Client # 6 and Kristen Revealed

Client Number 6 in SpitzerGate has been revealed. He's the richest man in England, the Duke of Westminster, Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor.

The Duke of Westminster, listed as the world's 46th richest person by Forbes magazine, hired four hookers over a six-week stretch in late 2006 and early last year, the News of the World reported last year.

Despite his incredible wealth, multi-billionaire Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor haggled with one of the Emperors Club girls for the cost of their date, according to the report.

He's described as one of Prince Charles' best friends and Prince William's godfather. A multi-billionaire, aside from his having haggled over price, he's said by one of the call girls to be "dull and demanding.

And here's the 22 year old Kristen, whose apartment in the Flatiron District of Manhattan tonight is under seige by the media : [more...]

Her real names are Ashley Youmans, changed to Ashley Rae Maika DiPietro, and later to Ashley Alexandra Dupré. Her My Space page is here.

Her mother says,

“She is a very bright girl who can handle someone like the governor,” Ms. Capalbo said. “But she also is a 22-year-old, not a 32-year-old or a 42-year-old, and she obviously got involved in something much larger than her.”

Understatement of the year, but it's only March.

< More Open Thread | Proposed Florida Re-Vote Plan Released >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Kristen is my age (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    That freaks me out a little bit.

    you are very bright. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ghost2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:54 PM EST
    I couldn't guess you were so young.

    OTOH, her mother seems to be totally casual about her daughter's profession, and seems to even recommend the quality of her work in that statement.  

    Oh, My. Perhaps I shouldn't jump to conclusion on a short quote.


    Yeah, I shouldn't judge (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:55:57 PM EST
    Makes me sound like my mother :D.

    are you considering changing professions? ;> (none / 0) (#2)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:34:49 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:52 PM EST
    Ugh. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:34 AM EST
    I've had enough already. Why do we have to dwell on the details such as who this woman is, or what may or may not be going on inside the mind of Silda Spitzer? In terms of the former, what difference does it make? Why is it important that she become some sort of celebrity out of this? And as for the latter, Silda looked to me to be distraught, but that seems to me to be all we know about her take on this. Why do we have to start in on this psychological dissection of their marriage and the choices we think she's made or will make? She doesn't deserve to have her privacy invaded more than it has been already. Elliot, he brought this on himself, but what right to we have to question the very personal decisions she will make about her twentysomething marriage? I realize that not everyone here is doing that, but at a certain point, the whole thing begins to take on a very judgmental tone. And really, she's the wronged party here, let's not be part of the pile-on.

    As I was writing this little self-righteous screed, I had an image of a YouTube of me with sobbing, with streaky eyeliner, filmed under a sheet shouting "Leave Silda Alone!"

    Anyway, what I am interested in dwelling on in this whole sordid story are the circumstances of the investigation. Wayne Barrett brought up a curious point in an interview this morning. He noted that on Feb. 21, the investigators got their wiretap extended for another 30 days, but then shut it down weeks before it expired. He couldn't understand why. His point was that once they figured out what they were looking at they would have used every last minute they had on the wiretap because you never know what other illegal activities you might find proof of, or evidence about even more of the men involved. But they shut it down almost immediately after they had the goods on Spitzer. Can anyone else think of a legitimate reason? Barrett speculated that perhaps there was some other wealthy, powerful man involved whom they weren't quite as interested in destroying.

    Very good point (none / 0) (#42)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:41:52 AM EST
    After all this was the public corruption unit. If any of the other johns were public officials they should be outed too.

    The private clients I am conflicted about. But at this point I think they should be named as well. After all, they might run for office in the future.


    Into (none / 0) (#63)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    public shaming because they may run for public office later?  How progressive!

    You are right (none / 0) (#72)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:34:51 AM EST
    My bad for putting it that way. But I do think that they all should be revealed.

    18 USC 2518 (none / 0) (#64)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
     expressly states that no wiretap order shall authorize the surveillancance for longer than necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization. The 30 days is simply a maximum it can be sustained without applying for and receiving an extension if that objective has not been achieved.

      There are EXTREMELY good reasons for shutting down prior to 30 days. Electronic eavesdropping is a profound intrusion. If the agents have obtained what they told the judge they are lookng to obtain (and convinced the judge no less intrusive investigatory methods will succeed), they then have no good faith basis to continue the surveillance. The agents' belief that continued surveillance might lead to originally  unanticipated evidence of other crimes or other actors is exactly what the law, with good reason, is intended to prevent.


