it to be a crime according to whatever statutes cover it locally.

furthermore, since htis was a sting operation, i imagine that the police, in concert with the DA, developed a plan for the sting which included determining in advance what actions would constitute a crime. once those actions occurred, the police would arrest the suspect.

so in the absence of any other information, i'm confused as to why so many people are on the "where's the crime" band wagon.

and, as a total guess based on no expertise, i would imagine that "disorderly conduct" includes reaching into another bathroom stall while it's occupied. i doubt the actions could be proven or even argued to have been cruising without more direct evidence of a sexual situation but he wasn't charged with more.

Posted by thisguy | August 28, 2007 5:00 PM

He repeatedly checked out someone who was presumably taking a dump. That ought to be illegal right there - that is probably where the original peeping charge came from. No one other than Craig is really disputing that he was cruising for public bathroom sex, which is obviously illegal and in at least one way more wrong than Vitter's private criminal behavior. It is still illegal to solicit someone for sex, even if you don't actually have sex with them.

Try reading your comments and responding to them, since these points were made repeatedly on your last post defending the guy.

Posted by Anonymous | August 28, 2007 5:04 PM

The problem, as Josh Marshall points out, is that there was no way Craig could beat the rap without publicly admitting to being gay, which would have been politically (and perhaps personally) untenable.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for the Senator if he wasn't someone who has gone out of his way to sustain (and in some ways even exacerbate) the very circumstances that make coming out politically untenable for him. If he were a Republican who had his head down on gay and lesbian issues and abstained from voting on them then yes, the whole thing would make me feel bad for him. Somewhat (he'd still be a gay Republican, and I can't feel too badly for people who put themselves in situations like that in the first place).

But that's not who he is - he's marketed himself as a dyed-in-the-wool social conservative who consistently votes against gay and lesbians. He's been one of the folks who has helped maintain the animus against gay men in this country, so screw him - he's been hoisted by his own petard and he gets no sympathy from me. He could have mounted a credible defense had he not had to worry about the closet culture he's been instrumental in keeping alive.

Posted by NonyNony | August 28, 2007 5:10 PM

It is still illegal to solicit someone for sex...

Did he actually offer money, though?

Posted by JH | August 28, 2007 5:12 PM

From his recent public denial it appears that Larry Craig intends to fight allegations that he is a homosexual. From his own statement it is clear that he had not told his wife about the
incident prior to its appearance in the media. I can understand why a straight man picked up on these charges might not want to make them public but why not tell your wife?

If it were me I suspect that my first phone call would be, "Honey you will never guess what has happened to me!" It would be an incident that I would hope to laugh together about weeks (ok, in Idaho maybe more than weeks) later.

Sen. Craig also seems to imply that his plea was one made too quickly and without sufficient thought. The media coverage suggests that the incident occurred on Jun 8th and the plea offered Aug. 1st. This seems like plenty of time to have thought his decision over and again, ya'know, kinda mentioned it to the wife...

Posted by Enzo | August 28, 2007 5:17 PM

I think it's worth pointing out that this was not a sting designed to get Larry Craig specifically; this was a response to complaints that there was funny business going on in the men's room at the Minneapolis airport, and Craig just happened to be the guy that they caught (perhaps there were others).

Now, one can be against stings designed to catch cruisers, but that's rather different, and it's not like the right to privacy can be credibly to include the right to have anonymous sex in public places.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | August 28, 2007 5:21 PM

I continue to regard Craig's arrest as fundamentally unjustified.

I initially agreed with you, based on reports that all he did was engage in some ambiguous, harmless motions with his hands and feet while in his own bathroom stall. But it appears from the arrest report that he also *peered into the guy's stall from outside, through the crack in the door, at length*. That's clearly a basis for arrest, though I remain unclear on why that particular charge was dropped.

Posted by Ryan | August 28, 2007 5:24 PM

That's clearly a basis for arrest, though I remain unclear on why that particular charge was dropped.

