Chris Kelly: Eliot Spitzer Disappoints Wife / Commits Federal Offense

[Demeter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/eliot-spitzer-disappoints_b_90811.html



Eliot Spitzer got a perfect score on the LSAT. I'm not making that up. It was in the New York Times. So they probably made it up. No, wait, let me start again.

Eliot Spitzer got a perfect score on the LSAT. He spent six years with the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He was the Attorney General of the State of New York. He has some experience with legal matters. And yet, to make this last Valentine's Day extra special, he transported a woman across state lines for immoral purposes. Anyone with a certain amount of gumption and a healthy hatred of women can use a prostitute. The Governor managed to violate the Mann Act.

It can be kind of tricky for a married elected official to hire a hooker, but it's mostly logistics. (Go to the Smoking Gun, and read more about Client #9, the wire transfer, the Amtrak reservation, the envelope, the key at the front desk, the door (ajar or just unlocked?), the question of whether he still had credit from last time. It's like John Grisham meets Feydeau.) Still, with a little luck and the right kind of can-do spirit, the average public servant can find a criminal organization to get him a woman he can treat like a thing.

It takes real work to turn a three-hour assignation into a Federal offense.
It takes a rare and precious combination of arrogance, amorality and shit for brains.
It would be nice to think that even the lawyers who advertise on the bus are smarter than that.
I'm not being judgmental about Eliot Spitzer's home life. And by "home life" I mean, "sex with prostitutes." I'm being judgmental about whether New York State deserves a governor with a rudimentary understanding of the law.

Here's what he said this afternoon:"I failed to live up to the standards I set up to myself. Now I stand to regain the trust of my family."...And that statement is why he has to go.

SEEING AS HOW THE INVESTIGATION STARTED AS A FISHING TRIP ON ELOIT SPITZER, AND HAS TURNED INTO A POLITICAL WITCH HUNT WORSE THAN GOV. SIEGELMAN'S, IT SHOULD BE INTERESTING TO LET IT PLAY OUT.

I SAY SPITZER SHOULD STAY AND FIGHT. IF HE DOESN'T, THEN THEY FOUND EVEN WORSE STUFF OUT WHILE FISHING....

[robinlynne]

1. That would be fine and dandy if ALL the prositute users phone calls were

described in the same article. What is happening here is identical to the blue dress. And for the same reason. Get rid of any successful democrat. For it to be real, it would need to include all the other men, not one man.

[ingac70]

2. He violated the Mann Act, a FELONY...

He could get 5 years in prison.

He needs to go now.

[raincity_calling]

3. I think there is lot more to this case than meets the eye.

The NYT article suggests that Spitzer was targeted, like Don Siegelman, that the Feds focused on Spitzer and then stumbled upon the hooker deal. They try to cover this targeting by saying they were looking at questionable money exchanges. I used to work for a bank dealing with wealthy clients. It is not unusual for wealthy clients to transfer $5000 on a regular basis. We never notified the IRS for such transactions. The IRS only requires notification if $10,000 cash.

Spitzer is investigating the subprime debacle, is a rising start Democrat, and had a goal to bring more Dems into the NY legislature. A lot of good reasons for the GOP to bring this brilliant man down.

[MADem]

4. I challenge them to "get" him on the Mann Act. They didn't get Charlie Chaplin, and

those were more innocent times, and his machinations were more "hands on."

Chaplin claimed they had gone their separate ways more than a year before. Joan insisted otherwise. She related a tantalizing incident in which she had forced her way into Chaplin's posh house, held a gun on him, and so aroused both of them that they had promptly gone to bed together. This was around Christmas, 1942, an inauspicious date. Even more damaging: Joan said that in October, 1942, she had gone to New York City at Chaplin's expense, had been followed by him, and had had relations with him in his hotel room. This meant that Chaplin could be prosecuted under the Mann Act, a federal law which made it a serious crime (up to 25 years in prison and a fine of $25,000) to transport a female across a state line for immoral purposes. Originally aimed at organized prostitution ("white slavery"), the Mann Act was also used as a sort of "interstate intercourse act," a way of prosecuting people the authorities wanted to "get" for some other, not necessarily criminal, reason.


http://www.trivia-library.com/b/hollywood-celebrity-scandals-charlie-chaplin-and-joan-barry-affair-part-1.htm

That said, ole Elliot has been dipping his wick in the high end hooker pool for at least eight times. They apparently "have" that on him.

Elliot could always (implausibly) claim that his original intent wasn't "sex," but "role playing"--a la Vitter. Which isn't an "immoral purpose." It's kinky, but legal.

About the only way he could "stay and fight" is to switch the issue from hookers to WIRETAPPING. Bring up the "They are listening to YOU, TOO....they are making copies of EVERYTHING you say on the internet, too--your emails, your forum conversations..."THEY" indeed ARE out to get you!!!!"

I think Elliot was a fool. Stupid, a jerk, perhaps a bit hubris laden. Definitely a "cad." He certainly isn't holding up the reputation of Harvard Law, that's for sure--between him and ALBERTO GONZALES, that school turns out more than their fair share of fucked up idiots, for all that money. You're probably better off at Unknown Semi-Public Poor Folks Community Law School--cheaper, and odds are good your classmates won't end up on the front page of the NYT.

I'd imagine he's using his law education to find a way to fend off any more charges, and he won't resign until he cuts a deal that keeps him out of the pokey. Who knows, he could end up changing US law, if this prosecution comes to be seen as a "persecution."