    Oh. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    So, do we know exactly what their objective was? If it was to catch Elliot Spitzer then they did shut it down immediately after their objective was achieved but it then brings up even more questions. If their objective was to bring down this organization, wouldn't they have reason to listen longer to assess the possible size and scope of the operation? Wouldn't that be part of their objective? If they were only looking to confirm the prostitution, wouldn't they have had what they needed after Client #1, or even Client #5? What could you imagine would be a legitimate reason to continue the surveillance after Client #5, but to discontinue the wiretap after Client #10? I guess I'm wondering why 10 is the magic number (other than it's the one that comes immediately after Elliot Spitzer).

    I have not seen (none / 0) (#74)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
     the application or affidavit seeking the wiretap.

      in the abstract, if the application requested a tap on certain numbers because the agent believed it would help obtain evidence that persons A, B. C, would make statements showing evidence of certain suspected offenses, once the wiretap achieved that objective the order would require the tap to be shut down even if the 30 days have not expired.

      Of course, it is possible to go back to the judge and say in effect: "Judge, our legal surveillance has uncovered evidence sufficient to establish cause for more wiretaps because while waiting for the evidence we were seeking from the 1st authorized wiretap we also got this evidence.

      My point is this is one of the most profound intrusions into personal privacy imaginable and the laws we have are susceptible enough to abuse by those so inclined. The last thing in the world we should want is to make it easier for law enforcement to justify clandestinely eavesdropping on conversations on the hope they'll find evidence of wrongdoing.



    I agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    with your point about government intrusions, and I appreciate your clarifications on the subject. Practically speaking though, is it usually the case that a wiretap would be shut down prior to its expiration? I realize that I'm asking questions that basically require speculation as to the inner workings of this case, I just can't get over the feeling that there is something truly rotten about this case, and I'm not just talking about Spitzer's behavior.

    I can't say it is "usual" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:26:31 PM EST
      because I have no stats on the subject, but in my experience it is common. Understand, that often the evidence sought in the tap is the proverbial "last piece in the puzzle" needed to be able to preseent either an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint or an indictment, and in a great many cases (though this would not appear one of them on the surface) law enforcement wants to get people into custody or at least the jurisdiction of the court as soon as possible. Some  reasons for that range from the obvious of causing the illegal conduct to cease, to  apprehending people before they can flee or destroy evidence, etc.

       While I am by nature and training skeptical of law enforcement, thus far, I have seen nothing in this particular case to suggest any improper actions by law enforcement. Surely, we all approve of good faith investigations of public officials where these is just cause to suspect they are breaking the law. nothing reveraled so far indicates to me that the investigation here was not premised on the report of activity that was suspicious. That it turned out the original suspicions were found baseless but that in the process of looking into that they found what appears to strong evidence of a wrongdoing of a different nature does not suggest to me that law enforcement should have turned a blind eye simply because he was a high ranking state official.

      Do we really want a class of people who have sanction to act above the laws applicable to the rest of us?

       remember these same methods and tactics can also catch the bad guys in the Republican Party



    Of course (none / 0) (#89)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    I don't want a class of people who are sanctioned to act above the law (though I would argue that they already exist, an obvious example being those sanctioned by Bush), but I also don't want a class of people who are prosecuted (or persecuted) by a standard that is considerably greater than that applicable to the rest of us. (And here, I am not talking about a moral or ethical standard -- I think that there is a very good argument to be made that elected officials should be held to a higher standard here, simply because they are not just acting as individuals, but as representatives of all of us.)
    remember these same methods and tactics can also catch the bad guys in the Republican Party
    And yes, this is true, but the operative word here is can. Unfortunately, under this administration theory does not match practice. Yes, Republicans can be caught by these same tactics, but that seems to be far from the case. And if the statistic that under this Public Corruption Unit, there are 5.6 cases opened against Democrats for every 1 opened against Republicans, then I find the standard that seems to be at work here -- that is, prosecution based on political ideology to be the most frightening standard of all.

    There is the crux of the problem (none / 0) (#92)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
      It's not that officials in the opposition party can be targeted for investigation of wrongdoing, it's that the party in power can protect its wrongdoers. Personally, I'd like to see all politicians perpetually apprehensive regardless of whether their party is in or out of power because I don't think much of anything other than fear of getting caught will provide incentive for a lot of them to obey the law.

      Deterrence might not be that effectual with regard to a large number of offnses and offenders, but I do think it serves a salutory purpose for polsto watch their peers forced to resign in shame or be hauled off to prison.


