Elliot Spitzer......

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Nope, Conan's right.  He should resign, and he should be prosecuted.  

And he's a hypocrite, of course.  He's made a career out of crusading against all sorts of wrongdoing -- prostitution included -- and you can't do that if you're morally compromised yourself.  Tis a shame, because I agreed with his politics and his progressivism, and thought that he took on the right people.  And he took them on, which is more than most Dems in power positions can say.  So, sad to see an important voice and a rising star commit hari kiri.  

Prosecuted?  For being a john?  Okay, what about Vitter then?  Senator Vitter won't resign...should he?  Should he prosecuted?

What's fair?  Conan's wrong, the NY Times (which broke the story, incidentally) clearly mentions that he's a Democrat.  They also hit the hypocrite angle because Spitzer is a "crime and ethics" guy.  Seems like fair coverage to me.

He's a hypocrite, that's why it makes for interesting news.  Even so, Spitzer is no worse, and arguably better, than a "family-values" Republican with a diaper fetish who regularly called the DC Madam when he needed his nappy changed.  Vitter's flat-out gross, and if you have a problem with Spitzer, then you can't hold back on Vitter.

Who said anything about holding back on Vitter?    I thought he'd crawled back into the heating ducts a long time ago.  But if there's a crime, he should do the time. And he should step down, too.

Conan's right in that Spitzer's a hypocrite.  I can't tell you whether it was mentioned that he was a D or not, and frankly I don't care.  I think keeping score in that way diverts from relevant issues here.  And really if you DO want to go there, R sex scandals outnumber D sex scandals by a pretty wide margin.  All's I'm saying is, I don't have patience for that kind of hypocrisy whether it's my side or the other guy's.

I don't think we should expect more or less out of a politician's personal or business ethics based on party affiliation.  Who really gives two ****s about which party has had more sex scandals?  Why is the party affiliation even relevant?

As tax payers and citizens, we should collectively be pissed off at the corruption, fraud, waste, and moral turpitude which rips us off daily.

i'm really not pissed off that a guy got his (cough, golly!) if he did it with his own money.  now if it was shown that tax payer money was used, I just want to make sure the tax payers get their fair share too!

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Nope, Conan's right.  He should resign, and he should be prosecuted.  

And he's a hypocrite, of course.  He's made a career out of crusading against all sorts of wrongdoing -- prostitution included -- and you can't do that if you're morally compromised yourself.  Tis a shame, because I agreed with his politics and his progressivism, and thought that he took on the right people.  And he took them on, which is more than most Dems in power positions can say.  So, sad to see an important voice and a rising star commit hari kiri.  

Prosecuted?  For being a john?  Okay, what about Vitter then?  Senator Vitter won't resign...should he?  Should he prosecuted?

What's fair?  Conan's wrong, the NY Times (which broke the story, incidentally) clearly mentions that he's a Democrat.  They also hit the hypocrite angle because Spitzer is a "crime and ethics" guy.  Seems like fair coverage to me.

He's a hypocrite, that's why it makes for interesting news.  Even so, Spitzer is no worse, and arguably better, than a "family-values" Republican with a diaper fetish who regularly called the DC Madam when he needed his nappy changed.  Vitter's flat-out gross, and if you have a problem with Spitzer, then you can't hold back on Vitter.

FWIW, the story I linked has been edited throughout the day.  When I initially linked to it, the story made no mention of Spitzer's political affiliation.

My personal belief is that someone who earned public trust and admiration by being tough on crime should not be participating in illegal acts.  Being tough on prostitution and organized crime were two things which helped get him elected as Governor.  

This deal is gaining traction and it's sounding more and more like he's toast with his Democrat bretheren.

I know very, very little of Vitter's situation and didn't read anything about diapers in that story.  Ironically, the story you cited says Mrs. Vitter is a former prosecutor.  You're right, it's an arguable point- it actually looks worse for Spitzer because he gained public trust by cracking down on the exact same criminal enterprise he was caught using.

Someone else had alluded to prostitution being a victimless crime.  That is incredibly naive.  Tell that to the parent, grandparent, sibling, child or friend of someone who has ventured down that path.

NY State Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer is a self-righteous hypocrite, who is now hosted on his own petard of sanctimony.

Good riddance to that arrogant prick who used the powers of his office both as NY State Attorney General and as Governor to not only persecute people, but to RUIN them.

No one says it better than today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal concerning the Rise and Fall of Elliot Spitzer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120519359147125705.html

Stick a fork in him.

He's done.

[xx(]

[Chicken Little]

Spitzer to resign.  Guess that just leaves Vitter and Craig, huh?

[inteller]

No doubt he will resign, but it will be a shame if he does.  What is ridiculous though is the republicans saying they will impeach him.  Sorry but last time I checked getting a (special Hallmark greeting) is not an impeachable offense.  Misuse of taxpayer dollars?  maybe if they could prove it.

**** like this just shows how sexually dysfuncional this country is.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

No doubt he will resign, but it will be a shame if he does.  What is ridiculous though is the republicans saying they will impeach him.  Sorry but last time I checked getting a * is not an impeachable offense.  Misuse of taxpayer dollars?  maybe if they could prove it.

**** like this just shows how sexually dysfuncional this country is.

I've heard that the Feds stayed involved because of possible violations of the Mann Act, which I believe deals with paying for prostitution across state lines.  

They were originally involved because his payments to the shell companies operated by the prostitution ring looked like a bribery attempt.  If it was just everyday prostitution within NYC, it would've become a state matter, but the Feds are probably still involved because of the Mann Act accusations.  Those are felony violations.

[bokworker]

The question is... did she "Spitzer" or swallow?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by inteller

No doubt he will resign, but it will be a shame if he does.  What is ridiculous though is the republicans saying they will impeach him.  Sorry but last time I checked getting a * is not an impeachable offense.  Misuse of taxpayer dollars?  maybe if they could prove it.

**** like this just shows how sexually dysfuncional this country is.

I've heard that the Feds stayed involved because of possible violations of the Mann Act, which I believe deals with paying for prostitution across state lines.  

They were originally involved because his payments to the shell companies operated by the prostitution ring looked like a bribery attempt.  If it was just everyday prostitution within NYC, it would've become a state matter, but the Feds are probably still involved because of the Mann Act accusations.  Those are felony violations.

Well, that theory is wrong. Spitz got caught vis a vie the IRS! Then AG Mukaskey sent the dogs in once he saw what prize there was in the guv.

Spitzer Bust Provides Warning Regarding NSA Spying: Dave Lindorff
"I have no sympathy for New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the hot-shot prosecutor of call-girl operations who was hoist on his own petard, as it were. I mean, what a jerk! And aside from the hypocrisy, what a fine message he was sending to his three teenage daughters about the role of women.

Having said that, Spitzer's bust should give pause to those in Congress who are ready to hand President Bush a free pass to continue his 6-year campaign of warrantless spying on Americans.

We now know from yesterday's Wall Street Journal article that the spying Bush has been doing through the National Security Agency since early 2001 has included vast computer sweeps of not just Internet and phone activity, but also bank and credit card transactions. These are sweeps of ordinary everyday people, with computers looking for odd transactions, or for codewords, or for transactions involving specific targeted organizations or addresses.

What nailed Spitzer, we now learn, was a series of bank transactions he had with the bank account of the Emperor's Club VIP callgirl operation.

Now reportedly, the IRS was conducting this particular investigation, which allegedly was investigating the Emperor's Club. Once the IRS discovered it had caught the New York governor in its web, it forwarded the case to the U.S. Attorney General's Office, where the FBI pursued it, apparently on the instructions of AG Michael Mukasey. The investigation moved from monitoring the bank to monitoring phones, and Spitzer was captured talking to the Emperor's Club dispatcher. Bingo. Promising Democratic political career ruined.

Now the monitoring of the Emperor's Club was reportedly done with a court-ordered warrant. That's fine. But this case shows us how people can get caught up by this kind of investigation really quickly.

Now imagine that instead of a call-girl operation, this had been a mosque or an international charity organization, and suppose you were someone who had made a call to ask about making donations to help the victims of the last earthquake in Indonesia? If that mosque or charity happened to be on the list of outfits being monitored by the NSA's computers, your call might well have been picked up. Then the focus would shift to your phone and your Internet server, and conceivably every communication you made would be watched.

