home

Spitzer Resigns Effective Monday

Update: Text of Statement.

Embattled New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is expected to announce he is resigning at 11:30 a.m. ET.

More details of his trysts:

A person with knowledge of the serviceís operations said that Mr. Spitzer had begun meeting with the prostitutes of the Emperorís Club about eight months ago and had had encounters in Dallas as well as Washington. A law enforcement official said Mr. Spitzer also had an encounter with a prostitute in Florida. On some trips of several daysí duration, Mr. Spitzer scheduled more than one visit with a prostitute, this person said.

Update: He's now in the building. Updates below

Update: I predict a short statement and no questions. Waiting mode now. CNN.com should be carrying the statement live if you're not by a tv.

Update: His wife is with him. Ted Wells is with him!

In the past few days he's begun to atone. He's grateful for his family's love and compassion. He has been given much. He is sorry he didn't live up to what was expected. To every New Yorker, he apologizes.

He looks at what might have been. He has accomplished a great deal.

Over his public life he has insisted that people take responsibility for his conduct. He asks no less of himself.

He is resigning. Effective Monday, the date Paterson believes he can take over.

He will fix his problems and then rise from the fallen and try outside of politics to help the common good. He thanks everyone for the privilege of serving.

My view: He did what he needed to do.

Update: Looks like he will be going into rehab. "I will do what I have to heal myself..."

On the legal ramifications: No answers yet. See my earlier post on the latest details in that regard.

< Clinton Campaign On MI And FL | New York's New Governor: David Paterson >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Unlevel playing field and double standard (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    The White House standard in response to scandal: We don't comment on ongoing legal matters (... till the trial is over ... the sentence comes down ... while the appeals process is occurring ... until all appeals are exhausted.)

    Even Vitter and Craig had wagons circled around them. (Let's find out all the facts first yadda  yadda while the story cooled.)

    In the Spitzer case, within hours, his opponents thugged an immediate resignation. The (R) Senate Leader Bruno couldn't wait to get out there and take over.

    Leading Dems were nowhere to be seen or heard. One of the CNN stringers quoted unknown Dems as saying they were waiting for Spitzer to make his announcement.

    Ridiculous.

    On a positive note (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Iphie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    I do have high hopes for David Paterson. He is arguably a better "traditional" progressive. His positions on civil rights, the criminal justice system and economic justice, to name a few, are certainly more progressive than Spitzer. My only fear is that he may not be tough enough. In terms of personality, his reputation is of someone who is a very kind and decent person. And Albany really is a cess-pit. On the other hand, he has extensive Albany experience. He was a state senator for many years, and a couple of years ago he did manage a coup against Marty Connor, the previous Senate Minority Leader. Challenges of that kind against party leaders is not usually successful. So that does speak to his ability to play the game.

    Me too.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    Paterson doesn't have the fould law&order stench of Spitzer...this may well be a big improvement.

    Parent
    Disappointing (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:32 AM EST
    Why the hell is he quitting when Larry Craig and David Vitter are still in the Senate?

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    When the GOP takes someone down they tie the package up so tight that there is no way out. Kinda like how the mob does it.

    I think that they had him on the hook for some time.

    Parent

    TPM reported this AM, from a WaPo article (none / 0) (#58)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:26:02 AM EST
    that the FBI had been tailing him on a previous trip to DC, but missed him having any actionable activity;  his own personal security detail also missed the FBI.

    Parent
    FBI (none / 0) (#60)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    The FBI following a Democratic Governor waiting for him to hire a prostitute?

    No politics here.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    Maybe they were off duty, cough cough, when Spitzer hooked up.
    Or investigating Gannon? Fair is fair.

    Parent
    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
    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
    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

    I had some thoughts on this (none / 0) (#7)
    by A little night musing on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    Posted late in the previous thread:

    http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/3/11/193555/143/83#83

    Not really happy with what I wrote, but I'd really like to see some serious discussion of this whole phenomenon. And in particular, what do we do?

    Parent

    Trying to be a bit more clear... (none / 0) (#15)
    by A little night musing on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    I'm not defending what Spitzer apparently did, at all. I think it was incredibly stupid of him to continue knowing (as he must have) that he had enemies who would be gunning for him and had the forces of the DOJ, etc., at their disposal. And I'm very disappointed in him.

    But I can't help thinking that by focusing on this scandal, we lose sight of the larger picture, which is the changes in NY government that happen when he's forced to resign. And I think it's valid to think, for example, that Spitzer is a fool and a law breaker, but that keeping him as governor would be better in the long run than forcing him out because he wasn't "pure". (Not saying this is my opinion, BTW). I'm saying that the people on the right who've been running this country (into the ground) for the past many years are much more willing to make this kind of calculation, while the rest of us allow ourselves to get distracted by the surface, more "fun to talk about" salacious aspects.

    I can't seem to express this well. I hope someone gets what I'm trying to say.

    Parent

    urls must be in (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    html format or they skew the site. Use the link button at the top of your comment box. Long urls will result in comment deletion.

    Parent
    Sorry! n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by A little night musing on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    Here Is (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    a tip (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    go to Left Coaster and open the comments window.
    there you will find a handy little thing you can cut and paste to link.
    you just substitute your url with the place holder between the quotes.


    Parent
    because he is a democrat (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    Not just the sex/prostitution (none / 0) (#47)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    He also may be guilty of structuring. That, in fact, is probably what he would be charged with, if he's charged at all.  Initially, it didn't seem clear why the feds would have been looking at that, because he seemed to be intent on paying in cash, based on the affidavit.  But now it is coming out that he started off paying the service by wire transfers, that he was sending them amounts over $10k in smaller, broken up amounts, and had also asked his bank to take his name of the wire transfers.  

    Stupidity beyond belief, given his unforgiving nature as a prosecutor.

    Parent

    Because he got caught (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12:06 AM EST
      and NY politics is not the "club" that is the U.S. Senate. Actually, I think it speaks well of NY Democrats that very few of them are willing to support him. It would be better if more politicians were more vigilant in holding their peers accountable regardless of party and politics.

     

    NY Politics is a club (none / 0) (#38)
    by Iphie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:33 AM EST
    There are many examples of crimes committed by well-connected members of the club which have gone unpunished, or uninvestigated (recent example: Speaker of the Assembly Shelly Silver's Chief Council accused of rape, and being forced out of office -- only it wasn't the first time such (well founded) accusations had been made. Without the protection of Silver, he wouldn't have had the ability to maintain his position of power and (allegedly) commit additional crimes). The circumstances of this case made it much more difficult for Spitzer though. I have no doubt that if he had decided to fight, at least some members of the club would have rallied around him.

    Parent
    Curses! (none / 0) (#6)
    by stillife on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    I bet a friend $5 last night that he wouldn't resign.  

    That said, I do think it's for the good of the party that he does.  He's pretty much lost all credibility at this point.  I was talking to a co-worker who was at some NYC political function last night and based on what he heard, he didn't believe Spitzer was going to resign.  I bet he went out kicking and screaming.

    Oh well.  I think Spitzer was a good guy in many respects, although he certainly alienated a lot of people, and I remain suspicious of the circumstances of his downfall.  Nevertheless, if he'd kept it zipped, he (and we citizens of NYS) wouldn't be going through this now.

    There was talk about impeaching him (none / 0) (#12)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    if he did not resign

    should be a non-starter (none / 0) (#14)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    Democrats are in the majority at the state house.

    Parent
    well maybe Democrats wanted to impeach him? (none / 0) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:12 AM EST
    According to the Times (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    Democratic legislators have told him they could not even muster the 34 votes in the House that would be needed to prevent referral to the Senate for removal proceedings.

    Parent
    does anyone (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
      have an argument for why he shouldn't resign beyond the kindergarten whine that it's not fair because the other bad boys didn't get punished as badly?

    2 (none / 0) (#18)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    Two reasons.

    1. What he did isn't really that bad.  For the state of NY anyway. (This is obviously devastating to his family, of course.) Prostitution is something that 16% of all American men admit to.  It's a crime that many people don't even think should be a crime.  It is completely unrelated to his official duties as Governor.

