Ebbie: The disorderly conduct may be considered to have consisted of:
1. Peeking in the crack
2. Moving his hands funny while waiting
3. Bringing his carry-on luggage into the stall
4. Bumping the cop's foot
5. Tapping his foot, and
6. Picking up paper.

I wouldn't convict him for disorderly conduct for that but I sure as hell wouldn't convict him of a sex crime either and if I were him I would be desperate to do anything to avoid a sex crime record. If I were him and making the bad decision to plead I would plead to disorderly conduct too.

Genie:

I agree with you on both points but for one major thing: One cop's word against one politician's word.

I do not believe for a second that either of you would be willing to sit on a jury and, beyond all reasonable doubt, convict him or anyone else you love or hate, on THOSE facts as "Lewd Behavior," much less "convict" him for illegal acts that he may or may not have wanted to do in his dirty little mind, but undisputedly did NOT do.

As I said, you can easily think to yourself that this guy wanted some action. I think that's a reasonable conclusion. But people's willingness people's willingness to ignore or be dismissive of constitutional due process rights for the pleasure of bringing down a "bad man" isn't clear thinking.