    Yep. Agreed. But the Duke of Westminster? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:48:57 AM EST
    Him I'm interested in. Proof that rich people didn't get that way by keeping a relaxed hand on their wallets.

    the media coverage is sickening (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:11:15 AM EST
    why broadcast her picture?  Let her be.  She was not peddling a book, not trying to blackmail, not doing anything really.  Shameful.

    They'll stop (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    right around the time they shut down all their little Britney-watch operations.

    Theirs a huge market for prurience and stupidity.
    And, I would argue, an interest in promoting it.


    She looks so ordinary (none / 0) (#4)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:46 PM EST
    What makes her worth $1000 bucks an hour?

    No, no (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    $4300 an hour.  She's twenty-two and Spitzer isn't, that's what makes her priceless.

    Her knees aren't sharp. (none / 0) (#10)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:12 PM EST
    That's $4,000 an hour (none / 0) (#24)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:35:34 PM EST
    Spitzer like her (none / 0) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36:26 PM EST
    for her mind.

    I am loving the Duke of Buckingham angle. Can't wait to find out who Customers 1-5, 7, 8 and 10 are.


    NY Times reports (none / 0) (#65)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    the  Duke    hired   girls   that  were  his  daughters'    ages.  



    Yes the rule that comes to mind (none / 0) (#88)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    is half your age plus 7 years.

    22 is just to young once you're past about 30 to 35.

    After about 40 it's just plain creepy.


    Damn Slado..... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    you mean I can't chase 22 year olds forever?  Bummer.

    I was kinda enjoying that no matter how much older I got, recent college graduates stayed the same age:)


    It's the process, (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:54 PM EST
    not the prostitute?

    Spitzergate promises to be SO entertaining.  

    Yes it will be (none / 0) (#9)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:19 PM EST
    And we all are in need of a good laugh. This is just cracking me up. The networks should createe a show called the "Big Reveal" Each night they could announce a new client. The ratings would soar.

    Why make this stuff public? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:44:20 PM EST
    How incredibly tawdry our society can be.

    Hey Eliot was going to be the first Jewish Pres (none / 0) (#12)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:01 PM EST
    He had everything going for him.  And he seemed to go after the right people.  And he was a member of my tribe this time....

    I am curious to see the girl who wood the king.


    Jeralyn, is this level of leaking normal for a (none / 0) (#11)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:04 PM EST
    case with a high visibility target?

    I mean, Vitter's name came only bcz he was named by a prostitute, iirc.

    How is this happening? What does it mean?

    Jeralyn, is this level of derision (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    toward Spitzer, and the sex worker(s), acceptable at TL.

    I'm disgusted by the disgust.


    i don't want to know (none / 0) (#14)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
    I don't want to know or hear about any of the women or their clients.  
    I have the feeling this story will go on and on and on and on and on and on...............

    {{{{yawn}}}} (none / 0) (#16)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
    legalize it already

    this is getting stupid

    Confused again. (none / 0) (#58)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    How does legalizing prostitution remedy Spitzer's situation?  He's still spending campaign cash and family money to commit adultery.  It shouldn't be a scandal because the prostitute is legal?  Ask Silda if that would make her feel better.

    Legalization doesn't remedy Spitzer's... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:57:06 AM EST
    situation with his wife, it would be a partial remedy to the tyranny situation in this state/country.

    When does the movie come out? (none / 0) (#17)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST
    This looks to be a field day for the media. Suspect she may become a wealthy woman out of this. But how $1000 per hour?

    I can't remember who said it... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:45:29 AM EST
    or where I heard it to give proper credit, but it's been said johns aren't paying for the sex, they are paying for the woman to leave afterwards.

    That's why they pay...so they don't have to worry about entanglements.  And 1k an hour to these people is like 10 bucks to most of us.


    Media Needs a Life (none / 0) (#18)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:23:55 PM EST
    The media needs to turn off their cameras and go home. This is National Enquirer journalism at its worst. My local station opened their newscast with 6 pictures of this girl tonight (just before they updated American Idol news). The media really needs a life...either that or start reporting on Iraq or budget deficits, or health care disasters.

    I also saw where every news station carried the video of a reporter in South Carlina getting beat up by a family that was in the midst of a family tragedy. It had to happen sometime and will probably happen more often in the future.

    The poor haggle, the rich negotiate price (none / 0) (#19)
    by Prabhata on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:25:04 PM EST
    The rich negotiate the price for for everything, even for their tricks.  I guess she didn't get a tip for the job.

