Is the Bush Administration Going After Eliot Spitzer?

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00


Digby, Glenn Greenwald, and Jane Hamsher raise important questions about the Spitzer scandal.  Yes, it looks like he hired a prostitute, but there seems to be more to the story.  I found this post by Scott Horton to be highly disturbing.  Here's the nub:

All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.

The answer of the Justice Department to all this is likely to be: Trust us. But in the current environment, the reservoir of trust is tapped. The Justice Department needs to submit to some questions about how this probe got launched, who launched it, and to what extent political appointees were involved in its direction. This has nothing to do with Spitzer's guilt or innocence. But it has everything to do with the fading integrity of the Public Integrity Section.

Spitzer is clearly one figure willing to stand up to Bush.  He is a arrogant and committed this petty crime, but I don't have a huge amount of confidence in the Bush DOJ.  
Matt Stoller :: Is the Bush Administration Going After Eliot Spitzer?

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is the Bush Administration Going After Eliot Spitzer? | 35 comments
Because it is about a Democrat having sex (0.00 / 0)
nothing else will matter. It's just too much a part of the American psyche to be distracted by this sort of thing.
Will someone please talk about David Vitter?!?!? (0.00 / 0)
Vitter has been swept under the rug, but Spitzer will be taken to the mat.

I hope you online muckrakers will keep on this line of thinking and push to get one of our Congress critters to make someone at DOJ explain the investigation and how we got where we are now.

I also wish some Spitzer surrogate would get out in front of this and say the governor will resign only if and when Vitter does the same.

The differences (4.00 / 1)
Re: Vitter, Spitzer is an executive.  It is harder to remain in an executive office after something like this, because the tone is set from the top.  Vitter is one of 100 Senators.

Re: Clinton, paying for sex is worse because (a) it is illegal, unlike sex with an intern over the age of consent and (b) why does he have to pay for it?  There are generally two reasons--what he wants is kinky, or paying for it makes it special, and $5500 makes it especially special, and this makes him feel special.  (I did a long paper on prostitution once, and I doubt it has changed much in the last 30 years).

That said, Clinton toughed it out, but at a very great cost.  Spitzer can try, but unlike Clinton, he set himself up for a fall by being such a zealous procecutor, especially a zealous prosecutor of Wall Street crimes.   This makes him seem like just another arrogant (the rules don't apply to me) guy who is using his money and position to get something special for himself, ignoring the cost to family, party and office.

Prostitution is a very complicated issue.  At any socioeconomic level but the CEO level, a woman can make more as a prostitute than in a "legitimate" occupation.  Why is this?  Because there is an imbalance in the supply of sex vs men's demand for it, and waht men are really paying for is a fantasy experience.  Women can command a great deal of money for providing what the man thinks is an extraordinary experience, because men believe that the more they ar epaying, the more special it is.    

And the women are all actors.  Every single one of them, at every level.  They really aren't enjoying it, not at all.  Just the income from it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
all of Clinton's foibles were known to the public and they elected him twice anyway.  Few were surprised when this all came out about Clinton, even if they were mad.  

Spitzer has set himself up as Mr. Clean and now looks like a hypocrit which I think is his biggest problem based on conversations with my friends.

[ Parent ]
Should we Publicly Defend Spitzer? (4.00 / 2)
I understand why Republicans want to get rid of Spitzer, but why have Democrats and progressives largely resigned themselves to this fate? If we got rid of every politician that hired a prostitute or had sex with someone other than their wife, few would be left in office. Have I missed something here? Spitzer may be a champion for public ethics, but unless he used public funds to finance his trysts, I do not see how his actions violated the public trust. Has he repeatedly condemned extra-marital affairs as leading to the collapse of Western civilization like many Republicans have? I understand that he has prosecuted people for prostitution before, so this is hypocritical, but nothing that I have heard yet about his actions warrants the abandonment of Spitzer by progressives.  
You may be right, but hypocrisy is an issue (4.00 / 2)
for me. Prosecuting folks for doing what you do yourself is very low.  Take GWB for example - when he was Governor of TX, he pushed hard to be tough on drug users, while he, himself, was either using, or newly recovered.  Complete and utter hypocrisy - and its RUDE, too! Or, our former Senator Rod Grams from MN - strong advocate of "zero tolerance" drug laws (mandatory minimum sentances, the whole shebang), that is UNTIL IT WAS HIS SON that got busted. That hypocrisy is part of the reason he's no longer in the Senate.

While I agree that there is a clear double standard - as epitomized by David Vitter - and that one character flaw should not over-shadow the entirety on anyone's career, even that Spitzer is worthy of a strong defense (should he want it).  But I simply cannot ignore hypocrisy so easily - it cuts right to the heart of the matter in representational democracy because it point directly to trustworthiness.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Data on Cheating by Class (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone have any data on cheating by class? I always assumed, based largely on anecdotal evidence by friends of mine in the know, that powerful men cheat on their wives in disproportionate numbers to their middle-class counterparts. The type of psychological profile that enables a man to achieve great success in politics or business (like taking on Wall Street and becoming governor of one of the largest states in the union) seemingly includes a sense that they are not bound by the moral laws that govern the personal actions of us mere mortals. This is not to say that all powerful men cheat, but I bet that they do more so than middle-class men. If you have data to support or contradict this theory, please post some links in the comments.
[ Parent ]
Women cheat,too (0.00 / 0)
Marital infidelity is not specific to any one gender, or sexual orientation, is it?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Pretty universal (0.00 / 0)
It used to be that the higher the income level, the more variable or "adventurous" the sex.  That is obviously not true now, with the higher prevalence of oral sex, although the admonitions against unsafe sex may still make it partially true.  Religious or moral proscriptions on certain activities just make them more desirable ("forbidden fruit") for some people.

Men in positions of power are much more likely to have sex with women in subordinate positions and with higher-priced call girls, but this is a function of opportunity not character.

Power is an aphrodisiac, as I believe Henry Kissinger said, and sex is also a matter of power for some men.  So at moments of accomplishment, like winning a big case, landing a big deal, or having some sort of breakthrough, some men are drawn to "celebrating" with call girls. And then there is the question of peculiar proclivities.  Unbelivably peculiar, in some cases.  This is the stuff you really have to pay someone to do, and it is why frequenting prostitutes can be more problematic than an appetite for interns.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Senator David Vitter Should Resign (4.00 / 1)
This is disturbing news. If Spitzer were to resign, his chief rival, Senate GOP leader Joseph Bruno, would move from the State Senate to become the Lieutenant Governor, so this whole investigation looks a bit suspicious.

I would really like to see renewed calls for the resignation of Senator David Vitter in Louisiana whose visits to prostitutes stood in sharp contrast to his sanctimonious moralizing on social issues. If Spitzer is forced to resign, so should Vitter. And what about the ferociously anti-gay toe-tapper, Senator Larry Craig in Idaho? Why is he still in office?

And for that matter, why isn't Karl Rove in jail? He has been breaking the law constantly for the past decade including revealing the status of spy Valerie Plame.

are you sure (0.00 / 0)
The link you give does not say Bruno becomes Lt. Gov, and I read last night on thealbanyproject that Lt. Gov would remain vacant.  I guess it's a minor detail, since everyone agrees taht should something happen to the new governor [assuming Spitzer resigns] Bruno would be next in line.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
never mind (0.00 / 0)
I see now the title "acting lt. gov."  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Paterson will step in (4.00 / 1)
as Governor when Spitzer steps down. Keep an eye on Bloomberg. The next  gub election is in 2010...Spitzer's gotta go NOW, and Paterson has to step in and lead the party. We are now only one seat away from putting Bruno back in the State Senate minority...
[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
Too much speculation can be a very bad thing. From the NY Times:

[IRS] investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found several unusual movements of cash involving the governor of New York, several officials said. ...

The money ended up in the bank accounts of what appeared to be shell companies, corporations that essentially had no real business.

The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes - maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators.

Because the focus was a high-ranking government official, prosecutors were required to seek the approval of the United States attorney general to proceed. Once they secured that permission, the investigation moved forward.

It was his bank(s) that got the ball rolling. The bank(s) notified the IRS because it looked like Spitzer was trying to launder money, and that's how and why  the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section got involved. They figured it involved some kind of public corruption, not hookers.  

true that (0.00 / 0)
I second this.  I worked in Anti Money Laundering on Wall Street for some time.  The NYTimes article quoted above absolutely fits the process.  Whenever bank transactions set off red flags (as thousands of transactions do every day) one of the first things we'd look for was whether a suspicious person was involved.  Because politicians are fairly often involved in money laundering (in instances of corruption), every single politician is on the Lexis-Nexis suspicious person list.

If things still look shady after a bit of investigation, the private AML folks hand it off to the feds.  That's where the IRS office described above took over.  Ironically, some of these AML procedures are required of banks by the PATRIOT ACT.

[ Parent ]
My anger goes both ways (4.00 / 1)
A) I am furious with Spitzer for doing this. Any Democrat sleeping around-particularly-after Clinton is a Zero in my book.

B) I am furious with the American people for letting this matter. This is petty and unimportant yet it will nab more headlines than the FISA debate.

C)Going a step further, which is more hypocritical--a Gay-bashing, FamilyValuesSpouting Republican who tries to pick a man up in a bathroom, or a Democrat who gets a prostitute?

This last point is virtually meaningless, but I still think it is worth considering if we're going to split hairs about the larger ramifications.

My question is --how will this affect Hillary?  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

correction (4.00 / 1)
C)Going a step further, which is more hypocritical--a Gay-bashing, FamilyValuesSpouting Republican who tries to pick a man up in a bathroom, or a Democrat who vigorously prosecutes prostitution rings and then gets a prostitute?

I think it's important not to minimize Spitzer's hypocrisy here, at least not among like-minded friends (spin away when speaking to the GOPbots as it's all they understand).  I have no problem with his decision to engage a prostitute (pending photos of course) but this opens the Dems to charges of hypocrisy when they had Republicans dead to rights on the issue.

Actually, what the hell am I saying.  They've had the GOP on hypocrisy for years and they've done NOTHING.  Pelosi drops a few complaints and one-liners to the press and then it's off to capitulate on critical issues.  They either can't or won't break the cycle of intimidation and I have little patience remaining for them.  This probably doesn't change a thing - Republicans would find something else and Dems wouldn't defend themselves competently anyway.

So this really changes nothing.  I think I feel better now. Do I owe you anything? ;)

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 1)
The fact that he is resigning quickly is good compaired to Craig. Dems now need to rain down on him so that we show we have zero tolerance.

In every sentence they criticize Spiter they should mention Abramoff and Craig so that it gets picked up in the news.

You owe me nothing :)  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Well, Of Course The DOJ Has Zero Credibility (4.00 / 1)
But what part of the Executive Branch doesn't?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
This looks like a legit investigation (0.00 / 0)
Just google "IRS, money transfer." Any transfer of $3000 or more automatically triggers an investigation by the IRS. Whenever a bank sees what seems to be suspicious activity, it files a suspicious activity reports (SAR) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in the Treasury Dept. NY U.S. Attorneys' Offices have a long history of using these SARs to combat financial crimes, and maybe more importantly, to keep banks from getting into the dirty money laundering business.

I can imagine that when an agent saw a SAR filed about the governor's account, the alarms went off like crazy.

However. As far as I know, the NY U.S.A.O.'s weren't involved/politicized during the U.S. Attorney Bush/Rove scandal. Just to be on the safe side, that might now be worth a detailed look-see by the NY Times...

[ Parent ]
and we wonder... (0.00 / 0)
Just google "IRS, money transfer." Any transfer of $3000 or more automatically triggers an investigation by the IRS.

... why more people aren't infuriated by the warrantless wiretapping issue.  That boat sailed nearly 4 decades ago.

[ Parent ]
With wiretapping and multiple assistant DAs? (0.00 / 0)
Every time somebody withdraws a few thou from the bank? I don't think so.
[ Parent ]
The Point Is (0.00 / 0)
not only has BushCo politicized the DOJ in a way not even Nixon dreamed of, they are actively stonewalling any sort of investigation.  Therefore the presumption of trust has vanished.  Any sort of appeal to standards of any kind, such as you advise, which would normally serve to quell suspicions, can no longer do so, simply because the ordinary trust in such standards presumes a level of trust in those supposedly abiding by a guided by those standards.  This simply does not exist anymore.

It's a terrible situation, really, because the vast majority of career people who keep the Executive Branch going are still honorable people, but one simply cannot presume any more that their personal integrity ensures anything at all, except for a convenient cover for people whose morality is the exact opposite of theirs.

There is simply no way to know anything for certain, because trust has been broken in an all-pervasive manner.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
If this was a Republican scandal... (4.00 / 1)
....we'd be hearing all about Spiegelman.

Democrats always bring a knife to a gun fight.

No, You're Not Being Fair To Knife-Fighters (0.00 / 0)
They bring a yogurt spoon to a nuclear war.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Let's Choose Our Battles (4.00 / 2)
I'm not sure this is one we want to engage in.  If Spitzer had the flare of an Edwin Edwards, no one would care, but he set high standards (and ran his campaign touting high standards) and didn't live up to them regardless of the circumstances of how his "transgressions" were discovered.  He said it best when he said policies are more important than the individual politician.  Democrats have a deep bench and will survive one of their coming attractions falling by the wayside, but dragging this out won't help.  Also, I wish one damn politician would come before the cameras alone when something like this happens and say, "I screwed up. I could have trotted my spouse out here like all the other phonies who have screwed up in the past did, but I'm not going to do that. I hope he/she supports me, but this isn't the time for solidarity photo ops.  It's just not fair to my partner."  That will happen when hell freezes over.
Hold your fire (0.00 / 0)
This kind of expensive prostitution can be problematic.  See my psots above.  Wait for the facts.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
IOW, I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
For reasons in addition to yours.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I am sick of sex scandals (0.00 / 0)
they all deserve whatever they get....including the dems.
shot across bow to get DEMS to 'cave' on teleco immunity? (0.00 / 0)
First, Spitzer's name was leaked within a week of the story breaking, Vitter's name took much longer.  It also seems that they had evidence of Spitzer's transgressions for months but they did another tap on 2/13 for additional unknown reasons.
Second, not letting our hated phone companies off seems to be a political no brainer yet DEMs are waffling on this important issue.
Third, nice timing, the FISA fight rages, if the teleco's don't get their immunity, expect more Spitzer stories in the coming weeks and months?
Fourth, reminds me of the Valerie Plame leak.
or push him out because of the lending mess? (0.00 / 0)
from a DU poster "Yesterday, Mrs. Greenspan (Andrea Mitchell) made an extremely cryptic remark regarding the Spitzer matter. I'm waiting for the transcript to post to get it exactly right, but the essence was this: It's an extremely bad time to lose the governor of New York, as he has been the point man for negotiations and discussions with the bond market, the stock market, and the feds in solving the current U.S. financial crises."
That would be poetic justivce! (0.00 / 0)
LOL.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
well, I think Spitzer sided with the people and not the banks (0.00 / 0)
the poster was suggesting the Spitzer was interfering with the Bush administration which has been favoring the banks for the past 7 months
[ Parent ]
Thom Hartmann asks (0.00 / 0)
generally, not specifically to this matter (he's in Darfur), Are the Republicans wiretapping Democrats? Is this why the Bushies fight so hard to keep telephone companies out of court? Thom asks if Republicans were wiretapping Sen. Kennedy. Remember they were caught hacking Kennedy's emails and found out Democratic strategies in congress. So I ask, was Spitzer selected as a Democrat for wiretapping? Who else? Obama? Clinton? Nixon did it and when caught was threatened with certain impeachment and the FISA bill was the result.  Why is Bush fighting so hard to keep his wiretapping secret from FISA court oversight? Why aren't Dems in congress worried that their phones are being tapped and their conversations shared with the Republican party?  
This was always a big beef of mine in the whole deal... (0.00 / 0)
I always heard idiots saying, 'if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear' when talking about spying on our own citizens.  To me the issue was always political and economic.  Is our government listening in on the opposition to stymie our plans?  Is our government selling access to tapped conversations to help out their business cronies?  That idiot might not have anything to hide in their phone call, but it might rig an election against their favored candidate or it might cost them their job should they not work for the employer with the most 'access'.  Government eavesdropping is serious business and once it gets in the game it is going to be hard to root it out.
[ Parent ]
Is the Bush Administration Going After Eliot Spitzer? | 35 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox