Larry Craig's Post-Arrest Tape

Authorities have released the tape of Larry Craig's conversation with the arresting oficer at the Minneapolis airport just following his arrest for lewd conduct.

More clarification about the recording here. Have a listen.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted 9:51 PM EST by Andy in Crime, Idaho, Larry Craig, News | Permalink

Like it?

Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!

Comments

This recording rocks! Thanks for posting it... priceless!

Posted by: Chris | Aug 30, 2007 10:25:46 PM
What talents got Sgt. Karsnia promoted to soliciting men in the bathroom from his last job in charge of airport “cart enforcement”? Whatever it was, this is not his first time on national TV. Almost four months to the day before he played footsy with Craig, Karsnia appeared briefly in a spot on “Good Morning America” about the success of the Minneapolis airport in bringing down their high rate of motorized cart accidents. Video at:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2859245&page=1

The most startling thing in his interrogation of Craig comes at the end when Karsnia says in exasperation, “No wonder why we’re going down the tubes.”

Who is “we”? America? And what does he think is causing America to go down the tubes? The mere existence of gays? Gay senators? Aggressive women who don’t know their place? Uppity Blacks? [Karsnia: “I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. “] Illegal immigrants? The cancellation of “7th Heaven”? What does any of that have to do with what basically amounts to a pubic nuisance arrest by a guy whose previous experience is wrangling glorified golf carts?

As much as I'm happy Craig is being dethroned and the antigay industry further damaged by another hypocrite, releasing his tape was tacky and I hope it backfires on them.

Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Aug 30, 2007 10:37:15 PM
michael,
did you really mean to write "pubic" nuisance? hehe.

i agree. while i'm glad this sham-good-man was exposed, i don't like the tactics used by the police. this seems like a monumental waste of time and money.

Posted by: nic | Aug 30, 2007 11:11:56 PM
It seemed as though Karsnia was quite heated by the end of the interview. I took the "going down the tubes" comment to be more of an exasperation with the lying senator and a statement on the political direction of this country, i.e., "If our elected officials are doing stuff like this and then blatantly lying about it no wonder we're fucked up."

Posted by: Jason | Aug 30, 2007 11:19:22 PM
it is notable that early in the tape, Karsnia TWICE mentions that sexual preference is not the issue here. it was the aggressive actions of Craig that were interpreted by police as sexually provocative, while its debatable whether this is a case of illegality, it is remarkable that it's not focused on Craig's gayness - which Karsnia had no way or knowing & Craig was so quick to protest -- but the behavior in which Craig engaged.

I live in Minneapolis and while the airport police are not under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis city police, the Police Chief, Mayor and City Council are notably progressive and most certainly not homophobic in their approach to the gay community.

Posted by: resurrect | Aug 30, 2007 11:27:58 PM
Hey a misdemeanor. Its a misdemeanor. Media is acting like Craig is a fucking serial killer. Karsnia is a public mens room hack stuck sitting on a fucking filthy public toilet tapping footsies with airports horndogs for a living. A total Scumbag cop sent to the crapper for his nine to five. Wake up america. This is BS. Go to hell Karsina.

Posted by: Vi agara | Aug 30, 2007 11:37:05 PM
I was watching CNN where they played this. on three occasions both men and a women called in asking how someone can be arrested or tried when no actual crime had been committed.

on both occasions the hosts said, well it was the intent, and one guy chimed in with "you know that's what he wanted" - and went to commercial.

i think Craig is a sleezeball, he sounds like it on the tape... but the fact still remains that the police on the tape, in the report, and publicly haven't actually proved "lewd" conduct.

by the way, the Senator said that he reached down to pick up a piece of paper and the cop should have said "sir, there was no paper there." he didn't. they argued over the ring finger.

it's a case of "he said/he said" with no actual evidence in either direction. but if they can arrest someone for toe tapping and finger wiggling, if they can make assumptions based on bag positioning, what is next?

but hey... at least we're not talking about alberto gonzales!

Posted by: James | Aug 30, 2007 11:37:55 PM
There is something a little scary here, a little too intrusive, a little too invasive in the policeman's interview with Craig. The tape is really disturbing all around, for both sides. For the sake of argument, was this a case of entrapment? So what if Craig swings both ways? Who cares if he ran his hand under the divider of a public toilet?? I guess it's the exposure of his hypocrisy and creepy politics that we're all enjoying. Nevertheless, we should worry about the outcome and extrapolations here --- it puts perceived public homosexual behavior in an awful light.

