The New York Times reports that Eliot Spitzer has been linked to a Prostitution ring. They are calling him client number 9.



Questions for debate:

1) Should he resign over this? (He appears to have not resigned yet)
2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?
3) Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?

Questions for debate:

1) Should he resign over this?

Yes, he should. He has broken the law egregiously. He pledged to restore ethical standards upon entering office. And now he should make his first significant contribution toward that end by stepping down.

2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?

Probably not. Revelation of these kinds of indulgences have become all to common. Either we escort (pun intended!) politicians off the public stage for bad behavior or we lower our standards of what it means to be an elected official. Unfortunately, I suspect we will lower our standards.

Should he resign over this?
I don't think he can resign over the prostitute. Should he resign for soliciting prostitutes? Hell no. However, I've read the ring is run by the mafia. That's a problem in a big way. So on that count, yes he should.

It's too bad he didn't come forward before the federal wiretap was announced. I hope it wasn't a warrantless wiretap. Then I could really give a damn what he did.

Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?
New York. They've been struggling to take both houses and Spitzer has shot their plans.

Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?
The man spewed typical holier-than-thou garbage about ethics and conduct. What's not for conservatives to like?

Next time he should do it in a dress.

1) Should he resign over this? (He appears to have not resigned yet)

BA- can you provide the link please? Like to read the whole story!

Of course he should- he broke the law, and he should be treated as a criminal as a lawmaker- he should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one! A politician simply losing thier jobs over stuff that "regular" people lose thier freedom for is not right.

I also don't know anything about this guy- did he run on "family values" and harp on gays being 'sinful" or anything like that? Was he a hypocrite on this issue? Hey- if he were a proponent of legalizing prostitution- I would say he is following his moral code, and took one for the team to show his civil disobediance- man, what a great excuse for some strange on the side eh?

2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?

I doubt it seriously- once again, the Dems aren't being hoisted on thier own Petard here- the repubs were the ones making hay for so long on sex issues- NOT the dems. I am cool with a cat that has a little dalliance on the side, it is between him and his wife as far as I am concerned- as long as he has not made it a campaign issue to bust people doing the same thing, or denigrate those that do.

3) Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?

I have no idea- don't know the guy, on any level. But there is this lawmaker in Montana that has a stance problem that might need a second look.

Or when you have a gay guy hitting on interns that is all about anti-gay legislation-

Or when you are pointing your finger at the sitting prez for having an affair- while you are doing the same thing at the same time.

well, THAT couldn't have happened to nicer guy.

1) Should he resign over this? (He appears to have not resigned yet)

I was watching part of this on CNBC. It appears his involvement is quite extensive. He should resign - another day another hypocrite.

2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?

Probably not, but keep hoping if you are a Republican.

3) Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?

This queastion is not debatable, period.

BTW: I am amused that the NYT broke this story. It will be interesting to see how many conservatives, who have griped, moaned, whined, gnashed teeth, and damned The Times, on other stories embrace this one.

Absolutely could not have happened to a nicer guy!

He was corrupt at the highest level. Good riddance.

As for helping Republicans, I highly doubt it. Big-city Democrats have been corrupt for 100 years, and it never seems to have an effect on the party. Places like Washington DC, New Orleans and Chicago have all had major corruption scandals with Democratic mayors, and it hasn't gone any higher than the governor's office in terms of a negative effect on the party. On the converse, our Republican governor went to jail, and I don't think it cost George Bush any points outside of Illinois.

I dont get how hiring a prostitute is corrupt, unless he was using tax payer money...?

1. Of course, he definitely should resign. I'm suspicious that this is just the tip of the corruption iceberg, and the ball will begin to unravel even more. What mystifies me is why the "doers" don't realize they're going to get caught eventually, and that when that happens, their lives will never be the same. Has this thought never occurred to him?

2. Hurt the Democrats? Are you kidding, they won't even feel it!

3. Good grief, I hope he is awfully nice. He needs a great asset to outweigh the hypocrisy side of his personality.

Kim, I don't consider the act of visiting a prostitute a moral outrage. In fact, I think it should be legal in all states.

My problem with Spitzer is this. Prostitution is illegal in New York. As Governor, Spitzer is charged with enforcing laws. It's hard for me not to see a conflict of interest, when one violates laws he is sworn to enforce.

As in many things, Texas has draconian laws. A person who hires a prostitute here is charged with prostitution rather than solicitation.