    Kathy, re. effect on Spitzer's wife/family (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:29:40 PM EST
    In the previous thread, you say: "he devastated his wife and children, that he dishonored their marriage and his family in an inexcusable and disgusting way?"

    That may not be the way his wife et al actually feel about it. For all we know, they may have an 'agreement' of some kind - some people do.

    It reminds me too much of the way Bill and Hillary were both pilloried re. Lewinsky. He, for doing the mutually consensual thing with Lewinsky (who complained, unwittingly, on tape, to Linda Tripp because Bill wouldn't have "real" sex, meaning vaginal penetration). In a round-about way he was impeached for being less than forthright in the way he characterized his "relations with that woman"

    Hillary is still being lambasted for not leaving him over that. At this point, for all I know, she may be more angry at the press and the public than she ever was at Bill.

    At least that's how I believe I would feel if I were in her shoes.

    Who's to say that isn't also true for Ms. Spitzer.



    Mrs. Spitzer may be more angry (none / 0) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:40:42 PM EST
    at the press than she is at her husband. It was reported repeatedly over the last two days that SHE was urging him not to resign.

    But you had only to look at her on Monday -- her face, the way she held her head, the posture of her body -- to know that she was a woman in profound pain.  I do not think she and Elliot had a "deal," I don't think she knew, and the only emotion I can feel for her is compassion.

    If she decides to stay with Spitzer, I will respect that decision as personal and one only she can make, even if I think I would have made a different one (indeed, if my husband were Elliot Spitzer, his resignation would have been moot, if you know what I mean).


    Ligitatormom, re. Spitzer & wife Silda (none / 0) (#95)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    We now know (as disclosed in a news conference today) that David Paterson, the incoming Governor of New York, and his wife (Michelle Paige) both had extra-marital affairs at a previous point in their marriage. Apparently, they knew of one another's affairs at the time. They've evidently worked it out as a couple and as a family. Silda Spitzer may have looked pained to you, but again, we have no way of knowing how people are internally dealing with stuff like this.

    Lots of assuming on your part (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:33:23 AM EST
    And even if there was some sort of 'agreement' between them, that 'agreement' was, most certainly, not approved by his three daughters. That's the part that I cannot get past. He has three daughters who have to live through this painful humiliation.

    Good luck patching up those relationships, Elliot.


    It's an education. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:00:35 AM EST
    If your own loving father can be a cheat and a scoundrel, then so can every other man.  

    Shoephone, re. effect on Spitzer's wife (none / 0) (#94)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 05:17:13 PM EST
    I assumed nothing. I hypothesized alternate scenarios to the ones other people presented. Granted, neither you, nor I, have any way of knowing whether those alternate scenarios are any more, or any less, valid than the original ones.

    Re. Spitzer's daughters and whether he will have a hard time repairing his relationships with them: again, neither you nor I know anything about his parenting skills. So, I'm assuming nothing there either.


    The Poor (none / 0) (#52)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:14:23 AM EST
    Also get arrested in much greater numbers.  That's the end of my outrage though.
    I started laughing when I heard this news.  Where have you gone, Monty Python?  Our Nation turns its lonely eyes to you...

    and how do you think (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST
    he became so wealthy?

    Despite his incredible wealth, multi-billionaire Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor haggled with one of the Emperors Club girls for the cost of their date, according to the report.

    it wasn't by giving it away without a fight.

    gee, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't sex-for-hire illegal? let me think now, i know there's a technical term for that..................prostitution! by george, that's it!

    for $1,000 per hour, she better do back flips. :)

    so, why isn't young "kristen", or whatever the heck her current name is, being charged as well?

    they want her as a witness against (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:38:30 PM EST
    the people who ran the Emporer's club. She's much more valuable that way.

    Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:42:39 PM EST
    Totally off topic but can I email something to you or BTD for a major topic tomorrow concerning the Florida revote?

    wouldn't she be more inclined (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:33:23 AM EST
    to testify for the state if she were facing charges? otherwise, what's in it for her? if doing a public service were her concern, i seriously doubt we'd be hearing her name mentioned in connection with this activity, so i'm going out on a limb, and guessing that isn't her motivation here.

    Incentive to cooperate (none / 0) (#51)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    The "Emperor" prostitutes are not currently facing charges (only the top accused pimps are, under that complaint), but that is no guarantee that others won't be charged if the grand jury returns an indictment.  Under S.Ct. precedent, the prostitutes cannot be charged with a Mann Act violation (under that law, they are effectively deemed to be victims), but they have serious risks (not seemingly applicable to "johns" such as Spitzer) of other charges.  They could be indicted for Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering ("ITAR" or "Travel Act," 18 USC 1952) (not just the ones who traveled, since the law also covers making interstate phone calls and interstate money wires in aid of a "business enterprise" involving prostitution) and money laundering, 18 USC 1956 (transactions with criminal proceeds with intent to disguise source, ownership etc.) or 1957 (if she handled over $10G in proceeds at a time).  So this young woman and the others have plenty of incentive to "cooperate" early and truthfully.  Interesting -- and sadly typical of pimped-out prostitutes -- that despite all the money she handled, the Magistrate Judge appointed a lawyer for her after finding that she was financially unable to afford to retain counsel.

    She's already received a GJ subpoena (none / 0) (#45)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:19:37 AM EST
    per today's NYDN (I can't get the link function to open, but it's their lead story):

    Dupré's lawyer, Don Buchwald, said the high school dropout has been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, presumably investigating the prostitution ring, Emperors Club VIP, which arranged her rendezvous with Spitzer.


    The Duke likely won't be charged (none / 0) (#47)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:26:17 AM EST
    because paying for sex is not illegal in the UK (though actively soliciting, pimping, living off the earnings of a prostitute, etc., are).

    So, his doing it in the UK would not be illegal.  Remember, the Mann Act has provisions which incorporate state (local) law on prostitution to determine what is illegal.

    Whether the feds would go after him for calling the service to arrange the "date" - kinda dubious.  They'd likely have to prove he knew the service was in the US and, since there was a UK number listed for the women he might have been interested in, he'd likely have a pretty good defense on that charge.  Similarly, the screen caps I've seen of the service's site indicate that they told where the women were located - like "London" or "Paris", so, where's the US commerce/foreign travel connection?

    Even if they'd have a case, though, they'd never prosecute the Duke, because he's a Duke and seriously wired-in.


    "Seriously wired in.." (none / 0) (#67)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    Uh,  yeah...

    Prince  Charles'  best  friend;  Prince  William's  godfather.  

    Seriously  wired-in   is  an  understatement.  


    it comes with the job (none / 0) (#81)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    i.e., if you're a born a member of a Ducal family, you have no worries.

    Ask Winston Churchill - grandson, nephew and cousin of a Duke, he was wired-in, no?


    Yeah again (none / 0) (#85)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    I  read   that  most  British papers  referring  to   El  Duko    have  had   most  of  those  comments  "removed"  or   deleted  from  any online   sources.  That's  pretty  wired-in,  I'd  say.

    It's  good  to  be  king,  eh?  


    She's 1K per hour (none / 0) (#22)
    by mg7505 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:35 PM EST
    because: (a) good-looking girls become strippers, not prostitutes, (b) the company rips its clients off, and (c) she might be better looking in real life. These are all just guesses, by the way!

    Come to think of it, Monica Lewinsky wasn't the best-looking girl Bill Clinton could have messed around with... I feel so bad for the families of these men. I just hope that Silda and her daughters have the fortitude of Hillary/Chelsea. Does anyone think Spitzer can regain at least some dignity the way Bill Clinton did?

    The Media reporting on this isn't helping anyone. But it is hurting Spitzer's family and, I'd argue, the poor girl who sold her body and dignity to that escort service. Can you imagine being in her shoes and trying to hold your head up after this? How would you get a job, a spouse, etc etc... she's really young for this to be happening to her.

    If one of his kids say (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:40:33 PM EST
    "Hey, Dad, buy me...." how can he ever refuse after spending $10 - 80K on Kristen?

    she'll be forgotten in 15 minutes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:38 PM EST
    And by then, she'll probably have earned a million or two from selling her story about Spitzer to the tabloids.  

    Also, I doubt she'll get a recording contract or a tv show out of it.  As to Monica, she thought she was in love, this one was only interested in the cash.

    Her tv rating boost won't last. I think she's a flash in the pan and no one will remember her name next week.


    Correction (none / 0) (#29)
    by cmk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:41:52 PM EST
    The Duke of Westminster is not one of Prince William's godparents, but his wife Natalia is.

    ouch (none / 0) (#32)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    It sucks to hire prostitutes that are also hired by people with powerful political enemies.

    Looks like all these clients (none / 0) (#33)
    by frankly0 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59:05 PM EST
    have been caught wearing the Emperor's New Clothes.

    Can we please leave Clinton (none / 0) (#34)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:01:28 AM EST
    out of this?  Seriously.  And, by the way, he didn't have to pay for it--so the comparison's are mute in my opinion.  

