Spitzer Adviser Says He May Not Resign

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM EST
Tags: Eliot Spitzer (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Nobody really knows what New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's timetable is. The New York Times says no resignation is likely today.

And Jacob Gershman in the New York Sun says Spitzer senior adviser Lloyd Constantine says Spitzer may not resign at all.

"He has not made up his mind," a senior adviser to Mr. Spitzer, Lloyd Constantine, said. "It is more correct to say that he is not resigning."

Another source close to the governor said Mr. Spitzer was refusing to resign until he clinches an agreement with federal authorities about charges that he could face. "I don't think anything happens for a couple of weeks," the source said.

Reportedly, things aren't going so well at the Spitzer residence: [More...]

A source close to the governor said Mr. Spitzer and his wife of 20 years, Silda Wall, have spent the day in separate rooms in their apartment. They have emerged from their locations to speak jointly with Mr. Spitzer's lawyers.

"She doesn't want to look at him, and he doesn't want to bear the look that she gives when she does look at him," the source said.

There have been visitors:

The Spitzer family has received select visitors, including Mr. Constantine and the secretary to the governor, Richard Baum, who is said to be cautioning the governor about the personal consequences he would risk by refusing to give up power, according to the source.

It looks like the Paul Weiss lawyer representing Spitzer is not Ted Wells (at least not yet.)

Mr. Spitzer is represented by his former deputy in the attorney general's office, Michele Hirshman, a partner in the litigation department of the firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Republicans are threatening impeachment if Spitzer does not resign:

The Republican minority leader of the Assembly, James Tedisco, today threatened to launch impeachment proceedings if Mr. Spitzer does not resign within 48 hours.

"If he does not resign within the next 24 to 48 hours, we will prepare articles of impeachment to remove him," Mr. Tedisco told Reuters.

< Obama Camp's False Description Of Hillary's 60 Minutes Statement | Yes, Virginia, There are Hillary Bloggers (And Open Thread) >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Spitzer Adviser Says He May Not Resign | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hmmm. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST

Mr. Spitzer was refusing to resign until he clinches an agreement with federal authorities about charges that he could face.

It sounds like Spitzer at least believes that the purpose of this investigation is primarily to drive him from office and that his resignation is his best bargaining chip.

That's probably true (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM EST

At this point, what's good for Spitzer is no longer what's good for New York Democrats.

It might not be a bad idea for the Democrats to propose impeachment, pragmatically speaking.


I think that will only encourage (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:34 PM EST

these federal fishing expeditions in the future if Spitzer gives up quickly. I am not convinced that he would be working against the best interests of the Democratic Party or the country for that matter.


Fishing for lawbreaking politicians (none / 0) (#63)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:15:31 PM EST

despite being akin to shooting them in a barrel isn't necessarily something many people think is wrong.


: I agree with you, but pols soliciting (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:47:54 PM EST

a prostitutes despite it being illegal poses no particular threat to my personal well-being. Bill Clinton getting it the Oval office had no tangible effect on my life - until some zealots decided to make it effect my life.
All I know is that they told us they were taking away our civil liberties to protect us from terrorists not sexual trysts.
Fishing expeditions are dangerous to all of us and I would argue even more dangerous when they are politically motivated - especially when people associated with a particular party are targeted because they are members of that party. We don't know that to be true at this point, but there are enough other things going on to suggest that we might want to take a good hard look at how this investigation really started.

I'm not a NY voter, but if I were, I (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST

not favor Spitzer resigning as part of a plea bargain re federal criminal charges unrelated to Spitzer's being NY's elected Governor.


Off-topic, help please :) (none / 0) (#93)
by nashville on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:14:21 PM EST

Sometimes when I click on "comments," the full article comes up but no comments.

This has happened before and I never got a reponse about what to do or what I was doing wrong.


As a New Yorker..... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST

I say he's welcome to stay, provided he gets to work on a sh*tload of pardons. Show us you've learned something from this.

Otherwise, get lost.

I Dunno (none / 0) (#64)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM EST

He was not working the vice squad or anything. Mostly he went after Insurance cos, Wallstreet, and fought for the little guy.

I do not know much about the SI prostitution ring he prosecuted, but my guess it was mob related.

So given that I cut the guy some slack. He did pardon someone who did his time and was about to be deported, so that the guy could stay here with his family.

Maybe he will issue more pardons, but all in all he was not like Gonzo or what we have been used to with BushCo.