The obvious explanation is that it was dropped as part of an agreement to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 5:28 PM

I don't understand why Marshall (and you) say he couldn't have fought this without revealing that he is gay. He couldn't have buried it, of course--it would be out there, and he would have to give a public defense of his heterosexuality--but what's wrong with showing up in court and saying "I was using a wide stance, and picking up paper off the floor, what's wrong with that?"

Certainly better than the position he's in now.

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, the GOP seems to be turning on him pretty decisively. It's been my observation in the past, though, that the people who are really unforgiving of this sort of thing on the right are so clueless that they'd be willing to buy any preposterous defense, because how could a guy with a wife and kids and a "family-friendly" record be gay?

I dunno. I've seen references to the Seinfeld clip of Elaine in the bathroom. This reminds me more of the Seinfeld clip about how proctologists hear the greatest stories, all of which begin "it was a million to one shot, doc!"

Posted by dan | August 28, 2007 5:29 PM

While it may be a sad story from the point of view of Larry Craig and his family, it's not a sad story for progressives.

One of the biggest obstacles progressives face in getting votes is the prevalent notion among certain segments of society that the Republican Party is the party of God and Morality. Every time yet another Republican gets caught engaging in homosexual conduct, that's another X number of voters who will be less inclined to think of the Republicans as morally superior to the Democrats. If enough people in Florida turn from "the Democrats are immoral" to "they're both the same," the Democrats will benefit.

Posted by Steve H. | August 28, 2007 5:42 PM

The obvious explanation is that it was dropped as part of an agreement to plead guilty to the lesser charge.

Right -- except I thought I read somewhere that the judge threw the charge out as unfounded. Can't find it now... maybe I'm misremembering.

Posted by Ryan | August 28, 2007 5:46 PM

JH:

Good point. He didn't and so it isn't really comparable. The fundamental point of my post still stands, though - sex in public bathrooms is a criminal offense, and Craig was attempting to engage in it.

Posted by Anonymous | August 28, 2007 5:48 PM

YouTube Video at Brian Beutler's place was intended for another reason, but surely applies here to Craig.

'If you look like a....

Posted by JimPortlandOR | August 28, 2007 5:48 PM

I'm confused about the whole "Where's the Crime?" argument.

Look, what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms ought to be their own business, right?

But it seems pretty clear to me that there is a compelling interest in preventing public bathrooms being turned into regular cruising grounds for on-site sex, of any variety. Minors use public restrooms. So do adults who might find blatent sexual behavior offensive. And it appears that this is an issue - there was just an article about this being a problem in the Atlanta Airport, and the cop in Minneapolis was on the scene because of prior complaints.

This is, as we say, "Not cool."

Behavior that is perfectly fine in one context - say, pissing in a urinal - may be disorderly conduct in a different conduct - say, pissing in the trash can, or on the floor.

Likewise, rubbing your foot against the ankle of the guy next to you in a gay bar might be just fine, while doing it in the Minneapolis airport might not be.

Let's be honest. If you are looking for gay sex there are a ton of outlets available. But if you are closeted and paranoid about being caught doing it, that narrows your choices a lot.

And who knows how much of this is the classic cry-for-help "Stop me before I do it again!"

As for "But is it disorderly conduct?".. not the point. Craig pled to disorderly conduct, as many do, to avoid a nastier charge. Standard procedure. He probably thought he could keep it hushed up, and disorderly conduct sure sounds better than soliciting sex. If the police report hadn't gotten out, he might have gotten away with it.

Posted by Santa Monica Jeremy | August 28, 2007 5:50 PM

Yes, it was despicable of Craig to play on his position. Now if only you would notice when Democrats do the same thing...

Posted by James Robertson | August 28, 2007 5:50 PM

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, the GOP seems to be turning on him pretty decisively.