    2. Even if an ordinary person should resign, Eliot Spitzer should stay because he is an extraordinary person.  He is tough and a legitimate threat to the corruption in NY.  The benefit of his staying outweighs the wrong he committed.


    Parent
    He WAS a legitmate threat to corruption. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM EST
    Then he became part of it.

    Parent
    Prostitution (none / 0) (#26)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    isn't corruption.  It is illegal.  And many people find it morally objectionable.  But it isn't corruption.

    Parent
    Prostitution and Politics seem to go together (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    Archived at Newsmine

    Republican Convention Gets More Prostitutes

    Next month, delegates attending the Republican Party convention in New York City will have the opportunity to get up close and personal with sex and sex workers. According to published reports, thousands of escorts, prostitutes, strippers and their posses are headed for New York City in time for the GOP's late-August/early-September [2004]convention in Madison Square Garden.

    "Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand," the New York Daily News reported. A madam at a midtown Manhattan escort service told the newspaper that "girls" were coming in "from London, Seattle, California...for that week." With fees ranging from $300 to $1,000, it's no wonder that "everyone wants to work," the madam pointed out.

    Sex workers at conventions are nothing new. According to The New York Daily News, "At the 1992 Democratic convention in New York, bikini-clad female oil wrestlers dropped their tops on a flatbed truck in front of Madison Square Garden," and "at the 1996 Republican convention in San Diego, an escort service in search of delegate dollars changed its name to GOP: Good Old-Fashioned Pleasure."

    Workers in the world's oldest profession -- as some have called it -- don't discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, as Robyn Few, a $500-an-hour California call girl who now runs the advocacy group, Sex Workers Outreach Project, told the Daily News. No matter what you believe in, she says, "When you want to buy sex, you will."

    There is nothing new about sex, hypocrisy and the "family values" GOP. (blah blah blah)

    and from The Rocky Mountain News:

    DNC Boost for Sex Biz, Denver can expect prostitution spike during convention

    Political tricks may not be the only ones turned during the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August. The sex and adult entertainment industries are expecting a boom in business when an estimated 35,000 visitors descend on the Mile High City for the presidential nominating bash.

    At the Pepsi Center, the focus will be on a single nominee. But outside the event, the choices available to the delegates, journalists and others are unlimited, giving new meaning to the term "conventional sex." More than six months before the convention comes to Denver, the offerings already online range from Claudia the "she- male porn star" to Erin the "adorable college cutie," whose $300- an-hour services are guaranteed to "leave you breathless."

    Surprised? Don't be. Denver is, after all, home to Mike Jones, the beefy male prostitute who claimed to have bedded the Rev. Ted Haggard in his Capitol Hill apartment. Jay Watson, who promises an unforgettable milk bath and lotion massage for $125 an hour, said he's expecting to be busy during the DNC Aug. 25-28. Why? "Because look at me," said Watson, a 25-year-old Aurora man with a Mohawk. "I'm cute. I'm sexy and I deliver it all."

    'More business' from GOP

    Too bad for Watson and others like him that Denver didn't land the GOP convention instead, said Carol Leigh, a San Francisco prostitute "over 50" who has traveled to previous Democratic conventions in Los Angeles and Atlanta. "It would be a lot better for the sex workers if it was the Republican convention," she said. "We get a lot more business. I don't know if they're just frustrated because of the family values agenda," she said. When the Republican convention was held in New York in 2004, some sex workers offered limited-time discounts, according to New York Magazine, which ran a feature story titled "The Girls in Their Summer Hot Pants." (Feb 04 2008)




    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#31)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    There was a similar story locally here in Minneapolis/St. Paul, where the Repubs are having their convention this year.


    Parent
    And Kay Bailey Hutchison said, the other day, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    that re the Repugs convention in Minneapolis, they are "starting outreach beginning at the airport".

    I'm hoping she was just being dull and didn't realize the Larry Craig innuendo inherent in that statement....