    This is about Spitzer. Period.  [And if he wasn't so self-righteous in the past, I would say this is a matter b/w him and his wife, only.]      

    I hate to be petty (none / 0) (#35)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    but I don't think this is petty...

    can we figure out the difference between 'mute' and 'moot'?

    If not - see this link and you will learn the difference between the 2 words.

    Yes, this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton

    This has everything to do with stupid laws that makes criminals of our citizens.

    This is after all, "The Politics of Crime" web site.

    The Politics of Crime web site should have users that know the difference between 'mute' and 'moot' though.


    I hear that.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:49:29 AM EST
    the one good thing that could come out of this is a national debate of why we still have puritan prostitution and other vice laws on the books.

    I agree with Spitzer's newfound revelation that this is a private matter...somebody notify the state.


    If you want the answer to "why" (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    ask the WCTU - the same people who brought us Prohibition also pushed the Mann Act.

    Before the turn of the 20th century when they ramped up mass hysteria about "White Slavery" (i.e., forced prostitution) at the same time they were beating on Demon Rum, prostitution was more or less legal in the US.


    Ah yes.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    the Woman's Christian Tyranny Union....how could I forget:)

    Protecting us from booze, tobacco, other drugs, sex, gambling, and pretty much everything enjoyable in moderation since 1874.


    What We Want (none / 0) (#36)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:36:19 AM EST
    For my first visit to MySpace that was quite the treat. Music came on. The song is entitled "What We Want." You can't make this stuff up.

    As a former Wall Street Equity Analyst who got embroiled somewhat in Spitzer's crusade against investment banking, I think him a jerk.

    All of my emails were deposed. It was rather embarrassing to have my love-making banter make court appearances. I wasn't even out at work officially. Oh the irony of it all. Private matter. You didn't care for mine, why should I care for yours? You failed your constituents, I did not. I was exonerated; you won't be. I was a damn good analyst.

    One can agree (and many do) (none / 0) (#44)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:05 AM EST
     or disagree (and many do) with the laws against prostitution but they are not "stupid" or "baseless."

       Off the top of my head, I can offer several reasons for outlawing prostitution:

     Prostitution promotes the exploitation and objectification of women. It reinforces a notion women are valuable as commodities to be purchased. A way of thinking that some men might allow to infect their thinking more generally.

      Why do men resort to prostitutes when one assumes they could  procure free sex? Probably some of them are acting out fantasies or have some "deep" psychological motives, but likely a great many simply find it "easier" than  developing relationships which require treating a sex partner as a human being. In all economic classes, sex can be bought for a price that many men will view as cheaper than the cost of devoting time and effort to romance, compassion, understanding,  or even attention. It is likely that this can lead to retarding the ability of some men to interact in a healthy manner with other women as well.

     Prostitution contributes to personal misery of some prostitutes, some clients and some families.

      Prostitution does contribute to the transmission of disease.

       in short, prostitution does have victims in the broad sense of the word, just not in the legal sense of the word.

      Now, there are many arguments in favor of legalizing prostitution as well. On balance, I find them slightly more persuasive than the arguments for outlawing it, but simply labeling laws with which one disagrees stupid or dismissing them as as the product of close-minded puritanism is every bit as close-minded and unthinking as the caricature of fundamentalists people here like to mock.

    caricatures (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    but simply labeling laws with which one disagrees stupid or dismissing them as as the product of close-minded puritanism is every bit as close-minded and unthinking as the caricature of fundamentalists people here like to mock.

    developing relationships which require treating a sex partner as a human being.

    Pot meet kettle.

    MSNBC had a great article yesterday on the topic of why some men seek out prostitutes and it was rather fascinating.  I don't think any of the men would come out and say "I don't like to treat women as human beings" I would submit that some men paying for sex have that attitude, probably pretty close to the number of men in bars looking to score.

    In Germany, STD rates among prostitutes is extremely low, because it is legal and doc checks are frequent.  

    I concur that prostitution leads to misery with some women and their families, but so do miserable marriages, crappy jobs and bosses who are verbally abusive.  

    Ever worked in a diner?  Some waitresses are treated sub-human for 2.75 an hour.  I can honestly see why someone would rather make a few hundred an hour and feel degraded than 225 a week and feel degraded every day.

    On another note, I heard last night from several newscasters that Spitzers behavior was "self-destructive".    It can only be self destructive when you are only hurting yourself.  He has a family and three teenage daughters, i would hardly call it "self" destructive....


    False (none / 0) (#62)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
      Obviously, many behaviors can be and are simulatneously destructive of self and others.