So (none / 0) (#73)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:28:31 PM EST

Spitzer's Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 doesn't bother you at all? Hoisted on his own petard.

Highlights:
The Act sanctions "roving" wiretaps of US citizens, expands the definition of terrorist activity to include money laundering

The Act also permits the prosecution of suspects despite a pending or prior federal prosecution, and among further offensives, Spitzer and Pataki's bill prevents suspects from being freed due to a "technicality," i.e. an unlawful action made by investigators and law enforcement officials in complying with federal search and seizure regulations.


In that case, he may well learn first hand (none / 0) (#81)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST

why these Patriot Act types of laws are a nightmare.


Not Good At All (none / 0) (#82)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM EST

Nor was his joining with BushCO in favor of Real ID. I am not crazy about his governorship. Maybe the GOP had something on him for a while because he has seemed to veer to the right.

I have a lawyer friend that worked for him when he was AG. She thought he was fighting the good fight, worker's rights, expolitation, etc. She is a super progressive and I value her opinion.

From Wikipedia:

As attorney general [1998-2006], Spitzer took cases relating to corporate white collar crime, securities fraud, internet fraud and environmental protection. He most notably pursued cases against companies involved in computer chip price fixing, investment bank stock price inflation, and the 2003 mutual fund scandal. He also sued Richard Grasso, the then-chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, who he claimed had violated his position after receiving an upwards of $140 million as a deferred compensation pay package.

I'll give him that squeaky.... (none / 0) (#84)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM EST

Spitzer did go after all the different colors of collar crime. He was consistent in that regard, the same can't be said for other former AG's.

I guess I assume Spitzer sees nothing wrong with prostitution, yet was party to the prosecution of prostitutes. I just can't stomach it...you know I've got a serious anti-law&order bias at play. Or if he thinks prostitution should be criminal, and patronized them anyway, that shows a seriously weak will and stinks of hypocrisy.

Not to mentional all the surveillance law he supported, hopefully that's another lesson he's learned. Giving the government carte blanche to get all up in your business ain't a good thing.


Actually The Former (none / 0) (#87)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST

Republican AG's were not the same. They were softer on the COrporations, weak on environment, and tougher on the little guy.

My friend was horrified when Vacco, Spitzer's Republican predecessor was elected. Her office colleagues were largely replaced by idiots with no experience. Much like we have seen on the Federal Level with BushCO

Vacco brought national attention through a series of prosecutions brought against ISPs for distributing child pornography. The principal defendant, Buffnet, eventually pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree facilitation of a felony and was fined $5,000. [1]
Vacco played a prominent role in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's attempt to require Time Warner Cable to carry the Fox News channel. An attempt by Vacco to bring an anti-trust violation charge against Time-Warner failed.
After leaving the Attorney General's office Vacco worked as Vice-President for New York Operations of Waste Management, Inc..

Reread my post.... (none / 0) (#88)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST

I gave Spitzer that bro.


Sorry (none / 0) (#89)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST

I misread your comment. You have me trained... as you often say that both parties are the same.

the same can't be said for other former AG's

I read it as the same can be said for other former AG's.

I always have enjoyed your comments and by now should have learned not to expect a stock answer from you.


No worries friend.... (none / 0) (#90)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:59:56 PM EST

as I enjoy yours. We're old school TL kid:)

Nobody knows more than me what a broken record I can be:)


: HA (none / 0) (#92)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST

Broken record? Hardy, but if so you are one that plays an interesting tune.
Same old tends to happen to me too, that's why it is good to hear new 'music' as often as can be tolerated. Listening to it, is of course much harder to do.

LOL (none / 0) (#94)
by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:04:35 PM EST

who edited that wiki page?


impeachment (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:34:39 PM EST

Ridiculous. But it does show that the motivation behind this whole thing. He needs to stay and turn this around on them. He was a threat so they investigated him. It was political

The motivation (none / 0) (#13)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST

that really matters is HIS motivation and not many people are gullible enough to fall for any effort to play him as the victim of his misdeeds.


: just me (none / 0) (#17)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:58 PM EST

I guess. ;)

You'd think they'd have learned. (none / 0) (#46)
by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST

Republicans that is. The last time they pushed impeachment over a sexual scandal, all they did was enhance sympathy for Pres. Clinton. It caused the public to side with Clinton and changed the focus from what a cad Clinton was to the witch hunt against him. I think the same thing could happen if it looks like the Republicans are abusing their authority and wasting government resources to drive Spitzer out of office for what are essentially his private failings.


