Missing: Eliot Spitzer
Michael Hill writes for the AP about Elliot Spitzer’s long struggle with AIG, his return to the spotlight, and the dim prospects for a Spitzer comeback: “It would be a long shot. The trail for a married politician caught soliciting high-priced prostitutes would likely be prohibitively steep.”
I have to say that I don’t really understand this. If soliciting prostitutes doesn’t ruin your career in Louisiana politics, why should it ruin your career in New York politics? Spitzer’s decision to resign has always struck me as basically just a case of blinking. I remember when the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and a lot of pundits immediately assumed that Bill Clinton would “have to” resign. And I think that was a real possibility. But he didn’t. So even though people weren’t thrilled with this aspect of his conduct, it quickly shifted from a public debate about his conduct to a public debate about the desirability of booting a popular, effective president from office and he won. I can see why Spitzer may have decided he didn’t want to fight the fight; but that’s ultimately what he did. A politician who’s well-liked by his constituents pre-scandal, hit by a scandal that has no real bearing on his job performance, can usually hang on if he wants to.
And by the same token, I don’t think there would be any real barrier to Spitzer coming back in some form. I’ve heard some people say that they never liked Spitzer’s Wall Street work and therefore they’re glad he’s not around anymore. And I’ve heard more people say that they did like Spitzer’s Wall Street work and therefore it’s too bad that he’s not around. But the concern about the sex scandal is almost entirely a “meta” thing, people think it’s too bad that other people see Spitzer as too tainted.
67 Responses to “Missing: Eliot Spitzer”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Yea, but I will only truly forgive Spitzer if he advocates legalizing prostitution, or at least doesn’t hate on it publicly. I couldn’t give a what that he went to a prostitute, but being all gung-ho in fighting prositution? That was lame.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
It’s creepy that he was never charged with a crime by the law enforcement authorities that leaked his name to the press.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I think you forgot the part where Dick Grasso bought champagne to celebrate the Spitzer demise.
This man is a hypocrite; hypocrisy that rank does not go unnoticed, especially if you were megalomaniacal enough to imagine yourself the David against the world financial Goliath, which is manifestly not true in any case.
It wasn’t that he was morally repugnant, it was his just incredible, sanctimonious hypocrisy before he was caught out.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I thought it was more than being “caught soliciting high-priced prostitutes.”
I thought it turned out Spitzer was a super freak with them.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I wonder what else from the DOJ bag of tricks and wiretaps was shared with Spitzer before he decided the didn’t want to “fight the fight?” Getting him out of the way was pretty darn convenient for a lot of big players.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
This is ridiculous. Do some work researching Elliot Spitzer…His career wasn’t just marred by prostitutes, he’s had issues with fund raising, taxes, his time as governor…(and you mentioned his dealings with Wall Street).
The guy is an arrogant crook…So arrogant in fact that that’s what got him caught.
After going after every single last person at AIG (whether or not they were involved in this mess) you decide that Eliot Spitzer of all people is someone who deserves another chance.
So this is what decline feels like. What the fuck is wrong with our country?
March 20th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
And frankly, he was just a damn nuisance to everybody, Democrat or Republican, even before the story break loose and killed him. There is no way either party is letting him come back.
Imagine a criminal, hypocritical, and even more santimonious Patrick Fitzgerald with a sensibility like a Mafia boss. That’s Spitzer. He gone for good. And that’s a good thing.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
His arrogance doesn’t just rub conservatives the wrong way; he rubs Democrats the wrong way too. This man has got no friends, and no future in politics. Jump off a bridge, Eliot.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Did anyone read about the message that he sent to Hank Greenberg when he was “investigating” him.
The guy, on top of all of this, is fucking nuts.
Really, a pat on the back for posing this question while some sap who happens to work at AIG with a wife and kids, just got blamed for something that he had absolutely no input on.
Yeah, these are the types of issues that we ought to be considering. Whether or not we need people like Elliot Spitzer.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I think Matt is just being partisan, something Obama campaigned against, a theme which helped him win I think.