I haven't had a chance to delve into what's happened in the last 24 hours, but, if the above is true, it could make some interesting politics. If the GOP party apparatus turns on him, Craig could conceivably come to the conclusion that his best chance at remaining in office is to 'fess up to his homosexuality, and take his case directly to Idahoans. Now would be a great time to test the idea so commonly put forth about how individualistic and libertarian Western/Mountain style conservatism supposedly is. My sense is that there's actually some validity to the idea, and my guess is that in 2007, even a lot of registered Republicans don't care who you sleep with, or want to sleep with.

Posted by Jasper | August 28, 2007 5:51 PM

"Fundamentally, though, for me this seems like a sad story about a bad Senator who's going to go down for no particularly good reason"

I may be an awful person, but I caught the presser in realtime, and I thought it was a very, very, very funny story with twinges of the gothic.

The pivot against the Iowa Statesmen, in particular, was pure comic gold.

Posted by Petey | August 28, 2007 5:55 PM

Over at Sully's place, there's a reader comment that I think really hits the nail on the head about this... a market analysis, in fact:

Larry Craig cruises for sex in bathrooms, he's part of the old gay culture. His lifestyle is threated by gay marriage: more guys sitting at the boarding gate with their husbands means fewer in the airport washroom. His lifestyle is threated by gays in the military: more sailors with boyfriends on shore means fewer available underneath the dock. Craig, West, and Haggard are the death throes of the old gay culture, desperately longing for the good old days.

Posted by Santa Monica Jeremy | August 28, 2007 5:56 PM

"a bad Senator who's going to go down"

No pun intended?

Posted by ostap | August 28, 2007 5:57 PM

Right -- except I thought I read somewhere that the judge threw the charge out as unfounded.

You might have read it from Garance, but as far as I know, she just made it up.

I can't see any reason why peeking through the crack in a bathroom stall to check someone out wouldn't be a clear violation of the statute in question.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 5:59 PM

liberals can never get their story straight. which is why they have no appeal to normal people.

Posted by scorpio | August 28, 2007 6:03 PM

Having lived in Idaho I doubt that many Republican Idahoans would be willing to accept a gay Senator even if he were the perfect conservative otherwise....

In fact I suspect Idaho Republicans may be looking to install someone rather more conservative than Craig. Idaho recently closed the Republic Primary under pressure from the right to more fully embrace their values. A rising number of state level politicians are more of the Chenoweth, Sali mold than more mainstream Craig. If you doubt this aspect
check new Gov. 'Butch' Otter's stand on Grey Wolves in Idaho!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._L._Otter

My favorite example is a large Billboard visible near Boise. It reads

'Stop Terrorism, get the U.S. out of the United Nations!'

Posted by Enzo | August 28, 2007 6:09 PM

If we could see the tape, here's what we'd find:

We'd see Craig making a brief pass by the door, glancing through the crack as if to see if the stall is empty. It's occupied. And not just by some guy sitting there reading a newspaper, but by a well-built and probably attractive man, who doesn't have any reading material, and is watching the door, and offers eye contact.

Craig hangs around a bit, and tries again, and holy cow. Yeah, the guy is still offering eye contact, and maybe smiles a tiny bit.

This is all difficult to communicate in a police report, of course. But it MUST have happened.

I don't want to claim expertise I haven't got here. I don't know anything about the gay cruising scene, but I know a small bit about straight cruising, and eye contact is an essential tool for working out who'll be receptive to further advances and who won't.

They're trying to spin this with gay panic--like some innocent straight guy sitting in that stall instead of the cop would have been raped by this senator, and it just doesn't make any sense. The Senator and the Cop exchanged at least three secret handshakes. Dude might as well have worn a sign that said "cruise me."

Posted by Laertes | August 28, 2007 6:16 PM

I continue to be baffled that someone dumb enough to make this comment in this context:

liberals can never get their story straight. which is why they have no appeal to normal people.

is somehow smart enough to use a computer.

Posted by Ryan | August 28, 2007 6:22 PM

Count me as well as someone who has a hard time getting worked up about Craig's alleged abuse of power. I see the waving of the Senate card as a sort of plea for clemency: "You're about to destroy someone's life in the most humiliating way possible over a bullshit charge. You're sure this is necessary?"

Yes, yes, Craig is a hypocrite, blah blah. My schadenfreude meter is reading pretty low on this one. I've never been able to take quite the same pleasure in watching closeted public figures devoured by the media that other people seem to. Even closeted figures I otherwise don't really like.

Posted by Adam | August 28, 2007 6:23 PM

They're trying to spin this with gay panic--like some innocent straight guy sitting in that stall instead of the cop would have been raped by this senator, and it just doesn't make any sense. The Senator and the Cop exchanged at least three secret handshakes. Dude might as well have worn a sign that said "cruise me."

Here's something else you may not have realized. When a cop is trying to bust ticket scalpers, he acts like a guy who wants to buy tickets!

No, of course some innocent straight guy sitting in that stall wouldn't have been "raped" by the Senator. But he would have gotten checked out, which is part of why the cops try to shut down these known hook-up spots.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 6:25 PM

Am I the only one who is under the impression that the business card dialogue happened _before_ the bust went down?
From the first reports, I thought that Craig was telling the officer "You're about to get blown by a US Senator. What do you think about that?"

I have not been able to find a report that disambiguates this. Anyone?

Posted by joel hanes | August 28, 2007 6:34 PM

"But he would have gotten checked out, which is part of why the cops try to shut down these known hook-up spots."

Thus my point about Gay Panic, and the way the story is being spun. The reader is invited to believe that had he been in that stall, he'd have been subjected to a disgusting and humilitating invasion. In fact, an unawares straight guy in that stall would never notice that he got cruised in the first place. Craig wouldn't have lingered outside the stall had the cop not signaled his receptiveness. All our USG would think is that some guy walked by the stall looking for an unoccupied.

Boo scary! Teh gays are hitting on people, and it could have been you!

Posted by Laertes | August 28, 2007 6:35 PM

"One way in which Larry Craig's behavior was worse than Vitter's is that Craig "handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, 'What do you think about that?'"

Hey, come on folks. People do lots of crazy things with their hands when they're pumping adrenaline.

Posted by ella | August 28, 2007 6:36 PM

for no particularly good reason

The charges aren't about him being gay, they are about him trying to solicit sex in a public restroom. Not to mention the peeping.

If he was arrested in a hotel room with another consenting male adult then THAT would be about him being gay.

Posted by Naveen | August 28, 2007 6:39 PM

I have not been able to find a report that disambiguates this. Anyone?

Yes, the police report makes it quite clear that this didn't happen.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 6:40 PM

Yes, the police report makes it quite clear that this didn't happen.

That's what makes this story so cool. The cop is an asshole for making the bust in the first place, but a hero for not caving when presented with that ID. The Senator did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been hassled in the first place, but he did a grievous wrong when he threatened that cop, and is getting a punishment he richly deserves, for entirely the wrong reasons.

Awesome.

Posted by Laertes | August 28, 2007 6:43 PM

The Senator did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been hassled in the first place, but he did a grievous wrong when he threatened that cop, and is getting a punishment he richly deserves, for entirely the wrong reasons.

Well, I guess that's Matt's position. On the other hand, as a lawyer, I find it quite clear that peeking into the bathroom stall to check someone out is a crime.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 6:46 PM

I'm still in the "what's the crime here" camp.

I presume Craig did more than just look to see if a stall is occupied then tap his feet a few times. If he did merely that, then -- well we should be using this as an example of why data mining for terrorists is a bad idea ... too many false positives because "code words/actions" are often times what others do as well un-aware of the code.

Presuming he did more, he presumably was responding to the guy in the other stall picking up his signals and responding back. You can't make the "oh no, it could have been an innocent person who doesn't wanna be picked up in a bathroom" argument as the other guy (not known to Craig to be a police officer) was clearly not disinterested in Craig's advances.

