SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Spitz Out

POLITICS MARCH 12, 2008

Spitz Out

BY SCOTT HORTIN

On Monday a friend gave me a copy of a memorandum (pdf) that Attorney General Michael Mukasey had circulated inside the Justice Department admonishing staff about how to deal with politically sensitive cases. "They must be about to bag another big-time Democrat,” my friend said, jokingly. Perhaps it wasn’t a joke. Within hours the wires were burning with reports that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had been linked to a prostitution ring.

In New York, the tabloid press and comedians are having a field day with the sudden, spectacular fall of Eliot Spitzer. He had been cast as a Democratic remake of Thomas E. Dewey, the state’s legendary Republican prosecutor-governor. Under his leadership, Democrats were increasingly confident of breaking a logjam in Albany by wresting the state senate from the Republicans, who viewed Spitzer as a mortal threat. But Monday’s disclosures linking Spitzer to a prostitution ring brought the state to a standstill, and he announced his resignation Wednesday morning.

Spitzer’s public statements did not include protestations of innocence, as might have been expected if he were to vigorously contest the claims circulating in the media. Moreover, media accounts point to a damning case. Spitzer, known for an aggressive prosecutorial style that earned him enmity in key Wall Street financial circles, had as attorney general gone after a prostitution ring or two, so a charge of hypocrisy has been added to the mix.

All of this makes for excellent copy, particularly for the cable news networks and other outlets that feed off just this sort of tale of personal fall. But there may well be a story-behind-the-story. How did the case against Spitzer get launched? Was he brought down by a politically motivated investigation?

The integrity of our criminal justice system rests on the notion that we investigate crimes, not people. As Robert Jackson, probably the greatest attorney general of the last century, put it:

 

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.

The way prosecutorial power is wielded divides a real democracy from a banana republic.

The story emerging around the fall of Eliot Spitzer suggests that the case did not start with the report of a crime. Rather it started with a decision to look into Spitzer and his financial dealings. In the course of an open-ended investigation, information about a prostitution circle surfaced. That looks abusive. An investigation like that provides no basis to acquit Spitzer. But it suggests that when his case is done, the public should be pressing some tough questions about why this investigation was launched and pushed forward.

Specifically, the official narrative suggests that a Long Island bank noticed an odd pattern of payments made by Spitzer between different accounts. The payments were not enormous sums and the bank is said to have been concerned that a large number of transfers were made so as to fall below the $10,000 reporting threshold. The Los Angeles Times reports that Spitzer asked that his name be taken off the money wires, which reportedly aroused suspicion. The bank submitted a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the IRS. The payments which totaled up to $80,000, looked suspicious, we are told, and were examined on the basis that they might be an effort to money-launder bribes. This was reported to the IRS in Hauppauge, Long Island, which in turn involved the Public Integrity Section in the Department of Justice.

Spitzer’s request that his name be removed could have been a legitimate trigger for an SAR. But there are some fair questions as to the claims about bribes. Thanks to his father’s real estate fortune, Spitzer is an extremely wealthy man, and his channeling of payments at the level suggested can hardly be viewed as something that raises legitimate suspicion. As money laundering goes, $40,000 to $80,000 is peanuts--not the sort of thing that would normally raise an eyebrow. Here it is not the sum involved that triggered suspicion; it is the person who made the payments. Similarly, the suggestion that these payments might have been bribe payments which were being laundered is absurd. In fact they were payments made by Spitzer, not receipts. The facts offered barely meet a plausibility test. Most significantly, there was no basis to suspect bribery--which is what ostensibly launched the entire probe. Several reports about this case have suggested that it is somehow routine for prosecutors to go through the financial records of public officials to look for evidence of corruption. But in the absence of specific grounds justifying the investigation (for instance, an informant complaining about a bribe) prosecutors have no such authority. In this case, the basis for action is extraordinarily weak. Most importantly, the investigators do not appear to be looking into a crime, they appear to be investigating Spitzer in the hopes of finding something compromising.    

The SAR put the matter in the hands of the IRS. In the last six years, the IRS has begun to amass an astonishing record of politically motivated investigations--most recently one targeting Barack Obama’s church.

The IRS, according to the official line, noting that the matter related to a public official, turned it over to the Public Integrity Section (PIN) at the Department of Justice. In theory, PIN exists to avoid an appearance that prosecutions are politically motivated by insuring the application of uniform national standards. Practice at PIN has, however, been difficult to reconcile with theory. PIN has emerged as one of the most highly politicized branches of a highly politicized Justice Department. According to a study done by two university professors, under President Bush PIN has initiated 5.6 cases involving Democrats for every one case involving a Republican. This statistical data strongly suggest that PIN has a habit of aggressively pushing cases on the basis of partisan political criteria.

Considering that the official account shows this was a “routine” examination of bank records, the level of resources allocated to it, including investigators and prosecutors, was lavish. This again suggests a political prosecution. Political direction is rarely overt. It usually takes the form of generous allocation of resources for political targets, and constriction of resources for persons who are politically protected. Clearly, moving the case against Spitzer had become a priority.

Two more questions should be asked about the prosecution. The first is whether a selective attitude is taken in prosecution--that is, whether the Justice Department is treating Spitzer in a manner consistent with other (notably Republican) figures caught in a similarly compromised position. The second is how the matter was broken to the press.

On each of these points, the information now available raises unsettling issues about the conduct of the Justice Department. One close parallel involving a prostitution investigation is the case of the “D.C. Madam.” In that case, federal prosecutors have proceeded against the prostitution ring and have shown little interest in the customer list, which is said to include a former high-ranking Bush Administration official (Randall Tobias, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development) and a U.S. Senator (David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana). The prosecutors’ conduct in the “D.C. Madam” case has been remarkably deferential to the public figures involved. That case cannot be squared with the investigation into Governor Spitzer--it points to a double standard.