In other words Spitzer is a Democrat, Clinton is a Democrat, it’s okay if you’re a Democrat, because Republicans are evil and this is war. It’s what Republicans do and it’s disingenuous. They do all sort of ends justify the means because the Democrats are godless Commies in their eyes, and therefor must be kept from the levers of power.
I’m not a prig or a prude, but what they did displayed some hubris. Say John Edwards won the Democratic nomination and all the honest people working for him would have had their time and effort wasted b/c Edwards selfishly had an affair (Yo Elizabeth!) and instead of Obama in the executive we’d have McCain/Palin and a decades-long Great Depression Part Deux.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
No Peter, I fear that it might go a bit deeper than that.
It is curious to me that there’s all of this news coming out on Spitzer now. Is it inconceivable to ask whether or not Mr. Spitzer, with his rather vast sums of wealth, has politely asked his friends in town to help him facilitate his comeback tour?
March 20th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“I have to say that I don’t really understand this.”
Matt doesn’t understand because he just doesn’t get how our political/media culture works. If somebody makes some ethnic joke the media will go ballistic with faux outrage, just as they do if somebody’s caught whoring around. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs can loot the treasury and the media will remain silent. It’s all part of a public culture that focuses on trivial bullshit, thereby enabling the elites to shove it up our asses.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I think Eliot Spitzer’s virtue is shown by the venom of those who are here attacking him.
Screw the common citizens of this country out of $10 Trillion — ruin millions of lives with deep poverty and condemm millions to die before their time due to lack of healthcare — well, mistakes were made. That the nature of “Free Enterprise”.
But make a sexual transaction with a free adult in a private affair that hurts no one –well, obviously the Eliot is morally deficient son of a bitch.
I really, REALLY hate you motherfuckers.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I see the Wall Street crooks and their shills are running scared.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Anybody here heard Ed Smithe, Myles, cd etc saying anything against Hank Greenberg –CEO of AIG back when the looting was being done?
March 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Is this a troll only thread? I only see retards like CNBC knob-licker Smithe, 19 year old college kid Myles, and Peter K “Obama lied to me.” A real smart bunch here.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Matt that Spitzer should have stayed on. I couldn’t care less about his visiting prostitutes. The “hypocrisy” charge is just code for “I don’t like him, so there” – it’s not a serious argument. We need a ball-kicker in times like this. Smither gives the game away when he cries about how mean Spitzer was to the AIG folks. That’s the whole fucking point, douchbag!
March 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“I think Eliot Spitzer’s virtue is shown by the venom of those who are here attacking him.”
If memory serves, Spitzer’s jihad against Greenberg had approximately nothing to do with the nonsense in AIG’s London office that brought down the firm years after Spitzer forced Greenberg out. Spitzer, the son of a real estate tycoon, seemed to care more about burnishing his ludicrous faux populist bona fides by attacking men like Greenberg, who had the temerity to earn their wealth instead of inheriting it, than dealing with the real problems brewing in the financial system.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What Peter K thought was said:
What was said:
Project much, Peter?
March 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Every time some corporate-lackey conservative attacks Spitzer for sleeping with a call girl, he perp-walks some white collar criminal in front of a bunch of cameras.
Gee, in 2009, who do you think wins that media war?
March 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Yea, but I will only truly forgive Spitzer if he advocates legalizing prostitution, or at least doesn’t hate on it publicly. I couldn’t give a what that he went to a prostitute, but being all gung-ho in fighting prositution? That was lame.
Spitzer wasn’t especially “gung-ho” in fighting prostitution — his focus was institutional financial corruption. Sure, he prosecuted corruption cases, but in the same manner as many other crimes that he was obligated to pursue due to his office. There’s been kind of a myth that’s grown up that Spitzer was somehow especially anti-prostitution when that just wasn’t so.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Yes, Dave in Hannity. Spitzer went after Greenberg because he was jealous that Greenberg earned his wealth, and not because of securities fraud and other fraudulent business practices. Same story with you whenever one of these guys gets revealed – it’s just the hard-working overclass being victimized by wealth-haters, eh?
