Should Spitzer resign?

[JP]

If you live under a rock (or perhaps are not glued to the net or news radio), you may not have heard NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has admitted being involved with a up-scale prostitution ring. As a customer, not as an investor or employee, if you were wondering what the "involved with" language was trying to say.

Should he resign?

NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[aindik]

There's a thread on this over on the other side of this board.

To avoid the stench of hypocrisy inherent in any argument he might make about why he shouldn't be indicted for this, he should embrace legalization of prostitution as the signature issue of his administration. He should start by commuting the sentences of everyone in jail for prostitution.

If he doesn't do that, he should resign.

[TheIndependent]

free hookers (read that both ways)

[aindik]

free hookers (read that both ways)

It's an oxymoron (at least one of the ways).

[TheIndependent]

Sweet haven't had an oxymoron in some time :)

[JP]

There's a thread on this over on the other side of this board.Yeah, but who ever posts anything over there? :)

To avoid the stench of hypocrisy inherent in any argument he might make about why he shouldn't be indicted for this, he should embrace legalization of prostitution as the signature issue of his administration. He should start by commuting the sentences of everyone in jail for prostitution.I suspect that would be seen as self-serving, not as a position he actually holds, if he were to attempt it.

His only options are resigning, or putting on the "I never done nothin'!" defense popularized by Larry Craig and David Vitter. It appears he's decided against the latter, which at least preserves some semblance of honor.

Politicization I've seen so far: bloggists wondering how this effects Hillary, seeing as he's a big supporter of hers, and the RNCC sending out spam emails (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/sleazy_spitzer_money.html) demanding to know when politician X is going to return the "sleazy money" Spitzer gave their campaigns.

[aindik]

To avoid the stench of hypocrisy inherent in any argument he might make about why he shouldn't be indicted for this, he should embrace legalization of prostitution as the signature issue of his administration. He should start by commuting the sentences of everyone in jail for prostitution.I suspect that would be seen as self-serving, not as a position he actually holds, if he were to attempt it.

Probably. But at least it would be honest. "Hey, I did this. It's not that bad. We shouldn't be throwing people in jail for it. And no, I didn't always think this. But, having done it, I see it this way now. All those people I threw in jail because of it? You're free." Sure, he'd only be doing it because he got caught, but at least it would be consistent.

No chance he does it though.

His only options are resigning, or putting on the "I never done nothin'!" defense popularized by Larry Craig and David Vitter. It appears he's decided against the latter, which at least preserves some semblance of honor.

Honor, my foot. Unless he comes out for legalization, he's a sanctimonious hypocrite who thinks the law is to regulate everyone else's personal consensual decisions except his. He should resign just because of that.

Politicization I've seen so far: bloggists wondering how this effects Hillary, seeing as he's a big supporter of hers, and the RNCC sending out spam emails (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/sleazy_spitzer_money.html) demanding to know when politician X is going to return the "sleazy money" Spitzer gave their campaigns.

How is this going to affect Hillary? I think most people know who her husband is.

[JP]

Honor, my foot. Unless he comes out for legalization, he's a sanctimonious hypocrite who thinks the law is to regulate everyone else's personal consensual decisions except his. He should resign just because of that.Believe it or not, it IS actually possible to do something even though you believe it is wrong and should be illegal, does have victims, should be prosecuted. I've made this point before when conservative preachers have been discovered taking a walk on the wild side.

The brain isn't in charge when these decisions get made, after all, it's another organ entirely. Why are you assuming Spitzer made these decisions not only completely rationally, but because he thought it wasn't wrong and shouldn't be illegal?

[aindik]

Honor, my foot. Unless he comes out for legalization, he's a sanctimonious hypocrite who thinks the law is to regulate everyone else's personal consensual decisions except his. He should resign just because of that.Believe it or not, it IS actually possible to do something even though you believe it is wrong and should be illegal, does have victims, should be prosecuted. I've made this point before when conservative preachers have been discovered taking a walk on the wild side.

Sure. It's possible to think what you did should be illegal even though you did it. What's not possible is to do it and then say you shouldn't be prosecuted and thrown in jail for it but other people should. He hasn't done that yet, but I expect him to.

He also has a problem because he was prosecuting people for doing something, while, at the same time knowing other people doing the same thing, who he wasn't prosecuting because he was involved. That's kinda the definition of corruption.

The brain isn't in charge when these decisions get made, after all, it's another organ entirely.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Why are you assuming Spitzer made these decisions not only completely rationally, but because he thought it wasn't wrong and shouldn't be illegal?

If he committed a crime, and he thinks the crime he committed is an important crime that should remain a crime, he has no business being governor because he has no respect for the law. So, if he doesn't think prostitution should be legal, then he thinks it should be illegal. If he did something that is illegal and that he thinks should be illegal, he can't be the state's chief executive.

The only way to stay chief executive, to continue to portray the image that you respect justly enacted laws, is to say that this law is unjust and should be repealed. Because if it belongs on the books, he violated it and should resign.

ETA:
Oh, and something else. Today in his press conference he said: Today I want to briefly address a private matter.

If this is a private matter for him, either it's a private matter for everyone else or he's a sanctimonious hypocrite.

[grondramb]

I don't really care - he's a state official and not from my state.

Now I'm happy for him to get caught, except for the effect on his kids because he's a f***ing hypocrite. But its fine with me if the people want him to stay in office.

[busyba]

Where's the option for "he should resign right after Larry Craig and David Vitter do"? :D

[RegBarc]

I voted "other" because I've been sort of blowing off the story and finding it a sort-of "I don't really care what he does" sort of thing. It's sad, this just doesn't shock me, phase me, or elicit an ounce of concern or care for what happens to this guy.

[aindik]

I didn't vote. I think he should resign, not because his offense requires it, but because he apparently thinks other people who do what he did should go to jail, but he shouldn't.

IOW, he should resign not because he's a john, but because he's a hypocrite who shows no respect for laws he insists on enforcing against others.

[Turtleboy]

Where's the option for "he should resign right after Larry Craig and David Vitter do"? :D

Is there a difference between a crime committed by a member of the legislature and the executive branch, especially the crime of prostitution? I think so.

The governor is the chief law enforcement officer in the state, no? It's his job to enforce the laws, and like aindik says, he's a hypocrite.

A legislator is different, right?

[busyba]

Where's the option for "he should resign right after Larry Craig and David Vitter do"? :D

Is there a difference between a crime committed by a member of the legislature and the executive branch, especially the crime of prostitution? I think so.

The governor is the chief law enforcement officer in the state, no? It's his job to enforce the laws, and like aindik says, he's a hypocrite.

A legislator is different, right?


Not to put too fine a point on it, but if anything I'd think it would be worse in the case of a legislator. If it's the Governor's job to enforce the laws, he's not setting policy, he's just enforcing it.

The legislators, on the other hand, are writing the laws; they're setting the policy, so if you had to say that a violation by one would be more egregious than the other, it would have to be the person writing the law that was broken, no?

Personally, I don't think the particular branch of government involved is relevant anyway, but if I were to grant your premise that it was relevant, I'd go with the legislator as being the greater sinner.


I can see, however, how it might look worse when it's the Executive, since in that situation you essentially have one person who is the name and face for the entire branch, while a legislator is just one (typically faceles and nameless) person amongst many.

[Turtleboy]

What if that legislator wasn't a hypocrite and voted in favor of legalizng drugs and prostituion?

[JustAllie]

I can't get worked up about this. But I don't live in New York State. I think I'd have an opinion if he were my governor.

As it is, I see it as an outsider, and think "what an idiot!" And I feel bad for his wife and kids, and for the taxpayers, too.

A fine example of thinking with the wrong brain.

[busyba]

What if that legislator wasn't a hypocrite and voted in favor of legalizng drugs and prostituion?

Me, personally? I'd be fine with it. Unfortunately, however, I'm not the arbiter of such matters. ;)


Here's a hypothetical for you: What if the whoremongering in question was at the (legal) Bunny Ranch in Nevada, and on his own time and his own dime? Do you think there wouldn't be calls for his resignation anyway?

(I think there would.)

[Skanter]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?

[Turtleboy]

He did his whoring in Washinton, DC. ;0

[busyba]

He did his whoring in Washinton, DC. ;0

So it's par for the course? ;)

[busyba]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

[Agatha]

I voted that he should resign. I think prostitution should be legal, but he committed an illegal act. As governor, if it were not public, he could be open to blackmail and extortion. This is not a position that you want your public officials to be in. Same is said for all government service - especially those with a security clearance. This is why Inigo and I don't worry about keeping our 'secrets' secret. He did own up, but it was only after he was being investigated.

If he said, "I hired hookers while in Nevada, with my wife's full consent" then it would be a non-issue for me.

[busyba]

If he said, "I hired hookers while in Nevada, with my wife's full consent" then it would be a non-issue for me.

If he said, "I hired hookers while in Nevada, with my wife's full participation" , now that would be a news story! :laugh:

[TheIndependent]

i find it a bit strange that you can have sex with someone for free and break no law (in most states), but if you do the same act, but one person gives the other money just for that purpose, then it's some "crime". but if it's a 'date' where you are paying for it indirectly, then it's fine somehow, so long as the money doesn't directly land in the hand of the fuckeee..

such a screwed up system.