      As for the rest of your post. I did not use absolute terms such as "every, "all" or "always." do you suggest that some action must be harmful in each and every way possible  in every conceivable context for society to enact restrictions or prohibitions?

     It is self-evident that many people "choose" to engage in activities because despite the degradation or risk of penalty it appears to them to be a better option than other available ones. So?

      My point was merely that calling a law one dislikes stupid is worthless. real debate requires addressing the arguments that exist for its existence and offering better arguments for why it should be repealed.

      I don't think the fact a lot of people have unsatisfactory jobs or unpleasant bosses helps support the argument prostitution should be legal. As I said, I do think good argumets exist and, on balance, I find them slightly more persuasive than reasons for prohibition but that is certainly not among them. that reasoning would justify ANY remunerative conduct whatsoever.


    Exceot (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:55:44 AM EST
    That your argument rests on a moralism that sets a much higher standard for sex work, and evidentially only female on male sex work, than all the other work that takes place without the love and  respect you demand.

    Construction work, food servers, models, performers, the list goes on.

    Much work promote gender stereotypes and can be exploitive, and even though the body is sold, there is no love or lofty  expectations involved in the transaction.

    Sex is sex and love is love that the two cross paths sometimes is no more a measure of either than lets say, cooking and love.



    Laws shouuld (none / 0) (#71)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:32:48 AM EST
     rest on moral underpinnings. If some don't accept the particular moral underpinnings of certain laws then they should work to convince enough people to agree to change the law. It's not the imposing of morality that is the problem-- It is the imposing of false or wrongheaded morality. The prohibition of murder, rape, robbery, and the like are all based on moral beliefs; those just aren't very controversial moral issues.

      Laws should also be tailored to countenance differences of degree. It is simple minded  absurdity  to argue that conduct with a greater prevalence of greater (but in certain respects similar) harms should not be treated differently.



    It Seems Ironic (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    That the prohibition of prostitution, is based on the same type of moralism that has kept men on the top position, so to speak.

    There is a resistance in this kind of moralism to allow those on the bottom, to earn a fair and regulated wage for their services.


    Simply Said (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:45:18 AM EST
    Prostitution's problems are labor issues, no different from other labor issues in industries where things like exploitation and poor working conditions exist.

    Power relations between people, particularly where no money changes hands, are another issue altogether. Although, it should come as no surprise that societies biases are reflected, although not exclusively, in those relations.



    And Love (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    Is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    I did not argue that (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST

    It seemed rather hypocritical to me that you would make a blanket statement about johns and then refute a blanket statement about people judging fundamentalists later in your post.

    I don't know that crappy jobs and demeaning bosses make a case for legalization either, it does provide some basis for understanding the lure of the profession.  I don't know that all johns solicit sex because they don't view the women as human beings.

    If your point was that calling it worthless because one disagrees than i would agree, but you did not stop there.  You spoke of degradation which is prevalent in the workforce, you spoke of disease (one in four teenage girls have an STD).  Neither of those arguments have much merit in my opinion.

    I think what is far more degrading is posting the womans picture and bio to sell advertising space in media.  I find it sickening that we have to have one word in print about Mrs. Spitzer.  What is more degrading, having consensual sex for an agreed upon remuneration -- or profitting (sp) from the mistakes or poor decisions or private actions of others?

    Elliot Spitzer hurt his wife and his family, it is a personal matter that should be left alone.  He has resigned.  Let him and his family be.  His kids will ultimately suffer because of his actions far more than any child should ever have to.  

    I would disagree with your destructive breakdown as well.  When you have a family all of your actions are no longer self destructive.  They are destructive.  Self destructive implies that it ruins oneself, if they are going to use "self-destructive" without a qualifier such as simultaneously perhaps it would be acceptable but to imply that his behavior was sd with what his family is going through is truly selfish.


    First (none / 0) (#70)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM EST
    I made no blanket statements. That's a straw man you fabricated.

      Second, yes I spoke of degradation. My concession that degradation exists in other contexts does not lead me (or anyone else practicing logical reasoning) to the conclusion that the existence of degradation in other spheres makes it one not worthy of consideration of the matter at hand.

       You bring up disease which provides a handy analogy. If I  decide I won't eat food contaminated by E coli because it makes some people sick, your argument that because it is possible to get E Coli elsewhere makes it little more appealing to me.

      A somewhat better srgument would be thast not all people who eat it will get sick but that does not mean the possibility of it happening is something not be considered.