The only way it could be a crime is if there was an actual proposition of "let's have sex here and now in the stalls" ... otherwise it could be just picking someone up for hooking up at a later time which, last I checked, was allowed -- the American Taliban haven't gone that far yet.

Of course, it could have been a situation of Craig saying "let's have sex here and now in the stalls" and the plea being to cop to a lesser charge. OTOH, even if the officer said that, we all know that police officers always tell the truth and never lie, right?

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 6:46 PM

I must say I am thoroughly enjoying the life of a right-wing hater being destroyed, but it is interesting that he was busted without a sex request actually being verbally communicated.

Meaning, the cop could've asked, um, whatever, and I think agreement would have been communicated by the senator, and then the bust could still happen.

But, alas, I am not familiar with cruising, nor the art of police entrapment.

Posted by Andruw | August 28, 2007 6:48 PM

Joel: the police report says:

"When we got to the POC....Craig stated that his identification was in his bag. Craign handed me a business card that identified himself as a United States Senator as he stated, "What do you think about that?". I responded by setting his business card down on the table and again asking him for his driver's license."

[POC apparently is the Police Operations Center].

What I think about that is that Craig was saying drop these charges because I'm a big shot (no pun intended).

Posted by JimPortlandOR | August 28, 2007 6:48 PM

But it appears from the arrest report that he also *peered into the guy's stall from outside, through the crack in the door, at length*. That's clearly a basis for arrest, though I remain unclear on why that particular charge was dropped.

Well perhaps because he didn't peer into the stall for an extended period of time after all. Maybe he just looked briefly through the crack in the door of the stall to see if it was occupied. Or maybe he didn't even look at all. And maybe this officer, who is after all in the business of figuring out ways to arrest people, is just falsely saying he peered briefly through the crack. Who knows?

I'm amazed at the degree of prima facie deference that people are willing to give to police reports. If you know any people who are defense lawyers, I'm sure many of them have shared their opinion with you that police lie all the time. They lie on their reports and they lie in court.

Of the story about the business card, Kleiman says "it's hard to put any other construction on his words in that context." Well I can think of another construction to put on those words, even granting for the sake of argument that he actually said them. Suppose the interview went like this:

"Name?"

"Larry Craig"

"Employment?"

"United States Senator."

(smirk) "Yeah sure ... stop fucking with me."

(hands over card) "What do you think about that?"

Obviously I haven't the slightest idea what was said. But again, if something like the above was the context, I wouldn't doubt at all that a police officer, trying to pile up the evidence to justify the arrest, might not be above intentionally distorting the intent.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 28, 2007 6:55 PM

The fact that Matt just doesn't get this is telling me a lot about him.

First of all, people who pass laws that they expect to be exempt from because they are powerful people are not just hypocrites, they are gangsters.

Secondly, what is with a Senator saying he just didn't realize he should consult an attorney before pleading guilty? This guy is constantly surrounded by attorneys if he isn't one himself. If you or I complained about being arrested because of some law he wrote, the first thing we would hear from him is that we should have consulted an attorney.

Third, I would like to know if anyone reading this thread has ever been falsely suspected of cruising for sex in a mens room because they inadvertently used the secret handshake. I know I haven't, and I've been using public restrooms for a long time.

And for that matter, we don't seem to have a lot of Dems getting busted for this stuff. This suggests to me that this is not stuff that "everybody does". Again, I'll ask, are readers of this thread hanging out with whores, making the tearoom scene or going on the downlow without telling their wives? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but nobody I know is doing this.

Figure out some way to strip these inside-the-beltway types of their power, prestige, and influence, and I will be the first to say this is not an important story or problem. If Craig had chosen to live as an ordinary citizen, he certainly would not have me looking over his shoulder.

Ordinarily I would say that inside-the-beltway people are about like everyone else, but Matt's incomprehension is reminding me that in reality, the inside-the-beltway crowd is, in general, quite a bit worse than most people.

I guess the funny thing here would be that if Matt knew what Craig and his voters think about Jews, Matt might not be so forgiving. Just don't ever get a flat tire in Idaho, Matt, or you might learn.