This is the America we now live in. According to The Wall Street Journal, after a wave of national outrage forced the Bush administration to shut down its Total Information Awareness project at the Pentagon, Bush and Cheney simply moved their scheme to subject all telecommunications and bank transactions to computer monitoring over to the NSA.

Since none of this spying activity is subject to court supervision and warrant requirements, we are left having to trust the personnel at the NSA, the so-called Justice Department, and the president and his administration, not to abuse it.

Right. And think of the temptations!

Want to know what the House leadership strategy is regarding renewal of the NSA wiretap authorization? Want to know whether the Congress is serious about imposing a time limit on troops in Iraq? Just start monitoring their e-mails and phones.

Want to make sure Democratic members of Congress go along with a war on Iran? Just monitor their phones and e-mails and catch them in conversations that are suitable for a little blackmail.

Is this kind of thing happening? Well, I keep marveling at the cowardly behavior of leading members of Congress such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chair John Conyers. Maybe something is being held over their heads.

We know that the prosecution and conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman was an administration hit on a popular Democratic official. Siegelman is now in jail. Ditto Wisconsin state employee Georgia Thompson. These blatant political prosecutions certainly weigh on the minds of all Democratic elected officials.

Who, after all, is safe in this kind of environment, where the Bill of Rights has been set aside?

Spitzer, who no doubt made use of phone taps himself in his day, and who was ruthless as New York's attorney general in bringing down many of his own targets, may well deserve what he is getting. But the way he was ensnared, via the secret monitoring of a bank's activity, and via phone taps, should put us all on guard.

With that kind of power, unchecked in the hands of an intensely political administration, it's almost a certainty that it is being used and used inappropriately for political ends."


DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

quote:Originally posted by guido911

The only person that needs to grow up is YOU. I cannot believe you are so naive that you cannot see what is at issue here. Prostitution rings, which are illegal by the way (in case you did not know) invariably have nefarious characters that are engaged in money laundering, tax evasion, perhaps violent crime and, oh yeah, BLACKMAIL.

I can see the rationale behind tax evasion when you're earning money through illegal means.  But the money laundering, 'perhaps' violent crime, and blackmail seem more in line with a juicy movie-of-the-week powered by an over-active imagination.  In all the prostitution busts I've heard of, these charges have never been pressed.

Ultimately, the solution is to legalize prostitution.  Bring it under government regulation so it can be taxed and made subject to inspection.  When the illegality is removed, the "money laundering, tax evasion, perhaps violent crime and, oh yeah, BLACKMAIL" no longer applies.

Of course, that implies having a reasonable, rational approach to sex, an approach that is sadly lacking in straight-laced America.

Well here's your "juicy movie-of-the-week powered by an over-active imagination":

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.story

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

The question is... did she "Spitzer" or swallow?

that is awesome.

[cannon_fodder]

I've held my tongue on the issue thus far, but here is my take:

1. The Sex Life of a Politician is only relevant in his public life so far as it is either a reflection of his character (presumably he ran as an honest person, one who cheats on his wife is not) and/or a crime (perjury or prostitution).  Running as an honest person and decidedly NOT actually being one may be the status quo, but it is still public business.  

If, on the other hand, a single man is elected and sleeps with 35 consenting women and provides no compensation (money, political favors, etc) then it is not my business.  Unless of course he pretended to be a chaste individual while running... then expose his lie I suppose.  The hazards of running as a good morale person I suppose.

2. Foley and Craig committed no crimes.  Foley broke ethical rules and Craig was arrested for trying to commit a crime (allegedly trying... I guess.  Technically it is a crime, the crime of attempted crime).  Neither is as clear cut as paying to sleep with a prostitute though they can all be viewed in a negative light.

3. I'd legallize prostitution if given the chance.   You want to make money having sex, I want to pay for sex... sounds fair to me.  Clearly it would have to be a regulated industry for health reasons and to avoid abuse (aka pimping, virtual slavery, children, etc.).  But really prostitution laws are yet another failed attempt at legislating morality (quick, someone give me a bible verse banning prostitution).

But as it stands, it is illegal.  And people current have criminal records at the hands of this man for the same act.  So he gets no sympathy from me and deserves no leniency.

