By Bonnie Goldstein
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007, at 5:01 PM ET Around noon on June 11, Sgt. Dave Karsnia entered a men's room stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and sat on a toilet. That wouldn't ordinarily be news, but in this instance Karsnia's presence was not related—or, at least, not primarily related—to the workings of his digestive tract. He was there to investigate complaints about lewd conduct. Within minutes, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho—a state with little tolerance for lascivious conduct—peered into Karsnia's stall, entered the stall to Karsnia's left, and placed a roller bag in front. Craig then tapped his right foot and moved it close to Karsnia's. Karsnia interpreted this as an established signal for sexual solicitation (see police narrative below and on the following page), and replied in kind by raising and lowering his own foot. Craig then extended his fingers into Karsnia's stall. Karsnia placed his police identification by the floor where Craig could see it and pointed to the exit.
Craig resisted at first, but eventually he complied with his arrest. The senator was informed of his rights, interviewed on tape, photographed, fingerprinted, and released. Charged with violating Minnesota statutes against "interference with privacy" and "disorderly conduct," on Aug. 8 Craig pled guilty and paid a $575 fine. On Aug. 27 Roll Call Magazine broke the story. Sen. Craig responded with a short statement saying that his conduct was not inappropriate and that the police had misconstrued his actions. "In hindsight," he said, "I should not have pled guilty."
Thanks to the Smoking Gun for publishing the document image.
Got a Hot Document? Send it to . Please indicate whether you wish to remain anonymous.
By Bonnie Goldstein
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007, at 5:01 PM ET Bonnie Goldstein is a former special investigator to the U.S. Senate and investigative producer for ABC News.
Remarks from the Fray:
Now I'll readily admit, cruising in a mens room for willing partners to partake in some illicit nasty-nasty isn't my idea of a good Saturday night activity - even if I am spending a layover in Minnesota.
But I won't fault Senator Craig for trying, hey if that's how you get your jollies, who am I to try and stop you (unless of course I happen to be responsible for cleaning said restroom)?
I might even go so far as to actually believe that he was only picking up a piece of paper. Hey some of us have long legs, and we have to put our feet somewhere, why not spread 'em?
But I refuse to give this man any sympathy. He pleaded guilty. Sure, I know, he claims to have done it in an effort to "keep things quiet," but this man is a Senator for crying out loud! If there's anything that the masses love more than a salacious sex story, it's a salacious sex story involving closeted gay Republicans. It was bound to break one way or another, and pleading guilty is not the right way to "keep it under wraps." It's probably the worst thing he could have done.
Once he made that guilty plea, he lost every right he had to play the victim. Had he fought the arrest, he would have had any number of excuses ready in his back pocket, several of which would have found a willing audience. Overzealous cops, a rampant press campaign out to smear his good name. He could have made it bipartisan by wondering very loudly what the use is in having laws that forbid people from making overtures to consensual sex (What's next, one might ask, asking a girl at a bar if she wants to go home with you?). Even the "who the fuck knew that tapping another guy's foot while sitting on the crapper is considered lewd and disruptive" defense would have stuck, for some anyways.
Now the rabid hoards get to salivate over the schadenfreude of a family values man caught allegedly soliciting sex from another man, AND the increasingly bizarre spectacle of watching this man try and explain not only why he was in that bathroom, but why he plead guilty in the first place.
He might have an abnormally large poo-stance, he might have dropped a secret government invisible piece of paper, but in proclaiming publicly and on the official record that he committed lewd and disruptive acts, he now has to explain away why he exhibited such a gross miscalculation of judgment - both in the bathroom stall and in the police station.
--analogboy490
(To reply, click here.)
(8/29)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
Remarks from the Fray:
Now I'll readily admit, cruising in a mens room for willing partners to partake in some illicit nasty-nasty isn't my idea of a good Saturday night activity - even if I am spending a layover in Minnesota.
But I won't fault Senator Craig for trying, hey if that's how you get your jollies, who am I to try and stop you (unless of course I happen to be responsible for cleaning said restroom)?
I might even go so far as to actually believe that he was only picking up a piece of paper. Hey some of us have long legs, and we have to put our feet somewhere, why not spread 'em?
But I refuse to give this man any sympathy. He pleaded guilty. Sure, I know, he claims to have done it in an effort to "keep things quiet," but this man is a Senator for crying out loud! If there's anything that the masses love more than a salacious sex story, it's a salacious sex story involving closeted gay Republicans. It was bound to break one way or another, and pleading guilty is not the right way to "keep it under wraps." It's probably the worst thing he could have done.
Once he made that guilty plea, he lost every right he had to play the victim. Had he fought the arrest, he would have had any number of excuses ready in his back pocket, several of which would have found a willing audience. Overzealous cops, a rampant press campaign out to smear his good name. He could have made it bipartisan by wondering very loudly what the use is in having laws that forbid people from making overtures to consensual sex (What's next, one might ask, asking a girl at a bar if she wants to go home with you?). Even the "who the fuck knew that tapping another guy's foot while sitting on the crapper is considered lewd and disruptive" defense would have stuck, for some anyways.
Now the rabid hoards get to salivate over the schadenfreude of a family values man caught allegedly soliciting sex from another man, AND the increasingly bizarre spectacle of watching this man try and explain not only why he was in that bathroom, but why he plead guilty in the first place.
He might have an abnormally large poo-stance, he might have dropped a secret government invisible piece of paper, but in proclaiming publicly and on the official record that he committed lewd and disruptive acts, he now has to explain away why he exhibited such a gross miscalculation of judgment - both in the bathroom stall and in the police station.
--analogboy490
(To reply, click here.)
(8/29)