I can see the issue, but I am just not sure if it counts as corruption. Simply because someone breaks the law, does not mean they're politically corrupt.

I do find this whole incident to be rather unfortunate, because Spitzer did great things as Attorney General of NY.

And how would you know that, BoF?

The problem that I have with this whole thing is the betrayal of trust issue. Marriage vows are supposed to mean something and it seems to me that if a guy can't live up to something as sacred and personal as the vows he makes to his wife, one wonders how seriously he can live up to the trust the public placed in him when they elected him to office.


Aquilla

I didn't say that he was corrupt because he hired a prostitute. I'm fairly ambivalent on that subject. I said that he was corrupt because I have personal experience in dealing with the man, and he acted unethically and illegally. I have heard many, many stories of others in government and business, and they have only reinforced my opinion of his corruption. In my original post, I left an anecdote which I later deleted. I'm telling you, this man is as corrupt as they come, and a hypocrite to boot.


Just for perspective, he prosecuted organized crime and prostitution rings. He ran on a campaign of ethics and elimination of corruption. And he patronized a hooker from a prostitution ring while in Washington to testify to a Congressional committee.

However true that may be, that has to be between he and Mrs. Spitzer. The only question here is a betrayal of public, not private trust.

I agree BoF, and that was my point. If a person can betray a deeply personal and sacred trust like that between a husband and wife, how would we expect that person to hold a public trust?


And, BTW, you never answered my query about how you knew so much about prostitution in Texas......


Aquilla

Good point, Aquilla.

If the guy is willing to risk crap that could give his wife a nice case of the crabs or AIDS or herpes for a few moments of personal satisfaction....

What is he willing to do to the rest of us nameless and faceless constituents!

I was watching MSNBC, and Alan Dershowitz was defending Spitzer, saying:

So much for progress. What a stunning example.

I dunno, BoF. I respect your opinion on the moral outrage, but I don't get it.

Guys like Dersh say, Big deal, man lies to his wife, cheats on her, or betrays her trust after years of marriage - AND in a public setting. I couldn't help thinking to myself, "Man, what a jerk". Don't worry, my lefty friends. I felt the same way with Larry Craig's bathroom antics. He was a cheating, lying retard too. I guess some women don't find that offensive, and give the guy a pass. Are fidelity expectations really that low that we EXPECT it now? Yeah, there are a lot of hot women in the world, but that's F'd up to do to your wife! And act like it was inevitable, and not a choice.

A guy does that to his wife, what would he do to the people working under him? The people he represents? Is there not a correlation?

Dershowitz also blamed "men" (as a group) for thinking with their private parts and Tucker Carlson agreed with that line. At first, I was thinking, "Hey, that should be a line from the feminists. Where are they?"

Then it dawned on me. They stayed home because castrated, feminized men like Dershowitz and Carlson are doing all the man-hating without any effort on their part.

/I read that Men are from Mars, Women are from Vegas or whatever book that was...
//I only understood half of it

THE most important reason he should resign is because he is just plain stupid. How could he NOT know that he would be exposed (pun intended)?

If he is this dumb, or arrogant, then Lord knows what else he's already involved in.

And no, this won't hurt the Dems. Hell, I didn't even know he was a Dem.

Oh, and on a side note.....just what does a prostitute actually do to command a fee of $5,500 an hour?

1) Should he resign over this? (He appears to have not resigned yet)

Yeah.

2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?

At least he didn't start a war, huh? And the crime happens to be with the oldest profession. Nope, I don't see anything coming of this regarding the broadly referred to Democrats in NY or the USA.

3) Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?

I read the AP story in the Denver Post. It's the top headline. Seems that the biggest hit, legally speaking, is from a 1910 law that prohibits the transport of women across state lines for the reason of prostitution. So, there might be slammer time coming up since this is a federal law, probably a felony.

I really can't say how nice of a guy Spitzer is, but he was involved in busting prostitution rings during his political career. Makes me think it's poetic justice that he gets nabbed for solicitation while being a holier-than-thou type. Plus that little thing about the probable felony.

On the creep-o-meter, this registers just above 1, as opposed to other scandles that peg the needle. Imagine, men paying for sex. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Yes of course he should he broke the law. Laws he was enforcing so it's not like he didn't know they were illegal.
I'd guess no. Many of our own Democrats on this board are holding the "What's the big deal?" line. The big deal is, even if I think prostitution should be legal, it isn't so you need to follow those laws.
Absolutely not. This guy is a Class A [EDIT]. He bullied legitimate businesses into settling and backed down every time they stood up to him and his tactics.

Further, to me, this is far worse than Larry's wide stance. Larry never actually DID anything. Spitzer has tacitly admitted that he's slept with whores - WHICH IS ILLEGAL in case you forgot.

1. Yes, he should resign. Not over the sex, but his blatant hypocrisy. Put simply, he knew better. He just didn't care.

When he was attorney general, Mr. Spitzer’s signature issue was pursuing Wall Street misdeeds. But he also oversaw the prosecution of at least two prostitution rings by the state’s organized crime task force, which reports to the attorney general.

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.

“This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. “It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”
link

Oh yeah---BIG time hypocrite.

2. The absolute last thing Hillary Clinton wants is to be even slightly involved in any discussions of marital infidelity. I don't know if Spitzer was supporting her candidacy, but it's not a conversation she wants to have (her response to questions about Spitzer so far have been a terse, "no comment).

It shouldn't hurt the Dems in New York except for the fact the Republican speaker of the house would become lt. governor and the gentleman in that role, David Paterson (who for the sake of trivia would become the state's first Black and legally blind governor) would replace Spitzer. Would there have to be a special election held and if so, would someone like Rudy Giuliani consider running?

Nationally, all this means is Spitzer joins the Hall of Shame whose most recent inductees include Larry Craig and David Vitter (another prostitute chaser).

3. I don't give a crap about Eliot Spitzer personally. I'm sure he'll fall hard and rise again in some job where he's overpaid and underworked. There's only one victim here and it's
his wife, Sida, and their three daughters.

I am weary of watching these wives stand by their man after he has personally betrayed and publicly humiliated them. If you watch his statement to the press, she looks like she's been hit in the face by a 2x4. You don't have to be a psychiatrist to see that woman is hurt and in shock.

Dina Matos McGreevey, the estranged wife of former New Jersey governor, Jim McGreevey, who was engaged in an extra-marital affair with another man, was on CNN last night and she still looks tired and pained from her experience. She says people whisper about her when they recognize her in public. Too often it seems it's the men who make the "mea culpas" but it's the women who are scarred by the experience.

Are you kidding me?? lolololol

You about made me choke on my morning coffee. Well, good thing he didn't say, I dunno....OUT A FREAKING CIA AGENT because he had no idea somebody who works for the CIA could be a NOC - as if that could never happen. Did you really use the term "ethical" without any smiley faces or other emoticons showing that statement to be a joke?

But as a matter of consistency, he should step down. He willfully and knowingly did something he knew to be illegal whether you agree with the law or not. Showing simple disregard for the law is a breach of trust.

What I'm trying to figure out here though, is I thought he was being indicted. I'm no lawyer, but since when do people get indicted for misdemeanors? I'm assuming buying a whore is not a felony and I thought indictments only happened in felony cases.

AMEN!!!

Here's a photo essay on this very topic.

From what I heard this morning there is apparently an investigation underway concerning money laundering charges surrounding this "affair" which could be a federal beef. THAT would be a felony.


Aquilla

I guess that was my point. This seems to be more than a governor soliciting whores. Even if the entire investigation is felonious, I'm not sure someone can be charged with a felony for something that is typically misdemeanor behavior just because of the scope of the investigation. If indicted, I would say Client #9 is just the smoke of the fire.

I think you're right. It would appear that he got caught up in a larger, more serious investigation than a simple call girl ring. I'd say he's having a series of really bad days.


Aquilla

And of course there's the 1910 law about bringing women across state lines for the reason of prostitution, which would be in the federal arena based on interstate commerce jurisdiction.

There's enough rope to hang the guy, and that's probably going to happen.

I doubt that the present POTUS will come to his rescue.

Here's the AP story and a quote regarding law:

Sex Probe (er-hum)



So, disregarding the obvious thing that Spitzer had broken the law, he also stepped into a pile way too big to scrape off.

Meanwhile, this prostitution ring was hauling in a whole navy of money boatloads:

Cash Led to Probe (caff caff)

So I guess lots of people were breaking the law, thus the lack of fake outrage. Men seem to have this thing about paying money for sex.

I've been a citizen of Texas for 65 years. I know a good many, but not all the quirks in Texas law. Likewise, I'm sure you are familiar with such laws in California.

