I doubt Spitzer faces any jail time for his indescretion, unlike Sigelman.

Still, I'm with S-P....What was he thinking, with the job he had been doing, and the enemies he was making?

Is there some prerequisite for US Atty for NY for bulletproof arrogance? Lord knows Guiliani had it (and still appears to have it).

looks like I picked the wrong day to stop drinking...... :-P

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

that the wiretap was on Spitzer and not the prostitution ring? All indications are that the schmuck got himself caught up in an ongoing investigation. If you have anything to back this up, please share.

It Wasn't the Sex; Suspicious $$ Transfers Led to Spitzer
Officials Say Spitzer Is 'Client 9' in a Federal Complaint Against the Prostitution Ring

By BRIAN ROSS
March 10, 2008—

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.

It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn't hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club.

As recently as this past Valentine's Day, Feb. 13 [nice touch; incidentally Valentine's Day is Feb 14th - ES], Spitzer, who officials say is identified in a federal complaint as "Client 9," arranged for a prostitute "Kristen" to meet him in Washington, D.C.

(...)

( ... Link ... )

As we're only seeing evidence at the moment about him getting with a hooker in a hotel room, I'm starting to speculate that someone leaked that they had evidence of Spitzer seeing a hooker and someone else ginned up the part about him "being involved in the prostitution ring". That part is really mindboggling, and I'll wait to see if info following passes the "sniff test".

One wonders then how typical it would be for a bank to tip off the feds on suspicious money transfers by political officials and whether there is any legal requirement for them to do so.

I don't know who died and made you the arbiter of truth and accuracy. In case you don't realize it, unless you have first hand knowledge of some circumstance then, legally, you don't know squat - and that means YOU as well as me. What we read in the news and on the web is something we have to filter and use what experience we have to decide what is of value and what isn't.

We've had more than ten years of development of programs designed and intended to spy on every and any bit of communication. Some have been ruled out by Congress and then somehow reappeared with another name. We've had years of obvious signs of a corrupt administration installing the most corrupt flunkies in the most key positions. My unlearned and hearsay based insights saw it as far back as when the Bush administration would not allow the creation of the Department of Homeland Security unless the existing standard employment protections for federal workers were removed. They demanded "flexibility." It was obvious at that point that the Bush junta would turn that department into a political arm of their branch of the Republican party.

It was obvious to me that this government was fundamentally corrupt in the most fundamental ways when "Joe T," the CIA agent who had little experience with the design and production of aluminum centrifuge tubes for the purification of uranium was allowed to overrule scientists who did have that experience, get fast tracked for repeated promotion and call the aluminum tubes proof that Iraq was developing nukes. I didn't need to have the Valerie Plame treason to realize that the intelligence was being completely politicized and in a very heavy handed manner. That same "flexibility" of boot in the ass employee relationships was obvious again.

We've had, what is it now, two years of repeated disclosures that the Department of Justice is anything but in the least bit concerned about justice. Geez, it was Jack Abramoff that had a DA dumped from his job in the Northern Mariana Islands when the investigation was starting to point to corruption. That was years and years ago. Since then we've seen the mass culling of any USAs that aren't demonstrated boot clicking Bush agents.

So shit yeah. I don't have proof, and even if I did as we've seen in so many recent legal cases, that very proof is often deemed classified and criminal to disclose, ending the related court matters without any examination much less resolution of the particulars. In simplest terms this government has been allowed to define disclosing their criminal activities as divulging of top secret information and therefore a higher crime.

So if you're so concerned about not seeing "hearsay" comments here then don't comment yourself unless you've got notarized authenticated documentation to confirm whatever allegations or conjectures you make.

Hey. I make a post here and some people may not like it. Fine. That's their right. I don't really pay attention to nicks so even if someone slams me it doesn't mean much. But if you want to start dogging me when I post then I'll start dogging you. I don't see you as a font of insight and wisdom. Certainly there hasn't been any documented proof of that doubtful circumstance.

Enjoy your evening Mark.

You wrote:

My sense is that this sort of wiretap surveillance of political opponents will be and has been fairly common.

That's pretty hot stuff. I asked where you got it from and you replied that it essentially could not be proven because if it were true it would be classified and its disclosure would be illegal. I don't think it's asking a whole lot to seek substantiation for something like that. It's not "hearsay", it's speculation. The response that the Bush administration does bad things with surveillance so they probably did this bad thing too, does not really connect the dots.

While I agree that this government is corrupt in many ways and it would be hard to put anything past them, given all of the leaks and revelations in the press about the wiretap program (by journos that I might add remain free of prosecution to this day), I would want to see something solid before making that leap.

What has come out is that this investigation resulted from a bank reporting large and suspicious money transfers to the IRS which got the FBI involved. They went all the way up to the AG to get approval for the investigation. Anything nefarious there? I don't know. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it would be useful to know whether any of this was SOP.

I simply don't know whether to be flattered or not that you have apparently taken the time to review my rather sparse posting history in order to form a low opinion of my efforts. Forgive me for not reciprocating.

Gotta laugh. That's the one wire tap that will be kept hidden as securely as possible. But get the info and then build the case without the illegal get.

