« Judge Declares Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional |
Main
| Mitt Romney Slams Iowa "Activist Judge" on Gay Marriage Decision »
08/30/2007
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.
Posted 9:51 PM EST by Andy Towle in Crime, Idaho, Larry Craig, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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