Spitzer Follows Familiar Script
Will Spitzer Follow McGreevy Or Clinton?
By California Yankee Posted in Corruption | Ethics | Governor Spitzer | Sex Scandal | State Politics — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Washington Post correspondent, Libby Copeland, reminds us that we have seen it all before:
First, we watch the news conference. There's Spitzer, with his wife by his side. He says, "I want to briefly address a private matter." Then he expresses remorse (albeit vaguely) and promises to "dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family."Then, we call Mark Geragos, the high-profile criminal defense attorney, who -- as it happens -- has not actually seen the news conference. He proceeds to describe the news conference that he has not seen.
"You've got to have the dutiful wife and you have to have the 'it's a private matter,' " Geragos says. "And remorse for the past and plans for the future."
[. . .]
"If you don't have the spouse with you, the signal sent is one of abject debauchery and guilt," says Eric Dezenhall, a crisis management consultant. "When the wife or the family is with you, that suggests, well, somebody close to this person loves them and thinks they're worthwhile."
The early signs suggest that, unlike former New Jersey Governor McGreevy, Spitzer will pull a Clinton and fight to remain in office.
« Earmarxist Don Young Named American Taxpayer Hero — Comments (18)
Spitzer Follows Familiar Script 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The right thing for the state of New York would be for this arrogant, self righteous schmuck to go gently into the night.
Nothing about this guy suggests, however, that what is right for the state of New York will get more than a second's thought. As always, he's in it for Elliott, and what's good for Elliott is to serve out his term as a weakened executive, not run again, and dismiss this in later life as a silly little pecadillo misunderstood by a hysterical public. If he resigns, he makes it the defining incident of his life, and he doesn't want that.
In terms of the criminal charges, I have a hard time seeing how this actually proceeds to a federal case against Spitzer. With regard to the structuring, it's not clear to me that he violated the letter or intent of that law. The gist of that law is to grab people who are splitting up large transactions to avoid scrutiny; here, it looks like Spitzer was bundling together smaller transactions so he would have an account on balance, and still not getting up to the $10k limit. On the Mann Act, he may well be in technical violation, but few prosecutors are going to charge someone not running a vice business under the Mann Act. It has happened - that's how they got heavyweight champ Jack Johnson back in the day, for example - but unless someone is looking to nail someone any way possible, it's not the normal course. That it's exactly the kind of charge Spitzer would bring just because the target was prominent does not mean the feds on this case will do the same.
He could get charged on state or DC charges for his part in the prostitution, but, again, that's not the usual course. You didn't see David Vittum or Dick Morris or any other the other zillion public figures ensnared in prostitution rings facing criminal charges.
One wild card here is where Spitzer got the money. He's always worked for a fairly small government pay check, and these were not cheap nights out. If there was money going the other way and the feds sense it, there will be charges on something, even if they can't prove the bribery. The other wild card is payback time - if one of the prosecutors is out to see that Spitzer gets Spitzer style treatment, charges could follow.
If he gets charged, he pretty much has to resign. If charges are about to get filed, he might resign as a bargain to avoid charges. Otherwise, I bet he tries to ride this out and claim later it was not so big a deal.
That having been said, I wonder if a prosecution may result simply because (a) Spitzer is so prominent, (b) he is now clearly revealed as a hypocrite of the highest order of magnitude, (c) he is jacka@# with few if any friends and (d) there is a desire for a little bit of payback from the feds for Spitzer's constant grandstanding as a State AG.
Even if he is not charged, I would not be suprised if calls for resignation quickly follow from both Republicans and Democrats.
Is there anyone here from NY who can offer any background on the possibility of impeachment proceedings in NY?
NC
I could see a prosecutor very fairly seeing this as being much more serious given the position of responsibility and trust Spitzer held (although he seems to have been careful to do his lawbreaking outside New York state). I can also see payback by someone who just doesn't like the guy for about 1000 good reasons, although most prosecutors, unlike Spitzer, don't really operate that way. Last but not least, there could be more shoes waiting to drop, with the one I am wondering about being where he found the lucre to fund all this.
Time will tell. My guess is that if Spitzer is willing to tough it out, and if it doesn't go seriously criminal, it will end up playing out much like the Craig incident - much whooping and hollering by the other side, many private and not so private calls on the guy to resign, and a guy who stays where he is until the end of his term because no one can really fire him. (They are talking impeachment, but if they want to set the standard in New York state that you get impeached for seeing a hooker, even absent criminal charges, they probably will be wanting to watch their own backs, because given the way legislatures work I'm betting Spitzer's not the only one to make a call to a service.)
