Discussions
Is Eliot Spitzer's Offense Worst Than Bill Clinton's?
Posted by dcg123 • 3/12/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: politics, public official, sex, spitzer
Sounds like the Governor of New York was paying $4,000 to $5 grand a shot for sex.
I know prostitution isn't legal in New York but in the overall scheme of things....if a public official pays for illicit sex, is it worst than someone who solicits it free?
User Comments
-
Bill didn't pay for it.
Besides, do you know how many politicians are screwing other people but their spouses? Some are even solliciting sex from young male teenagers, and they claim to be good christians and hate gay people.
What I'm saying is, as long as they do their best for the country, I don't give a damn what they do in their bedroom and with their money.-
I agree, if he can still do his job who cares if he is buying sex! But now his family has to suffer which is not fair to them. I do know sex is big money....If it was legel here in Ma. I would be a Madame and have the best little whore house in the east, just for people like him to make me rich!! -
what is good to know is that the Feds are keeping a good eye on these politicians to see if they aren't getting bribed. Or are bribing. It restores a bit of fate in those guys.
Check the John Stewart show of yesterday to laugh some more with Spitzer.
-
-
Clinton's offense was perjury, not sex. Spitzer's offense is not sex, but soliciting from prostitutes, which is illegal. Spitzer's is more interesting in my mind, because he had been such a strong crusader against crime. In Clinton's case, I never had any illusions about his saintliness, though the lying was stupid.-
Yeah, what stoneman said. -
there you go mark, adding facts in the mix of this discussion will just get people confused... lol..
-
-
The 2 are completely different, one was between 2 consenting adults the other was one adult purchasing services from another. Not the same thing at all.
Anyway, I think what's really got him in trouble is his holier than thou attitude all these years ... it's the hypocrisy that wears people out. -
An elected official, who by all accounts was extremely ruthless with those who broke the law - yes it is bad and hypocritical . He needs to go. Politicians who do not think the law applies to them are not what this country needs.-
Yes, Cooper, I agree. To these hypocrites: Bye-Bye.
-
-
I agree with drowseymonkey. It's the hypocrisy.-
Craig should have resigned.
-
-
Just heard on the NPR news summary that Spitzer is going to resign. Makes sense. I could not see how he would be able to ride this out.
-
How is Larry Craig still in office? -
Well, did he pay for it? I don't think he committed a crime, did he?
-
He was charged with a crime. He even entered a guilty plea. -
He was soliciting sex in a men's bathroom, at least Spitzer was springing for some high class hookers.
Also I love that the OP automatically connected Spitzer with Clinton like they are the only people to have sex scandals or scandals in general. Both sides are littered with people making huge mistakes.
And to be honest I don't find the sex scandals all that bad, they are human. At least they aren't trying to skim funding or some of other messed up stuff that went on with Duke Cunningham. -
In a sense I agree with you, Kevin. We have much bigger things to worry about in our politicians than something that isn't directly relevant to the job. But what bothers me is that someone like Spitzer seems to see himself as on a mission, and is willing to pour so much into it, but thinks it's worth risking for a high-priced piece of...err...well...you know what I mean. I'd like to think that the real crusaders would be willing to exercise some self-control, at least temporarily, in service of the larger goal.
-
Is there any distinction such as "felony" and "misdemeanor" that might matter?
-
@MadameX, oh yeah he was a man on the mission and the guy does have an ego, I bet he felt untouchable with what he was doing. And you are right the people that are in leadership roles should be held to some kind of standard.
But where does your job and your personal life start and stop? Does banging a high class hooker not make him effective? He was nailing hookers when he was fighting the record industry and corruption on Wall Street? The thing is if this happens in 1960 the press doesn't report it.
He is in a public role though so I understand. -
Interesting question, Mark. I don't know the answer, though if someone hasn't answered this already I will look up the exact charges later. It seems to me, though, that the nature of the offense might be more relevant than the degree in this case. For instance, in most states there are many kinds of intentional theft that are misdemeanors. But I think that I'd have more problems with a politician who had engaged in intentional theft than I would one who had been convicted of reckless driving, which is a felony under some circumstances.
-
@stoneman Spitzer hasn't been charged at all... Craig plead guilty to a misdemeanor
-
Course we could also talk about why prostitution is illegal in this country. Some countries take what I consider to be a more realistic approach and regulate it.