Politically abusive prosecutions are almost always marked by media-friendly prosecutors. The essence of political prosecution is less to bag the political prey than to make partisan propaganda by marking the target as “corrupt.” And the accounts published in The New York Times, ABC News, and other media outlets reveal investigators and prosecutors eager to get the details out and on to the public record. (On Friday, a Times reporter received a tip that “Client 9” was “a New York official.”) Indeed, there is an extremely revealing penchant for salacious detail in the complaint--insinuations about the sexual proclivities of “Client 9,” for instance. This may have been included gratuitously to humiliate Spitzer and destroy any prospects for his future political career. If there is a legitimate prosecutorial purpose served, I can’t fathom it.

Was the Spitzer investigation politically motivated? It’s still too early to say with any assurance, but the facts offered about the case so far raise more questions than they answer. The Justice Department’s response to inquiries may be “trust us.” But it may discover that the reservoir of public trust has been exhausted.

Scott Horton teaches law at Columbia University and is a legal affairs contributor to Harper’s.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 78 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

78 comments

Baloney. When the IRS gets this kind of evidence of structuring, they always investigate. This is plain vanilla IRS enforcement activity, described at every criminal tax conference I attend. The article shows Horton's ignorance of how financial crimes are investigated and prosecuted - he knows a lot less about it than, oh, say, Eliot Spitzer. Also, Horton's sermonizing about prosecuting "crimes not men" rings pretty hollow. Based on Horton's writings to date, I think it's fair to say he hopes that prosecutors go after George W. Bush for any damn thing they can think of after January 20, 2009, and he'll have an orgasm if they pin something on Dubya.

- Richard Riley

March 12, 2008 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...the suggestion that these payments might have been bribe payments which were being laundered is absurd." Well speaking of absurd bribery cases how about another Dem Guv bagged by the Bushies, Don Siegelman of Alabama who was accused of exchanging a seat on the state hospital licensing board for a contribution to an education lottery campaign he was pushing, not uncommon in state capitals around the country-an unusual bribery prosecution where the payment wasn’t to the defendant. My instincts are that that case and Spitzer's were both politically motivated. But they all play the same game-the new Dem Prez can pardon both of them.

- lesserliz

March 12, 2008 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is pathetic--the Democrats have raised holy heck over sexual behavior by isolated Republicans aided and abetted by non-partisan enablers (think various page scandals) when it suited them (as have Republicans on the other foot)--this guy was arguably violated financial reporting laws and it was the Treasury Department bureaucrats who called in the feds. Anybody dumb enough to pay working girls this kind of scratch is, at the least, criminally stupid.

- Paul Freedman

March 12, 2008 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If this action against Spitzer is politically motivated, then it falls into the category of "turnabout is fair play." I don't know of any Spitzer prosecution when he was New York attorney general that wasn't politically motivated by any test that Horton has devised. With this scandal, there are sure to follow investigations into Spitzer's own conduct.

- nbarry

March 12, 2008 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An elected official making numerous wire payments and asking that his name be taken off of them, followed by an SAR from a bank is not suspicious? Of course it is suspicious. It clearly smells of bribery. And just becuase you know Spitzer's dad is rich does not mean that some IRS and DOJ flunkies know he is. Frankly, I didn't know he was rich. And looking at the way he dresses, I had always assumed he was not. This is a clear case of a lead into a bribery scandel leading to something else. It does not show abuse of discretion. It shows that Spitzer was an idiot for getting a hooker over the internet.

- cranberry

March 12, 2008 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"According to a study done by two university professors, under President Bush PIN has initiated 5.6 cases involving Democrats for every one case involving a Republican. This statistical data strongly suggest that PIN has a habit of aggressively pushing cases on the basis of partisan political criteria." Actually, I don't think it reveals a habit of pushing prosecutions on Democrats - more likely it reveals a habit of ignoring wrong-doing when it involves a Republican. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the arguments in this article when you're defending somebody who is innocent and had his good name tarred by overzealous prosecutors. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. By all means, let's root out the Democratic crooks and chase them from office. I want them to be MORE aggressive with doing this, not less. But I really want them to be more aggressive in pursuing the Republican crooks that they are looking the other way on.

- buffaloboy

March 12, 2008 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who cares if the investigation was politically motivated? He had sex with prostitutes, he got caught. It doesn't matter if the devil himself initiated the investigation, Spitzer himself is the one responsible for the outcome.

- Andrew

March 12, 2008 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if selective prosecution is a reasonable question regarding Spitzers own priorities. No just kidding. I don't really wonder. It's probably safe to say that he didn't prosecute the organization he did business with. Might one be allowed to wander a bit about the various possibilities which could conceivably put Spitzers activities beyond simple 'John' status. I think so........... I agree. Selective prosecution is a real problem.

- boxo

March 12, 2008 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am also just intriqued by why you try so hard to defend a no good SOB by alledging misconduct on the part of investigators who were merely attempting to unconver seeming suspicios activies in high places.

- Savea Metusela

March 12, 2008 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shocking that Mr Spitzer might be involved in a prosecution motivated by anything other than a dispassionate respect for the law.

- George W

March 12, 2008 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One of the reasons high officials ought not consort with prostitutes is that it leaves them open to extortion and blackmail. It might come from a private entity. It might come from the policing agencies. It often came from Eliot Spitzer himself, applied to his various targets. Spitzer has already given plenty of cause to be indicted for various crimes. The same kind of laws he used against his targets. Let's not start up this phony weeping about entrapment or political prosecution. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

- ChanRobt

March 12, 2008 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So we have become a banana republic in 6 short years. What else is new?

