The former conservative GOP senator from Idaho illegally used his campaign funds to defend himself on charges of soliciting sex in a men's toilet in the Minneapolis airport.
He argued that since the stopover in Minneapolis was en route to DC, that the sex solicitation was part of his "official business" and so he was entitled to use his campaign warchest to pay the lawyers who presented a series of increasingly farcical arguments in his defense. The FEC didn't buy it.
I'm not sure any single case has generated more Brilliant Arguments than Larry Craig's. Just off the top of my head, he's offered:
*
My Foot Was Only In the Other Stall Because I Have a "Wide Stance"*
My Foot-Tapping Was Not Intended as a Message to the Person in That Stall*
If It Was, That Was Protected Speech*
I Did Not Understand the Meaning of a "Guilty Plea"*
Legal Fees Stemming From the "Guilty Plea" Were Related to My Official Senate Duties
Larry Craig Can't Catch a Break [Kevin Underwood/Lowering the Bar]s
(Image: Larry Craig official portrait, Wikimedia Commons/US Congress, Public Domain)