I guess I'm a bleeding heart --- I worry about civil liberties all the time. I often wonder what it would be like to be in another guy's shoes --- this whole affair seems so ridiculous and blown out of proportion. No doubt, the soon to be retired Senator made a ridiculously stupid move in pleading guilty to a misdemeanor (probably in tormented, closeted panic). And now he's going through this national disgrace of backpedalling. This is a career politician, a former congressman and now one of the 100 Americans that we honor with the title of Senator. Who the hell are his advisors?

The whole thing smells bad, smells like a witch hunt from the outset --- it's all a little too zealous for me. In a really strange way, though a leftie from way back I kind of feel sorry for this pathetic little hypocrite.

Is this the brand of terrorism that we should be monitoring in airports? Don't we have more important things to patrol among our elected officials and airports? How about the corruption of this travesty in Iraq --- at a cost of 3 billion dollars a week! While I'm thrilled to see the reversal of the G.O.P., I'm saddened to see the trend --- and the lack of grace and style in the media. It's a fucking feeding frenzy. I fear this next election is going to be really ugly.

Posted by: Richard | Aug 31, 2007 12:26:33 AM
"You solicited me" - those three words should be Craig's epitaph. That little phrase, rather than indignation at the accusation, show that the senator knew perfectly well what he was doing and what was going on.

I agree that the use of pretty-boy cops to entrap guys in bathrooms is unfair, but it's a risk that any restroom cruiser takes - and nobody who does it now can be unaware of that risk, especially after the case of George Michael.

What's different is the need to take that risk. If you're okay with being gay, you have a huge range of options, including going to gay bars, finding a boyfriend and/or using the internet. If you're gay but not okay with it, you limit your options and end up scrambling for desperate sexual encounters in the most arbitrary places.

Craig's story is not just sad, it harkens back to a time of constricted lives, and the damage that was done to so many gay people by the cruel laws that existed then. It is a wonder to me that, despite all the prejudice that still exists, the world for gay men has changed dramatically for the better. It is a minor miracle that I can have such an open and positive life now as a happy gay man, and can live in a completely different world to the hell of Sen. Craig's, even though we are both alive at the same point in time.

Posted by: Patrick M | Aug 31, 2007 12:36:41 AM
Patrick M, with all due respect, your comment about gay people having a wide range of options is really off point. Forget the closeted homos who cruise bathrooms for sex, there are openly gay men (not me) who cruise restrooms just for the erotic thrill. There are people who enjoy having sex with strangers in public places and the risk of getting caught is part of the experience. Of course they have to pay the consequences if they are caught.

The objection many people have to the method used in these bathroom stings is that some people are being arrested for hand gestures and the way they look at people. At least with prostitution stings the prostitute has to verbally accept an exchange of sex for money before an arrest can take place. Even if you shoplift something from a department store, you can't be arrested until you attempt to leave the building with the item. Though I believe Craig had full intention of having sex with someone in that bathroom, I am not comfortable with him being arrested due to what the police said he actually did. It just didn't get to the point where no ambiguity could be argued. If he didn't confess, I stongly doubt he would be convicted in a trial.

Posted by: Patrick | Aug 31, 2007 1:07:52 AM
I know Manhattan has gotten boring, but is this all its gay men have to talk about? Starting to feel like Aunt Bea and Clara in Mayberry all giddy they caught someone doing something bad.

Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 31, 2007 1:23:16 AM
P.S.- Love your photos, Patrick

Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 31, 2007 1:26:01 AM
Patrick X, firstly, "with all due respect" never actually means that, so it's better not to use it.

Second, the range of options is very much the point. Anonymous sex hasn't gone away, but the number of opportunities to have sex both within and outside of relationships has increased - thanks to the internet for sure, but also thanks to an increased level of social tolerance that accepts the idea that gay people will have sex with each other.

So the need to take risks with the law for sex actually has changed - and yes, some people, though far fewer as a percentage of the gay population than 25 years ago, will still cruise in restrooms, meet in the parks at night, etc. (I wonder how come you're so adamantly "not" one of those?) The contrast is with the old days, when there were no other options, and so almost all guys did it. Nowadays, it's primarily the married, closeted ones, those who are stuck in the patterns of their youth and/or desperation.

I agree with your distaste of entrapment and that the idea of arresting people based on intent is problematic. The problem with your argument is that it doesn't fit with the law, which does recognize intent. A good lawyer possibly could have got Craig off, but he would have had to fight hard and well to do so. And even with that, the senator's greatest fear, public exposure of his intent to have gay sex, would have come through anyway.

