Spitzer met with call girls over several years

[spindrifter]

From Newsday
8:46 AM PDT, March 11, 2008


New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer had at least seven or eight liaisons over the last several years with prostitutes supplied by an international call girl ring based in New Jersey, according to sources familiar with the investigation into Spitzer's relationship with the ring.

The liaisons between Spitzer and a number of different prostitutes occurred around the country, including in Washington, D.C., and Florida, the sources said. For each encounter, Spitzer paid several thousand dollars, the sources said.

<more>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-callgirls12mar12,0,1042016.story

+++++

So where did the money for these liaisons come from?

[Thepricebreaker]

1. His family has a lot of money - he wasnt poor.

[aquart]

2. His bank account. He's rich.

In fact, they are trying to prosecute him for taking money OUT of his bank account.

Do try googling and reading up.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. Yep. Heard on NPR that his account was tagged as a "high profile" account.

It sent up a red flag because he was a high profile person. I hope his firm goes full bore with this.

[aquart]

7. WHAT????

They watch how celebrities spend their money? Or only Democrats? How many Republicans are on that list?

The more I hear, the more suspicious I get.

[JackRiddler]

9. For transactions under $10 k it's at the bank's discretion...

whether to file a report of suspicious activity or not.

The bank chose to do so. A "large New York bank," according to the Times today. And what are the odds the bank didn't know it was Spitzer and what would happen as a result, given that the DOJ is a Bush tool for taking down Democratic governors.

I speculate that the Bushies didn't bring down Spitzer - at least they weren't the first step in the process. The "large New York bank" did.

Please read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2995172

[salin]

4. If true, then he is an arrogant (as if "I can't be caught") idiot.

Seriously - he took on big guns, and then politically took on a big position (and won), and didn't think that he could get caught? Has he not paid attention to the degree of witch hunts political opposition have taken against rising stars? Did he miss the late nineties and the Clinton impeachment hearings? And yet he kept pursuing higher office, knowing that this could come out and destroy his career - AND he continued the behavior?

Tpm coverage certainly suggests that their are some aspects to the investigation's origins that are possibly questionable - but that does not wipe away the actions.

[aquart]

8. I'm sorry. Banging a hooker IS more important than targeting political opponents?

Are your priorities completely screwed up or only in this particular area?

[Alexander]

10. Banging a hooker while you're taking on Wall Street is a stupid idea.

Particularly if you prosecute people involved with prostitution rings.

He should have known better. In this day and age, BushCo can tell if you farted once in church. Spitzer should have known not to screw around - his actions suggest supreme ignorance, arrogance or both.

[aquart]

11. Which is more important a "crime" than targeting a political opponent for prosecution?

Because now you're saying that an ATTITUDE is reason enough for prosecution.

GET YOUR PRIORITIES IN ORDER.

Right now, you are THEIR perfect tool. They hand you the talking points and you repeat, repeat, repeat.

[salin]

16. Perhaps I wasnt clear... taking on Wall Street is far more important...

and should make one wary that one will be a target of Oppo research. It isn't an either or - it is a foolish belief that one won't be under particularly critical scrutiny esp in light of the work against big businesses.

[Olney Blue]

5. Never underestimate the power of testosterone.

[dweller]

6. does anyone have the facts correct, or is it just all over the board

i just listened to the nightly local news, they say over 6 months.

i read here earlier he'd spent $40,000. The news just reported $15,000.


is this just a 'throw anything against the wall, and see what sticks' situation?


personally, i couldn't care less where he's sticking his as long as his accomplice is of legal age and consenting... but my opinion doesn't count much, so no one will give it much consideration.

but why the mishmash goulash of facts?


dp

[Raine]

12. The latest I heard was $80,000!

who knows though what the real amount was. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

14. 80K divided by $3500 per "visit" = at least 22 times

and if you use the term "over many years".. I'm guessing it's a LOT more that $80K..

whattaloser

[EFerrari]

13. He had the money. The more salient question is

why were his small transfers flagged?

Would it have ANYTHING to do with political prosecutions?

[SoCalDem]

15. Look no further than Joseph Bruno & the Vendetta

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2988324