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#61)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    BTW, for all you hopeful visitors, they have apparently changed the stalls in that bathroom so it's much harder to send the right signals.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by spit on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    I think that if he were somebody else, rather than a guy who has been making it in politics through being Mr. Reformer, he might be able to hold on. But as it is, nope. No way. Everybody just watched the school narc get caught with a dime bag.

    I'm actually also not all that enamored with the arguments that it shouldn't be a big deal because prostitution isn't a terrible thing and should be legal -- the core, I agree with, I think prostitution should be legal, and I want to see sex workers of all kinds be able to unionize, and so on. But it's not legal, and politicians don't get to pick and choose which laws they follow any more than I do.

    Frankly, what always, always gets me about these things is the sheer stupid, much more than the moral issues -- all this, over a few nights with a prostitute? Really?

    I hope it was some good sex, because he just wiped out a promising career over it.

    Parent

    Greenwald (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    The question is whether we are going to have a standard where any elected official must resign whenever it's discovered that they have broken the law -- whether it's when they smoked pot with friends once, or gambled in a private poker game, or committed adultery in those states that criminalize infidelity. Before the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision from the Supreme Court, sodomy was actually criminal in many states, and anyone who engaged in sodomy in their bedrooms was engaging in an act every bit as illegal as hiring prostitutes.

    link

    The answer should be that (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
     any politician who commits an offense beyond the most trivial traffic offense or regulatory offense while he is in office and operating under a sworn oath to obey and uphold the laws should resign.

      That won't be the answer that we get unfortunately.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#35)
    by A little night musing on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    It would be lovely if that were feasible, but I don't think that in the world we live in it's a useful position to take.

    I uunderstand the argument that politicians break the law (in however small ways) because we haven't held them strictly accountable, and if we do so we'll get cleaner pols, but I'm unconvinced that it works that way.


    Parent

    It isn't feasible (none / 0) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:59:30 AM EST
      because we live in a society that elects too many people who lack the character to resign when they break the law.

      My point is it would be better if our society was different and didn't elect so many people lacking in character.

     

    Parent

    Well No Wonder (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    Why we have so few elected officials with the type of character you pine for. They all resign when caught doing something that questions their character. Not such a good system for keeping the  ones with good character as our advocates and representatives.

    Parent
    Is there an English translation (none / 0) (#51)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:11:55 AM EST
     for that?

    Parent
    Go For It Professor (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    Don't think I have ever seen you play grammar troll before, but I am not surprised considering some of your comments over the years.

    Parent
    Why Is Hiring A Prostitute (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    Any more trivial from going through a red light?  


    Parent
    It's not. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
      It's more serious almost always because running a red light is usually inadvertent. Other more serious offenses can be charged if it is deliberate or causes in jury. Paying a prostitute money to have sex where prostitution is illegal is never done without criminal intent.

    Parent
    Usually Inadvertent? (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:11:01 AM EST
    Not sure that is true but it is almost always the excuse.

    Parent
    That wasn't the standard we held (none / 0) (#53)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    Bill Clinton to.  Certainly the affair itself with Monica was not illegal, but it was at least arguable that he had given false testimony in his Paula Jones deposition. (It is also arguable that he did not, but that is based on the technical definition of perjury.)

    Of course, Clinton's "perjury" was the result of a perjury trap set by a bunch of witchhunters; he was asked a question he shouldn't have been asked in a lawsuit that had no merit and was later dismissed, and it had nothing to do with his offical duties. But the accusation that he had given misleading, if not false, testimony, was not frivolous on his face. Whether it was material, whether it was technically perjury given the way the questions were formulated and the definitions of "sexual contact" that were in use -- I think he would have had a good defense to a perjury trial if he'd been charged in a criminal case in the courts.  And I certainly didn't think that he should have been impeached, much less convicted by the Senate.

    But Spitzer wasn't trapped. However the investigation got started, the conduct he was being investigated for was volitional conduct over a long period of time, which was prohibited by laws of which he was aware, and which had in fact enforced against others. You can't defend Spitzer the way I, and others, defended Clinton.

