home
Spitzer Resigns Effective Monday | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Because it's necessary (none / 0) (#2)
by miked on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
Unlike them, he is putting the interests of his party above his own desire to hang on to power. We don't need this to be a major news item for the next several months.

Public advocacy of a certain moral code while privately violating it is one thing - putting people in jail for something while doing it privately is another.

I just don't see any upside to our party's prospects if Spitzer stays in office. It's not like he is being replaced by a Republican.

[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0) (#4)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
Public advocacy of a certain moral code while privately violating it is one thing - putting people in jail for something while doing it privately is another.

Beg your pardon, but Republican legislators do far more than "advocate" their (phony, bullsh*t) moral code. They ram it down our throats far more than any one prosecutor can do.

[ Parent ]

I should add (none / 0) (#5)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM EST
You're right on the merits, of course. But they're just flexing their "yes, we are wiretapping you all" muscles and I really don't like the precedent set by letting them claim scalps this way.

It's only going to get worse as November draws closer.

[ Parent ]

You need (none / 0) (#20)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM EST
to realize that Spitzer co-authored the 2001 bill in NY that allowed warrantless wiretapping.  

[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 0) (#72)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
So you're saying the FBI started tapping his phone because they suspected the Mann Act was being violated?

Yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar.

[ Parent ]

Comment misplaced (none / 0) (#74)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:57:57 PM EST
oops

[ Parent ]
Spitzer was a rare sort of Democrat (none / 0) (#10)
by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
I just don't see any upside to our party's prospects if Spitzer stays in office. It's not like he is being replaced by a Republican.

The problem is you don't get an Eliot Spitzer Democrat very often.  He had potential.  He was a legitimate threat to the corrupt moneyed interests.  That is why they took him down.

Sure, we'll still have a Democrat as the Governor of New York.  But it's not Eliot Spitzer.  Not even close.  And now the message has been sent.  If you are a strong Democrat that will challenge the rich and powerful, and you have some success at it, you will be watched until you make a mistake.  Then you will go down.  Just like Spitzer.

[ Parent ]

He took (none / 0) (#22)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST
himself down.  Did someone hold a gun to his head and make him purchase the services of a pro?

[ Parent ]
Hold A Gun To His Head? (1.00 / 1) (#69)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
Sometimes law and order types like handcuffs too, from what I have heard.

[ Parent ]
I'm not implying Spitzer used/uses Viagra (none / 0) (#30)
by ding7777 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:11 AM EST
but somewhere down the road there is a defense lawyer who will make that claim

[ Parent ]
He did make it easy for them... (none / 0) (#36)
by ineedalife on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST
but with them hunting him, if it wasn't this, it eventually would have been something.

[ Parent ]
You mean he was engaged in other, additional (none / 0) (#64)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:16:39 PM EST
illegal activities for which he would have eventually been caught? Like what?

[ Parent ]
It's hard (none / 0) (#65)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST
 to understand what motivates people to write things such as that when they want to support a person. "They'd have caught him sooner or later" is not a ringing endorsement.

  I can't tell you the number of clients I have had, though, who feel the best defense theory is that, "the cops were out to get me." Not surprisingly, that is often very true.

  That necessitates explaining to them that most people on juries expect cops to be out to get people who broke the law and would be upset if they weren't. So, the "they had it in for me, so you should acquit" defense is  not often viewed as persuasive by impatial observers.  Usualy, they come around to agreeing we'd probably be better off seeing if we can find some weakness in the facts the prosecution is using to establish they broke the law.

[ Parent ]

Classic. (none / 0) (#66)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST


[ Parent ]
I understand your point (none / 0) (#68)
by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
But the anti-police defense does work for me.  I would rather see a guilty man go free than reward overreaching police.

BTW, did I mention I have jury duty next week?

[ Parent ]

Okay (none / 0) (#73)
by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST
So you're saying the FBI started tapping his phone because they suspected the Mann Act was being violated?

Yeah, I'll buy that for a dollar.

Witch hunt, through and through. I'm sure you were one of the brave patriots who insisted, in 2001, that the new domestic "security" apparatus would never, ever, not in a million years, be used for political purposes. I could probably look through your comments and find you spinning the yarn about how they're only eavesdropping on "the terrorists" and we wouldn't object so much if we "got it" and understood that the existential threat of 16 guys with box cutters requires a G-man listening in at all times.

At least it's not surprising.

[ Parent ]

Spitzer Resigns Effective Monday | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft