Feds suspected bribes, discovered sex

This is interesting. According to ABC's The Blotter, the federal investigation of the "Emperors Club VIP" prostitution ring actually started as an inquiry into suspicious money transfers from Governor Spitzer's account that "initially [led] agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes."

So basically, everyone else who got caught in this investigation has got to be pretty pissed at Spitzer for ruining the fun. ;)

Spitzer, by the way, is expected to resign in the next 48 hours.

Comments

[Alasdair]

Do you think the good junior Senator from NY will be implicated ? Whether moonlighting, or as a client ?

[JD]

I wonder if Spitzer will wait until Wednesday because of the Mississippi primary. (Imagine if this had broken LAST Monday.)

It's 10 PM Eastern, so today's out.

[JD]

Also, that AP Photo on the Blotter entry is going to haunt him for the rest of his life.

[texasyank]

Check out Kos; it's already Bush's fault.

See, thanks to FISA, Bush can now . . . blah blah blah.

My wife asked, "How the hell is it Bush's fault?"

I said, "Easy. Spitzer slipped on a bar of soap and fell on his back. Then the President shoved a hooker onto his penis."

Not missing a beat, she said, "Huh. Bush Push, indeed."

[Leanna Loomer]

A question here -- when Kobe Bryant (allegedly) raped a woman, didn't he resign from basketball in disgrace? Under those circumstances, I'd say, yeah, Spitzer should go.

[Condor]

"Spitzer slipped on a bar of soap and fell on his back. Then the President shoved a hooker onto his penis."

Bush only shoved the hooker because he freaked out. The room was dark, and he thought he saw the ghost of Vince Foster. That's right, Vince Foster, the former Deputy White House Council, the man whose ghost never would have existed if the Clinton's hadn't killed him. You heard me, this all goes back to the Clinton years, just like our current recession and that other thing, what was that, oh yeh, freakin' 9/11.

Condor shows how far liberals have to go to rationalize BDS in terms of "CDS".

[David K.]

"Anonymous" shows how mindless conservatives are that they have to come up with terms like BDS to explain what the rest of us call reality.

[4-7]

I have no idea what these abreevs are all about, but I do not understand how liberals throw stones. I mean, isn't all their energy burned up just justifying themselves ?

I gave your mom CDS and BDS.

... Eliot Spitzer style.

[4-7]

Well, I guess since you don't know who I am or who or where my mom is, that is not a true statement. But I recommend you seek treatment immediately. If you have two you could have twenty, so seek medical care. It may be too dangerous to await property-confiscation-funded health care provided by Barack and Hillary.

At least take a bath.

[Sandy Underpants]

Which bush are we talking about?

[gahrie]

How many prostitution rings did Kobe Bryant prosecute?

How many votes did he win by when he was elected to the Lakers?

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

Leanna

That's right, lets compare a non-descript basketball player to the CEO of a state with a population of 19 million people.

How did I miss that comparison when its so obvious?

Kristen, is that you sticking up for Eliot?

[Leanna Loomer]

Sex scandals... let's see -- Kobe Bryant. Shaquille O'Neal. Marve Albert. The last I looked all three were working. Okay, they all had press conferences about what they did, but the comparison to Spitzer ends there. What would Kobe Bryant or Shaq have to do to be held accountable while they are on top of their game?

They're all public figures. And a sex scandal is a sex scandal.

[Brendan Loy]

Shaq had a sex scandal? If so, I missed that memo, or forgot about it.

Regardless, this comparison is silly. "They're all public figures"? You can't just ignore the distinction between celebrities and ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS. That's ridiculous.

Moreover, "a sex scandal is a sex scandal" is also entirely false. Spitzer is accused of committing CRIMES -- namely, soliciting a prostitute, and whatever other white-collar-ish money crimes they might charge him with. So was Kobe -- a much more serious crime -- but those charges were dropped because the case could not be proven. If he had been convicted, there's no question he would not be playing basketball anymore. (Michael Vick isn't playing football anymore, and it's widely believed that he'll never play again, even once he gets out of jail.) In this case, the evidence against Spitzer appears to be pretty damn solid (they caught him on tape), and moreover, he's pretty much confessed (unless his public apology was referring to something other than hiring a prostitute).

Also, Kobe and Shaq(?) and Marv didn't make their careers out of crusading against other people's crimes and ethical violations.

I'm sorry, Mom, but this is an incredibly weak argument. On the list of potential defenses for Governor Spitzer -- all of which are pretty weak -- this one wouldn't even make the Top 100. "He shouldn't have to resign because Kobe Bryant didn't resign"... really??

And frankly, I don't recall you saying anything similar about Larry Craig.

[Leanna Loomer]

I don't say much about any of them. I rarely comment. Somebody tell me the $5,500 came from the 19 million taxpayers. Tell me how a sick habit and terrible judgment about his personal life impacts the 19 million New Yorkers exactly. Is there evidence that he went easy on the brothel he frequented? Hypocrisy is a different matter.

Oh, excuse me about O'Neal. Magic Johnson. An Olympic athlete as well as an NBA star, representing us to the world. My apologies to Shaquille O'Neal. Terrible mistake on my part.

[Leanna Loomer]

But "a sex scandal is a sex scandal" was not a defense of Spitzer. It was an indictment of everybody who gets away with it.

[Brendan Loy]

Well, I certainly don't mean to discourage you from commenting. :) But did you at least have a similar reaction, although you didn't express it here, to Senator Craig's troubles?

Also, your statement that "'a sex scandal is a sex scandal' was ... an indictment of everybody who gets away with it" seems at odds with your statement, "Tell me how a sick habit and terrible judgment about his personal life impacts the 19 million New Yorkers exactly." Are you saying that we pay too much attention to sex scandals, or too little?

[Jomo]

With all due respect Mrs. Loomer, that is the most idiotic argument I've read. I would be curious if your defense of Spitzer would exist if you made the D an R after his name?

[Alasdair]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but isn't it considered a sex scandal for a prominent basketball player if they are not a "player" ? To quote Topol - isn't it considered "Traditional !" for them ?

State Governors, on the other hand, are supposed, I thought, to be a tad more circumspect ...

State Governors who had been Attorney General, even more so, right ?

[Leanna Loomer]

I am not defending Spitzer. Thank you both for putting me in the bottom 100 and giving me due respect for the idiocy of my argument.

What I was hearing (and responding to, in relation to Spitzer's current situation) was: BUT SPITZER HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE LIVES OF 19 MILLION NEW YORKERS. Um, he's their chief administrator, yes. Is he using New York state money or state time to pay for and spend time with the call girls? If not (and I haven't heard that yet) then he's no more, or less, significant than any "nondescript" basketball player (e.g., superstar for the NBA). Spitzer has, by law, to answer for whatever crimes he committed. They all have, by law, to answer for whatever crimes they committed. May Michael Vick's conviction give us hope for that, and let it not be just the exception that proves the rule.

[Brendan]

In what way was Kobe Bryant not called to answer for his crimes? He was prosecuted, the case fell apart, and the charges were dropped -- not because he got special treatment for being a celebrity, but because his defense team mounted an effective defense, which they were able to do because he has the constitutional rights that we all have, celebrity or not. (And, yes, because he has money, so he was able to hire better lawyers than most non-rich people. But that's not special treatment based on celebrity status, it's inequality of wealth, which is a whole different issue.)

As for Magic Johnson and Marv Albert: were they actually accused of crimes? I thought they were just accused of miscellaneous sexual conduct, or if there were any crimes, they were pretty minor ones.

In any event, I'm not calling you an idiot. That's out of line. But your argument remains deeply flawed, not least because the analogy is so filled with holes. You may not think the public-official vs. random-celebrity distinction is significant, but if you want to convince anyone of your position, you'd be wise to use a more obviously apt analogy (e.g., to other politicians, not, uh, random sports figures).

[Brendan]

P.S. I'm still curious about the answers to my questions: did you have a similar reaction (although you didn't express it on the blog) to the Larry Craig scandal? And is your overarching point that we pay too much attention to sex scandals, or too little? I'm still not clear on that point.

[Leanna Loomer]

I'm sorry I didn't respond to the Larry Craig matter. I guess I was folding it into the universality of justice references I made. I wouldn't feel differently about Larry Craig than I do about Spitzer. But isn't his current battle how to extract himself from his previous admissions? As for Spitzer, for all the righteous indignation about him, I am hearing equal parts prurient interest over his sex life and vengeful glee over his past prosecutorial zeal and the hypocrisy of his present situation.

I do appreciate your legal perspective on ethics. And I am aware that as a member of the bar, you are held to a higher standard. (Doesn't Spitzer stand to be disbarred, aside from everything else?)

Insofar as sex crimes are prosecuted, could more attention be given to sex crimes that are not consensual? What Craig and Spitzer are giving up is nothing compared to what victims of those crimes do.

[Andrew]

As for Spitzer, for all the righteous indignation about him, I am hearing equal parts prurient interest over his sex life and vengeful glee over his past prosecutorial zeal and the hypocrisy of his present situation.