If I were he, I wouldn't be in a hurry to resign absent some good reason, because his resignation is one of the few trading cards he has if this thing ends up teetering on the brink of a criminal prosecution.
On the other hand, the leaks still seem to indicate he is primed to resign, so I could once again be 100 percent wrong. Happens from time to time.
As Rush says, Republicans refuse to hurt the Dems so unfortunately we have to rely on the Dems to do it. So far they're doing a pretty good job. More, more!
Personally, I'm trying to imagine what I'd extort in order to be convinced to play the loyal wifey through all this. It would be HUGE, Jerry.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
The early signs suggest that, unlike former New Jersey Governor McGreevy, Spitzer will pull a
ClintonCraig and fight to remain in office.
Craig is a far more recent example of this behavior than Clinton.
I have no sympathy for any politician from any party who betrays the public trust.
Misdemeanor, no money involved, no sexual conduct, being urged by his party to step down, vs. $thousands, stipulated 'difficult sex', timed in around official biz, and so far no demands to step down
Good luck with that Craig equivalence. Try to serve it with some koolaid for the kos kids.
Where did I say they were equivalent? And why the personal attack about kos kids? As far as I'm concerned they both betrayed a public trust. It's pretty black and white. They both should go, and take William Jefferson while they are at it.
The Kos Koolaid Kids will be all rationalized up by morning coffee.
And Jefferson will never go. If he is treid and convicted, he will still be re-elected.
And while Craig did violate public trust, there is a huge difference between a questionable misdemeanor and what Spitzer and oh so many dhimmies have done.
Like Feinstein directly enriching herself by directing contracts to her family defense contractor. Or Reid and his Tammany Hall land deals. Or washington and his cash-for-play. Or Clinton and perjury and conspiracy to commit same. And we still have not seen Kerry's mil records, have we?
I am sure that, just as with Craig, a lot of members of Spitzer's own party are hoping that he makes a quick, voluntary, understated exit.
The last thing they want is for this to stay in the headlines. That goes triple for Hillary, since this whole affair just brings back the reek of the Clinton years.
How Obama should play this is much more interesting. Me, I think he should call on Spitzer - a Hillary supporter - to resign for the good of the public, but maybe that's just too obvious.
I can't help but wondering how the Reverand Sharpton views this situation....He could really pocket a lot of bribe money if he plays this right.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Obama could stay silent on the whole matter, as it really does not hurt him.
But, he may want to play a little offense. By calling for Spitzer to resign, he forces Hillary to have to address this issue. By doing so, Obama would also be showing how he is a "different" politician, not associated with the sordid scandals of the Clintons and NY (though I guess Obama has his own Illinois scandals re: Rezco).
He would also likely cause more than a few news stories pointing out the connections between Hillary and Spitzer (as well as the implicit connection between Spitzer's behavior and Bill's behavior).
All that having been said, my guess is he will stay silent and let the media carry the load for pointing out the obvious connections and parallels with Spitzer and the Clintons. He can just sit back and watch the fun.
NC
Mc Greevy and Clinton did not commit crimes in relation to their affairs. You could make a case in those instances that it was a personal issue that the voters would the final decision at the ballot box. However, Spitzer is not just accused of infidelity, he is accused of a crime. It appears that he not only violated state laws against prostitution but also the federal Mann Act.
Greevey's boyfriend was getting paid by the state, and maybe getting paid by the state so Greevey could have access to him. Given the misuse of state funds angle, there may have been a much more serious crime there.
Clinton committed perjury. Because he was a sitting President, there was no option of a criminal prosecution, but he was impeached because it was a crime, and he was disbarred because it was a crime.
Prosecutors are generally much more stoked about bringing indictments for either perjury or misallocation of public funds than they are for hiring prostitutes, even when state lines are crossed.
I expect to see Spitzer resign today.
The Strategy was already in the works yesterday and you could see the outlines of it when Spitzer didn't take questions at the press conference followed up immediately by Alan Dershowitz defending him in the Huffington Post, followed by Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan in the New York Times saying that prostitution shouldn't be a crime:
Spitzer isn't going to resign, he's going to do a Clinton and force the Republicans to impeach him, and in the process look like they're trying to defend the fat cats on Wall Street that Spitzer was such a hero for prosecuting. Alan Dershowitz and his ilk are going to work their academic networks to sway the opinion toward leniency at the top, the NYT is going to go for the Masses, and people like Kos, and Drum and Sullivan are going to hit the blogosphere. Yesterday on Kos they were already "pointing out" that Spitzer's hookers cost less
Rudy Giuliani's taxpayer-funded security detail for his girlfriend.