- Richard

March 12, 2008 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It matters not one iota if the Spitzer investigation was politically motivated. The fact is: Spitzer violated the public trust. He did so by breaking the law, first of all, but worse: breaking it in a horrendously salacious way - no one needs to make this more salacious, Spitzer did salacious to himself. Does "salacious" matter? Of course it does. Spitzer, in whom the public placed trust as an official to execute the public interest and to exercise the power of his office in the public interest, exposed himself to bribery and extortion. If anyone should understand this, it is an attorney, yet it is interesting how quickly elected official attorneys are transformed into conflict-of-interest / public-trust know-nothings pontificating about civil libertarianism and private affairs just as soon as their own proclivities are disclosed. Now, having been caught, this is no longer about Spitzer, it is about every other individual in whom the public places trust. If Spitzer is let off the line it will send a message to power-holders everywhere that the back-room deal survives, public trust be-damned. However we may feel sorrow for it, and we should, Spitzer needs to get the book thrown at him - it's not hyperbole to say that the republic depends on it. So, politically motivated? Totally, utterly, completely irrelevant. Heck, if so, good - that is separation of powers acting in alignment with the interest of the public. God bless it, let's have some more.

- dcw

March 12, 2008 at 9:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, many of Mr. Spitzers targets could have written this exacte same article about their prosocution

- Twistelton-Twistelton

March 12, 2008 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your whole attempt to paint this as a political prosecution was undercut by your own statement that "... Spitzer's request that his name be removed could have been a legitimate trigger for an SAR." I was surprised to see the author teaches law given that part of his argument is "others got away with it, why not Spitzer?"

- epackard-02

March 12, 2008 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Scott Horton presumes a political motivation comes from the Republicans. Why? Were is the evidence? The story as it is leaking out sounds plausible. Where is his basis to defend the plaintiff? Eliot Spitzer had a very long list of enemies. Even if revenge of political hijinx are behind this, Scott Hrton needs some meat to the article. This should not have been published.

- David Anderson

March 12, 2008 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is there any evidence a prosecution of Spitzer is even intended? Perhaps none is needed, from the viewpoint of certain parties. The desired damage has been done. At this point, this administration would need to prove anything it does is not politically motivated.

- jrw

March 12, 2008 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and yet again, an intellectual forgets that Americans are too stupid to understand a complex argument. Anyway, it would be political suicide to call the republicans on this gambit of theirs.

- Max

March 12, 2008 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahm jes a po retired country lawyer (DC), and I sure ain't an intellectual teachin at a high fallutin law school like Columbia, so fergiv the followin thoughts: 1) the man was payin a lot of money fer hookers; 2) in the process of trying to finagle the expenses he caught the attention of his bankers; 3) the bankers reported strange goings on to the government (jes lak they thot they's suppose to do); 4) the government, not accustomed to high incomes, thought somebody was blackmailin the john (who'd'a thunk real swingers hadda pay that much jes for sportin); 5) by jiminy, the dude was actually payin that kind of money jes for sportin; fact is payin that much made him feel lak a real sport; 6) in lookin into the whole thing the government found out he was thinkin the whole thing was a dandy idea. But fer this fine article, I'd a thought the arrogant jackass got what he deserved. Thank the Lord the good perfesser set me right. Now I get it! It was them damned Republicans who caused the whole mess. I'm sure that makes his wife and kids feel a passel better. I'm jest sad that my only kid is up in her late thirties. If she was only a tad younger I could send her to Columbia so the good perfesser could give her the real scoop and for only $40,000 a year or so in fees.

- Lou Sernoff

March 13, 2008 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article seems slightly misdirected. The ratio of DOJ investigations of Democrats to Republicans, comparisons of Sen Vitter's and Gov Spitzer's treatment (though more details on that would be helpful) and other evidence of political motivation are indeed troubling. But I don't think Spitzer has any cause for complaint. Moving money around such that no transaction meets the 10 K reporting threshold but with no other discernable purpose should make any observant bank official wonder why the depositor wants his financial movements off the radar. If the depositor is the Governor of New York, the possibility of blackmail payments or some other corruption should raise a red flag. I'm not disturbed by Spitzer's being investigated, given his financial trail; I'm disturbed by the possibility thaty he would have been treated differently had he been a Republican.

- Greg

March 13, 2008 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He brought it on himself. So I won't weep for him.

- Bill Roberts

March 13, 2008 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is why I subscribe to TNR. As sordid as Spitzer's conduct is, there really is something fishy about the way the investigation was conducted and the way the story broke. Someone described Albany Republicans as "lethal". Spitzer baited the Repugs, continually challenging them. It's amazing that Spitzer didn't realize that in throwing down the gauntlet, he was inviting them to come after him. Like Gary Hart. Like Bill Clinton: after Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, you'd think he'd have learned not to push it. But he hadn't learned, or had a reckless compulsion. Just like Spitzer. Nevertheless, this has the earmarks of a political hit. And if that's what it is, it needs to be fully exposed.

- jm_rice

March 13, 2008 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We got George Allen, they got Eliot Spitzer.

- mmathog

March 13, 2008 at 1:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did you laud Spitzer when he was attorney general - for using the exact same tactics of prosecuting people instead of crimes? How about the way he publicized cases, even before they were cases? Or did you decry his tactics then? ************************************ Was it politically motivated? One simple fact stands out to me - did the bank or did the bank not submit an SAR? If so, then the political motivation, if it exists, is marginal.

- reb

March 13, 2008 at 1:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been going back and forth over the last few days about how I feel concerning the inclusion of information about him in the affidavit. They've got the four defendants pretty much nailed. What purpose would there be for including enough info (coupled with the leaks) to allow for reporters to make the connection between Spitzer and client #9? Maybe it was to destroy him politically. Maybe there are way too many resources working on a prostituion ring, inlcuding multiple taps and apparently at least two physical surveillances of Client #9. It does look weird. But, so do this: He was AG while using the service. Leaving aside morality, hypocrisy, etc., that fact alone raises huge "apppearnce of impropriety questions" at the very least. Did AG Spitzer do the ring any favors (like spiking an investigation)? Was he receiving a discount? Was he compromised in some other fashion? In my mind, you're article definitely raises some serious questions. But, I'm hoping there is more to this story.....