The "prurient interest" aspect is largely limited to the fact that Spitzer felt the need to pay $5,000 for an escort when he could've picked up Albany's version of the LA Weekly and found a similar tight, young nympho for far less cash. I'd even go so far as to say that half the bimbos that advertise in such rags wouldn't know who Eliot Spitzer was if he gave them his real name.

Leanna, nobody liked Spitzer -- not Republicans, who saw Spitzer used the power of his office to engage in dirty, underhanded tactics against his political foes (remember the Dirty Tricks Scandal?); not Wall Street, who suffered his hardball tactics and repeated threats; and from everything I've read, his fellow Democrats tolerated his arm-twisting but were always wary of him. Frankly, I think you should be rejoicing that the Dems have been saved by this scandal from having a potential Richard Nixon rising among their national ranks.

Insofar as sex crimes are prosecuted, could more attention be given to sex crimes that are not consensual?

So should the highway patrol stop prosecuting red-light runners because DUI cases are more heinous? Really Leanna, you can do better than that.

[Leanna Loomer]

Andrew, I'm not trying to do any better than anything. I will say that until I left my first comment here (and for awhile after), the spirit on this topic seemed to be pretty exclusively prurient. Something better than that is not inappropriate.

Read what Alan Dershowitz has to say on this. Something about crimes that are never prosecuted except in the case of the high and mighty. Some hypocrisy about that, too.

[Brendan]

Mom, telling Andrew to "read what Alan Dershowitz has to say about this" is sort of like telling you to read what Robert Bork has to say about it. Not too likely to persuade him. :P

Anyway, I'm not really sure whether Spitzer is likely to be disbarred over this. Clinton was disbarred for his crimes, but I think that was because they were offenses against the judicial process itself (perjury, obstruction of justice). This crimes are more "personal" in nature. And yet, they're still crimes. And governors (and lawyers) swear an oath to uphold the law, which presumably implies an obligation to operate within it (in addition to the obligation we all have, as citizens, to operate within the law). This is the fundamental problem with your Kobe/Magic/Marv analogy. Those guys are celebrities, but they haven't taken any oaths to uphold the laws. They aren't entrusted with a public trust. They're just celebrities. It can be argued that they're "rolemodels," but that's a much more tenuous argument for heightened legal scrutiny than the one that applies to the Spitzers and Craigs of the world.

Your position seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that public officials should only be subject to additional penalties (e.g., losing their jobs) above and beyond personal criminal liability if their crimes are somehow directly connected to their job duties (e.g., use of public funds to buy a hooker). I presume you would also agree with demands for resignation in the case of more serious, heinous crimes (e.g., rape, murder). But with regard to moderately serious crimes that don't directly involve abuse of the office or interference with job duties, you seem to think their officialdom status shouldn't have any impact on how the public views their crimes.

I think that's a defensible position, but it's not an obviously, self-evidently correct one, and as such, if you're going to try and convince people of it, you need to use an argument that actually addresses the nuances of the alternative, also-defensible positions that are out there. This is why your Kobe/Magic/Marv analogy is so flawed: because, although the distinction between celebrities and public officials may not make any difference to you, because you don't think anybody should be held to a higher standard for non-heinous crimes that aren't directly related to the role in society that the person is famous for (in Kobe's case, presumably this would mean cheating on basketball or what have you), there is a HUGE difference between mere celebrities and public officials in the eyes of the people you're trying to convince of your argument. The whole rationale for holding celebrities to a higher standard (rolemodels) is completely different from the rationale for holding public officials to a higher standard (public trust, duty to uphold the law). So the only people who are going to see the Kobe/Magic/Marv analogy as apposite are the people who already agree with you.

[Brendan]

P.S. With regard to the question of whether Spitzer's violations of the law impacted his performance of his official duties... well, here's an article about an investigation into how Spitzer slipped his security detail in order to engage in these dalliances (which were apparently going on for ten years or more). If it's true, as it appears to be, that he kept his security guards at arm's length so that he could slip away periodically to have sex with hookers, I'd argue that's a pretty serious impact on his job as governor. He's compromising his own security in order to engage in criminal activity.

Moreover, although Spitzer seems to have been using "classy" prostitution services, it's no secret that prostitution is often tied to other types of crime, and getting involved in one aspect of that underworld can cause a person to get caught up in other aspects without meaning to. He was taking a pretty serious risk in that regard. He was also opening himself to potential blackmail. What if the proprietor of the prostitution ring, or one of the prostitutes, had wanted Spitzer to sign a particular bill or (as A.G.) prosecute, or not prosecute, a particular person, etc.? They could have easily threatened him with disclosure of his secret criminal life unless he did what they wanted. Even if this never occurred (and I've read no indication that it did), the mere fact that he would open himself up to the possibility of such extortion is incredibly reckless, and certainly does impact his performance of his duties.

You're right, of course, that there's a great deal of prurient interest in this sort of thing -- that, indeed, is the bulk of the reason people are interested in it. (If Spitzer were accused of John Rowland-type crimes, which would be much more objectively serious, the story would be getting much less attention nationally.) I don't deny any of that. But the fact that people's motivations for following this story are skewed doesn't mean the legitimate underpinnings of the outrage and calls for resignation are necessarily lacking. The fact remains that he engaged in a significant pattern of criminal activity from the perch of high office. He isn't merely accused of cheating on his wife with some pretty young thing. He's accused of involvement in a prostitution ring. There's a big, big difference.

[Leanna Loomer]

Look, all this is moot now, because Spitzer is yesterday's news, but I didn't mention Dershowitz to put a bug up Andrew's ass. I did it because the guy is saying something no one else has (and is a lot more articulate than I am). Bork is more articulate than Andrew, too. We should welcome them both here.

And as to CRIME, well, smoking marijuana is a CRIME. Good thing no one who reads this blog has ever committed that one.

P.S. Since we don't smoke marijuana, we luckily won't be in danger of falling into international drug trafficking. That's a burden Willie Nelson just has to bear.

[Andrew]

Leanna, there's really no point in continuing this debate if you can't see the larger forest through the trees. Spitzer was a scumbag, and you should be rejoicing that a corrupt man was brought down before he could further soil your party. Spitzer was positively Nixonian in the way he abused his power and prosecutorial discretion to make his enemies' lives miserable. It's not like New York can't produce another capable Democrat to take his place (I don't know anything about Lt. Gov. Paterson except that he's black, legally blind, and sure plays a mean pinball), so why the consternation?

[Alasdair]

Respected Leanna

Now *that* is one thing I would love to see ...

Judge Bork commenting here, and the response fo the D-list to him/his comments ... the first image is metallic Sodium on water ... (or possibly a drop of water on a metallic Sodium skillet) ...

[Alasdair]

(sigh) of ... OF ... not "fo" ...

Faugh !

[David K.]

Al, you are pathetic, really really pathetic. There is no "D-List" except in your mind. As I have tried to point out to you numerous times disliking President Bush and his policies is not a mental disease. On the other hand you may want to see a professional about being so out of touch with reality that you have to invent cabals and project beliefs on other people in order to justify your own absolute faith in the man. I don't know what your religious beliefs are but I'm pretty sure most major religions would teach you that such a belief is not only wrong but is blasphemous, in fact Dubya himself would probably tell you that.

As to your point, unlike you, I welcome reasoned discourse and debate so long as the person i'm talking to doesn't need to come up with imaginary syndromes to denigrate his opposition.

[Leanna Loomer]

Thanks, Alisdaire :)

And I cede you the scumbag, Andrew. I never said I liked the guy :)

Now what are the odds that this girl won't get a musical career out of this?

P.S. About the bug reference, Andrew. Nothing personal ;>

[Joe Mama]

Are Senators required to take an oath to uphold the law? I'm just thinking of another distinction between Craig-Vitter and Spitzer besides the fact that the latter is an executive and chief law enforcement officer. I don't think legislators are required to swear to uphold the law, Constitution, etc, but I'm not sure.

[Joe Mama]

Actually, I may have to take that back - I think legislators do have to make some kind of oath upon taking office, because I remember some sort of minor hubub over Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim in Congress, taking his oath on a Koran instead of a Bible . . .

[Brendan Loy]

Sounds like something BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, THE SECRET MUSLIM, would do. :P

[Brendan Loy]

(Just in case anyone finds this post on Google: I'm just kidding. Barack Obama is not a Muslim. And what would it matter if he was?)

[Jomo]

This is for David:

[Alasdair]

Leanna - who is this new commenter, whose name is similar to mine, to whom you direct your thanks ? "Thanks, Alisdaire :)"

Whoever it may be, he or she has more of some letters and less of others than my name ...

With all due respect ...

[Alasdair]

Jomo - I thank you for the cite of the BDS Wikipedia entry ... similarly to others on the D-list, David is in significant denial about his BDS ...

[Joe Mama]

ROFLMAO

[David K.]

Jomo, I am quite clear what it means, how could i not with Alasdair using it as his only defense of Bush no matter what the criticism?