-
I entirely agree with you in concept, Kevin, but I think that someone in a position like that goes in knowing that right or wrong his personal life IS going to affect the "mission", and that if he's serious about getting the job done, he has to be willing to make that sacrifice--to say, in essence, "my personal life is none of your damned business, but since I know that you're going to get hung up on it and that will interfere with my ability to get the job done, I'll do what I have to do during the mission."
I don't think it's likely that whether or not he's buying hookers impacted his effectiveness during his term in office, but it's sure as heck impacting it now--and this should have been a wholly foreseeable outcome. -
Mark, what about the expense and diversion of resources involved in regulation?
-
I'm always wary of people on a mission, of crusaders. They usually are hiding something. Instead of people leaving other people be the way they are, not throwing stones at them, no, people always want to go out and judge other people to make themselves feel better. It's pathetic.
-
Wait, I don't think I understand that. You think the role of a politician is to "leave people be the way they are"? Are you saying there should be no laws?
-
No laws that tell people how to live their life: something as "you can't have sex with the same sex", etc. Those laws are stupid. Spitzer wasn't that guy, I think, but you have had a lot of politicians who act like that.
-
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Tiffany, what about the expense and diversion of resources involved in enforcing unenforceable laws? And perhaps public health would benefit? These, at any rate, are some of the issues that led to regulation instead of outright bans long ago in some European countries.
-
Those are definitely considerations, Mark (though I suspect that very little is invested in enforcement). I don't know, once one has considered the relative costs of all of these factors, which side makes more sense--but I do know that it's a lot more complicated than the "just legalize" that I keep hearing tossed out.
-
I never said it wasn't. But it's also more complicated than many of the moral absolutist type stances that guide so many policies in these United States.
-
The thing is prostitution laws are worse than drug laws here. Just go look at craigslists erotic services section, people hardly even hide it anymore if you know where to look.
If it was cleaned up and regulated a little it would benefit society a little better. Less pimps and con artists involved, better public health, and I think it would clear up the wasted resources that are spent when they do busts. Also it could impact the illegal sex trade that goes on with Chinese/Korean/Thai workers at massage parlors and the like. There can be a narrow focus on enforcement and less money going into those places that support those acts.
-
-
Sptizer hasn't been charge as far as I know but he could face possible federal prosecution because the hooker crossed state lines.
-
I don't think the sex is a big issue. I'm sure people understand that more often. I believe it's the way he was transfering the money or the perception of money laundry, this is the bigger illegal issue-
He didn't laundry money. The feds thought he was, but he wasn't. He was paying his hooker, which is illegal in the state of NY so it appears.
-
It is illegal in every U.S. state except Nevada.
-
I believe prostitution is illegal in every country of the EU, except the Netherlands, but many countries allow it to happen in certain areas just so they can keep an eye on it. It's never good when it goes completely off the radar.
-
It's legal in Germany, just regulated. I thought that was the case in France too.
-
-
Greetings
Abuse of power.
He should resign.
He's a lawyer so he should have any
difficulties finding employment.
Biobob-
I know lawyers who have been unemployed for years and many others who have taken on jobs at a much lower level than their experience warrants. Given Spitzer's name, he probably won't have any trouble finding a job, but the job market for attorneys has been terrible for several years.
-
What was his abuse of power?
-
-
The "sex" aspects of such a case always grab the headlines, of course, but in my mind the sex issue, per se, was neither the focus of the investigation, nor the reason that led to Spitzer's resignation. The true issue is that the man allegedly engaged in activities that he knew were patently illegal. Prostitution was/is illegal, for openers. There also has been mention in the press of violation of the Mann Act (although I've also seen comments indicating reasons why that may not be able to be applied). Since (as a patron) he was complicit in condoning/promoting a criminal organization -- the prostitution ring -- he also may be subject to prosecution on conspiracy charges I suppose.
Apparently (according to news reports) Spitzer moved money around in a manner that ultimately raised suspicion, i.e., he engaged in what is called "structuring" -- moving money in multiple transactions in amounts that do not quite meet the official threshold of suspicion, but which together indicated the need for review. I'm sure that Spitzer was well aware of how much money he could move at one time to avoid official scrutiny by the Treasury Dept. or the IRS, but apparently he overlooked (or ignored) the fact that multiple sub-threshold transactions formed a pattern that would catch their attention.