March 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
might just be a little naivety on my part, but I thought the difference b/w Spitzer and Clinton here was that Spitzer did something blatantly illegal in office and got off light since prosecutors just sort of, you know, neglected to pursue a case. If he’d stayed in office, there’d probably have been more pressure to prosecute, no?
March 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Yes, Dave in Hannity. Spitzer went after Greenberg because he was jealous that Greenberg earned his wealth, and not because of securities fraud and other fraudulent business practices.
Yes, thank God that evil Hank Greenberg is in jail where he belongs. Wait? What? No charges were ever filed, no securities fraud prosecutions or other fraudulent prosecutions. Why, it is almost like Spitzer, who actually did break the law, did have somewhat of a grudge against Greenberg.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Re DaveinHackensack’s comment “Spitzer, the son of a real estate tycoon, seemed to care more about burnishing his ludicrous faux populist bona fides by attacking men like Greenberg, who had the temerity to earn their wealth instead of inheriting it, ”
————–
Yeah, right. I suppose that’s why AIG paid “$1.64 billion to resolve allegations that it used deceptive accounting practices to mislead investors and regulatory agencies” ??
I suppose that’s why AIG forced Hank Greenberg out as CEO, eh?
Spitzer pursued Greenberg in 2005 with charges that AIG’s accounting was false and deceptive. Obviously, that was a “faux” concern, eh?
What puzzles me is why the State of New York is still pursuing Hank Greenberg over those matters in a major civil lawsuit.
Of course, if you are a 85 year old billionaire, you have plenty of resources to spend on lawyers to ..er.. run out the clock.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14704060/
March 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
There is a place for Spitzer as a productive member of society. Certainly cleaning toilets at Toynbee Hall would be a waste of his talents.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
But make a sexual transaction with a free adult in a private affair that hurts no one –well, obviously the Eliot is morally deficient son of a bitch.
I really, REALLY hate you motherfuckers. — Don Williams
Ah, Don . . . still consumed with rage, huh? Still not too bright, I see.
Contrary to what you write, Spitzer didn’t make a “sexual transaction with a free adult in a private affair.” Not at all. He made a transaction with a criminal organization. Got that, smartboy? He exposed himself to extortion, if nothing else. It was stupid, reckless and dangerous. It was pathological in ways we can’t even pretend to understand.
He didn’t pick up a streetwalker outside the Lincoln Tunnel. He conducted business (across state-lines, for rather high sums of money) with a criminal organization.
The fact that neither of us thinks prostitution should be illegal in no way negates the risk (and sheer strangeness) of how he decided to fulfill his rather prosaic urges. It is a societal taboo. Information getting out would certainly destroy his career, and possibly his marriage and life as well. Yet Eliot Spitzer – the former prosecutor – went ahead and chose to brazenly expose himself to (and incriminate himself before) an organized crime operation.
Words like “hubris,” “bizarre” and “stupid” don’t even begin to cover it.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
For Some more info on Eliot Spitzer’s “faux” charges against Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, see “AIG’s meltdown has roots in Greenberg era” at
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5222EV20090303
An excerpt:
“But detractors say he [Greenberg] could face a tough time saving face given the latest loss revelations since the former chieftain was sole architect of AIG Financial Products — the business that poured itself into the CDS market, and ultimately cost AIG so much.
That business “brought AIG to its knees,” said Mark Keenan, an insurance partner with law firm Anderson Kill & Olick.
AIG itself is clear that Greenberg should bear some of the responsibility.
“AIG FP from the way it operated to its compensation were all set up under Greenberg, and AIG was well into it by the time he left,” said Nicholas Ashooh, a spokesman for AIG.
Greenberg, a World War II veteran who helped to liberate the Dachau concentration camp, set up the financial products unit in 1987 as he was seeking new business avenues to diversify his growing empire against the highs and lows that are a trademark of global insurance markets.
He hired a group of traders that had worked together at Drexel Burnham. He would later promote Joseph Cassano to lead the unit, which became a sought-after employer since it offered to share a third of all its profits with staff. Cassano is now at the center of U.S. and UK probes into what happened at AIG Financial Products.”