Posted by serial catowner | August 28, 2007 6:56 PM

In fact, an unawares straight guy in that stall would never notice that he got cruised in the first place. Craig wouldn't have lingered outside the stall had the cop not signaled his receptiveness.

Well, he looked into the stall long enough and closely enough to see if the person inside would look back at him. That's a crime, regardless of whether the person inside the stall realized it happened.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 7:00 PM

Secondly, what is with a Senator saying he just didn't realize he should consult an attorney before pleading guilty?

Something no one has commented on from the police report is that Craig apparently came by the police station a couple different times after the arrest, saying that he needed certain information "for his attorney."

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 7:02 PM

Well, he looked into the stall long enough and closely enough to see if the person inside would look back at him. That's a crime, regardless of whether the person inside the stall realized it happened.

You keep saying this, but I fail to see the relevance, given that the interference with privacy charge was dismissed. As part of a plea deal, or for lack of evidence? If the peeping was a sufficient basis for arrest, why didn't the cop just bust out of the stall and take him down when he saw Craig's peeping blue eyes?

Posted by UN Plaza | August 28, 2007 7:07 PM

I'm amazed at the degree of prima facie deference that people are willing to give to police reports.

Ditto.

My mom got served with papers for a lawsuit once and the evidence the guy was gonna use was a police report indicating my mom was at fault in an auto accident in which both parties were by law equally at fault. The police report contained lies, and there was evidence of collusion between the cop and the plaintiff.

When my mom challenged the ticket the cop wrote, though, the cop didn't show up in court. My mom's auto insurance company threatened to sue the guy suing my mom and he dropped the case. A little later the plaintiff's attorney was busted for some shadiness dealing with another (similar, IIRC) sort of case.

But yes ... police officers do lie.

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 7:10 PM

I've never been falsely accused of cruising for sex in a mens room because I inadvertently used the secret handshake. Now in part, that's because until very recently I didn't KNOW the secret handshake(s), and an essential feature of a well-designed secret handshake is that it's unlikely to be offered or returned by accident. (Craig and the officer used what appears, to my amateur eye, to be a very elaborate multi-stage protocol that'd be almost impossible for an innocent to blunder through.)

So your point is, in one sense, a good one. Anyone suggesting that Craig wasn't looking for a hook-up has got a tough row to hoe, because the protocol he performed proves pretty clearly that he was.

However, that very same protocol proves that he was going to some trouble to avoid embarassing runs at uninterested bystanders, so what's the underlying crime here?

Craig is in an impossible position, and the nature of the sting is such that it takes advantage of the subject's unwillingness to offer a plausible and effective defense ("I was trying to hook up with someone here for sex elsewhere") to leave them stuck with an untruthful and ineffective defense ("I wasn't cruising at all.")

It's bullshit, and it's quite transparently about persecuting teh gays.

That the Senator is in all likelihood several different kinds of asshole makes little difference. He still got railroaded.

Posted by Laertes | August 28, 2007 7:15 PM

You keep saying this, but I fail to see the relevance, given that the interference with privacy charge was dismissed. As part of a plea deal, or for lack of evidence? If the peeping was a sufficient basis for arrest, why didn't the cop just bust out of the stall and take him down when he saw Craig's peeping blue eyes?

Considering the privacy charge was dismissed at the same time as the guilty plea, it's very likely that the dismissal was part of a plea deal, and quite unlikely that the court dismissed it as a matter of law given that the information in the police report seems clearly to support the charge.

As for why the arrest wasn't made sooner, it seems to me that Craig's subsequent conduct provides important evidence of what his intent was when he peeped into the stall. Otherwise, you have a very difficult case to prove where the defendant says "I just glanced in there to see if it was occupied" and the cop says "Well, it seemed to me like he was looking for something more."

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 7:16 PM

However, that very same protocol proves that he was going to some trouble to avoid embarassing runs at uninterested bystanders, so what's the underlying crime here?