[Skanter]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

I'm not a big fan of prostitution (causing teen-slave trade and all that) but I usually couldn't care less where people put there genitals. But, when someone is in high office, and married, it would be a good idea to keep his schlong in the pants as extra-curricular activities, if discovered, will damage all they have been doing politically, and their carreers i.e. Bubba, now Elliot. They tend to lose credibility when their dicks are caught outside of home.

[BrettStah]

I also voted other, for a reason that aindik mentioned (Spitzer's a hypocrite), and a reason Agatha mentioned (he shouldn't open himself up to potential blackmail).

[aindik]

He did his whoring in Washinton, DC. ;0

So it's par for the course? ;)

Usually, the politicians are the whores rather than the johns. So, I guess it's news.

[aindik]

A fine example of thinking with the wrong brain.

That's "the wrong head."

:2funny:

[aindik]

i find it a bit strange that you can have sex with someone for free and break no law (in most states), but if you do the same act, but one person gives the other money just for that purpose, then it's some "crime". but if it's a 'date' where you are paying for it indirectly, then it's fine somehow, so long as the money doesn't directly land in the hand of the fuckeee..

such a screwed up system.

If my boss repeatedly buys me fancy meals out, or a car, the tax code considers it income just as if he paid me in cash. Just sayin'.

[TheIndependent]

i find it a bit strange that you can have sex with someone for free and break no law (in most states), but if you do the same act, but one person gives the other money just for that purpose, then it's some "crime". but if it's a 'date' where you are paying for it indirectly, then it's fine somehow, so long as the money doesn't directly land in the hand of the fuckeee..

such a screwed up system.

If my boss repeatedly buys me fancy meals out, or a car, the tax code considers it income just as if he paid me in cash. Just sayin'.

and that's fundamentally wrong, because the federal government should be taxing income to begin with.

:)

[keirgrey]

News is reporting that he's drafted a resignation letter and will be resigning later today.

[JustAllie]

A fine example of thinking with the wrong brain.

That's "the wrong head."

:2funny:
Yeah, oops. :D

[JP]

Sure. It's possible to think what you did should be illegal even though you did it. What's not possible is to do it and then say you shouldn't be prosecuted and thrown in jail for it but other people should. He hasn't done that yet, but I expect him to.Certainly he'll try to put up a vigorous defense to try to reduce the charges or get them dismissed to try to stay out of jail, but that's a right any citizen has when accused of any crime, guilty or not, isn't it? When did he ever as a prosecutor say that defendants shouldn't be able to defend themselves or try to stay out of jail?

He also has a problem because he was prosecuting people for doing something, while, at the same time knowing other people doing the same thing, who he wasn't prosecuting because he was involved. That's kinda the definition of corruption.I don't think his prostitution prosecutions as AG and his involvement with this ring overlap in time, do they? And is this ring he was making use of even based in New York for him to prosecute? I don't know.

If he committed a crime, and he thinks the crime he committed is an important crime that should remain a crime, he has no business being governor because he has no respect for the law. That's an argument for why he should resign, and it's fine. But I was trying to figure out why you think it's hypocritical to say what other people have done is wrong when you think it is wrong even if you do it yourself.

If this is a private matter for him, either it's a private matter for everyone else or he's a sanctimonious hypocrite.I think you're reading WAY too much into that one small remark.

[ybrew]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

Ridiculously high standards? We're asking him to not break the law, not embarrass his office, respect his wife, his family and his constituents.

And you consider that a ridiculously high standards?

[ybrew]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

I'm not a big fan of prostitution (causing teen-slave trade and all that) but I usually couldn't care less where people put there genitals. But, when someone is in high office, and married, it would be a good idea to keep his schlong in the pants as extra-curricular activities, if discovered, will damage all they have been doing politically, and their carreers i.e. Bubba, now Elliot. They tend to lose credibility when their dicks are caught outside of home.

Not sure I've ever agreed with you before, but I certainly do here.

[TheIndependent]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

Ridiculously high standards? We're asking him to not break the law, not embarrass his office, respect his wife, his family and his constituents.

And you consider that a ridiculously high standards?

in today's America - it appears so

[aindik]

Certainly he'll try to put up a vigorous defense to try to reduce the charges or get them dismissed to try to stay out of jail, but that's a right any citizen has when accused of any crime, guilty or not, isn't it? When did he ever as a prosecutor say that defendants shouldn't be able to defend themselves or try to stay out of jail?

He's already admitted to doing it. The facts are the facts. If there's some law that says he shouldn't go to jail or that would reduce his sentence, he should absolutely use it to his advantage. If he wants to try a plea deal to reduce his sentence, he can do that, too, so long as he's not granted special favors. What he should not say is that prosecutors should use their discretion not to charge him with anything. That's a hypocritcal move that says "I'm above the law."