Posted by: Patrick M | Aug 31, 2007 1:33:32 AM
My question is to Michael Bedwell - I have to admit, your comment puzzles me. I, in fact, don't know what any of what you listed has to do with the interrogation tape. (Agressive women? 7th Heaven? What?) I will say that the "hood" comment could be taken as racist, but this is a policeman who probably deals with lesser-profile cases involving regular people from the street, who might lie when questioned. His statement indicated his shock that a senator (gasp, I know) would also lie in the same situation. Could it have been a subconsciously racial comment born from poor word choice? Maybe. But implications of racism and homophobia are a bit much to level at a policeman who is, in my opinion, simply in shock at the fact that he is interrogating a senator who is lying to his face.

Posted by: GC | Aug 31, 2007 2:03:34 AM
sen. craig is a pathetic figure, but he is part of a delusional world he helped to perpetuate: the bizzaro world where people are supposed to repress natural desires. there is little doubt he went to the bathroom at the airport to suck dick and got hoisted by his own petard. he has, for years, been complicit with the repug thinking that government should interfere with people's personal lives. the police state that feels it needs to send cops to lay in waiting, sitting on toilets pretending to take a shit, like a constipated black widow spider waiting for it's next victim demeans all involved.

Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 2:23:52 AM
While some men might like sex in public restrooms, I suspect that this is a relic of a previous generation. When Craig was younger, this was how closeted gay men met one another. They lurked around in public places cruising for guys. Today, with the ease of the internet - Manhunt, Craig's List, etc. - one wonders why someone would still do this.

Of course, some men like the illicit thrill of it and the risk of being caught. Clearly, George Michael didn't have to cruise bathrooms to find guys to have sex with. He must have gotten a rush off of the seediness of it all.

I expect that Craig will resign soon. All of his Republican buddies are scurrying away as fast as they can. It's nice to see that once in a while government can move swiftly.

Posted by: gr8guyca | Aug 31, 2007 5:11:58 AM
I find it incredibly sad that gay people would have so little sympathy for another gay/bi man who is obviously unable to be out. Remember when that was the norm? Perhaps not. It may come as a surprise to many of you that some of us have more important priorities than making public our sexual orientation including our careers, and our families (who even though they accept us for who we are still have to function in an essentially anti-gay world).We don't all have the luxury of being able to live in a little gay enclave where there are no repercussions from outing ourselves or perhaps the most vocal critics of us "closet dwellers" have nothing in life other than their gayness. Quite often the contributors on this and other websites remind me that the religious fundies etc don't have a monopoly on small minded vindictive self centered and nasty little people

Posted by: peachy | Aug 31, 2007 6:17:49 AM
It IS time to move on, folks. Just like the scene of an accident, good taste dictates we leave the "clean up" to the "professionals" and ponder silently on the ficklenes of fate.

Posted by: Leducdor | Aug 31, 2007 6:52:44 AM
this Cop did a great thing that may help gay rights advance by waking up the sleeping straight world - in a way HRC never could

anyone actually listening can hear this is a young man without any homophobia in his words and comments

the going down the tubes part is great ... an awareness on the state of our country and a Senator lying to the police

if your actually more upset at the cop than the man exposed to be self-hating to the point he has attacked gay rights legislation (even promoting dont ask dont tell AFTER his arrest) ... well self hate is kind of common

it is 2007 ... long past the time when public cruising was needed for quick relief so get it ... or cool for out gay men

we have the internet

Posted by: rjp3 | Aug 31, 2007 7:16:02 AM
some of us have more important priorities than making public our sexual orientation including our careers, and our families (who even though they accept us for who we are still have to function in an essentially anti-gay world).

hmmm peachy ... sounds like self-serving BS to me ... your family will be just fine and sorry being out does sometimes slow down careers but heck ... the greater good is more important than an individual career ... your kind of thinking is what created Larry Craig

thanks for explaining it so clearly ...
fear and self serving desire for personal gain

Posted by: rjp3 | Aug 31, 2007 7:20:16 AM
You mention the greater good RJP3. Tell me, what would advance the greater good more:

We post bitchy comments on the tittilating misfortunes of somebody who is a gay man (albeit secretly)?