March 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
At the time, wasn’t there the belief that Spitzer would be charged with misusing public funds for his shenanigans? Or that he was going to go down with some variation of wire fraud? I remember thinking, at the time, that the charges he was facing at the time were more related to abusing his office for that purpose.
Vitter, for all his personal failings, didn’t seem to be accused of using Louisiana public monies on his own prostitute. If Spitzer thought he was facing the charge that he had used the government for his own personal aim, then public anger would have definitely forced him from office.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Drexel Burnham. Drexel Burnham. Where have I heard that name before?
March 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
AIG settled the matter out of court, and paid $1.6 billion dollars in fines.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I was about to smack down Judd and his ignorance, but Don Williams beat me too it. There’s a massive civil lawsuit going on agasint Hank and he was forced out as head of AIG. And yes, a lot of this shit is his fault.
And Duane is simply a liar by repeating the words “criminal organization” as if Spitzer was dealing with the mob. It was an escort service. Get over it. It’s not “pathological in a way we can’t understand.” It’s what a lot of men do. Pick up your hyperbole award on the way out.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Hmm
Well, I think that the charge that the “hypocrisy charge is just code for ‘I don’t like him, so there’” is not a serious arguement. We do need a good ball kicker, and Spitzer can be it. Whatever. Just don’t kick the balls of people who frequent prostitutes.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
cd’s nuts – see Stefan’s comment at #20 on the myth of Spitzer as anti-prostitution zealot.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
HAHA. very well done.
March 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
From the Reuter’s article I cited above:
“But in 2005, amid an investigation by then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Greenberg was forced out by AIG’s board. He had refused to cooperate with the company’s own probe.”
——–
Ha ha ha ha. Refused to cooperate with an internal investigation by HIS OWN COMPANY.
Obviously, a moral paragon by Wall Street standards. As we can see from comments by some posters here.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Re Dave at 17, re “men like Greenberg, who had the temerity to earn their wealth instead of inheriting it,”
—————-
I’m confused. If Maurice “Hank” Greenberg is such a fucking Horatio Alger prodigy, why are we, the taxpayers, having to toss in $180 BILLION to fix his mess?
Are you guys on Hank’s payroll or something?
I mean, not even REPUBLICANS are normally this fucking stupid. And that’s setting the bar REAL low.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
My understanding was that Spitzer was forced to resign as a condition of the plea bargin. Or put another way, the Bush-appointed US Attorney abused the prosecution power for political purposes. If Spitzer had “fought the fight” he would have wound up in prison, presumably.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
At the time, wasn’t there the belief that Spitzer would be charged with misusing public funds for his shenanigans?
No. Try again.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Personally I think we would all be a lot better off if we all assumed that all politicians were like Clinton and then judged them on whether they actually produced results. Instead a certain number of politicians seem to be able to get traction on the notion that they are more pure than the rest.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Drew @ 18:
“What Peter K thought was said:
In other words Spitzer is a Democrat, Clinton is a Democrat, it’s okay if you’re a Democrat, because Republicans are evil and this is war.
What was said:
If soliciting prostitutes doesn’t ruin your career in Louisiana politics, why should it ruin your career in New York politics?
Project much, Peter?”
Think before you type. Matt’s arguing this sort of behavior shouldn’t bar one from working for the people/government, not that there should be single standards:
“I remember when the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and a lot of pundits immediately assumed that Bill Clinton would “have to” resign. And I think that was a real possibility. But he didn’t. So even though people weren’t thrilled with this aspect of his conduct, it quickly shifted from a public debate about his conduct to a public debate about the desirability of booting a popular, effective president from office and he won. ”
It’s a coldly pragamatic approach devoid of principles. It came down to the old boys club in the Senate. I think it also did a lot of damage to the Democratic brand and to the Clinton name, which is why Obama won and Hillary lost.
Again, if this sort of behavior was done by a Republican Drew would be screaming bloody murder because they are the enemy. IOKIYAD.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Re PeterK at 42: “It came down to the old boys club in the Senate. I think it also did a lot of damage to the Democratic brand and to the Clinton name, which is why Obama won and Hillary lost.”