Mostly, the hypocrisy is staggering, since Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings while he was New York's attorney General, and generally has held himself out as a straight-arrow crusader. I don't give a rat's arse about his or anyone else's sexual proclivities, but his behavior does seem to be an egregious violation of public trust.
Speaking as a psychologist, I'd say that his behavior reeks of narcissistic entitlement.-
bnsullivan. Regarding your second paragraph. I was wondering about that, and we discussed here at home last night. What you wrote makes sense.
I so see the same thing as your take on his behavior (stated in your last sentence). I ended up in a huge discussion about it with someone, and they thought that this opinion was unreasonable. -
Hi Pentad - Did your friend say why they thought this opinion was unreasonable? Just curious.
Bobbie
-
-
Shameless promotion: let's forget Spitzer for a moment and visit a thread that deals with a worthwhile cause: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/international-online-free-expression-day
It will take just a few minutes of your time to do something worthwhile. Then we can get back to our narcissistic interests in our own political system.
-
Well it was called psycho-babble...*sigh*. Which, I mean really. How does one respond to that?
-
Well, I would be the first to agree that there is an awful lot of "psycho-babble" out there. A lot of what falls into that category arises when psychological theories, and/or behavioral research outcomes, are interpreted or promoted by people who are untrained in the subject matter and who therefore mis-interpret or mis-apply the terminology and information.
That said, "narcissistic entitlement" is, to psychologists, an established term that describes a recognizable behavioral pattern. If you Google the term, you'll find lots of explanatory examples from serious sources. -
Thanks bnsullivan. I was a Psych. Nurse for several years, so I understand what you are saying. Sometimes people want to think what they want to think, no matter what. I chose to end the discussion when it got to that point. It did irritate me for a couple of hours though, as it was a former colleague.
-
-
oops. wrong placement. The last comment was to bnsullivan. Sorry.
-
To me, it's an issue of judgement rather than the actual infraction. If your judgement is so poor that you, as a public figure, can't understand that people are going to find out about your misbehavior and take you task for it, then what how is your judgement on other, more relevant, issues?
While I find the whole concept of cheating on your spouse thoroughly distasteful, my morals don't rule the world. But doing something illegal is pretty black and white, whether it's perjury or prostitutes. Breaking the law while in office should lead to your not being in office. Don't we Americans have a poor enough image (and don't politicians have a bad enough name in the US) without having people outed as liars and lawbreakers still continuing to "lead" this country?
Ack, now I've gone and ranted. Obviously, this is a pet peeve of mine. I'll shush, now.-
Legbamel, that's exactly how I felt about Gary Hart. For those too young to remember, when Gary Hart was running for President he was asked by a reporter about infidelities and basically challenged the media to follow him if they thought he had something to hide. They did. He did.
-
Yup, I thought he was an idiot, too.
-
I remember Gary Hart, but I don't remember that. Where the heck was I?
-
I'll never forget the name of that boat on which Hart was photographed with an alleged paramour: "Monkey Business."
-
Pentad, you don't remember Donna Rice? She got her own line of jeans at K-Mart after Gary Hart got busted with her.
-
See, I forgot the name "Donna Rice" but I remembered "Monkey Business."
-
MadameX. Ok, the name Donna Rice rings a bell. What year was this?
-
-
I rather enjoyed your rant, legbamel
-
I guess what perturbs me about this is that when sex is involved that is the only time people give a crap about how crooked people are in politics when honestly him cheating on his wife is small potatoes compared to some of the other things people that are still in office and have gotten caught have done.
Accepting illegal gifts and siding with lobbyists against the best interests of your constituents is a lot worse than a guy getting a hooker. We have examples of crooked dealings with a lot of people in congress and it makes news one day and then people just let it go. But when sex is involved whoa... it is scandalous.
Our values are so out of whack.-
yes.
-
-
What did Bill Clinton technically do wrong anyway?? I mean, in the greater scheme of things isn't Bush lying to invade and ransack a country a bigger deal? Or Clinton banning all those guns and going against the American Constitution (and freedom) for that matter!-
I hear you. If I can get away with a narrow technical answer, Bush didn't testify to Congress under oath.
-
Good point.
-
-
"To me, it's an issue of judgement rather than the actual infraction."
Right. If you're a politician, keep the hookers covert.