I don't think his prostitution prosecutions as AG and his involvement with this ring overlap in time, do they?

Even if they don't, he's the governor now. He's the head of the executive branch of government. It's still within his authority to prosecute people for prostitution, and I'm sure it's happened since he took office, and maybe even since last February (if we can assume that's the only time he did this, which I don't think we can).

And is this ring he was making use of even based in New York for him to prosecute? I don't know.

It was based in Brooklyn. This particular prostitute traveled from New York to DC by train (at Spitzer's expense) to meet Spitzer, which is why the feds are looking into this - bringing people across state lines to engage in prostitution is a federal offense.

The fact that he was ordering prostitutes from Brooklyn, instead of locally from DC, tells me that this wasn't his first encounter with this outfit or this particular woman.

That's an argument for why he should resign, and it's fine. But I was trying to figure out why you think it's hypocritical to say what other people have done is wrong when you think it is wrong even if you do it yourself.

Because when he does it, it's a "private matter." When other people do it, it's a public spectacle and a matter of public record. For himself, he doesn't appear to think there aught to be consequences for what he did other than within his family.

If this is a private matter for him, either it's a private matter for everyone else or he's a sanctimonious hypocrite.I think you're reading WAY too much into that one small remark.

What I'm reading into it is that he thinks it's a private matter. Which is not what he thought when he dragged other people through court and jail for doing what he did, or what he paid someone else to do.

[JP]

He's already admitted to doing it. The facts are the facts. If there's some law that says he shouldn't go to jail or that would reduce his sentence, he should absolutely use it to his advantage. What about good ol' legal wrangling? Trying to impeach the testimony of witnesses, things any competent defense attorney would be unquestionably allowed to do if facing Spitzer as a prosecutor, is he allowed to do any of that? Or does it become hypocrisy when he does it?

If he wants to try a plea deal to reduce his sentence, he can do that, too, so long as he's not granted special favors. What he should not say is that prosecutors should use their discretion not to charge him with anything. That's a hypocritcal move that says "I'm above the law."If that were to happen, you can complain about it. What makes you think it's going to happen?

What I'm reading into it is that he thinks it's a private matter. Which is not what he thought when he dragged other people through court and jail for doing what he did, or what he paid someone else to do.Like I said, I think you're reading way too much into that one brief remark.

[aindik]

What about good ol' legal wrangling? Trying to impeach the testimony of witnesses, things any competent defense attorney would be unquestionably allowed to do if facing Spitzer as a prosecutor, is he allowed to do any of that? Or does it become hypocrisy when he does it?

If he went to trial, absolutely, I won't begrudge him a defense. The state or the feds need to prove their case against him, and he can try to poke whatever holes there might be in it. But none of that will happen, because he's already essentially confessed. He did it, he admitted it, and everyone knows it.

Once it's established that he did the next decision is what happens to him. If his answer, then, is that he shouldn't do jail time, then he's a hypocrite unless he renounces his former prosecutions and commutes the sentences of people in jail for doing what he did or paid people to do.

If that were to happen, you can complain about it. What makes you think it's going to happen?

So far, all we've seen is, he now needs to take time to heal within his family. Doesn't look like he's expecting to be doing any jail time in that case.

Like I said, I think you're reading way too much into that one brief remark.

Reading what into it? I'm reading what it said and reacting to it. He called it a "private matter." Did he not mean it?

[JP]

If he went to trial, absolutely, I won't begrudge him a defense. The state or the feds need to prove their case against him, and he can try to poke whatever holes there might be in it. But none of that will happen, because he's already essentially confessed. He did it, he admitted it, and everyone knows it.

So far, all we've seen is, he now needs to take time to heal within his family. Doesn't look like he's expecting to be doing any jail time in that case.
What has he confessed to, exactly? So far I think all he's actually admitted is being "involved" with the ring and disappointing his family. The government thinks it's got a case, but they have to prove it in a court of law rather than by what "everyone knows", don't they?

And might it not also be because it'll be months before it goes to trial, and more months before sentencing should he be found guilty, and then X more days to report to jail if that's included in his sentence? He'll no doubt be formally arrested at some point, but out on bond in a matter of days if not the same day, he's well known and not a flight risk. How is wanting to use that time to heal within his family indicative of thinking he did nothing he should ever face trial or possible jail time for?

Why should he be all "I guess I'm going to jail" for the press now, when the legal process has barely begun? Why should he NOT expect to prevail in court, at least in what he says publicly, at least enough to avoid going to jail? All the folks he faced as a prosecutor were free to have that expectation. Why does having been a prosecutor deprive him of any right to act as if he believes he'll prevail in avoiding jail?

