NY Post: Spitzer’s been using hookers for at least six years; Update: Feds feared Spitzer was being blackmailed

posted at 3:25 pm on March 11, 2008 by Allahpundit

In case there was any slim hope that he might hang on, the emerging details of just how extensive his shenanigans were ought to polish that off. Wait ’til the tabs track down “Kristen” and ask her to confirm or deny Heidi Fleiss’s theory of how he got busted.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been soliciting high-priced hookers for at least six years and possibly for more than a decade, sources tell The Post.

The revelation yesterday that the crusading governor was in fact “Client 9″ named in a federal prostitution indictment did not shock insiders in the city’s sex industry.

Sources tell The Post that Spitzer had frequented high-priced hookers as far back as 2002 and possibly earlier.

Spitzer, who as attorney general lead investigations into prostitution, was among an elite group of powerbrokers and high-powered attorneys that regularly paid for dates at top escort agencies, sources said.

The same article says he and “Kristen” had rendezvoused before, although Newsday claims he’d “visited” with other women at the Emperors Club seven or eight times, all over the country, dating back “several years.” Four digit fees in each and every case.

Exit question: Nobody knew? Surely some of his aides would have had an inkling and whispered something to the party leaders in NYS vetting the guy for his gubernatorial run. Although … if they knew, people on Wall Street would have heard and would have used it to destroy him after his office started cracking down. It’s either a miracle of discretion that word never leaked or the Post’s story is crap. Which is it? And if it’s the latter, how come Newsday independently is also reporting assignations dating back to before he was governor?

Update: What does this do to the left’s theory of a politically motivated prosecution? Only now are the Bushies digging up the dirt to bring down a guy whose approval rating was in the toilet anyway? Or did they supposedly have it in hand all this time and were just waiting for the right time, and this is the right time for whatever reason? Whatever.

For the record, Paterson says there are no transition plans ongoing.

Update: Another depth charge on the nutroots theory of a targeted prosecution: Not only was it Spitz’s bank who alerted the feds of his suspicious transfers, the investigation was underaken because they thought someone might have been blackmailing him.

No shortage of material if someone had, needless to say.

Spitzer had the money broken down into several smaller amounts of under $10,000 each, apparently to avoid getting around federal regulations requiring the reporting of the transfer of $10,000 or more, the sources said. The regulations are aimed at helping spot possible illegal business activities, such as frauds or drug deals.

Apparently, having second thoughts about even sending the total amount in this manner because it still might reveal what he was doing, Spitzer then asked that the bank to take his name off the wires, the sources said.

Bank officials declined, however, saying that it was improper to do so and in any event, it was too late to do so, because the money already had been sent, the sources said.

The bank then, as is required by law, filed an SAR, or Suspicious Activity Report, with the Internal Revenue Service, reporting the transfer of the money that exceeded $10,000, but had been broken down into smaller amounts, the sources said…

[A]n analyst at the regional IRS office in Hauppauge noted Spitzer’s particular SAR and singled it out for attention to criminal investigators, the sources said.

The assumption, the sources said, was that Spitzer was somehow being victimized either by a blackmailer or an impostor. The agents also speculated that perhaps the governor was involved in some sort of political corruption, the sources reiterated.

The former AG of New York, famous for his prosecutions of corporate crime, didn’t think to avoid an SAR?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sigh. Don’t get it.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM

O.M.G. you are an ignorant ignoramus. Stoning is not done for any crime in this country. Do try to catch up with American history and current events.

Conversation over.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2008 at 6:26 PM

the funniest part of all is that Spitzer Nifonged himself by asking his bank to take his name off the wire transfers

what a doofus

kind of kills off the moonbat conspiracy theories as well

windansea on March 11, 2008 at 6:32 PM

The former AG of New York, famous for his prosecutions of corporate crime, didn’t think to avoid an SAR?

He didn’t just fail to avoid a SAR. By asking to have his name taken off the wire transfer, he virtually guaranteed that his bank would report the transaction. There’s no way he couldn’t have known that.

I always thought Bill Clinton was reckless and a little bit stupid. I think Spitzer might actually be a little crazy.

Infidoll on March 11, 2008 at 6:33 PM

we have a new word

he Spitzered himself

windansea on March 11, 2008 at 6:34 PM

IF it’s extreme to stone ADULTERERS for the damage they cause, so be it. I bet many victims (wives, children, etc) feel the same…
mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 5:53 PM

I think you’re running into trouble because “adultery” refers to any extra-marital sex, legal or not. By saying you wish the death penalty (nevermind the means) for “adulterers,” you’re including people who, sleazy as they may be, under current laws have committed no crime at all.