: Or (none / 0) (#48)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:02:25 PM EST

it's obvious to them he's toast and they are engaging in some cheap posturing for the hell of it knowing he'll be gone before the end of the week regardlerss of what they say or don't say.

Overblown? (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by miriam on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:36 PM EST

This looks to be about revenge and taking Spitzer down in retribution for the many investigations he conducted. I still haven't read an account that makes sense of why the IRS started investigating him with the banks' compliance. The amounts he withdrew were too small by any measure to raise suspicion.

Spitzer is hardly the first to face this, and he won't be the last, but the American press is so disgustingly gleeful in the falsity of its shocked propriety, that one can't help but compare it to their reporting of Bush's outrages. Starting a war under false premises is not as bad as hiring a prostitute?

But, like Bill Clinton, Spitzer handed his waiting enemies the ammunition to shoot him. While I think this whole thing is vastly overblown, I can't forgive him for dragging his wife to the podium with him for a show of spousal support. If these men can't exercise some minimal discretion then they should take the consequences alone.

exactly (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST

They have probably been going over everything he has ever done. Think about it - this is a guy that is so hated by the moneyed interests that they actually cheered on the trading floor at the stock exchange when this news came down.

Did he make a mistake? Sure. But it's all politics from there.


A bonehead mistake. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST

no question (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:47:24 PM EST

he really was stupid to do this.


: Uh believe that the commenter. . . (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST

was not referring to cranial matter.

I agree with you (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:44:00 PM EST

on every point you made. Thanks.


Hiring a prostitute..... (none / 0) (#24)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:44:18 PM EST

isn't necessarily bad at all.

Hiring a prostitute when you've made a living prosecuting prostitutes? That's pretty bad. Not as bad as starting a war for little to no reason, but certainly not a character trait I want in a governor. But he's welcome to have a change of heart and get to work on those pardons:)


Hiring a prostitute (none / 0) (#55)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:05:26 PM EST

when you are married and have three young daughters is bad. Even if he had gone somewhere where it is legal any conceivable defense would need to focus on soething other than it not being a "bad" thing to do.


: Hey, if you believe the Repugs' fave shrink (none / 0) (#61)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST

it wasn't his fault he had to go out and hire a call-girl. According to Dr. Laura, it was the Mrs.' fault for not making him and his desires welcome at home.
Riiiiiight.
Not that I think Dr. Laura should be entitled to give anyone advice or anything, but there has to be some way to spin this against the Repugs, no?
Mrs. Spitzer's truly the wronged party here, and I would never say it was even remotely her fault. But a Republican would.

: I agree..... (none / 0) (#85)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST

It appears that Spitzer has betrayed his wife and family. I agree that is a terrible thing to do.
I was refering to the act of patronizing a prostitute in general, I make no moral judgement there. Betraying the trust of your wife or any loved one, that's cruel.

I agree too (none / 0) (#52)
by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:46 PM EST

But this is much worse than the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.

This is elaborate and premeditated lawbreaking by a politician who made his reputation as a law enforcer. It is not just about sex.


elaborate and premeditated (none / 0) (#56)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:06:39 PM EST

prostitution? Elaborate, I'll give you but I'm pretty sure all prostitution is premeditated.


Multiple, elaborate and premeditated (none / 0) (#58)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST

law breaking by a politician who made his reputation as a law enforcer.


In the strict legal sense (none / 0) (#59)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:10:35 PM EST

of the term premeditated, yes, but this is a lot more premeditated than some guy pulling over to the curb after a couple to many at the tavern.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#66)
by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:17:08 PM EST

Compare this to Clinton falling for Monica Lewinsky over late night pizza and then trying to talk his way out of it. Heartwarmingly innocent in comparison.

Meanwhile, the message is clear (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:46:22 PM EST

If you are a strong Democrat that is a threat to the rich and powerful, watch out. They are watching your bank account and probably your every move.

: The message. . . (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST

If you are a strong Democrat in high public office don't talk out of one side of your mouth and surreptitiously hire high priced prostitutes using an assumed name?

: and practicing mind control to make you (none / 0) (#32)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST

do incredibly stupid things that just happen to be illegal and immoral.

: I all fairness, do you not think (none / 0) (#33)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:46 PM EST

just about every pol is being "watched?"

The strangest things can happen ... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST

in politics. If Spitzer actually wants to stay, it's really a matter of surviving one day at a time.

And each day of survival increases his chances of keeping the job.