So that's the plan. It's a multitiered image-repair effort, with all the stops pulled out. Hence Spitzer's silence after his press conference yesterday, while all the emails go out and the strings get pulled.
By the time this is over, Spitzer's approval ratings will rise and the Republicans will look like they're involved in another case of sexual hypocrisy in order to defend corporate fatcats on Wall Street.
their part.
MSNBC is reporting on TV just now and indeed, NY Republicans are giving him 48 hours to resign or they will begin impeachment.
1. Spitzer's primary bad act (engaging a prostitute) was a crime. Clinton's primary bad act (sex with an intern) was extremely stupid but not a crime. I realize the impeachment proceedings were for lying under oath, but I think to the average person, it looked like the impeachment resulted from his relationship with an intern.
2. Spitzer campaigned and ran on an anti-corruption platform as Mister Clean. Everyone knew Clinton was an extremely gifted liar with a bimbo problem. Spitzer is clearly a hypocrite, while Clinton was simply acting in tune with his character (i.e., he's a scoundrel, but he's our scoundrel).
3. Clinton still had political capital with Democrats on the Hill. Based on what I have heard about Spitzer he has few if any friends in Albany. I am not sure anyone is going to stick out their neck to support Spitzer.
I could be wrong, but I am not sure how Spitzer can hang on after this.
NC
It sounds like one of my Stockholm Syndrome flashbacks, but I say these things only because of past experience. Spitzer was a hero among a lot of liberal law professors because of his persecution of Wall Street and I can reasonably guess that Alan Dershowitz' defense yesterday was pregnant in the minds of a lot of them as they woke up to news of the Horny Toad from the Governor's Mansion. I know that a lot of them are spending today racking their brains for theories and defenses with which to exonerate him.
Unfortunately for Spitzer, you're quite right -- his acts go well beyond a consensual dalliance or mere infidelity, and their task is going to be immesurably more difficult than it was to defend Clinton, but that doesn't mean they're not going to try. Pass the popcorn...
I guess then its fiting if he supports an attempt by Elliot Mess to stay in office.
For what its worth Kowalski, I have a secret fear that you may be right, no matter how illogical that may seem to me personally.
NC
The problem for Spitzer is that this is a criminal case.He setup shell companies to conceal these payments.No telling what else these shell companies he setup have been involved with.Spitzer's previous prosecutions of escorts services may be seen as taking out the competition for the service he was using.This is a Federal case and Spitzer has big problems.
I expect before this goes another 24 hours to hear arguments that he was entrapped or set up in some other way and that those shell companies were perfectly legitimate. At least, that's the misinformation that's going to be spread.
By the time this is over, the court of public opinion will think that those shell companies were actually created as charity organizations for children and victims of 9/11.
...not particularly interested in driving traffic to them, so apologies for not linking, but Kos ALREADY has a silly article explaining how the whole investigation stinks and how Spitzer is certainly a victim of an out-of-control, right-wing, politicized justice department.
Just when I think they can't get any dumber over there, they manage to scoop out just a little more from the bottom of the barrel...
seem strange to anyone else that we are not hearing the term "Democrat" preceding ES's name every time it is used by the press. I seem to remember that everyone was sure to remind us that Craig, et al., were Republicans during their news cycle. Just a coincidence?
Proposed 2009 bumper sticker - Don't blame me, I didn't vote.
R. Michael Woodard
He transported a woman across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. That is a felony.
This is not a 'private matter'. The koolaid kids are going to have to spin really fast to save this one for the team.
HRC is getting a p[retty interesting list of backers:
Chinese crooks, corrupt governors, and who knows who else?
This is almost as good as the Clinton Administration.
This isn't some private indiscretion. It's a crime at a couple of different levels.
All the same, federal prosecutions for the Mann Act are relatively uncommon, and private prosecutions where the person involved is not a pimp or a porno king are even rarer. Setting aside Spitzer's status and public position, there is very little chance the feds would waste their time on prosecuting this, and fairly little chance that they will even given who he is.
So, I'm not expecting an indictment. I do get annoyed when they trot out the well worn private matter talking point, though, because it most certainly is an order of magnitude more serious than that.
... but I think he'll get the bum's rush from both Republicans and Democrats in Albany.
I'd prefer he stays on as long as possible, to have his aroma still clinging to the NY Democrats in November. Unfortunately I think it will be over for Client 9 long before Senator Widestance.