The big deal is, even if prostitution is illegal, politicians should go down for something more serious. Like corruption charges. Like, where there is actually a victim. Prostitution should be as illegal as cheating on your wife. Silda doesn't have to stand by her man. She should take him to the cleaners while the taking is good, in fact, and find a man that doesn't need more than one woman.

Well, Spitzer was the Attorney General in New York. He made his bones by being above everyone else. He went after Wall Street and a host of other objects of populist hatred. Here is a quote that can sweeten that coffee of yours, from one of his campaign ads. link



So, it's not with a hint of smileyfaces or irony that I tell you. Mr. "Integrity Trustrworthy Honesty" looked right across the table at us, said that we hadn't done anything wrong or illegal, but we had to pay a huge fine and settlement because "it's an election year." You can try to tie this to the CIA in some bizzare non-sequitir, but I conduct my business on the up and up, with honesty and integrity. I hire people who conduct themselves similarly, and I fire those who don't. When you play by the rules, the AG shouldn't be able to hold you up for ransom and tell you to your face that he's the judge and the jury and pay up. Even Chicago isn't like that anymore.

As for prosecuting prostitution, Justice wasn't interested in the prostitution ring at all, until Spitzer's bank reported his suspicious transactions.



He failed to follow his own advice about email, which is just a shame.

It seems there are quite a few out there rushing to make this all about sex, when the sex is the least of the story.

I guess we should lower standards even more.

Spitzer had a slush fund account he was funneling money to Illegal operations that were using fake company names to hide their true business.

Really? Whoa! Sleeper, do you have a link to anything that goes more in to the details of this activity? Those are really serious charges and could trigger a RICO investigation. That's hard time.


Aquilla

1) Should he resign over this?

No, there rate of prosecution for this offence is inconsistent at best. If Spitzer should be forced to resign over extra-marital relations than a more even approach should be used throughout. Specifically if Spitzer goes down than the guy who loved to wear soiled diapers (David Vitter) and procures services from two agencies should leave office as well. The faux outrage here is astounding. This is really an apolitical act that is being hyped and distorted. This is an "unya" issue. As in none of our business.

The real crime here is the selectiveness on who falls into the media's view which should illicit our contempt.

Discredited conservative reporter Jeff Gannon was suspected as working as a male hooker for two years at the White House. He had many "sleep overs". But since there was no investigation there was no visible client. Not consistent. If only every appointee could enjoy the teflon defense of the Turdblossom.

2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?

Tough to say at this point. Overall I doubt it.

3) Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?

I have no love or hate of Mr. Spitzer. This did not happen to him. He brought this upon himself. Personally I think sexual relations in the off hours as A-OK and none of the public's business. This soliciting a whore bunk is just crap.

Huh? Are you saying this didn't happen?

No, I am saying for all intensive purposes that solicting a prostitute is not what I consider a real crime.

AP Story



I heard on CNN this morning that the money was being sent to false business fronts so it would not be so obvious it was a prostitution ring.

It's not about the sex though. According to the criminal complaint, he was paying $4300 a night for Kristen's company. That's a real business transaction, which makes it a real crime. Kristen worked for a dummy corporation which used other money-laundering companies to move funds around. Seriously - Do ya think that Kristen had a business license or paid taxes? Because "Mr. Honesty and Ethical and Trustworthy" Spitzer has had a lot to say about paying taxes and fees and business licenses when he was AG.

Trouble, perhaps you aren't very up on American Congressional scandals, but there is one member of the House of Reps that didn't just patronize agencies, he had one running out of his home. Unfortunately, Barney Frank has a "D" behind his name so it doesn't come up a lot.

Lastly, there is something unseemly about a Governor making $180,000 and spending $5K a night on a companion. I think the same of the Governator using the private plane and such. Ostentatious.

Tracing cash is not particularly easy. How did the criminal complaint determine Spitzer was paying 4300 a night? Doesn't it strike you as odd that the only people who would have the capability to determine this should have kept this confidential AKA Valerie Plame all over again?

At this point I am not dismissing your concerns. There simply is not enough evidence to make a clear conclusion. My concerns are the manner in which the case is headed and its emphasis on Spitzer seems highly unusual at this point in time. Instead of an investigation following a prostitution ring ensnaring johns, we have a john who brought in a prostitution ring. This strikes me as odd. Just how do the investigators know Spitzer's cash transactions were going to shell companies without getting a wiretap or some sort of evidence as indicated by the NYT?