Those who propose not only criminalizing behaviors that are currently not illegal, but imposing on those behaviors the harshest possible criminal penalty (let’s say lethal injection, just to nudge this tentatively in the direction of something vaguely resembling sanity), are clearly radicals of one stripe or another. Perspectives like that are precisely why we use the word “extreme” in a political context.

Blacklake on March 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM

I do very much agree on adulterers.

Although prostitution is not my thing I don’t think people should be punished by the government for it. Adultery deserves to be criminalized more than prostitution since there are most certainly victims there.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM

I said yesterday and I say again, Adulterers should be stoned. In public.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM

I don’t agree with this part though, however I do concur with the emotion. I have not been a victim but you can see the percentages of success for children in broken homes versus stable families just by using one’s eyes.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Cannonball,

I can’t speak for all women of course, but it comes down to self esteem and how much you have “invested” in your spouse. Hillary had a lot invested. His wife looks like a self esteem problem to me.

I don’t get it, because I would have left his a** immediately, hired a great lawyer, and had my own press conference.

Rightwingsparkle on March 11, 2008 at 6:40 PM

The longer it takes for him not to resign, the less sympathy I have for his wife.

ninjapirate on March 11, 2008 at 6:44 PM

I think you’re running into trouble because “adultery” refers to any extra-marital sex, legal or not. By saying you wish the death penalty (nevermind the means) for “adulterers,” you’re including people who, sleazy as they may be, under current laws have committed no crime at all.

Dude. Literally: adultery |əˈdəlt(ə)rē|
noun
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse : she was committing adultery with a much younger man.

If I’m running into trouble, it’s with people who think the bible is the dictionary. I use a REAL dictionary.

And actually, it was a law in many states for more than a century. So many politician’s were getting their dickies in a ringer and erased the law. Go figure.

I do very much agree on adulterers.

Although prostitution is not my thing I don’t think people should be punished by the government for it. Adultery deserves to be criminalized more than prostitution since there are most certainly victims there.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Well, birds of a feather. Yeah, in a truly free country, one supposedly based on liberty, any behavior should not be prohibited, if you want to be ExTREME about it. The problem with legalized prostitution, is women become sanitized to sex as love. Or victims, unwilling or in need for money. It should be okay to do that if you want, but it should not be a response to poverty – a free country ensures EQUAL opportunities to everyone, not just type A(sshole) personalities.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Yes, we get it, OK? You’re OUTRAGED!! at adultery and want to make sure we all know just how OUTRAGED!! you are. And anyone who fails to show the same level of stern OUTRAGE!! as you must be tolerant of this abomination, and is therefore also worthy of your stern disapproval. Point taken.

Alex_SF on March 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Adultery deserves to be criminalized more than prostitution since there are most certainly victims there.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Where there are bad parents there are likely victims. By your logic you could criminalize parents who don’t hug their kids, go to little league games, help with homework, spend too much time in the office or whatever behavior the government decided created a victim.

A guy might go to a prostitute but otherwise be a great father. You could stone him but then you’d have children with no dad. Maybe the state could raise them, since their law killed dad, but my guess is net-net the kids suffer worse when you start killing their dads.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM

How can Mrs. Spitzer stand by her husband and listen to him spit out a purely emotionless non-apology to the press? How can a woman stand by a man that has been having sex with strangers for six years?

cannonball on March 11, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Perhaps for the kids, perhaps it’s inertia having always stood by him, perhaps it buys time to get one’s ducks in a row, but you can bet in the end she’ll have his pair on her mantle. Not every scorned woman is like Hillary.

Trainwreck on March 11, 2008 at 6:54 PM

His wife looks like a self esteem problem to me.

Could be, but I wouldn’t count her out yet. Maybe she has plans for him. On the other hand, some women are drawn to power and don’t want to lose it.

She deserves some sympathy, but in the rush to sympathize, don’t forget that she picked him. Mustn’t she have known on some level what she was getting? Or is this like a bad Lifetime Movie?

Feedie on March 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM

It should be okay to do that if you want, but it should not be a response to poverty – a free country ensures EQUAL opportunities to everyone, not just type A(sshole) personalities.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM

There are a lot of lousy jobs people do for money. Spitzer was probably an A(sshole) in part because he had the unequal opportunity for education and connections that his father’s wealth gave him. Even if he never hired a hooker, he’d still have been an A(sshole).

