https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested for indecent behavior in a men's restroom at Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport; he pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct in August 2007 and paid $575 in court fines and fees. The arrest remained unknown to the public until the Washington, D.C.-based newspaper Roll Call disclosed it in an article, drawing widespread public attention as well as charges of hypocrisy against Craig, as he had been an opponent of LGBT rights in the United States.[2] Despite stating that he was not and never had been homosexual, Craig announced, on September 1, 2007, that he would resign from the Senate, effective September 30, 2007, but later reversed this decision and decided to finish the remainder of his term, although he chose not to run for re-election in 2008.[3]

On June 11, 2007, Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport for lewd conduct in a men's restroom,[48] where he was accused of soliciting a male undercover police officer for sexual activity.[49] During the resulting interview with the arresting officer, Craig insisted upon his innocence, disputing the officer's version of the event by stating that he merely had a "wide stance" and that he had been picking up a piece of paper from the floor.[49]

Craig was charged with interference with privacy, a gross misdemeanor offense, and a disorderly conduct misdemeanor.[50] Despite his statements of innocence during the police interview, Craig pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct by signing and mailing a plea petition, dated August 1, 2007, to the Hennepin County District Court.[50][51][52] Including fines and fees, he paid $575. Craig signed the petition to enter his guilty plea, which contained the provisions, "I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent... I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty." Craig mailed his signed petition to the court, and his petition to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge was accepted and filed by the court on August 8, 2007.[50][51] In an August 28, 2007 press conference, Craig regretted filing the guilty plea, stating "In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously".[53][54]

At a news conference on September 1, 2007, Craig announced his intent to resign, "with sadness and deep regret", effective September 30, 2007. On September 4, 2007, a spokesperson for Craig indicated that he was reconsidering his decision to resign,[55] if his conviction was rapidly overturned and his committee assignments were restored.[56] The following week, Craig's attorneys filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that it "was not knowing and intelligent and therefore was in violation of his constitutional rights."[57] The motion was ultimately denied, upholding the initial guilty plea.[58] The controversy forced Craig to step down from his position as liaison to the Senate on the Romney campaign.[59] Craig was vehemently adamant that he was not homosexual, stating "I am not gay. I never have been gay."[60]

Following the ruling, Craig announced that despite his previous statements to the contrary, he would serve out his Senate term. He stated that he intended to "continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee—something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate."[61] Craig did not seek reelection in 2008 and left office on January 3, 2009.[62]

Both the 2009 documentary Outrage and the magazine Newsweek (June 7, 2010 issue) listed Craig, among others, as a conservative politician with a record of anti-gay legislation who was caught in a gay sex scandal.[63]

In a lawsuit by the Federal Election Commission, it was determined that he improperly paid his attorneys in this matter from his campaign funds, and Craig was ordered in 2014 to pay the Treasury $242,535.[64] On March 4, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.[65][66]

This smells like a set-up, to take him down.

What else was he involved in that would be a good reason to set him up?