—————
Hillary lost because she sent 4500+ US citizens to their deaths in order to suck the cock of Israeli billionaire –and big Democratic donor — Haim Saban.
Bill Clinton’s damage to the Democratic brand was in
a) feeling he needed to lie under oath over a private sexual matter and
b) Not having the courage to turn Newt Gingrich and the fucking Republican Congress into a pile of ashes–by pointing out how their whoring for dollars damaged the country far more than his sex with Monica
c) Of course, Wild Bill couldn’t do (b) because he was whoring for pretty much the same people. He was compromised into helpfulness by his corruption years before Monica came along.
Monica was just to pressure him into dropping that Israel-Palestinian peace process.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Personally I think we would all be a lot better off if we all assumed that all politicians were like Clinton and then judged them on whether they actually produced results. Instead a certain number of politicians seem to be able to get traction on the notion that they are more pure than the rest.
Yes we are currently seeing the results of Clinton’s decision to keep Greenspan on.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The differences between Clinton and Obama on substance were very small. The only real question was who would be better at implementation. On this you had to way both their experience and their ability to inspire public support. I favored Clinton, but it was an extremely difficult choice in which all kinds of little things could be considered. But anybody who would have chosen between McCain and Clinton on the basis of anything other than vast difference in how they would govern is insane. Likewise between Obama and McCain.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Re Jeffrey Davis at 37: A wise friend told me, “Judge a politician by his enemies.”
————–
I agree. But Obama doesn’t seem to have any enemies.
That’s starting to concern me.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I am glad you think Bill Clinton’s decision to keep Greenspan on is more important than the affair. You claimed his affair hurt Democrats which may be true, but I hope you realize that that was a stupid reaction on the part of the public. Democrats have very different policy ideas than Republicans.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I can’t believe how many pompous, sexually terrified prigs read this blog. That Spitzer might have hired a prostitute — might, because he was never actually convicted of anything — is completely irrelevant to his performance as governor. It is even more irrelevant to his potential performance as an appointee at Treasury or Justice. We have no right to expect any particular sort of behavior in the personal life of elected officials. It is quite simply none of our business. I don’t care if my mechanic hires prostitutes, I don’t care if my lawyer hires prostitutes, I don’t care if my boss hires prostitutes, and I don’t care if some federal official hires prostitutes. I care what the official does in terms of his or her actual job.
Spitzer is a vicious bastard who knows how to terrify Wall Street and understands that you don’t beat Republicans by helping to enact their agenda. That he was forced from office over a private matter is a statewide shame. Now we’re stuck with Governor Patterson, who is nearly useless, and one of the most qualified men in the country isn’t allowed to help clean up the financial system because Americans think he’s got girl germs. Ridiculous, embarrassing, and harmful to the entire country.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I am glad you think Bill Clinton’s decision to keep Greenspan on is more important than the affair. You claimed his affair hurt Democrats which may be true, but I hope you realize that that was a stupid reaction on the part of the public. Democrats have very different policy ideas than Republicans.
It just means he was shitty in more ways than one. People say Spitzer was such a great ball buster. I disagree. What sort of ball buster risks getting caught with a hooker and being taken out of the game? A stupid one. A not very dedicated one. Matt seems to be arguing he should have stayed on. I think he’s wrong if he’s arguing that.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
See guys like Mark and Craig are solipsitic. They don’t care, but the public does.
Guys like Blagojevitch and Clinton are self-centered fucks and the public is right to judge them.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I think you’re wrong here Matt…Clinton’s was a sex scandal only. Vitter only solicited a prostitute. Spitzer not only solicited them but paid gobs of money to them, and flew them all over the country on New York taxpayer money. He’s more comparable to former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey who used taxpayer money to give his boyfriend a job, fly him around the country and pay for vacations etc. McGreevey wasn’t ousted for being gay and cheating on his wife, he was ousted, just like Spitzer, for defrauding the taxpayer.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I thought it was more than being “caught soliciting high-priced prostitutes.”
I thought it turned out Spitzer was a super freak with them.