Or perhaps compose a letter to our local press explaining what it was like to grow up in the anti - gay world of the mid twentieth century, therefore not realistically being able to out oneself? We could even express support for the senator , mentioning some of the positive contributions he has made to government (I'm sure there are some) and showing that gay people are actually capable of intelligent conversation and even holding public office. I leave you to ponder.

Posted by: peachy | Aug 31, 2007 7:45:34 AM
Look you queens, get over it. Hetties don't want to see gays having sex in toilets or any public places. And its the law. So stop it. The crappers are for crapping not your Motel 6. The cops have every right to enforce the law. In all my born days and there have been many, I've never seen hetties having sex in public. Making out yes, down right low down doing the nasty, no. And I love Sgt. Karsnia's comment at the end: "no wonder we're going down the tubes." I think he's referring to Senator Craig's lying about the whole incident. And he's right. And no I'm not some self-loathing queen, I AM A QUEEN AND PROUD OF IT. Does not that derisive ephithet suggest primacy and dominion?

Posted by: the queen | Aug 31, 2007 8:27:55 AM
i get your point Leducdor, but the most... THE MOST that could ever be proven is that Craig was being annoying.

there was no unzipping of pant, there was no crude comments, there was no grabbing of penises.... nothing. hey, he could be soliciting sex, FOR BACK AT A HOTEL ROOM which is not illegal (though highly unlikely, i agree... but the possibility IS there).

there is a reason why security people only snag shoplifters AFTER they walk out the door. if they snag them BEFORE, the shopper can always claim they were GOING to pay for the item.

the cop was a dumb-ass, and he jumped the gun. he also lied. the entrapment came with the cop "tapping" his foot, encouraging Craig. still, when it was all said and done, there was still NO lewd conduct and nothing was exchanged but subtle (if that) communication.

the cop pounced on a pre-conceived notion... without any actual proof (as shown in the actual police report). Craig goes down in flames... and for what? because he put is bag against the stall door? it's a stall, where else are you suppose to put the bag? on your head?

THAT is what bothers me. if you're going to take down a closet case... TAKE DOWN A CLOSET CASE. but don't arrest them for finger wiggling. it bothers me because other policemen can jump the gun... assume something that isn't true, without proof... and take an innocent person down.

have proof... they just need better proof.

Posted by: James | Aug 31, 2007 8:38:32 AM
I can't really understand how anyone could doubt that Larry Craig was in that bathroom for what he was arrested for. The evidence is clear unless you believe the officer is a liar, which is preposterous based on the tone of the questioning and Craig's gutless plea and secretive handling of the affair. They treated the senator very fairly, there certainly wasn't any entrapment element going on, and I think it's clear that the "tubes" comment was about the fact that an elected official—a SENATOR, no less—is lying through his false teeth even when he's caught red-handed. I think someone up there made a good point about how there is too severe a line being drawn by gay-positive commentators that gay people have other options so only closeted, self-loathing men hit bathrooms for sex. I do think that that is the dynamic behind Larry Craig (he seems to be caught in the late '50s all the way around), but there are guys in there who just do it for fun. And if we're going to start psychologizing what it means about your self-image that you're interested in sucking anonymous cock in a men's room, what does it mean that you're willing to, well, check out the top-selling gay porn out there and remember that people make it, people do it (and it ain't "acting") and people buy it. Anyway, I think Craig had a very fair shake and I don't think there is anything wrong with policing bathrooms (or GYM LOCKERS...you know who you are! hehe) if it becomes clear there is an issue with sexual activity in public. I only see an anti-gay side to law enforcement's focus on men's rooms and parks when their focus seems crazily disproportionate (Naugle's $250,000 toilets).

Posted by: Mattthew Rettenmund | Aug 31, 2007 9:10:29 AM
"Peachy" I don't know why you consider Larry Craig to be a gay man like any of us when he so vociferously declares that he isn't.

Why the sympathy for a man who would step on you like a bug without so much as blinking?

Craig's voice on that tape is one I've heard all my 60 years. It is the voice of the aggogance of power. It is the voice of he who believes that his shit doesn't stink.

And what REALLY gets Larry Craig is the notion that HE -- a presumably all-important Senator -- should be brought down by a mere civil servant. This is a class issue as much as it is a gay issue.

BOOK IM, DANO!!!!!

Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Aug 31, 2007 9:26:17 AM
peachy | Aug 31, 2007 7:45:34 AM

sorry, but you are such a bitch, why the hell should i pity a man who has passed laws to deny gay rights. he deserves all he gets, let him suffer from the consequences he helped create. let him feel the pain of every out gay man he has been preaching to.

if he was just another closet man, that's another story, this fool helps pass the anti-gay laws, are you high? do you have any brain cell in that head or yours?