- lawjunkie

March 13, 2008 at 1:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires that banks report all transactions that exceed $10,000, a procedure designed to capture the money laundering activities used by drugs dealers and terrorists. The Act also makes it a crime, called structuring, to package transactions so that the $10,000 limit is not reached. As a former public prosecutor, Spitzer would have been aware of these statutory provisions. Prostitution is not a federal crime, but structuring is and Gov. Spitzer walked into this investigation because he tried to structure the money he was using to pay for call girls. Then he asked the bank to take his name off the transactios. His packaging and subsequent request to have his name removed fall right into the kinds of matters bank officials are required to monitor. And again the BSA requires the bank to file a Suspicious Activities Report. The IRS had jurisdiction to investigate likely tax evasion by the call girl ring and using shell companies to move client payments around gave DOJ jurisdiction based on structuring again. The salacious details disclosed about Customer 9 could have been intended to humiliate. I haven't read the affidavit so I don't know. But Spitzer could have legitimately been indicted on structuring charges so he'd have had to resign anayway. The man brought this on himself, I'm afraid. I say this as a moderate Democrat.

- RMA

March 13, 2008 at 2:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the grand scheme of things, everything is politically motivated. The only spot in the universe that does not have this process is a place called Utopia. Obviously, this administration is gone into blantant overdrive since it appears the mortals like us are taking all this crap. Anyhow, much of the discussion around the actual processes of prostitution being illegal are based on some mythological biblical crap. Which is even more mind boggling. Obviously, dabbling with prostitutes does carry a risk of catching (or giving) something that makes one sick. Further, it seems to be a whole lot of money for something that could be gotten (and given) for free anyhow. Finally, the fun part of chasing, winning, loving and hating someone is, in my opinion, life and lifecyles with equal enjoyment of all parties involves.

- Derik

March 13, 2008 at 6:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Horrible article. First, the link to the USAG memorandum is revealing-as to Mr. Horton's bias. That memo doesn't speak to crimes which could hurt a politician. It speaks to election fraud cases and the requirement of the Hatch Act. How a friend of his-a reference which I believe is made-up-thought this signaled some political motivated prosecution is unbelieveable. Spitzer is not even a federal employee. Second, Spitzer's bank reported him to the authorities. Two things were suspicious-asking for name removal from federal funds wires and numerous transactions just under the reporting limit ($5,000 or $10,000). He admits that "structuring" transactions could be a valid reason for reference to the IRS. So, where was the political witchhunt here? Third, what was the IRS to think-if everyone knew as Mr. Horton does, that Elliot is rich-why did he want his name removed from wires and why did he structure withdrawels? Oh, yes, prostitution is obvious answer. Bribery is red herring. Blackmail (obvious potential in prostitution cases) is one. Fourth, a prostitution ring was stopped (Spitzer prosecuted at least 2 during his tenure) and a criminal was caught (Elliot, for at least prostitution, probably violated Mann Act). We'll let the Feds deal with the banking crimes. Fifth, this guy was a ruthless prosecutor himself. Violated Bobby Jackson's concerns, all the time. He was a prosecutor-so-he could achieve elected office. This is the worst reason to be an AG. Sixth, he threatened many potential defendants, in the most unprofessional way. Evidence of some character flaw just now open to our understanding. Seventh, you New Yorkers know better, but didn't he enter Albany indicating he was going to get the Republicans-more evidence of his pathology than anything? Didn't he really wreck his career already with "planegate"? How many New Yorkers continued to respect him after that? Finally, where were his friends? Maybe Alan Dershowitz (kinda of a legal clown, now, eh?). TV commenting on this all the time. No one stood up for him. I think that is another sign of character of the man. Mr. Horton remains a left wing hack.

- lobosven

March 13, 2008 at 7:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another article by someone who thinks the evil govermment (especially Bush-Cheney) is lurking behind every curtain and closet door waiting to pounce on anyone who doesn't fall into line. If if this is the case (I doubt it) in this instance, isn't it ironic that those are the same strong-armed tactics that Spitzer used to smear others during his reign of terror as a prosecutor and NY Attorney General?

- Ben Downing

March 13, 2008 at 7:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, so I guess the it's-the-cop's-fault-for-catching-him suggestions have begun. Anyhow, it happens I know a bit about AML practices, and I can tell you without a doubt that SARs would be flying out of the joint where I work if somebody was engaging in the type of transactions Spitzer was. The guy was a walking red flag.

- selish70

March 13, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really gotta ask if this article would have made top billing if the Guy Who Got Busted was a Republican. And frankly... it seems that this publication should be above this--we gotta spend less time defending our mistakes and getting mad about our guy getting caught...breaking the same laws that he prosecuted other for breaking. We gotta spend more time weeding out those who are willing to trample the lives of others out of pure partisan spite, and Spitzer was That Guy.

- Bill in Austin

March 13, 2008 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Justice Department fires Carol Lam after her prosecution of Duke Cunningham and Davis Iglesias in New Mexico because he refused to prosecute a democrat in the months before the mid-term. The Don Siegelman case was an unmitigated joke and instigated by Republican political operatives and their cronies operating in the Bush Justice Dept. And now Spitzer's conversations with a call girl are recorded by the FBI and released to the press. Yes, Spitizer is a moron, but if you don't see poltical motives in the above cases, then you're a hopeless partisan. Or do think that the FBI's time is best spent wiring the phone conversation of White House interns and sifting in clothes hampers to find DNA samples? This is laughable in its absurdity.