4. NY State does not specify what an "impeachable act" is as far as I can find.  The impeachment clause is found in Artivle VI, section 24 of the State Constitution of New York (2004) and merely stipulates:

quote:§24. The assembly shall have the power of impeachment by a vote of a majority of all the members elected thereto. The court for the trial of impeachments shall be composed of the president of the senate, the senators, or the major part of them, and the judges of the court of appeals, or the major part of them. On the trial of an impeachment against the governor or lieutenant-governor, neither the lieutenant-governor nor the temporary president of the senate shall act as a member of the court. No judicial officer shall exercise his or her office after articles of impeachment against him or her shall have been preferred to the senate, until he or she shall have been acquitted. Before the trial of an impeachment, the members of the court shall take an oath or affirmation truly and impartially to try the impeachment according to the evidence, and no person shall be convicted without the concur¬rence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any public office of honor, trust, or profit under this state; but the party impeached shall be liable to indictment and punishment according to law.

If the house votes to impeach, the Senate then gets to try the case.  On what technical grounds, I have no idea. One of the House Members threatening to write up articles if he doesn't resigned cited conduct rendering him "unfit for office."  So my guess is the terms are as vague as the State Constitution seems to allow.

FYI: Prostitution is just a misdemeanor in NY (assuming age of majority):

quote:PENAL CODE § 230.04 Patronizing a prostitute in the third degree.
   A  person  is  guilty  of patronizing a prostitute in the third degree
 when he or she patronizes a prostitute.
   Patronizing a prostitute in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

[edit]
oh yeah:
Laws of NY http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi
Constitution of NY
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/pdfs/cons2004.pdf

Article citing "unfit for office":
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLGmgMiUStW0JrSP9fNgi7Tlpd7g
- - -

AND, the prostitute was apperently $1,000.  If the tab was $5,000 the guy should be impeached for paying for snuggle time with a prostitute.

[Ed W]

quote:Originally posted by guido911



Well here's your "juicy movie-of-the-week powered by an over-active imagination":

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.story

So he paid out over $10,000 and broke it down into smaller amounts to avoid the bank reporting him to the IRS, and the bank reported him ANYWAY?  Doesn't that strike you as wrong?  

We're living in a police state.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

quote:Originally posted by guido911



Well here's your "juicy movie-of-the-week powered by an over-active imagination":

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.story

So he paid out over $10,000 and broke it down into smaller amounts to avoid the bank reporting him to the IRS, and the bank reported him ANYWAY?  Doesn't that strike you as wrong?  

We're living in a police state.

And that is the real crime....end of story.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

quote:Originally posted by guido911



Well here's your "juicy movie-of-the-week powered by an over-active imagination":

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stspitzerbank0312,0,4637246.story

So he paid out over $10,000 and broke it down into smaller amounts to avoid the bank reporting him to the IRS, and the bank reported him ANYWAY?  Doesn't that strike you as wrong?  

We're living in a police state.

Just stop it ED. You sound more like a Spitzer  apologist than some civil libertarian.

[Ed W]

You're missing the point.  If he did not pay out more than $10,000 in a single payment, he did not break the law.  Yet the bank reported him to the IRS anyway.  At that point, he had done nothing illegal (except for solicitation, maybe).  It's disturbing that a bank would report the supposedly private transactions of a customer when that customer had done nothing to break any banking laws.  The transactions were suspicious, but not illegal.  

It should bother any right-thinking American when a bank informs on them in the absence of wrong-doing.  

So the bank officers are government informers just like the telecommunications companies.  What's next?  Will we be informing on each other?

Oh, wait!  They've covered that too:
http://www.infragard.net/

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

You're missing the point.  If he did not pay out more than $10,000 in a single payment, he did not break the law.  Yet the bank reported him to the IRS anyway.  At that point, he had done nothing illegal (except for solicitation, maybe).  It's disturbing that a bank would report the supposedly private transactions of a customer when that customer had done nothing to break any banking laws.  The transactions were suspicious, but not illegal.  

It should bother any right-thinking American when a bank informs on them in the absence of wrong-doing.  

So the bank officers are government informers just like the telecommunications companies.  What's next?  Will we be informing on each other?

Oh, wait!  They've covered that too:
http://www.infragard.net/

Inform on each other?
Rat out?
Ed, whatever happens the people deserve what they get. Weak leaders who are never held accountable. Bush butchered the Constitution and like sheep the people let him have his way. We have no one to blame but ourselves.