Posted by: johnosahon | Aug 31, 2007 9:33:49 AM
After the reports and before I heard the tape I figured this was another situation of a closeted gay man getting caught in some illegal activity that was quite embarrassing. After hearing the tape, I think I believe Larry's story. Maybe I am too naive but it sounds to me like the cops in Minneapolis really have nothing better to do but to entrap innocent men and bring attention to the fact that some gay men are having sex in public restrooms. Also, great pix Patrick.

Posted by: Davey | Aug 31, 2007 9:47:16 AM
While Craig isn't a friend of gay people, the evidence for this sounds VERY, VERY flimsy. While he probably was looking for sex, I agree with the posters that say you usually want more evidence than this. (It's not like the Bob Allen case where you've got an offer of oral sex and money.) And now we're seeing stories about the cop's reputation. First of all, good cops are not going to be doing entrapment cases in airports. They'd be on much more important matters. Second, what's with the "hood" comment. So, he basically expects less from poor and/or black people? Is this someone that we want to be a police officer? Third, and many others have said it, but why the f is time and money being spent on these sorts of entrapment activities. Lastly, while this is of Craig's doing (his own karma), I do feel some compassion for him. I feel for him because he's probably a closeted guy who's trapped himself in a lie by his fear. I feel for his staff, some of whom may need to find new jobs because of this. I feel for him because the evidence seems especially thin against him and he's getting all this public pressure over something so trivial.

Posted by: Brandon | Aug 31, 2007 10:01:51 AM
"So, he basically expects less from poor and/or black people? "

so are you also racist too? because he said NOTHING about black people, why do you think that ONLY black people live in the hood?

and why are all these gays complaining about entrapment? they entrap prostitutes, people who solicit prostitutes, drug dealers, the list go on. you can't just pick one, cancel all if you are all offended.

Posted by: johnosahon | Aug 31, 2007 10:13:51 AM
Johnosahon: Am I a racist? That's really for other people to answer. However, before trying to take people to task, you might want to take a minute to reflect. You posted my quote, but you forgot the fact that I was raising a question. I said what's with the hood comment. I asked, if he expects less from poor "and/or black people?" That's not a conclusion. Given that, I'm not precisely sure why you jumped from my question about what he meant when he made his comment to questioning whether he and I were racist. Notwithstanding that, when people refer to the "hood" in the U.S., that term is usually meant to refer to poor African American neighboorhoods. So, it raises a question-- not a conclusion. I'm simply not comfortable with cops sterotyping poor people, black people, or anyone. There shouldn't be any difference in expectations. When you start putting people into boxes based upon perceptions/expectation, you can get into trouble because you start acting on those perceptions even when there's no basis in fact. (See: internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII, Abner Louima, Amado Diallo, etc.) Bottom line: if this cop profiles people based upon where they live, race, ethnicity, etc., that's not a good thing and it shouldn't be forgotten in all of the rest of the hooplah.

Posted by: Brandon | Aug 31, 2007 11:17:51 AM
It’s not contradictory to celebrate Craig’s downfall [see his hideous voting record on much more than gay issues below], denounce public sex AND, at the same time, condemn the type of police entrapment that triggered his fall while questioning the integrity, honesty, and MOTIVATION of the cop.

How dangerously gullible are any of you who believe that just because he SAID he has nothing against gays that he really doesn’t?!!! Bush effectively said the same thing when he called for an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage. We’re going to be treat everyone fairly, he said,—but keep your cum-sticky hands off of OUR word.

I don’t give a flying fuck what mix of races live “in the hood,” “hood” is code for Blacks. Period. Karsnia is not talking about Little Italy for Christ’s sake! Therefore he is no less obviously racist for not having said, “I expect this from Blacks.” And bigotry, like bigots, often comes by the case assortment.

And his “going down the tubes” comment IS typical of the wrong kind of person who goes into “law enforcement,” read “enforcing the status quo,” which don’t include you and me, Girlfriend! And Karsnia, probably the same Dave Karsnia who graduated from St. Mary’s college, suddenly went from airport hall monitor to St. Dave, Slayer of Fag-ons.

What empowers him beyond his own sense of self-importance to get angry at Craig for [apparently] trying to lie his way out of the end of his career? He wasn’t under oath. Would YOU do any different? I’ve observed enough cops in action and had enough of my own encounters with them to know how many put on their no-limits omnipotence and self-righteous omniscience before they put on their uniforms not to be surprised at the rising indignation in this cop when Craig keeps challenging him, however mildly. “This is not entrapment. ....I'm disrespected right now....you're sitting here lying to a police officer.”

Ever hear of “Bag A Fag”? Sean Kosofsky, Director of Policy of Michigan’s Triangle Foundation, wrote that that’s a name a lot of cops give such entrapment operations. Some even having T-shirts printed with that written on them. From his extensive experience as a diversity trainer for over 1000 cops from various police agencies he wrote at Bilerico.com that,

“Undercover operations have 0 deterrent effect. There is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, the opposite is true. When members of the public see uniformed police - that is a deterrent. It makes many people feel more safe and if you combine it with signs saying that illegal behavior will be prosecuted or that surveillance is occurring (it doesn't have to be occurring) then you could argue there is a deterrent goal by the facility. But hiding a police officer does not prevent crime. All it does is A) catch criminals or B) invite entrapment by overzealous cops who are frustrated with cautious perpetrators that refuse to take the bait.

“We had a case of 770 arrests in 4 months. Almost all were innocent. 50 of the guys got in touch with Triangle and all were acquitted because the officer refused to show up for court, meaning that he would commit perjury about what he put in the police reports.”

I don’t agree with him that there’s any chance of convincing people that “public sex,” even if 99% never realize it’s happening around them, is a “victimless crime,” but you can read what else Sean wrote at:

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/08/larry_craig_innocent.php#more

Now back to Craig. Before anyone goes too soft on him as this saga gets sadder and sadder, read through the items below of his vote history taken from the wonderful site, www.ontheissues.org. I was surprised that I actually agreed with him on one or two things [none listed here], but was also surprised to see how otherwise Troglodytic he really is.

• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
• Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
• Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
• Voted YES on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
• Voted NO on national education standards. (Feb 1994)
• Rated 20% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
• Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (May 1994)
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
• Voted NO on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
• Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
• Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
• Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
• Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
• Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
• Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
• Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
• Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
• Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
• Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
• Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
• Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
• Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
• Voted NO on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
• Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
• Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
• Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996)
• Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
• Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sep 2003)
• Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
• Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

The prosecution rests.

Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Aug 31, 2007 11:44:29 AM
What worries me is that there is no evidence to support this. I know of people in Seattle who have been arrested in parks, when they really werent even doing anything bad. Cops have a quota to meet. If that man never arrests anybody in that bathroom, theres really no use for his job is there? Maybe poor Senator Craig was out of TP and was reaching under the divider to see if the cop could spare a square! hehe.

Posted by: Chris | Aug 31, 2007 12:24:48 PM
Is that you, Senator? Today I was in any number of public bathrooms polling for my thesis. In one, the occupant in the next stall was tap-dancing and was really quite good. His performance was acknowledged by a standing ovation that came from the direction of the urinals. In another stall someone was doing an Ethel Merman rendition of Show Business. It was a not very good rehash of the original and I didn't much like it. When the entire place (with ME as the exception) erupted into C'mom Get Happy, I decided to leave. As I was going there was a line at the door. It looked like River Dance was going to be the next number. It looks like gay life is about to change forever. Does anybody remember what condoms are for?

Posted by: billofthedesert | Sep 1, 2007 10:42:08 AM
This case reminds me of a freind who was out one early evening jogging on the Katy Trail. It was summer and he was just wearing jogging shorts and shoes. A cop stopped him and arrested him for lewd behavior because he said his shorts were to revealing and he was looking for sex. No kdding. He got off but the legal fees were horrendous.

Posted by: Himbo with Highlights | Sep 1, 2007 3:41:17 PM
Strange, after hearing this, the case reeks strongly of entrapment.

I mean I think Craig needs to deal with some stuff. And I am pleased as punch that he is out of office. But....

Methinks stinky.

Posted by: Br!on | Sep 1, 2007 4:48:42 PM
The truth is that this type of entrapment and harassment is carried out everyday by Police Departments across the nation and around the world. We need to take a closer look at where our local tax dollars are being spent within the various law enforcement agencies and ensure that they are not being so blatantly wasted.

Posted by: Paul | Sep 3, 2007 3:16:37 PM

Crime | Idaho | Larry Craig | News

Larry Craig's Post-Arrest Tape

Like it?

RECENT STORIES:

Comments

Post a comment

Recent Comments