-
Technically he lied, a big no no. Morally he took advantage of someone too far down on the ladder of power, someone he had to have known was sucking his dick only because he was the president, an intern for god sake. Presidents should keep their dick in their pants around those who look up to them and except sexual favors only from those closer to their level of power, otherwise it shows a huge lack of character.
-
They should, indeed, Cooper (in fact, everyone should). But is the lack of character in that action comparable to the lack of character in sacrificing thousands of lives to pursue a private agenda? And, more importantly, which kind of character flaw is more likely to affect the well-being of our citizens?
-
I thought that was called business as usual? Maybe if US presidents relieved the ol' libido more they'd declare war on foreign countries less...
-
-
They can't beat G.W.B LOL he is ****ing the nation-
Exactly. Who this Spitzer has on the side seems kind of irrelevant in the face of a collapsing economy, unwinnable war, union-busting etc.
-
-
I wonder if he enjoyed the sex.-
I think it's more about the power & control. Just my dime-store psychology here.
-
I agree with you, Drowsey. It's really not about sex, per se. It is certainly about power, and perceived entitlement. And I'm a real psychologist saying this.
-
-
I don't know if it is "worse", it is just different.
-
Clinton didn't set him self up to publicly judge others who got involved in sex scandals. That's the big difference here.
I'm still having a hard time believing anyone would pay those kinds of prices for sex. I hear today that Spitzer paid a total of eighty thousand dollars!-
Yep. That's the crowning hypocrisy with Spitzer, isn't it. He prosecuted others for prostitution-related transgressions. Pot calling the kettle black, as they say.
If that sum of money you mention turns out to be true, then I'd say he'd have been better off "keeping" a mistress with it. That still might have generated a "sex scandal" if it came to light, but would not have been illegal.
-
-
so he had to pay for it.....why exactly are we making a huge deal out of this? I am more concerned with the fact that once politicians take the office, they don't actually do anything they promised to do while campaigning to get elected.
Support your country, bribe a politician! -
I wonder what the citizens of the 3rd largest state in the Union, New York, think now, that they have David Patterson as their new govenor.
This is a man, their new Chief Law Enforcement Officer, who flunked his bar exam.-
Yeah, you'd think a guy like that would've been snapped-up by the Bush Administration. -
The New York bar exam is one of the hardest in the country, and a lot of people who have been excellent students in law school and go on to be excellent lawyers have to take it more than once.
-
Didn't JFK, Jr. take it two or three times before he passed? (He did eventually pass, didn't he?)
-
Yes, he passed it on the third (and last) try. Though I suspect that if the news media had escorted me to take the bar, I might have had a little trouble focusing, too.
-
I suppose it's quite easy for us nonp-lawyer types to make cracks about the bar exam. it's also hard for some to understand what a pass-fail exam at this level really means.
-
The CA exam is difficult too. My brother has taken it a couple times.
-
Well, let me tell you a little bit about it. The New York bar exam is two full, consecutive days long. The first day consists of essay questions specific to New York law, multiple choice questions specific to New York law, and a practice exam that involves creating a memorandum as a practicing attorney would based on a packet of research materials under time pressure.
The New York essays are among the only ones in the country (possibly the only ones) that are multi-topic. By that I mean that on the New Jersey bar exam (and most others) there might be a Torts essay (labeled as such), a Real Property essay (labeled as such), etc., but on the NY bar exam each essay question blends issues from a variety of areas of law and leaves it open-ended for the test-taker to identify the issues presented in all of the various areas and analyze each.
The second day is a 200 question multi-state bar exam which tests uniform principles of law in multiple choice format. Many of these questions relate to relatively arcane areas of legal practice that most practicing attorneys never have to think about. Different states have different required scores on this test, and New York's requirement is one of the highest in the country. -
Yes it is, GG. CA is generally acknowledged to be one of the toughest.
-
-
Yes, because Clinton did not spend public money to get a blowjob from Monica. You the taxpayer were paying for the hooker from a government account.
He was using tax payers money to pay for it.-
Wait--I haven't heard that. That changes everything, if it's true. Does anyone have a credible news source saying this was funded from the public coffers?
-
-
Why would Spitzer have to hit government funds to pay for his sins? He's good for half a billion big ones. He can spend $4,000 at a pop out of his pocket like most of the rest of us spend quarters and dollar bills. He can spend his own money like play money--Monopoly money.