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Dude. Literally: adultery |əˈdəlt(ə)rē|
noun
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse : she was committing adultery with a much younger man…
mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM

That’s precisely the definition I was operating from–hence my explicitly drawing the distinction between “extra-marital” and “pre-marital,” and asking as to your stance about each separately.

Now that we seem to have our semantics irone out, I would reiterate my observation that you are unequivocally an extremist regarding extra-marital sex.

Blacklake on March 11, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Perhaps for the kids, perhaps it’s inertia having always stood by him, perhaps it buys time to get one’s ducks in a row, but you can bet in the end she’ll have his pair on her mantle. Not every scorned woman is like Hillary.

Trainwreck on March 11, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Kobe’s wife got a big diamond ring. Hillary got a Senate seat. Eliot’s wife will get something I’d guess.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 7:03 PM

As a Staten Islander, I just have to ask: who was running Empire? Because it sure as hell wasn’t the Bonnano or Gambino outfits… right?

Eliot, were you in the tank for the Brighton Beach crews?

TC@LeatherPenguin on March 11, 2008 at 7:13 PM

I said yesterday and I say again, Adulterers should be stoned. In public.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM

I’ve been stoned in public and yet I’m not an audulterer.

conservativecaveman on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Spitzer Resignation Expected Wednesday
Governor Negotiating To Cut Deal With Federal Prosecutors

Insiders say he’s going to use the resignation as a bargaining chip to cut a deal with federal prosecutors and he won’t step down until that happens. The talks have been going on since Tuesday morning.

RushBaby on March 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM

I said yesterday and I say again, Adulterers should be stoned. In public.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 4:59 PM

I’ve been stoned in public and yet I’m not an audulterer.

conservativecaveman on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM

ROFL nice

Keli on March 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Yes, we get it, OK? You’re OUTRAGED!! at adultery and want to make sure we all know just how OUTRAGED!! you are. And anyone who fails to show the same level of stern OUTRAGE!! as you must be tolerant of this abomination, and is therefore also worthy of your stern disapproval. Point taken.

Alex_SF on March 11, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Finally, Gettin’ a little tired, shew.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Dude. Literally: adultery |əˈdəlt(ə)rē|
noun
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse : she was committing adultery with a much younger man…
mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM

That’s precisely the definition I was operating from–hence my explicitly drawing the distinction between “extra-marital” and “pre-marital,” and asking as to your stance about each separately.

Now that we seem to have our semantics irone out, I would reiterate my observation that you are unequivocally an extremist regarding extra-marital sex.

Blacklake on March 11, 2008 at 7:02 PM

You didn’t ask about my stance on those issues. You used false logic to tie my support of criminalizing adultery to those issues. Of course it’s not the same. How stupid do you think your are?

Adultery deserves to be criminalized more than prostitution since there are most certainly victims there.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Where there are bad parents there are likely victims. By your logic you could criminalize parents who don’t hug their kids, go to little league games, help with homework, spend too much time in the office or whatever behavior the government decided created a victim.

A guy might go to a prostitute but otherwise be a great father. You could stone him but then you’d have children with no dad. Maybe the state could raise them, since their law killed dad, but my guess is net-net the kids suffer worse when you start killing their dads.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Jeez, lot of adulterer/potential adulterers in here, I’d guess. Not saying, just, you know, seems like it. Oh, yeah, right, all you rich Repubs, money to burn and all.

Why do you whimps always skirt the issue by bringing up extreme situations or non-logical arguments. Let me jump on one of your illogical uses of illogical reasoning: By YOUR statements you must be in support of NO LAWS because ANY punishment might affect the criminal’s family and government and innocent taxpayers.

All too easy…

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 7:50 PM

I’ve been stoned in public and yet I’m not an audulterer.

conservativecaveman on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM

ROFL nice

Keli on March 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Yeah, right. Not ROFL. It ain’t even a bit funny. Hey, is that you, Terry Bradshaw???????

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 7:52 PM

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 PM

I already said that I do not agree with stoning. I agreed with him on another comment where he was agreeing with my comment.

Your other analysis is completely wrong. Marriage is a contract, even considered a civil contract where a license is required and tax benefits are given. If some wish to engage in this sort of arrangement and gain financial benefits and engage in social engineering, which is something government should not do, then why should we not enforce the contract? Infidelity is not criminalized because so many people engage in it, not because of its effects on society and especially individual victims.

Parenting is not a civil contract in the same manner. One party has no say because of capacity. What could even be considered a contract holds less weight than marriage. They are not even in the same sphere. Our seemingly willingness to combat other victimless crimes because of their so called effect on society, filling up the prisons and devastating lives through enforcement many times alone, yet our indifference towards infidelity is apparent, the violation of a contract between two adult parties with capacity to enter the contract, where financial benefits are given.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM

conservativecaveman:

Thank you, thank you. Finally, someone has put this comment section in the proper perspective. I was determined to read to the end of the 1st page to find a “good” comment.
You’ve restored my faith in human nature!
Thx again.

tomshup on March 11, 2008 at 7:59 PM

mksmithwriter:

Lighten up man! Spitzer is getting everything he deserves and the only sad thing is his family gets the shaft. He is a disgusting human and you are a flake.
Every time I think of conservativecaveman’s retort, I laugh out loud.

tomshup on March 11, 2008 at 8:08 PM

Let me jump on one of your illogical uses of illogical reasoning: By YOUR statements you must be in support of NO LAWS because ANY punishment might affect the criminal’s family and government and innocent taxpayers.

All too easy…

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 7:50 PM

You are the one trying to make the case for criminalizing behavior based on the feelings you project onto a third party. If the wife or children don’t care if “dad gets around”, you still want to stone him?

If he drinks too much or gambles the family fortune away, stone him then?

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Yeah, right. Not ROFL. It ain’t even a bit funny. Hey, is that you, Terry Bradshaw???????

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 7:52 PM

uhm ok I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean, but regardless, I don’t think your going to find much sympathy trying to argue the merits of public stonings. Your exuberant outrage is just a bit over the top

Keli on March 11, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Conversation over.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Quitter.

False logic using piece of pie.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:31 PM

uhm ok I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean, but regardless, I don’t think your going to find much sympathy trying to argue the merits of public stonings. Your exuberant outrage is just a bit over the top

Keli on March 11, 2008 at 8:22 PM

You think? Hmmm. Wonder why? No, couldn’t be a tactic to make a point (see other topics)?

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Yeah, right. Not ROFL. It ain’t even a bit funny. Hey, is that you, Terry Bradshaw???????

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 7:52 PM

uhm ok I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean-

Keli on March 11, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Uh, T. Bradshaw has a stupid-schtick on Fox NFL Sunday – his lines are “Not funny, or, Now that’s funny!

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM

If he drinks too much or gambles the family fortune away, stone him then?

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 8:20 PM

The topic – try to follow along, here – is ADULTERY, ie Spitter, okay?

False logic will only bear you false fruit.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:36 PM

I’ve been stoned in public and yet I’m not an audulterer.

conservativecaveman on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Damn. Just got that. Ohhhhhhh, yeahhhhhhh.

Hey, let’s start a thread for stoning pubic drunks.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Parenting is not a civil contract in the same manner. One party has no say because of capacity. What could even be considered a contract holds less weight than marriage.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM

No doubt marriage is a legal agreement between two adults in a way a parent-child relationship can’t be. Marriage predates government bureaucracies and the government isn’t essential for the institution to survive.

As important as I think marriage is, the fact that there is a contract involved doesn’t make the spouses’ responsibility to each other more important than their responsibility to their children.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 8:40 PM

The topic – try to follow along, here – is ADULTERY, ie Spitter, okay?

False logic will only bear you false fruit.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:36 PM

The topic is Spitzer, his crime, and probable resignation. If he just had an affair there wouldn’t be criminal charges and he wouldn’t resign.

You want to kill a mother or father who get some sex on the side from a consenting adult. That wasn’t in the headline to this thread.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 8:40 PM

My main qualm is with the financial benefit. What you state about marriage is my personal belief. But I also believe if you are entered in a contract where you get financial gain you should be held to that contract. At least one half of any financial benefit gained by the tax break should be required to be payed. Not only is the victim the spouse, but the taxpayers who are not conferred that benefit for they are bearing the burden of unfair taxation.

My statement as to the victim was to show the inconsistent punishment when comparing the violation of a contract to the criminalization of entering into voluntary contract where there is no victim. That is inconsistent. The word “usual” seems to imply consistency, thus the prosecution of victimless crimes is an unusual punishment, and I think that any case where the government enacts an unusual and inconsistent punishment, that cruelty is evident.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 9:02 PM

Spitzer is a latter day Roy Cohen. The difference was that Spitxer is a liberal Dem so the media gave him a pass.

RobCon on March 11, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Not only is the victim the spouse, but the taxpayers who are not conferred that benefit for they are bearing the burden of unfair taxation.

If you wanted to have a tax penalty, or get rid of the tax benefit, I wouldn’t have a conceptual problem with that.

My statement as to the victim was to show the inconsistent punishment when comparing the violation of a contract to the criminalization of entering into voluntary contract where there is no victim.
LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 9:02 PM

I see your point and agree with the weighting you give to prostitution vs marriage. With regard to marriage, my observation is that there is significant variation in the ways that couples hold one another to their marriage vows. It is possible to be “unfaithful” through sexual conduct, but in other ways too. It would be difficult for the state to assess a criminal penalty that wouldn’t be “unusual” given the unique contract each couple forms when they take their vows.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 9:18 PM

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 9:18 PM

I don’t think the benefit should exist from the start, of course I don’t think that taxes should be this high, and I certainly think that voluntary contracts should not be criminalized provided there is no victim. But if this is the ground we wish to tread as a country, I believe that every conservative has a duty to maintain consistency in their application of the law. I don’t think the government should be involved in any of this, the unintended consequences of legislation are result of the hooks that we allow government to place in society.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Bank officials declined, however, saying that it was improper to do so and in any event, it was too late to do so, because the money already had been sent, the sources said.

Just spitzballin here, and somebody may have already mentioned this but, I suspect the bank new who Spitzer was and what he was like as AG. His request to remove his name alone likely raised red flags to them.

What a buffoon.

91Veteran on March 11, 2008 at 9:28 PM

I wonder how many times he’s spiked an investigation into prostitution rings that were too close to home?

natesnake on March 11, 2008 at 3:30 PM

…and did he get certain favors in return…monetary or otherwise?

91Veteran on March 11, 2008 at 9:31 PM

Of course if the marriage tax break could ever be repealed I think many, who have been too busy with their kids to bother noticing what the Federal and State Governments spend their money on, will start paying attention to where their tax money goes. Eliminate the marriage tax break and spread it evenly, more people are single longer as time goes on and propose further tax and spending cuts and conservatives will win. Married people shouldn’t lose any money on this and it pits Dems against single people.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 9:35 PM

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Good points.

dedalus on March 11, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Hope the press doesn’t SUpress this – I see a Clinton as Client #1.…#2 and #3.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Knowing Bubba.

91Veteran on March 11, 2008 at 9:42 PM

What I want to know is what did he get for the four digit fees that he couldn’t get elsewhere for much much less? Perhaps nobody knowing about it?

darii on March 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM

I tell you, if you’re paying that much, she better not only be good in the sack, but she’d better build you a sunroom or something like that once you’re finished. Goodness gracious.

thirteen28 on March 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM

What you get is no stained Blue dress showing up at an inopportune time.

91Veteran on March 11, 2008 at 9:53 PM

a capella on March 11, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Here ….

Criminal investigators from the IRS, working with the FBI, found the money was being moved to pay for sex. A young woman who had previously worked at the Emperors Club VIP, the escort service Spitzer is alleged to have used, was recruited as a confidential informant. A federal judge authorised wiretaps on the mobile phones of some of those allegedly involved in the escort service.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Interesting to see that in a UK paper, but not reported here yet that I know of.

91Veteran on March 11, 2008 at 10:02 PM

I’ve been stoned in public and yet I’m not an audulterer.

conservativecaveman on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Damn. Just got that. Ohhhhhhh, yeahhhhhhh.

mksmithwriter on March 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Did you ever think you might be a little slow in getting other points made?

91Veteran on March 11, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Prostitution is merely ONE aspect of Spitzer’s corruption that involves MONEY LAUNDERING, tax evasion, and what isn’t being advertized much yet, WHICH MOB families Spitzer attacked and which he left alone as prosecutor and as governor. The bastard was a paid man who enjoyed destroying political opponents (R) by innuendo and threats on national television and by extorting our government to pad his toosh. NY Blackmail by definition spells Spitzer. That it took this long for him to be exposed is the story yet to be spelled out during the campaign season.

maverick muse on March 12, 2008 at 10:18 AM

I guess screwing the people on his enemies list wasn’t enough.

Hopefully he will be found guilty of a federal crime and will loose his license to practice law. But then he can always get a cush job on wall st, corporate america, politics.

Yeah, probably politics is about the only place you can work after this sort of train wreck. Pity, without a job how will he ever be able to pay back those “illegal loans” from daddy.

Piece of garbage…out with the rest of the trash.

moxie_neanderthal on March 12, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2