The underlying crime, once again, is that he was peeping into bathroom stalls to see if any of the occupants might be interested in sex. If he approached people while they were washing their hands and gave them a big ol' wink, no crime there, but it's an invasion of privacy to peep into bathroom stalls.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 7:19 PM

NonyNony:
Don't forget Craig's comments on Bill Clinton during Clinton's own zipper problems.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 28, 2007 7:21 PM

I think the issue is that whether or not he committed disorderly conduct depends on whether sending and receiving gay cruising signals in a public place is obscene or offensive conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment (the statutory language).

People may think, yes, gay dudes cruising in the bathroom is offensive, but then people seem to want to say it's not a crime for straight people to subtly cruise each other in public, which leads to the conclusion that the sting operation was transparently about persecuting teh gays.

Posted by UN Plaza | August 28, 2007 7:22 PM

serial catowner is a bit unhinged.

"what is with a Senator saying he just didn't realize he should consult an attorney before pleading guilty?"

Well, I don't even believe that, but it isn't relevant to this discussion.

re; restroom busts: "I know I haven't, and I've been using public restrooms for a long time."

I'm fairly confident everyone here thinks he is guilty as sin, so to speak.

"I guess the funny thing here would be that if Matt knew what Craig and his voters think about Jews, Matt might not be so forgiving"

Yikes. AIPAC begs to differ.

Posted by Andruw | August 28, 2007 7:23 PM

it seems to me that Craig's subsequent conduct provides important evidence of what his intent was when he peeped into the stall.

But your whole point is that his peeping into the stall is the crime right there, intent is irrelevant.

Basically, is this about protecting men from leering gays, or is it protecting restroom users from public sex? It could be a little bit of both or whatever but you seem to slide back and forth whenever it is convenient.

Posted by Barbar | August 28, 2007 7:29 PM

If he approached people while they were washing their hands and gave them a big ol' wink, no crime there, but it's an invasion of privacy to peep into bathroom stalls.

No, the wink would be totally inappropriate. The whole point of this sort of protocol is that if you don't know the code, you won't even realize it's happening. The cruiser doesn't lose face or risk injury by openly approaching someone who's uninterested or outright hostile, and the cruisee won't have to deal with whatever shame/resentment he might feel if he knew he'd been cruised. A corner-of-the-eye glance at a stall as you pass, to see if the guy inside is holding up a "cruise me" sign, is a nice safe opening move.

This again speaks to your underlying hostility to gays. You'd grant them the freedom to cruise, but only if they do it in a way that's almost immediately lead to a beating at the hands of some enraged het. One can't help sensing your satisfaction at the certain result of your proposal.

Posted by Laertes | August 28, 2007 7:49 PM

...but then people seem to want to say it's not a crime for straight people to subtly cruise each other in public, which leads to the conclusion that the sting operation was transparently about persecuting teh gays.

Oh, c'mon, you seriously don't think there's any difference between being cruised "in public" and being cruised in that public place known as a "public toilet"? In that latter one must partially derobe, open a zipper, etc. And in the latter mere "cruising" often leads to on premises sex, and that can imply lots of problems, including lack of hygiene, danger to children, and the spread of STDs. If the two genders were able to use the same restrooms in the USA, I reckon hetero "cruising" would and should be prohibited, too.

Posted by Dellayed | August 28, 2007 8:21 PM

The only way it could be a crime is if there was an actual proposition of "let's have sex here and now in the stalls" ... otherwise it could be just picking someone up for hooking up at a later time which, last I checked, was allowed

Almost anywhere but an airport, that would be a great argument. People in transit in airports don't have a non-public where they can take their pickup--was he going to miss his flight and rent a hotel room?

I wonder more about whether there is a video or something--I'm surprised to see a sting set up so that it depends solely on the officer's uncorroborated word to convict defendant

Posted by rea | August 28, 2007 8:38 PM

H e l - L O W !