We tend to value proof over speculation around here. I am not kidding.
Show me the proof and I will respect what you say.

So why $3,000 an hour to get laid?? I mean, just get a girl friend or something. But hey I guess that didn't work for Giulliani.

I am reminded of a statement made by Stalin once, wherein he stated that you can label anyone a criminal, you just have to find the crime they committed. If you look hard enough, you will find it.

it was actually, $4,300!

i mean, damn.

thats what i'm tripping off, not the indiscretion. although i'm not condoning it by any means.

Can't you tell?

Gotta start wearin' me some lipstick and shit.
.
"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

LOL - Good Luck, Jimbo! eom

Actually, for $4,300 per hour you could probably have an elephant in the room during playtime. That's the point, Miss Marpole. I'm suggesting no ordinary hooker charges $4,300 per hour. This sounds either like some sex service outfit that can deliver up some extremely kinky amusements or, in fact, there indeed may have been either bribes or pay-offs involving persons unknown going on. It's too bad that Puritanical US press coverage always goes to the sex angle, thus obscuring the many other more serious possibilities. For instance, was somebody extorting money from the governor? Why did he call that press conference and fess up to vague misdeeds? Is/Was he, or any member of his family, being threatened by anybody? I think there's more to this story. Far more.

and have you seen the price of oil these days? ;) The girl's gotta eat, right?

I forbid your response to these 2 specific questions, too. The Agonist is a wholesome, family values, Elm street kinda place.

- eom

:D

--on the part of the prostitute/courtesan and her organization, that is. A regular old mistress might raise a conspicuous stink if she feels wronged; a vetted and well-paid professional knows that her career depends on her willingness and ability to maintain her clients' privacy under all circumstances.

I think Spitzer must have been set up in retribution for his attacks against corrupt financiers. For a politician at his level to hire fancy prostitutes is probably so common as to be routine. Most politicians are not subject to sting (entrapment) operations for it, though.

I don't admire Spitzer's lack of good judgment. But consider the difference between the treatment of this matter and that of John McCain's affair with a telecom industry lobbyist, for cripes sake. From an ethical standpoint, they're not even in the same ballpark-- but it looks like McCain will get a pass, while Spitzer is finished.

Wow. Prices have sure gone up since the good old days.

That's probably what FISA is about.

keep their pants zipped? Jeez, if you are married, well, your married. That's it. It's over. Don't cheat. Period. If you absolutely have to play the field, get a fricking divorce. It's not like they are hard to get, albeit expensive.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

If Oxford can claim that engineers are likely terrorists based on somewhat questionable methods, then it's fair game for me to claim that lawyers are likely pilanderers, no?

but we make lousy jurors, too.

where the defense was acquitted, 11-1. Grrr. I'm still furious, and it's been over a decade.

like Dr Keon of Ottawa. He was caught with his pants down (figuratively) by an undercover police officer, trying to pick up a street prostitute. With the high incidence of HIV in this group, you wouldn't want his hands twirling around inside your thoracic cavity. He offered to resign but the public, although pretty upset about it, begged him to stay. Afterall, renowned international heart surgeons aren't exactly lining up at the Employment office.

because he's brilliant. Can do surgeries lesser surgeons would fail at. If I needed a complicated heart surgery I'd take my chances with him. He wears gloves, after all.

He is also a self-proclaimed 'very devout' catholic. I'd say he's a brilliant and skillful, but morally decrepit internationally renown heart surgeon. That said, knowing he got caught and likely will not engage in this potentially dangerous behavior again, I'd have my heart medically massaged by him too.

he was led to the cliff, he however made the decision to jump.

But look at his lack of denial and his apology to his family. That's not the outrage of a guy who thinks he's been framed.

Setup perhaps. But what's obvious on the face of the situation is that the guy knows he's done something that needs apologizing for.

"Use every man according to his desert, and who shall escape whipping?"

-Hamlet, Act II, scene II

I think any married man that ever visited a prostitute can stuff his Family Values.

Just for laughs, here are the Family Values of the Republican Party from Wiki.

Republican Party

Since 1980, the Republican Party has used the issue of family values to attract socially conservative voters.[10] While family values remains a rather vague concept, social conservatives usually understand the term to include some combination of the following principles (also referenced in the 2004 Republican Party platform):[11]

* Government regulation of marriage and opposition to adultery [12][13]
* Opposition to same-sex marriage[14]
* Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education[15]
* Support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion"[16]
* Support for behavior identified as traditional or moral such as respect, discipline, attentiveness, religious commitment[17]
* Support for healthy choices such as a nutritious diet, medical screenings, and physical activity[18]
* Support for "abstinence education" exclusively regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases[19] while not teaching such topics of sex education as human sexual behavior, safe sex and birth control.
* Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation via censorship, among other methods

I substitute different imagery.

You know -

"Family Values - this week only, buy an *entire family* for the cost of one breeding pair!"

[edited to add - now I see where Mark Foley went wrong; he saw the word "adultery" and assumed it had something to do with having sex with adults - ES]

Excellent questions, imo.