Craig Shouldn't Stall 'Guilty' Withdrawal

My only question is why Larry Craig is walking around today.

Why do we have Guantanamo if we are not going to use Guantanamo?

Craig is, for the moment, the senior senator from Idaho, a conservative Republican, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

The story was broken by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call on Monday, and on Tuesday Craig publicly declared he is neither guilty nor gay.

I think he is probably both, but I also think he should withdraw his guilty plea if he can. It might lead to the greatest jury trial since O.J.

I have read Craig's arrest report a half-dozen times, and it is fascinating — far more fascinating than the news summaries can convey:

On June 11, at about noon, a plainclothes officer goes into the men's room at the airport and sits in a stall. He does this because the department has made "numerous arrests regarding sexual activity" in that restroom in the past.

The stalls on both sides of the officer are occupied, which the officer knows because he can "see the shoes and ankles" of the people in them.

After about 13 minutes of sitting there — this is not a job you want — the officer sees through the crack in the stall door an "older white male with gray hair standing outside my stall." He later learns the man is Larry Craig.

The officer observes that Craig "would look down at his hands and 'fidget' with his fingers and then look through the crack into my stall again."

Now, a defense attorney might be able to argue that Craig may have been fidgeting because he needed to use the restroom and he could have been looking into the cracks in the stalls to see if they were occupied.

Anyway, at 15 minutes past noon, the man in the stall to the left of the officer exits the stall, and Craig goes in.

"Craig entered the stall and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door," the officer states. "My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall."

Seems logical, right? Until you ask yourself just what you are supposed to do with your roller bag after you enter a stall.

You walk in with your roller bag behind you and ... wait a second.

OK, I just checked it out in one of the bathroom stalls here. Our stalls may not be exactly like the stalls at the Minneapolis airport, but they are probably pretty similar. Check it out where you work.

First off, you have to take your bag into the stall with you. If you leave it outside, it could get stolen.

Second, placing it against the door is the most logical place to put it.

In fact, what else are you supposed to do with your bag? Hold it on your lap?

Nor, by the way, does leaving a rolling bag against the door necessarily "block the view" from outside the stall, as the officer asserts. I doubt most rolling bags are really wide enough to block both edges of the door.

Nonetheless, the officer apparently found this a warning that lewd behavior was about to take place.

The officer states that a minute after Craig entered the stall, Craig "tapped his right foot."

"I recognized this is a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct," the officer states.

Could be. But, again, I suppose a defense attorney might suggest there are other reasons for people to tap their feet. Especially while going to the bathroom.

Anyway, Craig taps his toes several times and moves his foot closer to the officer's foot.

"I moved my foot up and down slowly," the officer states.

Why? To fool Craig into thinking the officer wanted to engage in lewd conduct with him, I would guess.

So then Craig "moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot, which was within my stall area."

The officer then sees Craig "swipe his hand under the stall divider" and motion back and forth with his hand.

At this point, the officer takes out his badge and places it down by the floor so Craig can see it. The officer points toward the exit.

The officer notes, "Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet."

(I don't know if leaving a toilet stall without flushing is a crime in Minneapolis, but if it is, they are going to need more police.)

Craig was arrested. In the Police Operations Center at the airport, Craig handed the officer his U.S. Senate business card and said, "What do you think about that?"

The officer made no reply.

In the police center, Craig defended his actions to the officer, saying that he has a "wide stance when going to the bathroom," and his foot may have touched the officer's, and that Craig had reached down to the floor to pick up a piece of paper. The officer says there was no piece of paper on the floor.

I find the police officer's story much more believable than Craig's story, even though I don't think Craig's conduct prior to touching the police officer's shoe was all that suspicious.

And a defense attorney might ask why the officer didn't wait for Craig to go further and do something that was indisputably lewd before he arrested Craig.

One other thing from the police report: "Craig was worried about missing his flight. Detective Nelson tried to call the airline to hold the plane."

Which is a pretty nice thing to do for a guy who you think just committed a lewd act.

Like I say, this could all lead to a great trial, one in which a defense attorney might ask a whole bunch of things to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury. And he might succeed.

After all, O.J. is walking around today.

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007, CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.