- Pat Hendrix

March 13, 2008 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I really gotta ask if this article would have made top billing if the Guy Who Got Busted was a Republican." Bill in Austin - Had the Guy Who Got Busted been a Republican, chances are we would be talking about it but for a different reason. Prosecution of Republicans by the current regime at Justice is rare, see, e.g., David Vitter, Jeff Sessions, William Pryor. In the unlikely event of prosecution of a prominent Republican by the Bush Justice Department, it would fall into the "man bites dog" category and be noteworthy for that reason alone.

- Django

March 13, 2008 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Query to author: Do you think Robert Jackson was vulnerable to the very criticism you mention, as the prosecutor in the Andrew Mellon tax case?

- Martin Fridson

March 13, 2008 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, the Spitzer investigation was politically motivated. One can smell the tactics of GOP bloodhounds like Karl Rove, Antonio Gonzales, John Fund and the biggest huckster of all, George W. Bush. We all know - well almost all since there is a large moronic population out there that eats up any and all GOP propaganda- that this administration uses the CIA, the FBI and the IRS for its own personal use Spitzer crossed a lot of the financial bigwigs and they have had their revenge thanks to what has become known in this country as "revenge politics." Instead of statues of George Washington around the country statues of Machiavelli, the true inspirer of today's politics, should be erected in front of every state capitol.

- Jim Guinnessey

March 13, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who was it that said long ago that women were not fit for high positions because they were ruled by their emotions? Regardless of what started this investigation, the sad fact remains that until men learn to control THEIR emotions and zip it up, Democrats and Republicans alike will continue to fall victim to this sort of sexual banana peel. Restraint - what a concept! Could the answer to this recurring cycle of political pratfalls be something as mundane as self-control?

- LISA

March 13, 2008 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmmm, an investigation that begins by looking into financial dealings, morphs into an open ended fishing expedition and winds up dealing with sex. Where have we seen that prosecutorial pattern before?

- Dubyadoubter

March 13, 2008 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I too wonder if Scott Horton would have been quite so outraged - he was NOT outraged at what Spitzer did but at the fact that he was caught - if Spitzer had been a Republican! :) Do I see evidence of some partisanship on the part of TNR?

- Rohit

March 13, 2008 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, he made enemies everywhere, and then he did incrediibly stupid stuff, like making so much noise with the whores and his deposits, when he didn't have to. He was, like, drawing this huge target on his back. (Those form 8300s usually wind up in a big pile in a basement, so why try to evade them? Just report the frigging money and make sure it's in the 1040. Unless it's dirty.) Spitzer obviously isn't aware of the 3 Cs, the red flags of law enforcement: 1) Is it Conspicuous? 2) Is it Commercial? 3) Are there complaints? He flunked all three. What an ass! That said, Horton's piece is NOT about Spitzer but about the prosecution. The question remains whether this a political hit. Horton makes valid points. You don't start with the guy then try to pin something on him, and it's no excuse to say Spitzer did it himself.

- jm_rice

March 13, 2008 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spitzer was/is a businessman and wd certainly b aware 2 avoid a sar. Prosecutorial discretion allows ? corrupt ags to focus investigations where they chose.

- Neic

March 13, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The author's quote from Justice Jackson hit it on the head, to wit: "With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone." THAT, in a nutshell, was Eliot Spitzer's career as a "crusader" -- a bully, really, who destroyed people on technicalities and, in some instances, no evidence at all. His downfall and the way it occurred is poetic justice.

- Noreen Mazelis

March 13, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As much as I like conspiracy theories, today's piece in NYT really lays out why Spitzer got in trouble...This TNR piece leaves out one critical piece: the role of the shell companies (for the prostitution ring) in the money transfers...That is what set off the alarm bells...See this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/13legal.html Next.

- Hank Essay

March 13, 2008 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Man, talk about rationalizing. His bank saw a long series of peculiar wire transactions, under the $10,000 threshold, with Spitzer had requested his name removed. That raises red flags, and the bank is legally bound to report suspicious money transactions. As to your theory that Spitzer is rich and can't be bribed. Maybe. Probably. But, how 'bout the other direction. The Feds could easily haves suspected he was bribing someone else or paying off some extortionist. Lot's of $4k sized payments to the same shell corporation. A corporation they probably quickly figured out was a prostitution operation. There's a column in today's NYT (Thursday) "This Defense Won’t Rest" by Joe Farmer. It refutes the suspcion of selective prosectuion or political prosecution. But does acknowledge that some of the revelations in the indictment, embarrassing to Spitzer (like his "usnafe" proclivities) were improper.

- ChanRobt

March 13, 2008 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Scott Horton tries to yet again plant another seed in the liberal garden of denial.

- SC Alabama

March 13, 2008 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article confirms what I have thought from the start. I'm not defending Spitzer - I suspect he got what he deserved. But the kind of money we are talking about doesn't turn heads at the IRS or the FBI - these kinds of sums move around Manhattan so often that it could only have been a witch hunt that resulted in Spitzer being nabbed. If it hadn't been for the recent scandalous firings of US Attorneys, and the revelation of gross politicization of the Justice Dept under Bush, I might not so readily accept sucha hypothesis, but I do.

- Neil

March 13, 2008 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Horton makes some good points, but he errs significantly when he implies that Spitzer's bank made a judgment call in submitting a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). I work at a bank, and we have training every year that drills it into our head: If you suspect someone of structuring their deposits to remain below the $10k threshold, you submit a SAR. When in doubt, submit a SAR. We have compliance people who search deposit patters every single day looking for SAR cases. So the bank had no choice but to submit an SAR to the IRS; they were in fact required by law. And that SAR provides all the probable cause Justice needed to investigate further.