-
In my mind, yes, it's worse, because it's ILLEGAL. Sex between two consensual adults (where no money, favors, etc., has been exchanged) is one thing.
Soliciting a prostitute, which is illegal...a CRIME...is quite another. Especially when you consider that the person committing the crime was known for (and hated by many for) being so hard on those who commit crimes. The man was ruthless and relentless when it came to prosecuting criminals, and yet he didn't hold himself to the same standards to which he held others. It's shameful.
In addition, it was suspicious money transfers that led the investigators to Spitzer. So yes, in my opinion, it's much worse.
From abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1
"The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.
"It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn't hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperor's Club."-
I don't disagree with any of the first two paragraphs of what you've said, but I think it's important to realize what "suspicious money transfers" means to the IRS and FBI. It's simply transfers of amounts of unusual amounts of cash outside of regular patterns. The "suspicion" might be triggered either by cash transfers that trigger federal reporting requirements OR cash transfers carefully kept at a level that will NOT trigger federal reporting requirements. In short, if a guy was trying to pull out chunks of cash to pay for or transfer money to a brothel, it would almost certainly create a pattern that would be considered suspicious by those authorities and invite further investigation.
-
Right. I guess my point was that he's not being forced to resign simply because he had sex with someone other than his wife. His behavior for many months has been suspicious, and he committed a crime.
I just wanted to make that clarification, because it irritates me when people oversimplify things. Just like when people say that Clinton was impeached for having an affair. BS!!! That's not at all why he was impeached, and it's an attempt to oversimplify the issue and make it seem trivial. -
But it wasn't public money that he was shuffling around, it was his own. I'd not heard any implication that he was using taxpayer money to fund his nasty habits.
I wonder if his wife will stand up and get her percentage of what's left or if she'll be the long-suffering, stand-by-your-man wife expected of politicians. [gak] Whoops, I was going to shush, wasn't I?
-
-
the big question is how did he sneak by his state police security detail?? it will be interesting to see if any law enforcement officials guarding him are going to end up in hot water too. and just once....it would be so nice to see a mrs. clinton, mrs. craig, mrs. spitzer, mrs. vitter, etc. walk out there on stage with their hubby, turn to the cameras, and say 'i want a divorce!'
-
The thing is, it's illegal. Do we really want our public officials breaking the law? If it's an unreasonable law then I can understand them fighting to change the laws, but to break them while they are in public office? No. So yes, it's worse than the Clinton thing. It's not even in the same ballpark. Not only was he participating but it meant he knew these people also weren't paying taxes and were breaking yet more laws.
Besides, Clinton said what he did wasn't really sex. :-D -
They are both pigs in my opinion. They both lied and both broke the law in different ways.
Power hungry-invincible dumb a$$ politicians who think they can get away with anything because they are powerful.
Man pigs both of them!!!
What kind of man needs to pay for sex....disgusting, pitiful and sad really.
If men knew how to treat a woman, they would be having the best sex of their lives without having to pay for it or worse....cheat on their wives!
I'm sure if he got caught with the one, Spitz-the-ditz had many many more.-
Well said, Sylvia.
-
-
They are saying that Spitz has been with the high priced hookers for ten years. Why did it take so long to notice? Doesn't he have 24 hr security detail? They must have noticed something no? I would not consider it such a big deal but he was punishing other people for doing the same things. Where is the justice and fairness in that?
-
It's their job to protect him from assassins, not venereal disease. That is, physically and not morally.
-
-
I have to pay $8.00 for a pack of cigarettes so Mr Spitz's can get laid, and with all of the money he has? They should strap him to a chair and let every New Yorker throw used condoms at him.
I do not care if these Rock (politicians) Stars have their perks, just don't make me pay for it.
If they want to screw around it's their wife's problem.
We have to stop peeking into everyones bedroom.
But, when $ are the reasons behind the investigation then it is a public issue. -
Let's see, Clinton showed his dick to an overweight secretary and fought it out.
Spitzer paid 5 grand for an hours worth of some bimbo's time because he hates his job, his wife and ultimately can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, so much so that he resigned within days.
It's the same old argument, another elected official out the door and replaced by someone else.
Whatever happened to the good old days of high expectations? Kennedy went out with Marilyn Monroe, for gods sake.. -
Their both gross. If I had to choose, I'd spend a night with Hillary over Bill.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
