Those who choose to read in things never mentioned in the actual charges have a problem. Because if it wasn't charged, Larry Craig did not plead to it. So, there is no resisting arrest as some have claimed.
Examine the plea, the charges and the complaint. In all three situations conduct is the focus. Was his conduct orderly for someone just using the toilet? No. Peeping through the crack in the door again and again, touching feet, putting hands under the wall is not orderly conduct for someone minding their own business. He plead guilty to disorderly conduct which by my read means he agrees that whatever it is he did in that bathroom was not what would have been expected of someone just using the bathroom. Plus in his words in his guilty plea he says that he knew that other people would be disturbed by his disorderly behavior.
Here are his words:
I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others which was physical (versus verbal) in nature.
For the comprehension challenged, the keys are behavior and conduct. Take a look at the aberrant behavior and conduct which would cause someone to become alarmed and you will know what he pleaded to and is accused of.
If you want to understand the truth, you read for the truth. If you want to hold on to the thoughts in your own head, you ignore the truth. Continue to ignore it as you wish.
Nowhere in his plea does he stipulate to doing these things. Thus my point that you reading quite a bit into his plea. Again, I think he was cruising the bathroom for sex, but you cannot jump to absolute certainty that your description of the events is accurate ON THE BASIS OF HIS PLEA. Again, it's hair-splitting, but you seem inclined to keep shaving away at the follicle, yourself.