Since March, Idaho politics watchers have been waiting to see what Idaho Statesman political reporter Dan Popkey found as a result of his months long investigation into allegations of Sen. Larry Craig's homosexuality, and whether the story would ever be published. Yesterday I speculated that release of the Popkey story could seal the deal on Craig's resignation.
The long wait is finally over. We get the story in today's Statesman.
In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.
The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable....
In the hourlong May 14 interview, Craig was accompanied by his wife, Suzanne. He specifically and generally denied ever engaging in any homosexual conduct.
During that interview, the Statesman played Craig an audiotape of the man claiming that he and Craig had sex in the Union Station restroom. Like the Minnesota airport restroom, the Union Station restroom is known as a place where men can find anonymous sex.
Craig denied the man's account and said, "I am not gay and I have never been in a restroom in Union Station having sex with anybody.
"There's a very clear bottom line here," Craig said. "I don't do that kind of thing. I am not gay, and I never have been."
Craig's accuser spoke to the Statesman on the condition he not be named. The man said he was sure it was Craig he had oral sex with but said he had no evidence other than his word.
Craig also denied the claims of the two other men that he made sexual advances to them.
One man, who was considering pledging with Craig's fraternity at the U of I in 1967, said Craig took him to his room and made what the man said he took to be an invitation to sex. Responding to that allegation in May, Craig said, "I don't hit on any men."
Another man said that in November 1994 Craig "cruised" him at the REI store in Boise. The man, who is gay, told the Statesman that Craig stared at him in a sexually inviting way and followed him around REI for a half-hour. Said Craig: "Once again, I'm not gay, and I don't cruise, and I don't hit on men. I have no idea how he drew that conclusion. A smile? Here is one thing I do out in public: I make eye contact, I smile at people, they recognize me, they say, ‘Oh, hi, Senator.' Or, ‘Do I know you?'
"I've been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"....
Jiminy, indeed. The Statesman, after this hour long interview with Craig, shelved the story, despite having three sources who were clear and consistent in their stories about Craig. Obviously these stories are difficult, at best, to verify. An arrest and guilty plea, however, certainly give some new weight to the old stories.
Speaking of old stories, Popkey delved far back in Craig's career, and spins a detailed narrative.
Until the Mike Rogers report in October and the Roll Call story on Monday, rumors about Craig were grounded in the 1982 congressional page scandal. Craig denied involvement in 1982, but the timing of his statement fueled rumors that lasted decades. Among them were that Craig married shortly after the scandal to cover up his alleged homosexuality....
Craig allowed the Statesman to review, but not copy, what he said were an FBI report and a privately administered polygraph from 1982 regarding the page scandal.
Craig did not respond to requests to have the FBI verify the authenticity of the FBI document. Craig also declined to sign a waiver allowing the Statesman to review anything in his FBI file regarding homosexuality.
The FBI document supplied by Craig describes a July 20, 1982, FBI interview with Craig at the offices of his Washington law firm. Craig requested the interview with the FBI and said reporters had threatened to disclose allegations of homosexuality.
"Craig stated that he had never engaged in a homosexual relationship" with Williams or Opp, the FBI report said. "Craig further indicated that he has never engaged in a homosexual relationship with any person."
The document says Craig told the FBI that he suspected that then-Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., might be behind the allegations against him. Opp was appointed by Schroeder. "Craig said that recent polls indicate strong support for his re-election this fall, and he perceives this as a slanderous campaign by the opposition party to have him defeated," said the report.
Craig's bizarre preemptive denial in the 1982 scandal and his marriage to a staffer six months afterward have been the stuff of speculation for 25 years. Craig obtained an "instant family" with the marriage--she had children from a previous marriage. It certainly did seem convenient.
Peter Fearon, then with the New York Post, said he never said his paper was preparing to name Craig. "No, no — it wasn't ‘are you under investigation?' It was simply an inquiry: ‘Have you heard anything? Who have you heard about? Have you heard any names mentioned? What's your reaction to this news?'
"The next thing I know, Larry Craig has issued a press release: ‘This isn't me.' Which I just thought was a bizarre and ultimately very foolish thing to do.
"He was the only person going on the record anywhere," Fearon said. "And of course, when you do that, it's like raw meat. He's saying, ‘Nobody's actually accusing, but it wasn't me!' It's no wonder it's dogged him. He denied something that no one had accused him of."
The arrest and guilty plea certainly shed new light on all these old rumors, and I suspect will give them new weight in the eyes of Idaho Republicans. There have been fissures in the state party with Craig since Rogers broke his story last fall. The party has been waiting for this shoe to drop, and has been all but prying Craig out of office since. Witness Lt. Gov. Jim Risch's premature declaration of candidacy for the office in April. I suspect that the lack of support from the party bosses is also behind the ridiculous Draft Craig movement--they've been trying to get the big money trade groups in Idaho solidly behind Craig's reelection bid.
Is Popkey's story enough to force Craig's resignation? I think, again combined with the arrest and guilty plea, it is. Craig has been living under the cloud of these stories for his entire political career, and so have Idaho Republicans. I think they're finished with him.
Update: Mike Rogers is going to be on the Ed Schultz show today, and promises a new twist to the story.