Alasdair, I'm not in denial about anything, I think Bush has been a terrible President who has made terrible decisions and the evidence bears this out. The sad fact of the matter is that people like you can't differentiate between those who trully hate Bush and those who merely think he is a bad leader. You can't seem to possibly concieve that *gasp* there are legitimate reasons to be critical of him, hence I point out again that the only one here who is deranged is YOU, the person who is incapable of seeing the world in anything but black and white.

Its really really sad that you are stuck in such a mindset, but since you don't take my word for it, how about the fact that even Brendan, who clearly does not suffer from this supposed "BDS" or land a place on your "D-List" consider you to be the biggest blind partisan on the whole blog?

Face it Alasdair, the d-list/BDS stuff is not because those of us who dislike what Bush has done and THEREFOR think he is a bad leader are mentally insane, its because you have no other way of justifying your blind allegience to the man, and its really trully pitiful. I feel sorry for you to have your whole world view in such a precarious position that you have to make up imaginary conditions and cabals in order to square it with your reality.

[Alasdair]

David - while I am sure there are a number of things that "even Brendan" considers me to be, I doubt that "the biggest blind partisan on the whole blog" is up in the first 10 or so ...

[David K.]

Given that he's said that, on this very blog, i'm pretty sure he (and so many others) do believe it.

As soon as you can abandon this pathetic defense using the terms BDS and D-List every time you reference a criticism of Bush or those of us who criticise him and his policies then you'll gain an ounce of credibility.

[Alasdair]

David - since you seem to be quite partisan in your own use of "every" and the like, it should be trivial for you to show an example or three of Brendan referring to me as the "the biggest blind partisan on the whole blog" ...

I await with bated, yet not held breath ... and I expect either the simple sounds of crickets chirping, or the classic D-list bluster trying to re-direct the attention elsewhere ... or, who knows, possibly a quite creative synthesis of the two ?

Oh - before I forget, again, apart from the obvious satire of texasyank early in the comments, I didn't see any patricular examples of BDS ... until *you* raised the subject ... funny, ain't it ?

A grown person saying something to the effect of "I'm not guilty of that something that you didn't mention ! No, I'm not ! I'm really NOT ! And don't you keep bringing it up in the comments in this post and saying I am !" ... it inspires the positively Shakespearean, now, dunnit ?

{chirrup, chirrup}

[David K.]

Yes Alasdair you are the biggest blind partisan on this entire blog, bar none. And YOU are the one who constantly brings up BDS and the D-List. See your comment from earlier in this blog post. Its quite sad that objective reality like that is so hard for you to grasp, i mean its literally right there in black and white.

As Brendan has mentioned before, the idea that when someone is accused of something and then rebuts it somehow implies they are guilty (the "doth protest to much" fallacy) is just that, a fallacy.

[Alasdair]

While I take both responsibility and pride for how I have brought up my own rugrats, I take NO responsibility for bringing up *any* of the D-list folk ...

Anyway - I thought that you D-list folk considered yourselves to be 'self-made' - "thus relieving the Almighty of a dreadful responsibility ..." ... (to paraphrase from the "As Others See Us" words of wisdom) ...

[David K.]

See Alasdair? You are simply incapable of intelligent thought, you must resort to failed attempts at humor and outright lies. YOU are the one who came up with the term "D-list" to describe a group of people whose only uniting factor is apparently our failure to worship at the altar of Bush like you do. YOU are the one who decided that because we dislike Bush's policies and dislike his leadership (or lack thereof) as President, that we have some sort of irrational hatred for the man.

The sad simple truth, as I have said before, is that the only way you can seem to justify your view of the world is to pretend that those who disagree with you must have some sort of mental disease. So tell me, which is more likely, that YOU are wrong or that over half of this country is wrong? Over half of this country, in fact i believe its over 2/3 of this country believe Bush is doing a terrible job. Its not paranoia, its not insanity, its reality. You are choosing to ignore it, not because you disagree with it, I would have no beef with you if you simply disagreed, but no because you are wholly incapable of comprehending that disliking Bush because you disagree with what he has done and what his policies are is an entirely rational viewpoint.

Seriously Alasdair, you are like a spoiled child who always has to has his way and be thought of as clever and smart. You can't and you aren't.

The objective reality is that the "D-List" is your own perjorative creation. You bring it up constantly, you use it as your defense against criticism, and its entirely pathetic that you are trying to lie about it now and blame the people you claim belong to your creation for it. Grow up Alasdair, grow up.

Oh and you don't have a clue about my religious beliefs so i will kindly ask you not to treat them with such disrespect.

What's with all the BDS from the D-List?