    Parent

    Any standing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
      he had to fight corruption evaporated, so that argument is ignoring the change in circumstances. Secondly,while you obviously worship him, his reputation as Governor both among other politicians and the public in NY was not so glowing even prior to this.

      The issue is not what anyone thinks about the illegality of prostition. It's that he knowingly broke a law he knew existed. I don't recall him introducing an bills to legalize prostitution. In fact, it seems that when the shoe was on the other foot he exercised his discretion to enforce the laws against prostitution. that's probably the most "extaordinary" thing I see about the man.

      I also find it laughable that people complain about the media scrutiny of a man whose penchant for media grandstanding was another "extraodinary" characteristic.

     

    It's been quite an epic collapse for (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    the steamroller. He was elected by 69%. Everyone loved him. He was going to clean Albany up and help this state earn the "Empire" title. About a week after taking office, things started going bad when he went around attacking Dems in their own districts. He just continued to slide from there. Before this scandal broke, his approval numbers were in the mid to low 30's. I bet they'd be in the 10's now.

    Let's turn the page. Better yet, let's get a different book.

    And a man who ran a campaign (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    on the slogan of he will bring change to Albany on day one.

    Parent
    I am sure (none / 0) (#37)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    that the media will now immediately get on the story of why David Vitter has not yet resigned.

    Adding (none / 0) (#44)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    Just look at the difference.  Everyone, politicians, the media have been on Spitzer NONSTOP since this news broke.

    How is Vitter treated?

    It's a top 10 most "Awkward" moment of 2007.

    His crime was identical except for the diapers.


    Parent

    Legally? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    What is his legal standing from now on? Any updates on that front?  Is he in serious jeopardy?

    Not clear (none / 0) (#55)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    There were rumors that he was trying to negotiate a plea deal (with a misdemeanor charge) before he resigned, but I'm not sure he ended up with the time to do that.

    I doubt he would be charged with the Mann Act stuff. Although his conduct might technically fall within the terms of the statute, very few "customers" are prosecuted for that crime where the woman involved was not under some sort of coercion or duress.

    More troubling are the potential structuring charges. At first I thought that was a pretext, because it seemed like he was paying in cash, but the details that have come out over the last 24 hours about how he was doing wire transfers to the QAT corporate shell suggest that he may have violated structuring laws after all.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    How sad....  

    Hard to understand why he risked so much...

    Parent

    Good decision (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    Spitzer's heart was in the right place as a reformer, but for whatever reason, he simply couldn't find a way to be effective as Governor.  I'm hopeful that our fresh start with Paterson will work out for the best.

    Although I'm a splitter in any case.  Ha!

    Because I'm odd ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    during Eliot Spitzer's resignation, I couldn't get the voice of ET out of my head saying, "Eliot ... Eliot."

    I said I was odd.

    I know return you to your regularly scheduled kvetching.

    possible prediction winner (none / 0) (#54)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:15:12 AM EST
    Update: Looks like he will be going into rehab. "I will do what I have to heal myself..."

      i'm not sure that statement means he is going to rehab but, if  so, Sarc called it when others were still imagining scenarios where he remained as governor.

    At the very least (none / 0) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    he will be going into therapy, where hopefully he will be administered salt peter along with his antidepressants.

    Parent
    The Duke Of Westminster (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    Was also a client of the Emperors Club VIP.  Details here.

    More (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    Apparently, Spitz is not the only one caught up in "Operation Honeypot." There's also the Duke of Westminister who reportedly used the services of the Emporers Club VIP. But he was smart enough to pay cash! If you think about it, such an outfit might be useful for some other purpose or another, given its seemingly exclusive target clientele of the high powered in western financial and political capitals able to pay as much as $5,000 an hour. I'm still curious about its founder, Mark Brener, found with an Israeli passport, $600,000 and 19,000 Euros in cash in his New Jersey apartment when the ring was taken down last Friday. Update: Apparently Brener found with three passports, two Israeli.

    More from the Post on how the FBI had been trying to sting Spitzer in the act for a while. A bit disturbing, no, when they realized the politically exposed person was not paying blackmail?

    Funny.


    War and Piece

    Parent