      As for your point about the media. that's analogous to arguing don't worry about E coli because there are worse things you can get. I can concede the truth of that without thinking E Coli is harmless.

      I'll agree that now that Spitzer has resigned little beneficial purpose is served in pursuing the matter.

       Your last paragraph is pretty obtuse semantics. I don't thinnk ANYONE, friend, foe or neutral has even implicitly suggested that his actions were not hurtful and harmful to his family or that their suffering is less significant than his self-inflicted suffering


    straw man (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    in your own words:

    developing relationships which require treating a sex partner as a human being.

    that is a blanket statement.  


    don't deceive and cheat (none / 0) (#76)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST

    I wrote:

    Why do men resort to prostitutes when one assumes they could  procure free sex? Probably some of them are acting out fantasies or have some "deep" psychological motives, but likely a great many simply find it "easier" than  developing relationships which require treating a sex partner as a human being. In all economic classes, sex can be bought for a price that many men will view as cheaper than the cost of devoting time and effort to romance, compassion, understanding,  or even attention. It is likely that this can lead to retarding the ability of some men to interact in a healthy manner with other women as well.


    what is a great many (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    10%, 20%?  80% My interpretation of your vague statement is my interpretation, perhaps you can stop being vague and give us something quantitative?

    It's time to end this (none / 0) (#80)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:55:29 AM EST
     because you show no interest in saying anything intelligent.

    lol (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    Seriously, i love your posts. And my interpretation of great many is obviously different than what you intended, so I ask again with due respect, what does that mean?  It sounds to me like when a candidate says they are going to make america great again, what the heck does that mean?

    your arguments are purely semantic (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    you must be bored.

    You raised the argument that disease is spread through prostitution.  It is spread through sex.  It is a risk you take whether you are paying for it or not.  Use protection.  Cook your meat and poultry thoroughly.  

    I don't disagree and didn't disagree with the degradation aspect, I just think it is a silly argument to say that "it is degrading" because some may take issue with its morality.  I think caging chickens is immoral but I still eat chicken and omelettes.  Rape, murder, larceny all have victims, under your argument the john or the prostitute is a victim or is it just "morality".  Mixed marriage was once illegal as is gay sex in several states. If you can demonstrate that their are victims in consensual sex with money exchanged I will accept the argument, yet you do not.  You postulate about morality and society's needs for it as if legalizing prostitution would somehow disrupt the natural order of things.  It is legal in Germany and last i checked they were doing okey dokey.

    Your argument about the media is juvenile.  If the media does not report on the Spitzer, how is anyone going to know that cheating on your wife, embarassing your children and destroying your family is a bad thing?  No it serves to humiliate and make moralists scream with outrage while they commit their own sins which clearly are not as bad as mr spitzers. Christ washed the feet of the prostitute, he did not call out her johns and humiliate them and their families.  he merely said it was wrong and a grave sin against god and family.

    Semantics my arse, : acting or tending to harm oneself.  
    Oneself - can you get your arms around that?  His behavior was destructive, he destroyed a lot more than hisself...


    What her mother said is sort of haunting (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:24:38 AM EST
    to the mother in me.  I don't judge prostitutes by any means but it is a symptom of abuse to be able to barter the intimacy of your body.  Then her mother says that she is a bright girl who can handle someone like the governor and it just sounds really creepy, like she's never been protected by her mother (which is the woman's job to be doing until her daughter can protect herself in this world) and tossed to the lion's of the world so learn to barter child.  Broken home and abused along with having a sort of brilliance to her, she used what she had to get by on her own.  I'm sure it is much better to barter with lion's on your own terms than it is to have to barter with them on your mother's terms.  Her mother is right that she is 22 and not 32 or 42 and I'm not impressed with her mother at all right now.  Her written voice sounds like someone who flunked motherhood.

    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#48)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:29:47 AM EST
    with what you said, but remember we know nothing of the mother's story. She's 46 now, but she too was a very young woman when she became a mother and we don't know what travails SHE had in her life which caused her difficulty.

    Did I write that? (none / 0) (#54)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    yes, "MOOT" point.  

    Forgive me, it was late at night :)

    Under (none / 0) (#56)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:45:21 AM EST
    siege by the media?  That'll boost her clientele!

    Well, it looks like "Kristen" is (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    disassembling her myspace page as we speak. Can't blame her.

    Emperor's Art Club (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    Coincidence? I don't think so. It has the same pitch and the same socioeconomic clientele.

    Here is the link. I think it is hilarious that they also sell artists and dealers to the super rich.