Reading what into it? I'm reading what it said and reacting to it. He called it a "private matter." Did he not mean it?He didn't mean it the way you think, that it's nobody's business but his own and nothing at all the law should ever be bothering itself about because it's HIM, no. Right now he wants to put his family first, and thinks that's a private matter between him and them. How is him wanting to do that any evidence that he thinks the law should never get it's day in court because he's just so gosh-darned special?

[aindik]

What has he confessed to, exactly? So far I think all he's actually admitted is being "involved" with the ring and disappointing his family. The government thinks it's got a case, but they have to prove it in a court of law rather than by what "everyone knows", don't they?

Of course they do, if he makes them. At trial, they can go by what "everybody knows," from the subset of "everybody" that has firsthand knowledge. And that includes Spitzer himself in any voluntary statements he has made or will make, in public or in private.

All indications are, they have him dead to rights. That their proof in this case will be so airtight that the defendant knows a trial will result in a sure conviction. In those cases, it doesn't make sense to go to trial. So, he'll cop a plea. The negotiating will be about the eventual thing he'll plead to, and about the sentence the prosecutor will recommend.

Why should he be all "I guess I'm going to jail" for the press now, when the legal process has barely begun? Why should he NOT expect to prevail in court, at least in what he says publicly, at least enough to avoid going to jail? All the folks he faced as a prosecutor were free to have that expectation. Why does having been a prosecutor deprive him of any right to act as if he believes he'll prevail in avoiding jail?

There's a difference between "I didn't do it" or "They can't prove I did it," on the one hand, and "I did it, but I don't deserve a stiff sentence." I don't really think he's going to say he didn't do it. Do you? It just doesn't look that way to me.

He becomes a hypocrite when he decides he doesn't deserve a stiff sentence, but other people who did exactly what he did do deserve a stiff sentence. Even if they had the right to say they didn't deserve a stiff sentence, his internal position is, they deserve a stiff sentence and I don't. Hypocrite.

He didn't mean it the way you think, that it's nobody's business but his own and nothing at all the law should ever be bothering itself about because it's HIM, no. Right now he wants to put his family first, and thinks that's a private matter between him and them. How is him wanting to do that any evidence that he thinks the law should never get it's day in court because he's just so gosh-darned special?

He didn't mean the "because it's him" part, no. That's implied :). But he did mean to describe it as "private." To me, that means it's the opposite of a "public matter." Does it mean something else to you?

[TheIndependent]

i don't follow this argument between JP and aindik. all the governor has said was that he failed his family and apologized for it. i didn't see anything where he denied doing anything, admitted to doing anything specific, nor say anything related to prosecution, his belief on whether he should be prosecuted, etc. his speech was very short, and very vague, not sure where all this is coming from.

[keirgrey]

An innocent man will scream it to the heavens, no? Then again, this is a politician.

I think they have him dead to rights and he's trying to figure out a way to gracefully get out of it.

[JP]

There's a difference between "I didn't do it" or "They can't prove I did it," on the one hand, and "I did it, but I don't deserve a stiff sentence." I don't really think he's going to say he didn't do it. Do you? It just doesn't look that way to me.No. But I don't see what the problem is. It's a prosecutor's duty to seek a harsh penalty for the state, it's the defendant's right to seek as low a penalty as possible for himself.

This is how our adversarial legal system works. I don't see how having once been a prosecutor trying to get the best deal you can for the state means that you have to abandon your right to try to get the best deal you can as a defendant. Unless he was trying to prevent the defendants he prosecuted from exercising their rights to defend themselves and to bargain for the best deal they can get, where's the hypocrisy?

He didn't mean the "because it's him" part, no. That's implied :). But he did mean to describe it as "private." To me, that means it's the opposite of a "public matter." Does it mean something else to you?No, but I don't leap to the conclusion you do, that because he described it as a private matter effecting his family in that one announcement that he must mean it is and can only be a private matter for all time (and it's not a crime if he does it so push off, etc).

[aindik]

No. But I don't see what the problem is. It's a prosecutor's duty to seek a harsh penalty for the state, it's the defendant's right to seek as low a penalty as possible for himself.

This is how our adversarial legal system works. I don't see how having once been a prosecutor trying to get the best deal you can for the state means that you have to abandon your right to try to get the best deal you can as a defendant. Unless he was trying to prevent the defendants he prosecuted from exercising their rights to defend themselves and to bargain for the best deal they can get, where's the hypocrisy?

It's in his mind. If his position is "these people deserve harsh penalties but I don't," then he's a hypocrite.

A prosecutor, especially the Attorney General, isn't just a normal lawyer with a normal client. His client is the state, and it shouldn't go after convictions just because it can, like a private lawyer should. It should go after convictions only if those convictions are warranted by public policy. (I.e., if the person being convicted actually did it, and if "it" is something we should punish people for doing).

No, but I don't leap to the conclusion you do, that because he described it as a private matter effecting his family in that one announcement that he must mean it is and can only be a private matter for all time (and it's not a crime if he does it so push off, etc).

Either it's a "private matter" or it's not. When the law gets involved, matters become public (I'm willing to entertain an exception in certain family law contexts, but not in the criminal law).

[JP]

It's in his mind. If his position is "these people deserve harsh penalties but I don't," then he's a hypocrite.How is it you know that's what's in his mind? What a person may think they deserve and the extent to which they use their legal right to defend themselves, and seek the best deal they can get for themselves, those are different things. Whatever he thinks he might deserve he still has a duty to his family to avoid as much disruption in their lives as he can, for one thing.

You're acting as if he's both prosecutor AND defendant in the trial, and if the duties of a prosecutor and the rights of a defendant conflict than it's the defendant who has to give way.

Either it's a "private matter" or it's not. Life is surprisingly more complex than having to be all one or all the other, and can't be one at one time and another at another time or even both at the same time. At one point, describing only the disappointment he feels at letting down his family, he describes it as a private matter. How do you derive the conclusion that he believes it to be private then and forever more?

[busyba]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

I'm not a big fan of prostitution (causing teen-slave trade and all that) but I usually couldn't care less where people put there genitals. But, when someone is in high office, and married, it would be a good idea to keep his schlong in the pants as extra-curricular activities, if discovered, will damage all they have been doing politically, and their carreers i.e. Bubba, now Elliot. They tend to lose credibility when their dicks are caught outside of home.
My point is that if maybe we all as a people took the collective stick out of our asses, then the discovery of the activities wouldn't be so damaging.

[busyba]

My 2 cents: Can't these bozos keep it in their pants, at least while they're in office?
Why should they have to?

As long as it's not interfering with the discharging of their duties, who cares? Maybe if we didn't hold our public servants to such ridiculously high standards, some better people would start running for office.


(btw, discharging their duties costs extra)

Ridiculously high standards? We're asking him to not break the law, not embarrass his office, respect his wife, his family and his constituents.

And you consider that a ridiculously high standards?



I wasn't referring to Spitzer specifically, just the sentiment that public officials should "keep it in their pants".

[Skanter]

quote]
My point is that if maybe we all as a people took the collective stick out of our asses, then the discovery of the activities wouldn't be so damaging.

Speak for your own ass...

BTW, Spitzer graduated from the same HS as me -- Horace Mann.

[TheIndependent]

BTW, Spitzer graduated from the same HS as me -- Horace Mann.

doesn't he have a show on HD Net w/a lot of drunk folks at festivals? :)

[smak]

2 people go into a hotel room to have sex, one pays the other, that's a crime.

2 or more people go into a house, all of them have sex, a 4th party pays all of them, that's a Vivid DVD release.

Is there really that big a difference?

Anyway, he should resign, because he's a hypocrite.

And David Vitter should have resigned long ago, there's no difference, except for the diapers :)

-smak-

[TheIndependent]

2 people go into a hotel room to have sex, one pays the other, that's a crime.

2 or more people go into a house, all of them have sex, a 4th party pays all of them, that's a Vivid DVD release.

Is there really that big a difference?


If you hire two prostitutes to have sex with each other, paying each, then is that a crime if you, yourself, do not participate in the sex?

[mercurial]

2 people go into a hotel room to have sex, one pays the other, that's a crime.

2 or more people go into a house, all of them have sex, a 4th party pays all of them, that's a Vivid DVD release.

Is there really that big a difference?


If you hire two prostitutes to have sex with each other, paying each, then is that a crime if you, yourself, do not participate in the sex?

Did you video tape it?



Hmmmmm?





Come on, give me the damn tape...

[BrettStah]

If you hire two prostitutes to have sex with each other, paying each, then is that a crime if you, yourself, do not participate in the sex?

Did you video tape it?

Probably a crime, unless you can be convincing that you're making a porno movie.

[Gus]

If you hire two prostitutes to have sex with each other, paying each, then is that a crime if you, yourself, do not participate in the sex?I'm guessing that it's a crime. Why would you do that if not to get some sort of sexual gratification out of it? You're not doing some sort of public service - the prostitutes surely aren't thinking, "Cool, I get to have sex with another prostitute and I get paid for it".

It's sort of like pandering, except you're pandering for yourself.

[aindik]

2 people go into a hotel room to have sex, one pays the other, that's a crime.

2 or more people go into a house, all of them have sex, a 4th party pays all of them, that's a Vivid DVD release.

Is there really that big a difference?

There isn't a difference, but many people who think prostitution should be illegal also think porn should be illegal (so, they're not hypocrites). They have a constitutional obstacle with porn that they don't have with prostitution. (But see Lawrence v. Texas).

[aindik]

If you hire two prostitutes to have sex with each other, paying each, then is that a crime if you, yourself, do not participate in the sex?I'm guessing that it's a crime. Why would you do that if not to get some sort of sexual gratification out of it? You're not doing some sort of public service - the prostitutes surely aren't thinking, "Cool, I get to have sex with another prostitute and I get paid for it".

It's sort of like pandering, except you're pandering for yourself.

To some limited extent, the First Amendment protects sex shows on film or videotape. Does the same protection apply to live sex shows? Aren't they "expression" just as much as a porn movie is?

[grondramb]

Interesting angle - Spitzer's resignation would lead to the the first black, blind governor.

[pseudonym]

Interesting angle - Spitzer's resignation would lead to the the first black, blind governor.
There have been white blind governors?

[Skanter]

BTW, Spitzer graduated from the same HS as me -- Horace Mann.

doesn't he have a show on HD Net w/a lot of drunk folks at festivals? :)

Who, Spitzer or Horace Mann?

[grondramb]

Interesting angle - Spitzer's resignation would lead to the the first black, blind governor.
There have been white blind governors?

you know... I don't know.

There have been black governors (at least 3) but I am unaware of a legally blind governor.

He would also be the first black governor of New York.

Sadly I remeber Paterson's speech from the Democratic convention and from the look on his face, I thiought he was retarded - I didn't realize he was blind.

[Pendragn]

2 people go into a hotel room to have sex, one pays the other, that's a crime.

2 or more people go into a house, all of them have sex, a 4th party pays all of them, that's a Vivid DVD release.

Is there really that big a difference?

There isn't a difference, but many people who think prostitution should be illegal also think porn should be illegal (so, they're not hypocrites). They have a constitutional obstacle with porn that they don't have with prostitution. (But see Lawrence v. Texas).
Wouldn't it be two cases of pandering? I admit though the legal definition of pandering confuses me sometimes.

tk

[TheIndependent]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/351918/1_24_kristen6_450.jpg

hmm, $1500 for that? dunno...

[grondramb]

hmm, $1500 for that? dunno...


Even the girlos at the Bunny Ranch, at the legal brothel in Nevada make about half a million a year. Good hookers are apparently expensive.

[DMHinCO]

hmm, $1500 for that? dunno...
Before you answer, assume that is your yacht. Fifteen hundred isn't much to some people.

But now that we've established what you are, I guess we can negotiate a price? :)

[smak]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/351918/1_24_kristen6_450.jpg

hmm, $1500 for that? dunno...

pssst, she's not calling your wife. Still not worth $1500 :)
-smak-

[TheIndependent]

pssst, she's not calling your wife. Still not worth $1500 :)
-smak-

shit, that's what, $30k/hour? :)

[grondramb]

Fox says the investigation found Spitzer did not misuse any government resources and there will be no prosecution.

[aindik]

That's absurd. Trafficing prostitutes across state lines is a federal crime whether you misuse government resources or not. If he's not being prosecuted, why should anyone?

Perhaps the District of Columbia or the State of New York will prosecute for solicitation?

Fat chance. Prostitution is legal if you're a politician.

[busyba]

I think Spitzer should resign.

[smak]

That's absurd. Trafficing prostitutes across state lines is a federal crime whether you misuse government resources or not. If he's not being prosecuted, why should anyone?

Perhaps the District of Columbia or the State of New York will prosecute for solicitation?

Fat chance. Prostitution is legal if you're a politician.

All johns get prosecuted? I think not.

-smak-

[grondramb]

That's absurd. Trafficing prostitutes across state lines is a federal crime whether you misuse government resources or not. If he's not being prosecuted, why should anyone?



First of all I think prostitution should be legal - but the trafficing law is designed to keep helpless women from being exploited, not to prevent high paid women from flying first class to voluntarily meet someone.

[grondramb]

I think Spitzer should resign.

He clearly did the right thing in resigning because of his hypocrisy on this issue.

But it doesn't serve the public's interest to prosecute him.

[aindik]

First of all I think prostitution should be legal

So do I. But I also think laws should be uniformly enforced without regard to a privileged status.


- but the trafficing law is designed to keep helpless women from being exploited, not to prevent high paid women from flying first class to voluntarily meet someone.

She took the train. But it was a nice train. :)

But seriously, I don't think that's the only circumstance in which the federal prohibition on transporting people across state lines to commit prostitution is enforced. Would that it were.

[aindik]

He clearly did the right thing in resigning because of his hypocrisy on this issue.

But it doesn't serve the public's interest to prosecute him.