A quick reality check, please, people.

If you have followed all the links to the sordid source material on this story -- like the guide, I forget where I saw this, a link from that same dude who outed Craig in the first place, I think -- then you know this wasn't just any old airport bathroom, but an internationally celebrated pilgrimage destination for guys who are into, um, tea rooms. The Brits call it "going cottaging" after the cottage-like public loos in the parks. Charming, no?

Yes, authorities are well within any ethical guideline you care to mention to discourage semi-public sex in any area where many of us just got off the plane and really need to take a leak.

To assume that a sexuality-obsessed (when it comes to other people's behavior), persuadably 3 digit I.Q. Senator was oblivious to the scene in that airport bathroom is a dog that just won't hunt.

Yes, I am all in favor of all kinds of sex between consenting adults, but kindly do restrain yourselves in the stall next to me at the airport bathroom, and go find a dark corner someplace, o.k.?

However, y'all seem to be missing the point. It is the archetypical Republican scandal wherein a crime may or may not be provable in a court of law, but the cover-ups and denials are utterly reprehensible.

That the GOP appears to be, as numerous commentators have noted, "throwing Craig under the train" should come as no great surprise, either. The big deal in the Foley scandal was that everyone had known for years that he had an unhealthy obsession with pageboys.

Same deal here. It has been common knowledge for donkey's years that the outspoken advocate of family values, and god damn you to hell if you don't agree with him, was a total closet case.

Any Republican who stands behind Craig is going to look like a total bozo when the details of Craig’s previous indiscretions not only start to ooze out, as they inevitably will (Jeff Gannon, anyone?), but are also verified from sources deemed sufficiently reliable. No way is any Republican politician going to risk repeating the Foley scenario.

Craig deserved to get busted, if not for peeking under a bathroom stall, then for being a stinking hypocrite for his entire political career. About friggin’ time it caught up with him. God, you know, doesn’t seem to find the Larry Craigs of this world all that amusing. How do you Americans say “karmic justice?”

Posted by teknozen | August 28, 2007 9:10 PM

I think you can boil this down and you are left with a guy who is either a huge lier of just incredibly stupid. because he is either one or the other, with regard to whether he should continue to be a senator, the rest is noise.

With regard to the hipocracy of some of these morons it may be a different story. But is anyone really surpised by these outings. Those on the left suspect this and those in support on the right choose to ignore the hypocracy in pursuit of their religous goals.

Posted by TOM | August 28, 2007 10:17 PM

a guy who is either a huge lier of just incredibly stupid

That doesn't have to be either/or. In fact, I'm having trouble understanding how the facts could be interpreted so that it's anything other than both/and.

Posted by KCinDC | August 28, 2007 11:14 PM

So, um, could someone tell me what happens when two guys agree to have sex in a public bathroom? Do they get in the same stall? Isn't the possibility of two pairs of shoes being seen under the door a little risky? Does one stand on the john so that his feet don't show while the other, well, you know? There's no mention of a "glory hole" in this description, so it doesn't appear that that was going to be the mode of contact.

Posted by Curious | August 29, 2007 1:00 AM

Both Matt and Josh are bending over backwards (no pun intended) to be fair to the Senator. But he went to trial without an attorney. Why? Surely he could have got advice. The judge or magistrate looked and the evidence and found him guilty and pronounced sentence. Prison time deferred and probation on tap. Is Matt suggesting that the presiding judge convicted someone for a crime he did not commit? Sure there a lot of questions. But Larry boy should be answering them, not us.

Posted by Alan | August 29, 2007 7:52 AM

But your whole point is that his peeping into the stall is the crime right there, intent is irrelevant.

Uh, no. Peeping into the stall is the crime BECAUSE he has the requisite intent. I never said intent was irrelevant, nor would I, because the intent requirement is right there in the Minnesota statute.

Without the subsequent events, it might be hard to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite intent, but that doesn't change the fact that he had it.

Posted by Steve | August 29, 2007 9:12 AM