Absent criminal indictments, this story becomes one of personal peccadilloes. It's not a vast conspiracy that will unwind over months. Sure, there are more unpleasant facts to come. But this isn't Watergate.

And if he can effectively make the claim that he was targeted. He might even gain sympathy in some quarters.

I'm not suggesting any of this will happen, or that I even want it to happen, or even that Spitzer wants it to happen, but it's not impossible.

The strangest things can happen ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST

Wow. That's some chutzpa. (none / 0) (#2)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST

His wife's probably not the only person he can't look at, he used the name of one of his close friends and biggest donors, George Fox, to rent the room for his "date."

That may not (none / 0) (#7)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM EST

be as bad as it sounds. Famous people often register under pseudonyms for security reasons and that might just be the name he always uses and the Mayflower (which ain't no no tell motel) may well have routinely booked him under that name knowing who he is.


Maybe so, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:40:06 PM EST

my main point was that George Fox probably isn't too happy that his name is now tied to the gov's hooker habit...


Well, (none / 0) (#26)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:46:01 PM EST

probably not, if just for the likelihood the media will soon be pestering him for comment, but it really doesn't make him look bad in any way.


: True enough: (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:48:27 PM EST

"Mr. Fox is a friend and donor to Mr. Spitzer. Asked in a telephone interview Monday whether he accompanied Mr. Spitzer to Washington on Feb. 13 and Feb. 14, Mr. Fox responded: "Why would you think that? I did not."
"Told that the Room 871 at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel was registered in Mr. Fox's name but with Mr. Spitzer's Fifth Avenue address, Mr. Fox said, "That is the first I have heard of it. Until I speak to the governor further, I have no comment."

Famous people do it all the time (none / 0) (#35)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:49:53 PM EST

Think about it: if your name was "Joe In-the-news Famous-movie-star", would you want that to be in possesion of the hotel clerk who stands to make a few bucks by selling the info on your presence to ... paparazzi, the PI working for your ex, the process server for the guy trying to tag you with a subpoena or lawsuit, your stalker, crazed fans, golddiggers/grifters trying to set you up for a scam?

I thought not.


Famous people use their friend's names (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM EST

as aliases when they commit crimes? All the time?

Note to self, do not befriend anyone famous...


Hey sarc..... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:57:23 PM EST

I've been meaning to ask...what is your full name?...:)


"scribe." (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:58:37 PM EST

: wisea*s (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:04:01 PM EST

Just for the heck of it, I ran (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST

"George Fox" through Yahoo People Search, nationwide.

It came back with 317 hits. Likely, those are only the listed numbers, too.

Just a coincidence it's his friend's name....

And, maybe he did have permission to use it; just that George was as blindsided by this as anyone else.


No permission, coinkydinky is pretty far-fetched.. (none / 0) (#54)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:04:34 PM EST

The following is a statement from a spokesman for George Fox, whose name Spitzer is said to have used as an alias:
Published reports indicate that Governor Eliot Spitzer allegedly used the name "George Fox" as an alias in the activity currently under investigation.
Mr. Fox has known Governor Spitzer for more than 20 years and has been a supporter during the Governor's various political campaigns.
The news that his name may have been used as an alias comes as a great surprise and disappointment.
Mr. Fox only became aware of Mr. Spitzer's alleged activity when informed of it Monday morning by the media.
There is absolutely no connection between Mr. Fox and the Governor's alleged activity beyond the unauthorized use of his name.
Mr. Fox considers Governor Spitzer a close friend and is distressed by the news that has emerged.
While he is disappointed that his name was involved, he appreciates the apology the Governor has personally communicated and he wishes the Governor and his family strength as they endure this difficult period.

: something tells me Mr. Fox won't (none / 0) (#62)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:14:22 PM EST

contribute to Spitzer's legal defense fund.

Good point about his (none / 0) (#44)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:59:09 PM EST

pseudonym being the name of a friend as opposed to but George Fox is a pretty generic name.

Who knows maybe he once made a call and when asked for a name pulled a blank and that just popped into his head: "Uh, Uh, George, George, uh, Fox."

I think rock stars often use names that are meant to be clever or allusions to something. He might just lack imagination. It would appear to be pretty low on his list of things for which to make amends at the moment.


But other famous people... (none / 0) (#39)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:52:00 PM EST

don't use the real names of their friends. That's cold...unless he had his buddy's permission to use his name.


what pseudonym would you sign in under - (none / 0) (#79)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM EST

George Orwell?

And don't even think about saying "Scribe".