-

March 13, 2008 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is absurd. It’s very poorly sourced and researched and obviously written by somebody who seems to have been absent from DC for the past year. Putting aside the black and white federal requirements to report suspicious banking activity (if it was not reported, those responsible for the account could face up to 20 years in prison and a six figure fine) the author says that in the prosecution of the DC madam prostitution ring was deferential to the politicians involved since the justice department hasn’t released any of their names. If the author lived in DC, he would have had the opportunity to experience something very entertaining . . . bipartisanship on the hill to pressure the DOJ to settle with the DC madam before she released the names of her clients. She kept no records of the names of the clients, but instead, used number codes. As a result, the DOJ didn’t know who the clients were. The only reason we know of a few people involved in the ring, including Vitter, is because she released the names herself in an attempt to blackmail Capitol Hill into unfreezing her assets. In the Spitzer case, the Feds discovered the sex ring because of Spitzer, not visa versa, like the DC Madam.

- Enough

March 13, 2008 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a ridiculous and speculative article. Trash journalism at it's best. Quite a reputation this magazine upholds.

- Kellen in NYC

March 13, 2008 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two Words--VITTER/DIAPERS,VITTER/DIAPERS,VITTER/DIAPERS.

- Poopsybythebay

March 13, 2008 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eliot Spitzer is very likely now to be prosecuted, be convicted of felonies, lose his license to practice law, and maybe do some time. He's likely got a lot of years left, so what's he do after conviction or prison? No big legal firm job, obviously. Wall Street is pretty much out of the question. He pissed them all off. Luckily, he's got lots of money so he doesn't have to worry about making a living. The closest analog to Spitzer is the Profumo Affair. So Eliot might look to Mr. Profumo's example for instruction. Especially as that man lived on 33 years after his downfall. He did win redemption. The old fashioned way. (Pretty much out of fashion in the USA.) Here's the Wikipedia account, but note that Profumo spent several years cleaning toilets at a London charitable institution: "Shortly after his resignation Profumo began to work as a volunteer cleaning toilets at Toynbee Hall, a charity based in the East End of London, and continued to work there for the rest of his life. [2]. He "had to be persuaded to lay down his mop and lend a hand running the place", eventually becoming Toynbee Hall's chief fundraiser, and used his political skills and contacts to raise large sums of money. All this work was done as a volunteer, since Profumo was able to live on his inherited wealth. His wife also devoted herself to charity until her death in 1998. In the eyes of most commentators Profumo's charity work redeemed his reputation. The social reform campaigner Lord Longford said he "felt more admiration [for Profumo] than [for] all the men I've known in my lifetime". Profumo was awarded a CBE in 1975, which he received at a Buckingham Palace ceremony from Queen Elizabeth II, signalling his return to respectability. In 1995, former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher invited him to her 70th birthday dinner, where he sat next to the Queen. He appeared only occasionally in public, particularly in his last years when he was confined to a wheelchair. His last appearance was at the memorial service for Sir Edward Heath on 8 November 2005. In 2003 Profumo received the prestigious Beacon Fellowship Prize for his work at Toybee Hall in countering social deprivation and exclusion.

- ChanRobt

March 13, 2008 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. - "We gotta spend more time weeding out those who are willing to trample the lives of others out of pure partisan spite..." For starters: Karl Rove? Alberto Gonzalez? Alice Martin? Leura Canary?

- Django

March 13, 2008 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If this investigation was politically motivated, then we need more politically motivated investigations from both sides! Makes the politicians more careful and less arrogant (we hope) when they know their enemies are out to get them.

- olcottr

March 13, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article reminds me why I stopped reading Harper's. TNR can come up with better stuff than this drivel.

- teplukhin2you

March 13, 2008 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Give me an absolute f*ing break Horton. Investigating crimes not people? Tell that to the "luv guv" who USED STATE TROOPERS TO DIG DIRT ON JOE BRUNO, Republican. Where was your wild-eyed protestations then? Where was it when Spitzer launched personal attacks on those who accused him of it? Where was it when he was faced with overwhelming evidence and stonewalled? When he loaded the investigatory committee with people UNDER HIS COMMAND??? Gimme a freaking break. Why not break out the "vast right-wing conspiracy" trope? Maybe Rupert Murdoch paid the prostitute to bed and ensnare him. He was framed! Now if this was a Republican, you'd be calling for his head. Funny how these things work, eh? Spitzer's an arrogant sob scumbag who alienated even those in his party.

- JWL2672

March 13, 2008 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, is it not possible Mr. Horton, that more "economically challenged" Democrats are serving in office than are so handicapped Republicans. And that this situation might mean more Democrats find themselves tempted by graft while in office. This may account for the disproportionate prosectuion of Dems or GOPs. For God sakes, a Democratic speaker of the house had to resign for stealing postage stamps.

- ChanRobt

March 13, 2008 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone for disgraced D.C. Mayor Marion "The Bitch set Me Up" Barry? Maybe Horton really believes that she did.

- JWL2672

March 13, 2008 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bottom line? Someone comes out of this with a record, and someone comes out of this with a recording contract. All of the back-and-forth pontificating is just whistling in the wind.

- Curlique Dan

March 13, 2008 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let me get this straight. Spitzer's own bank (obviously, Republican-owned) reports suspicious activity by Spitzer to the IRS. IRS agents (doubtless personally hired by Bush; the same way we get all-new mailmen when a new President takes office) conclude that the financial transactions look fishy. They don't know exactly what's up, but they strongly suspect that something illegal is going down. They investigate, and their suspicions are proven CORRECT -the bank was correct in noticing the suspicious cash transactions, the IRS was correct in their assumption that illegal activity was being perpetrated with the funds in question. And Horton's complaining that the episode seems contrived?! Ridiculous. The system worked exactly the way it is supposed to. Bank reports an anomaly to the authorities. The authorities investigate. Horton doesn't want fairness. He is effectively arguing for deference. He is saying that the IRS, having been informed that Spitzer was disbursing tens of thousands of dollars in cash, should have ignored the suspicious evidence (which turned out to be SUSPICIOUS FOR A REASON)and considered the case closed. Horton's claim is almost laughably stupid. He may have a point about the most salacious details being gratuitously leaked, but the substance of the process, unless more evidence demonstrates otherwise, seems to have proceeded in exemplary fashion

- Jay Kraut

March 13, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Spitzer case came about for the exact reasons as set forth in the New Republic. His wife was right in her advice to him. Stand your ground. To bad he listened to others. And all this from an attorney General that thinks TORTURE is a good idea!

- Tom Bucy

March 13, 2008 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very few people in America see this case as a witch hunt by Republicans to get Democrats for the simple reason that it is not true. Investigators followed the money, like they are supposed to do, and nailed a fairly big tax evasion conspiracy and money laundering operation, along with a prostitution ring. The only troubling aspect of this information is the disclosure of confidential information possibly protected by grand jury secrecy laws. But that is a different issue. Spitzer committed very serious crimes -- the real issue is that he opened himself up to potential bribery and extortion. Keep in mind that prositutes and their bosses are really just con men/women who look to exploit opportunities for wealth. Horton, you need to look at this case differently -- your article is very disappointing. They caught the governor, who happens to be a Democrat, not because he was a Democrat but because he was a risk taking fool who left clues everywhere for the investigators.

- Gary B

March 13, 2008 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This guy Horton is exactly what he is attempting to disclose in his assumption that the mean old government went after the governor. Ignorance of the law and investigative techniques utilized by the government is not an excuse to imagine the boggey man behind a door. He is going after the predication of the investigation because he hates the government. G-d bless this country where a complete idiot can come up with these conjectures and have them printed!

- Manuel Marquez

March 13, 2008 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not too hard to find something to go after Bush with. Just hard to find someone with the balls to do it.

- Fracuss

March 13, 2008 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Believe he was not defending him, just showing a double standard, and selective prosecution.

- Fracuss

March 13, 2008 at 11:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hardly think you can compare trying to bag an underage page by a homosexual to paying for sex with a consenting adult.

- F

March 13, 2008 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I finding out who is paying for sex the biggest problem we have in this country? 4000 US service people dead in Iraq. This corrupt administration won't tell us how many seriously injured. The dollar is the tank. The President doesn't know that gas prices are approaching $4. China owns our ass, and all we can do is let them distract us from all this with a little sex and slight of hand. Shame on us.

- Fracuss

March 13, 2008 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Richard, and it started the day the Supremes gave little George the keys to the White House.

- Fracuss

March 13, 2008 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George Allen got himself. I fail to see the comparison.

- Fracuss

March 13, 2008 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a public servant, I was required during my career to abide by the NYS Public Officer's Law. This law forbids public employees from not only commiting a crime, but from giving even the appearance of an impropriety. I was also obligated to comply with the State Ethics Law. Yet I can name numerous government officials, both elected and appointed, at levels much higher than mine who acted like they never heard of either law, and sure had no interest in living by them. This is one reason why NYS is a mess. There is no integrity left in our government! And I can assure you after 32 years of service that it is not the civil servants who are guilty of violating these laws. So lets set the record straight. For starters, Governor Spitzer knowing and willing broke the aforementioned laws and arrogantly assumed he was above them. Throughout his tenure as governor he abused his power. This is a given. In addition, he did not just break the law by hiring a prostitute. He transported her across State lines for ciminal activity (a violation of the The Mann Act) and he blantantly violated banking laws designed to track illegal activities. He did this on numerous occasions. In so doing, he engaged in money laundering - he sent funds to shell businesses operating outside our country, said companies established for the sole purpose of engaging in illegal activities. It's immaterial if he sent $5 or $80,000. He knew what he was doing, knew it to be illegal, but didn't care so long as he got what he wanted. In the end, he broke not one law but many and he violated the people's trust who elected him and put him in office. His resignation supports this conclusion. Claiming political prosecution is simply an excuse to avoid dealing with the facts as they are. The only question that remains is will Mr. Spitzer claim mental illness or an addiction, and if he does, where will he go for treatment? In the end, he brought dishonor on himself and his family, and his name will always be associated with the fact that he brought disgrace to an office for which he was elected. He has no one to blame but himself! And we need to stop excusing this type of behavior.

- Helen S. Articolo

March 14, 2008 at 2:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Similarly, the suggestion that these payments might have been bribe payments which were being laundered is absurd. In fact they were payments made by Spitzer, not receipts. The facts offered barely meet a plausibility test. Most significantly, there was no basis to suspect bribery--which is what ostensibly launched the entire probe." That is a ridiculous overstatement. Horton, have you ever considered that, once the bank filed the SAR, the agents might have considered that it was Spitzer doing the bribing, rather than receiving the bribe? Clearly, it is conceivable that Spitzer may have been paying "hush money" to someone associated with the Trooper-gate, Bruno inquiry; e.g. a cover-up, which we all know is worse than the crime. Moreover, I don't remember Horton wailing about the IRS when it was revealed that it was conducting an inordinate high number of audits of conservative nonprofit groups and individuals during the later years of the Clinton admin. PIN has its own problems (poor management at the top), but none associated with its own case. The deputy head of PIN is the same guy who prosecuted Billy Dale of the White House travel office, which had much more indicia of being a politically motivated prosecution, except motivated by a Dem administration. So the notion that PIN somehow pushed this investigation because Spitzer was a Dem is absurd. What most likely happened is that PIN was informed, but then deferred to the SDNY, since the local US Attorney's office usually takes the case unless there is a conflict, or they decline the case (staffing and resource issues, or the case just doesn't meet a particular threshold for prosecution). The prosecutors in SDNY probably had no idea that a prostitution ring was involved until they delved a bit deeper. Once they discovered that this involved prostitution (along with other crimes like money laundering and most likely tax evastion) they were in an untenable position. If they shut the investigation down because it wasn't a typical "corruption" investigation, they open themselves up to the accusation of giving rich, powerful, and politically connected men a pass because it was "just sex" while lower, street level prostitution rings get no such pass. If they only take down the leaders of the ring, people in the press are going to question, who the "johns" are and start to surmise that at least some of them are politically connected since Boyd Johnson's name, the head of the public corruption unit at SDNY, is probably on the wire tap and/or search warrants (which is essentially what happened). Moreover, the ring-leaders probably will start to talk and name-names. Then what? The USAO will be accused of protecting Spizter and the other clients. The prosecutors were in a no-win situation. I very seriously doubt that the agents or the proseuctors in the SDNY (and surely not the leaders at PIN; they have problems tying their own shoes) went looking to take down Spitzer in a prostitution ring scandal.