Now either Spitzer was already the target of a prior investigation which just blossomed into the current debacle or somebody gaves the heads up to dig dirt on Spitzer. Remembering the Seigalman controversy, I think this is a relevant question.

This news story came from an indictment of the prostitution ring, not of Spitzer. The original investigation targeted Spitzer, but the crimes (so far) are against the ring leaders, which is allegedly run by an organized crime outfit like the Mafia.

Either way, given Spitzer campaigning on honesty, anti-corruption, and being a general "Good Guy"™ this scandal will probably do him in.

The state legislature is already threatening impeachment if Spitzer does not resign.

It's okay Sleeper. Sex sells. People want to be scandalized. Just ask McCain about that lobbyist business.


Has Spitzer been indicted? I know unsealed records show other people in connection to the prostitution ring have been charged. I went back to the NYT article I read yesterday. The story has been updated since his news conference and there's nothing on it about an indictment or official charges. Today CNN clarified Spitzer hasn't been indicted.

Well, you are the second person to make this connection and I still don't get it. Why exactly should a criminal complaint be secret? Why should they protect the anonymity of a public figure committing a crime?

They got warrants for wire transfers to a fake consulting company called "QAT Consulting." the clients either paid in cash, which the girls then deposited with the consultancy, or they paid the cocnsultancy directly. In Spitzer's case, he is really dead if he used a campaign or state account to do so. I doubt he's that stupid, but he did apparently send emails, which were seized under the warrant.

All of the warrants are attached to the complaint I linked. Look at page 26 and 27 - If he is 'client 9,' he sent a text message confirming that his deposit to "QAT" had arrived. He paid for her transport across state lines. He arranged payment and deposits on a phone that turned out to be tapped by the feds. He is doomed.

update - OUCH - hope he didn't tell wifey this was a 'one time thing.'

1) Should he resign over this? (He appears to have not resigned yet)

Yes. He broke the law, and obviously has been doing this for some time. He has been given an ultimatum. If he does not resign over this, he will be facing impeachment.

2) Does this hurt the Democrats in New York or Nationally?

Yes. It hurts his wife, the rest of his family, the people who trusted him, etc. Democrats are included among that group of people.

3) Could this possibly have happened to a nicer guy?

Governor Spitzer set himself up for this. He portrayed himself as being a straight-arrow kind of guy. He showed disgust when breaking up prostitution rings in the past as a prosecutor. The result is that we view him as a very cynical person who can spout these lawful, ethical pronouncements while disregarding the law in his personal life.

I want to join the chorus of posters who say that Mrs. Spitzer should not have been required or felt obligated to stand with her husband as he talked about this fiasco, about the way he betrayed her trust. He should have stood alone to face the music. Let the lady have some privacy and dignity under the circumstances.

All I can say to Spitzer is, WHY?

We might possibly have to look at psychology to answer this.

I think Friedrich Nietzsche hit close to home on this one.


This is my theory. Spitzer fought his inner deamons by prosecuting others and in the process became the monster he hated. This is not all that uncommon.

Good point. Forbidden things do hold a fascination of their own. But did he actually think that the odds were against his getting caught, especially when he became governor? Duh!

Without trying to be gross, there is an old saying about "letting the little head overrule the big head." Spitzer apparently had a big head - ego - that the passions of the little head trumped.

This too is not uncommon. Remember Jimmy Swaggart?

Or maybe he's just a douchebag who couldn't care less if he gave his wife genital warts from banging hookers. The answer doesn't have to be that complicated.

You could be right, but I think we need to probe, no pun intended, beneath the surface for motives and reasons. While it's colorful, calling someone a "douchebag" doesn't accomplish much.

As long as Spitzer used his own funds on his own time it really doesn't matter how far back you go. This does not establish any meaningful breach of trust with respect to his job.

Using evidence specific to the trial before an indictment (assuming there will be one) is normally held outside the public sphere since such information can become political which is this case is an obvious yes. This will affect the bias of the jury. This is basic knowledge.

My stance was put together because as time unfolds, it is evident that someone from the banking community put a tap on this guy's financial activity and the explanations given so far do not add up. If using his own funds on his own time (remember Spitzer is a millionaire) such relatively small sums should not have warranted a tap.

My own bank will only flag transaction amounts in excess of 10,000. How do I know this? Because of a relative who used to work in the police department. This means to flag him for smaller amounts and use this as a starting point for an investigation does not wash. I make mexican wages compared to Senior Spitzer. Spitzer's transactions show the money flowed out indicating he was not the recipient of a bribe. This places the onus on the IRS to explain just what exactly they were doing with "federal officials", particularly in the period before the shell company was in the picture.