: I'd go with.... (none / 0) (#86)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:17:44 PM EST

Winston Smith...good call scribe:)
One of my boys gets a hotel room in my name without asking, I'm asking "what's up with that?" at the least.

Impeachment? (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST

How telling. Wonder how long ago the ink dried on that idea.

so true, plus (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:26:15 PM EST

Spitzer's term would probably conclude before the hearings could be finished.


Whoa - serious snark! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:55:38 PM EST

And dryly stated, too!

Excellent, TL!

But, seriously, we now know what it takes to get impeachment on the table.

Republicans.

and Democrats with problems in the consensual- relationship area.

Torture? Not so much.
Elective wars? Nope.
Gay prostitutes overnighting in the Republican held WH? Unh-huh.
Rampant warrantless wiretapping and shredding the Consitution? Fuhgeddaboutit.

But give the WSJ and the Repugs a Democrat with his pants around his ankles - boy-oh-boy, we got an impeachment coming before the ink is dry on the first "extra" edition from the first day.

Would that Nancy had half the fulminate in her character that the meekest of Repugs does in theirs.


It's true (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST

this is the face of the modern Republican party. If you get into their sights, you better not screw up. If you do - even if its only about sex - you will be crucified. It happened to Bill and is happening to Spitzer.


That line of reasoning (none / 0) (#57)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:08:48 PM EST

suggests another reason why he needs to go quickly and quietly. When his putative defenders draw a comparison to Clinton while Hillary is running, imagine what others will do. The last thing Clinton needs is weeks of running commentary drawing parallels and distinctions to Clinton scndals.


Huff Post actually had a column (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:16:44 PM EST

last night saying how the Spitzer mess might be to Obama's benefit.


: According to Huff post (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST

there really isn't anything that doesn't benefit Obama.

I think we're smart enough (none / 0) (#67)
by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:17:08 PM EST

to distinguish between Hillary and Silda. Besides which, even if Spitzer does stay and fight it keeps the story alive, but really only in New York. There may be some coverage of it nationally, but there will be another salacious story soon enough that will be pulling their attention away. And in terms of affecting HRC, if the story maintains legs in NY, so what? We've already had our primary and she won, and there's certainly no danger to her in the general election in this state.


That's not the point (none / 0) (#71)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM EST

this scandal gives people so inclined to revisit past scandals. That people see them differently does not mean at all that rehashing Bill's scandals helps his wife.


The people inclined (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:29:28 PM EST

to revist past scandals are already doing so. Yet another Obama advisor was forced to resign for doing just that. I really don't see how the connection can be made (and sustained) between Spitzer's current problems and Hillary's campaign.


as we have people (none / 0) (#77)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM EST

(perversely thinking they are helping Spitzer) doing it in this very thread, it should not be that difficult for you to see.


: I can see it happening (none / 0) (#83)
by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST

But I just don't see how it can be maintained, and really how it can be at all effective as an attack against Hillary. I've no doubt people will bring it up, but I just don't see it swaying any voters who were not already voting against her.

Conventional wisdom (none / 0) (#8)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:33:06 PM EST

in NYC is that Spitzer is just trying to use the resignation issue to bargain his way out of being indicted.

What's odd is why federal law enforcement officials would see resigning his office as some sort of consideration for an agreement not to charge. You'd think they'd be agnostic as to whether he holds office.

Anyway, I'm in the school of thought that says Paterson has a much better chance of moving the Dem agenda forward. This is the same argument we had about whether Clinton should have passed the baton to Gore, which looks like a good idea in hindsight, but the difference is that Clinton managed to be an effective leader even with all the Lewinsky stuff flying around. Spitzer doesn't seem able to make any headway with the reform agenda at all.

: politics (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST

What's odd is why federal law enforcement officials would see resigning his office as some sort of consideration for an agreement not to charge.
Because this is political. It's about getting rid of Spitzer.

: I'm hearing good things about Paterson.... (none / 0) (#20)
by kdog on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:41:27 PM EST

first and foremost, he doesn't carry the air of arrogance and stubborness that Spitzer does, and is well-liked and respected on both sides of the aisle.
iow, he's not a pompous assh*le like Client #9. Maybe he'd get more done in that cesspool up in Albany.

It's actually fairly common (none / 0) (#10)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:35:30 PM EST

for public officials to negotiate deals which offer a resignation and promise not to seek office in the future as consideration. (It's also not unheard of for people to later repdiate that promise and seek office.

