« 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.
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