The charge of structuring is odd for two reasons. One, it constitutes a form of embezzelment which does not fit the profile of a high-powered millionaire unless he was trafficing drugs or something similar. Two, to get the IRS with the FBI involved would normally warrant tax evasion. Some basic accouting fraud at the very minimum which again is unlikely considering who Spitzer was.

Now consider what Spitzer did for a living. He put high profile wall street money managers away for illegal trading and bribery. His work tied him to the banking industry by scrutinizing corporate records. You really think it is a coincidence that Spitzer was known as the Sheriff of Wall Street and had the IRS on his back 'just because'? C'mon!

At this point it appears Spitzer stepped on some toes and a big someone surveilled him until they could find scandal on him. This has nothing to do with public integrity, this is a grudge hit job.

As Bill would say, this was a "Nice Little Conservative Hit Job".

Trouble said

And the undercover security for Larry Craig was a planted Liberal operative.

I have no doubt that Spitzer stepped on toes and had few friends. No doubt whatsoever.

But even MORE the reason to be above reproach, no? What kind of guy puts people away, or makes them pay up, and expects that the defendant will honor the fact that "justice was served" instead of digging dirt on the guy who made their life miserable?

DaytonRocker said

I see your "maybe", and raise you a "definitely".

It has nothing to do with politics. I don't care if he had a (D) or an ® or an (L) or a (G) or an (I).

How can the public trust you if even your wife can't?

BOF said

Yup. And he was destroyed by the very people who trusted and supported him. And of course, his critics.

And rightfully so.

Spitzer was headed this route one way or another. Spitzer's love affair in NY had already been tainted by his tactics. This is simply what's good for the goose.
Just like Musicians who cannot seem to learn the truism of never boarding small aircraft, any politician who claims to lead the fight to clean up corruption has just uttered the equivalent phrase heard from testosterone fueled teen males immediately headed for the trauma section of an ER, "Hey watch this!"

While it's good fun ("bros before ho's") and all that to bash the sexworkers as filthy, disease-ridden whores or something similarly demeaning, the fact is it was Spitzer who was desirous to engage in high-risk sex without protection.

In the court papers, an Emperors Club employee was quoted as telling Kristen that Client 9 -- Spitzer, according to investigators -- "would ask you to do things that ... you might not think were safe," and Kristen responded by saying: "I have a way of dealing with that. ... I'd be, like, listen, dude, you really want the sex?"

A law enforcement official said Tuesday the discussion had to do with Spitzer's preference not to wear a condom. link

If anything, it's more likely a sleazy pig like Spitzer was liable to pass on a STD to the prostitute than the other way around. Working girls charging $5K for their time can't afford to get or give diseases to jumbo dollar johns. It's bad for business and any sexworker with even a shred of common sense isn't going to risk sex without the latex (a.k.a. Deathwish).

The answer is that complicated. At least it is if you bother to think beyond the easy stereotype.

He's a millionaire, he's familiar with the law, and he was "structuring" his transactions to stay just below the $10,000 limit, thinking that this would keep him off the radar. When the bank noticed that he had a pattern of getting (just guessing here) $9 grand in cash moved around, it was so suspicious that they notified the feds. You obviously read this article different than I did, so let me highlight a different sentence for you.

(on edit - he was moving more than $10 grand, but he wanted to break it into pieces - that is dumb)

When public officials move thousands of dollars of cash around, they should be well aware of what most people familiar with big-city politics would think - bribes.


Again, he didn't have the IRS "on his back" until he engaged in suspicious financial dealings, and his bank reported him. Whether their motive were pure as driven snow, we will not know. Knowing Spitzer, he was a high-maintenance jerk to the tellers and manager, and the manager noticed the discrepancy, and filed paperwork just to screw him over. Which, in this case, appears to have served him right.

You have no basis and no evidence for your charges of conspiracy here. I can't even imagine why you are defending this guy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "liberal" or "conservative."

Lastly, I have to again ask why those engaged in criminal activity, and named in a public indictment, deserve protection and anonymity. I honestly don't know the protocol here. When Barack Obama's name comes up in the Rezko trial, they don't redact it. When Governor Ryan's name was listed in indictments for 'license for bribes,' he wasn't "bribery guy 9."

Looks like they may have also feared he was being blackmailed ...