Ahem (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST

calling Larry Craig:

It's also not unheard of for people to later repdiate that promise and seek office.

Remember, it was his intent to resign, and then he decided to tough it out after his party turned its back on him.

I say stand and fight a while at least, to see whether the Feds are really pushing a political hit (like we all think they are).


: Sure (none / 0) (#76)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST

if you are willing to risk prosecution which is extremely costly even if you prevail and if the government is not bluffing and you get convicted you lose the job anyway not to mention your dignity. Some people, even some who cheat on their wives, might also wish to avoid putting her through even more humiliation than sh'e already suffered. The daughters might enter the mind of some people too.
But, sure, to reinforce the uber-passionate fringe he should go to the last drop of blood so he can say it was political.

However (none / 0) (#12)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM EST

doesn't that make more sense when the charges are somehow corruption-related?


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by eric on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM EST

the only time I can think of resignation as being some kind of consideration would be when the crime is integral to public office. And that makes sense - you want to take the means away from the offender.

We have a recent precedent in NY (none / 0) (#47)
by Iphie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:01:53 PM EST

Hevesi did it.


Did he ever advocate/lobby (none / 0) (#16)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:39:39 PM EST

for statutes eroding financial privacy?

: Don't know (none / 0) (#31)
by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST

But in the United States there isn't much financial privacy to erode, vis a vis the government.

: No. (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST

It doesn't have to "make sense." (none / 0) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:40:47 PM EST

it's a negotiation and if he feels quitting is a fair price to pay for avoiding prosecution and the government feels that is a fair outcome it can be done. A pre-charge deal such as that does not even need court approval let alone public approval. I can see many reasons why both sides might find that an acceptable resolution.

How soon should we expect to hear (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST

an announcement that Spitzer is going to sex-addiction rehab?

The group sessions (none / 0) (#30)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST

are probably a good place to meet women who will do "unsafe" stuff for free.

I'm hoping he doesn't quit. As long as (none / 0) (#69)
by vicsan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST

David Vitter and Larry Craig are in the Senate, Elliot should stay put. This was a Republican witch hunt. Now we are seeing the repercussions of Gonzo's stacking the DOD with "Loyal Bushies." They did it so they could do things like what they did to Spitzer and Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

This is a personal matter between He and his wife. I heard his wife wants him to stay in office, so he should.

Spitzer's an idiot, no doubt, but being an idiot isn't a crime. If "Client #9 is punished for his crime, so should all the rest of the Johns and I don't see that happening. How often are Johns prosecuted? Almost NEVER?

: OOPS..meant "stacking the DOJ" (none / 0) (#72)
by vicsan on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST

not the DOD....sorry. :)

I think that Spitzer needs to do the ethical (none / 0) (#75)
by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST

thing and resign. It is what I would ask for if he were a Republican.

I Say Fight This (none / 0) (#78)
by bob h on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST

example of Bush InJustice Department selective prosecution. Why haven't we heard about Client#8?

That's a spicy meatball: (none / 0) (#91)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM EST

Spitzer May Have Spent Tens of Thousands
By MICHAEL GORMLEY - 52 minutes ago
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- With pressure mounting on Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign over a call-girl scandal, investigators said Tuesday he was clearly a repeat customer who spent tens of thousands of dollars -- perhaps as much as $80,000 -- with the high-priced prostitution service over an extended period of time.

It's very simple (none / 0) (#95)
by Slado on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:56:52 PM EST

Involving yourself with an illegal prostitution ring puts him and the office in a dangerous position. How hard would it have been to then blackmail the governor? Of all people shouldn't he have known who runs these operations and where the money really goes? It is one of the reasons he went after prostitution rings so aggressively himself before becoming governor.

This wasn't a simple affair or a personal matter. This was the governor of the state of NY illegaly purchasing sex from a criminal enterprise. This was blatant disregard for the office he held and he should lose it. The good people of NY should take off their partisan glasses and ask themselves honestly do they want someone who can't make sound judgements in their own life to be running their state.

It doesn't matter what the motivations of his opponents. Their motives might be unpure but the end result is just. Elected officials cannot involve themselves in gambling enterprises, bootlegging, prostituion, drug activities what have you. They must be held to a high standard and simply put if he was a CEO of a major corporation he'd be fired.

It's an obvious answer.

Why didn't he (none / 0) (#96)
by DaleA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:00:50 PM EST

take a suite with an unmarried aide in the other bedroom. Any questions, he can say the aide did it. And since he is not married, not going to fire him. This is so dumb.