He was Marv Albert with them.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Re Mark’s comment “Now we’re stuck with Governor Patterson, who is nearly useless, and one of the most qualified men in the country isn’t allowed to help clean up the financial system because Americans think he’s got girl germs.”
————–
Yep. Not only did the Wall Street crooks knock Eliot Spitzer out a governor, they put a blind man in as his replacement –
“See No Evil” Patterson.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Spitzer not only solicited them but paid gobs of money to them, and flew them all over the country on New York taxpayer money.
Jesus. Not even Smithe resorts to lies like this. There was no taxpayer money involved. None. You are a hopeless fraud and a liar, CWB3.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I think you’re wrong here Matt…Clinton’s was a sex scandal only. Vitter only solicited a prostitute.
No, not only. Vitter solicited, paid and used prostitutes.
Spitzer not only solicited them but paid gobs of money to them,
Oh, so he not only solicited prostitutes, he paid them as well?!? Horrors! That changes everything! I can understand a man sleeping with a high-priced hooker, but to actually pay her the price she charges? My God!
and flew them all over the country on New York taxpayer money.
No, he didn’t. Lie. You’re making that up.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Wonderful statement…Think the opposite of what I say. I think that Iraq was a mistake of historic proportions, I guess Don Williams was a supporter of the Bush Administration then.
Boys, I call them as I see them. Yeah, I’m a conservative…but as a conservative I’m open-minded…more interested in the facts and analysis vs. ideology and emotion. Based on Don’s comment, I can’t say the same about him.
Defending Spitzer over Greenberg is a fucking joke. Spitzer used Greenberg like he did a lot of other people to buy headlines and votes. Greenberg was convicted of nothing while Spitzer had to explain numerous ethics as well as criminal charges.
I’ll say it again…So this is what decline feels like.
It’s a pretty fucked up state of affairs to hear people defending a scumbag like Spitzer over a guy like Hank Greenberg. Thank God some of the folks that visit this forum on the left are honest people that will hopefully keep fools like Don Williams from further poisoning progressivism/democratic politics.
Don, the sky is blue…Wake the fuck up.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Everyone seems to have forgotten Spitzer’s apparent violation of campaign finance law
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/28/nyregion/1998-campaign-money-spitzer-concedes-that-his-father-has-helped-pay-for.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
March 20th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Or of “Troopergate”
Is that the sort of think you miss?
On July 23, 2007, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office admonished the Spitzer administration for ordering the State Police to keep special records of Senate majority leader Joseph L. Bruno’s whereabouts when he traveled with police escorts in New York City.[44] At the direction of top officials of the Spitzer administration, the New York State Police created documents meant to cause political damage to Bruno.[45]
A 57-page report issued by the Attorney General’s office concluded that Spitzer engaged in creating media coverage concerning Senator Bruno’s travel.[46] The investigation looked into both Bruno’s travel and the Senate leader’s allegation that Spitzer used State Police to spy on him.[47] Cuomo concluded that “These e-mails show that persons in the governor’s office did not merely produce records under a FOIL [Freedom of Information Law] request, but were instead engaged in planning and producing media coverage concerning Senator Bruno’s travel on state aircraft before any FOIL request was made.”[48][49] It also suggests that the governor’s staff lied when they tried to explain what they had done and forced the State Police to go far beyond their normal procedures in documenting Bruno’s whereabouts.[24]
The report cleared Bruno of any misuse of the state’s air fleet, which had been alleged.[50][51][52][45] The report criticized Spitzer’s office for using State Police resources to gather information about Bruno’s travel and releasing the information to the media.[51] The findings of the report were endorsed by Spitzer’s own Inspector General, Kristine Hamann.[44][51][52][47]
Spitzer responded at a July 23 press conference that “As governor, I am accountable for what goes on in the executive branch and I accept responsibility for the actions of my office”[44] and that his administration had “grossly mishandled”[44] the situation.[52] Spitzer subsequently announced that he would indefinitely suspend his communications director, Darren Dopp, and reassign another top official.[53] When questioned about his promise to bring ethical responsibility to state politics, Spitzer responded by saying “I will not tolerate this behavior”,[44] “ethics and accountability must and will remain rigorous in my administration,”[45] and that “I have always stated that I want ethics and integrity to be the hallmarks of my administration. That is why I requested that the State Inspector General review the allegations with respect to my office, and that is why we have fully cooperated with both inquiries.”[50]
The investigations of the event, dubbed “Troopergate” by media outlets, have not been affected by Spitzer’s resignation.[54] As of March 2008, four probes by the state Attorney General’s office, the State Senate Investigations Committee, the Albany County District Attorney’s Office, and the New York Commission on Public Integrity are ongoing.[55][56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer
March 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I can’t believe how many pompous, sexually terrified prigs read this blog. That Spitzer might have hired a prostitute — might, because he was never actually convicted of anything — is completely irrelevant to his performance as governor.
Spitzer’s conduct was hardly “irrelevant” to his performance as governor. Driving across state lines to purchase sexual services from a criminal organization shows colossally poor judgment, and constitutes incredibly reckless behavior for a top government official. At least with Bill Clinton, you could perhaps plausibly make the case that he didn’t plan to fall for Monica — but that it was spontaneous, and he couldn’t help himself. But Spitzer’s actions required significant forethought and planning, and a conscious decision to violate criminal laws. I’m glad he’s gone, because the governorship of New York is a legitimate stepping stone to the White House, and this country can’t afford another bout of dangerously reckless leadership. That said all this is very said, because we could really use someone like Spitzer right now to crack the heads of some arrogant Wall Streeters. For this reason I’d actually be open to a return of Spitzer, but only if we get the full story: I want to know what his thinking was, and if there’s any plausible explanation as to why his conduct wasn’t reckless.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
This is seriously a trolls-only thread. WTF!
Also, NONE of trolls think it would maybe be handy to have investigated any of these financial corporations while they were stacking up the house of cards?
March 20th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
So the commentators here think that the ONE person who was trying to stop this massive wave of corruption during the Bush Administration –because the Bush Administration sure as shit wasn’t lifting a finger — should be barred from office?
Whereas looting corporations and bringing the US economy to the edge of the abyss — raising such danger to the United States that the Taxpayers are having to cough up $10 Trillion to avoid it — well, that just seems to roll over Smithe like a cool summer breeze. FUCK the widows and orphans, eh Ed?
Hmmm. Maybe Eliot Spitzer shouldn’t be bought back –he’s too much of a softy. Instead, maybe Obama should give a blanket pardon to someone who will literally pile plutocratic skulls up on the National Mall. Along with the skulls of their buttkissers and sycophants.
That’s what happened in ancient Rome after all –when the patricians got too greedy. Except this time we’ll take care of Brutus and Cassius before they can get close to Caesar.
March 20th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Obama doesn’t seem to have any enemies.
The entire House GOP caucus doesn’t count? Every Republican pundit doesn’t count?
March 21st, 2009 at 1:00 am
This Joe Bruno?
Score another one for Spitzer. Good job keeping the heat on the crook.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Is Elliot Spitzer gonna have to choke a Wall Street CEO out?
March 21st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I think Spitzer’s problem was that he didn’t really understand what he had been elected to do. That, and he was too impatient.
He thought he had been elected to be super-AG. That wasn’t quite it. A more accurate definition would have been that his job was to reform and revamp what he could of the state government using his executive authority. And then spend most of his time relentlessly exposing the State Senate as the obstruction and excessive pork/corruption affair it had become. Leaving it to the voters of New York to take out Bruno and his clique in the ‘08 elections. Then, repeating the game with Silber and his set of corruptocrats for the ‘10 elections.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 am
I remember when the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and a lot of pundits immediately assumed that Bill Clinton would “have to” resign.
Okay, Monica Lewinsky is not a high-priced hooker. She’s a woman who had an affair with a married man.
Put aside whether you think prostitution should be legal or not. What Elliott Spitzer did was a crime. What Bill Clinton did was not. Spitzer could have been prosecuted for what he did and undoubtedly would have been had he decided to remain in office. The evidence against Vitter would likely not have been enough to bring charges against him.