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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

LevStrauss on March 11, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Good points.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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)?

Conversation over.

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

Quitter.

False logic using piece of pie.

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

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?

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.

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.