- pub serv

March 14, 2008 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Similarly, the suggestion that these payments might have been bribe payments which were being laundered is absurd. In fact they were payments made by Spitzer, not receipts. The facts offered barely meet a plausibility test. Most significantly, there was no basis to suspect bribery--which is what ostensibly launched the entire probe." That is a ridiculous overstatement. Horton, have you ever considered that, once the bank filed the SAR, the agents might have considered that it was Spitzer doing the bribing, rather than receiving the bribe? Clearly, it is conceivable that Spitzer may have been paying "hush money" to someone associated with the Trooper-gate, Bruno inquiry; e.g. a cover-up, which we all know is worse than the crime. Moreover, I don't remember Horton wailing about the IRS when it was revealed that it was conducting an inordinate high number of audits of conservative nonprofit groups and individuals during the later years of the Clinton admin. PIN has its own problems (poor management at the top), but none associated with its own case. The deputy head of PIN is the same guy who prosecuted Billy Dale of the White House travel office, which had much more indicia of being a politically motivated prosecution, except motivated by a Dem administration. So the notion that PIN somehow pushed this investigation because Spitzer was a Dem is absurd. What most likely happened is that PIN was informed, but then deferred to the SDNY, since the local US Attorney's office usually takes the case unless there is a conflict, or they decline the case (staffing and resource issues, or the case just doesn't meet a particular threshold for prosecution). The prosecutors in SDNY probably had no idea that a prostitution ring was involved until they delved a bit deeper. Once they discovered that this involved prostitution (along with other crimes like money laundering and most likely tax evastion) they were in an untenable position. If they shut the investigation down because it wasn't a typical "corruption" investigation, they open themselves up to the accusation of giving rich, powerful, and politically connected men a pass because it was "just sex" while lower, street level prostitution rings get no such pass. If they only take down the leaders of the ring, people in the press are going to question, who the "johns" are and start to surmise that at least some of them are politically connected since Boyd Johnson's name, the head of the public corruption unit at SDNY, is probably on the wire tap and/or search warrants (which is essentially what happened). Moreover, the ring-leaders probably will start to talk and name-names. Then what? The USAO will be accused of protecting Spizter and the other clients. The prosecutors were in a no-win situation. I very seriously doubt that the agents or the proseuctors in the SDNY (and surely not the leaders at PIN; they have problems tying their own shoes) went looking to take down Spitzer in a prostitution ring scandal.

- pub serv

March 14, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-

March 14, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Paul Freedman, respondent #3: I notice you refer to recent sex scandals involving "isolated Republicans." That little phrase implies that the Democratic Party amounts to little more than a den of iniquity, while the Republican Party remains the bastion of moral rectitude. What a tired, old argument that is.

- mgraybill

March 14, 2008 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

welcome to tnr, Mr. Horton. now you know why it's fallen into such disrepute. tepluhkin - and the usual suspects - feh.

- spero

March 15, 2008 at 4:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pollitcally motivated? Of course it was. Spitzer built his career on destroy private and public figures. Left vs Right? Let them cannibalize each other who cares, at least us poor slobs can sleep at night. With Spitzer it come down to Karma.

- Tom Sullivan

March 16, 2008 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Political prosecution"? Spitzer is a man who used a friend's name to rent the Mayflower Hotel room. That is how he treats his friends. More likely it is personal prosecution, not political. He destroyed his friendships in the same way he destroyed his political partnerships and his family. A sick man.

- Holden Laker

March 16, 2008 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is right on target. The republicans will stoop to anything. They simply have no sense of decency.

- fair

March 19, 2008 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All that needs to be said about this is timing: From the Washington Post: Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25 Feb 14, the day after he was supposed to have seen this hooker, he also testified before the House committee on Banking to say the same thing. He announced his intention to hold the administration and wall street accountable. Then look what the fed did THE DAY AFTER the Spitzer story broke, and then that weekend Bear Stearns collapsed. It was bailed out by JPMorgan backed by $30bil of FED money. He had to be taken out, because he was going to go after those responsible and expose the complacency of the SEC.

- Peter_BK

March 21, 2008 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

77)Peter_BK, you hit the nail on the head. That Washington Post article by Spitzer has to be read carefully. Note that Spitzer and representatives from every state were trying to take on the big banks and their political lackeys. Thats why he had a political hit done on him.

I did not like Spitzer's liberal politics. His immoral stances on abortion, sodomy and illegal aliens is reflected in his personal conduct. Yet, the salacious details are but a weapon of mass distraction.

This case is not about Spitzer and his whores. Its about the international bankers, the misnamed Federal Reserve", and their political whores in Washington who are together destroying our economy. Spitzer's one attempt to do something right was stopped by a political whack job, pure and simple.

- usmjam

March 24, 2008 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close