I can think of no reason this is true that wouldn't apply equally to every john in the United States.

If prostitution is to be illegal, they should prosecute johns when they catch 'em. I'd much rather we waste money prosecuting him than demonstrate to the world that he's above the law he gleefully enforced against everyone else.

[busyba]

First of all I think prostitution should be legal

So do I. But I also think laws should be uniformly enforced without regard to a privileged status.

Well, that's essentially one of the major problems with the prostitution laws, the fact that the (in most instances) "victimless" nature of the crime necessarily lends itself to selective enforcement.

[smak]

First of all I think prostitution should be legal

So do I. But I also think laws should be uniformly enforced without regard to a privileged status.



Since most john's don't get prosecuted, privilege didn't have much to do with it, did it.

-smak-

[aindik]

Since most john's don't get prosecuted, privilege didn't have much to do with it, did it.

-smak-

Do you mean "most johns," or do you mean "most johns who get caught"? Because the second one is the more relevant statistic.

And do you really think the fact that he's Elliot Spitzer has nothing to do with the decision not to charge him with solicitation?

[grondramb]

http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=TMoMwEt2sv4J&imgurl=www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/03/12/spitzer-inside-cp-4500521.jpg
CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/06/spitzer-charges.html)Ex-New York Governor Spitzer Won't Be Charged by US (Update2) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aD3QKkcmzLTE&refer=home)
Bloomberg - 1 hour ago
6 (Bloomberg) -- Eliot Spitzer, who quit as governor of New York amid allegations that he patronized a ring of high- priced prostitutes, won't face criminal ...
No Federal Charges Against Spitzer (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?em) New York Times
Spitzer won't be charged in prostitution scandal (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/spitzer.no.charges/) CNN
NY Prosecutors Will Not Charge Eliot Spitzer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110602176.html?hpid=moreheadlines) Washington Post
Wall Street Journal Blogs (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/06/garcia-takes-spitzer-off-hook-sdny-will-not-seek-charges/) - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/national/main4579325.shtml)
all 449 news articles » (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1267720120)
http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=qSOqO4MN3a0J&imgurl=www.examiner.com/images/blog/author/img479scott_gingold_photo.jpg
Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/x-760-Business-News-Examiner%7Ey2008m11d6-Eliot-Spitzer-to-go-scotfree)Eliot Spitzer to go scot-free (http://www.examiner.com/x-760-Business-News-Examiner%7Ey2008m11d6-Eliot-Spitzer-to-go-scotfree)
Examiner.com - 1 hour ago
by Scott R. Gingold, Business News Examiner Should we be surprised by the news that disgraced former New York Eliot Spitzer will not be prosecuted for his ...
http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=SpKAklHuRVsJ&imgurl=www.collegeotr.com/images/blogs/2f51c4f45e85a9d31a7830f8d9d86508.jpg
CollegeOTR (http://www.collegeotr.com/harvard_university/eliot_spitzer_avoids_criminal_charges_the_harvard_ law_alum_must_have_good_lawyer_friends__14346)Elio t Spitzer Avoids Criminal Charges; The Harvard Law Alum Must ... (http://www.collegeotr.com/harvard_university/eliot_spitzer_avoids_criminal_charges_the_harvard_ law_alum_must_have_good_lawyer_friends__14346)
CollegeOTR, NY - 12 minutes ago
It seems the infamous Eliot Spitzer will get away with his prostitution fun… except of course for losing his job. The former New York governor will not face ...

[smak]

Since most john's don't get prosecuted, privilege didn't have much to do with it, did it.

-smak-

Do you mean "most johns," or do you mean "most johns who get caught"? Because the second one is the more relevant statistic.

And do you really think the fact that he's Elliot Spitzer has nothing to do with the decision not to charge him with solicitation?

What are the stats on first time offenders being charged with a crime?

-smak-

[JYoung]

Since most john's don't get prosecuted, privilege didn't have much to do with it, did it.

-smak-

Do you mean "most johns," or do you mean "most johns who get caught"? Because the second one is the more relevant statistic.

And do you really think the fact that he's Elliot Spitzer has nothing to do with the decision not to charge him with solicitation?

What are the stats on first time offenders being charged with a crime?

-smak-

I'd actually prefer to know how many johns and first timers Spitzer prosecuted or had prosecuted and then go from there.

[Skanter]

I was at my tennis club today and who walks in - Elliot Spitzer!

I hadn't know he was a member, it seems he's been a member there even before he was gov and scandalized. I asked a pro if he needed a partner, but was told he a has a regular partner he plays with all the time (not a female).

Another coincidence - we graduated from the same HS - Horace Mann in Riverdale, NY.

[busyba]

What was his membership #? ;)

[JYoung]

69