CAMPOS: Was Spitzer targeted?

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

As Richard Nixon used to say, let me make something perfectly clear: Eliot Spitzer is a world-class hypocrite and fool, who more or less asked for the political and personal catastrophe that has befallen him.

That being said, the real Spitzer scandal has little to do with his apparent habit of paying young women for sex. Here's what really needs to be investigated:

Spitzer's fall was triggered not by his visits to prostitutes, but by banks reporting "suspicious" transactions of his to the IRS.

A deposit of $10,000 or more in cash automatically triggers a suspicious activity report. It's unlikely that someone as financially sophisticated as Spitzer would transfer $10,000 in cash at once to pay for illicit sex, given that he knew full well doing so would trigger an automatic report to the IRS.

It's a violation of the relevant statute to structure multiple cash transactions with the intent of avoiding the $10,000 automatic reporting requirement (by, for example, depositing $5,000 on the same day with two different banks), but it's quite unclear whether whatever Spitzer did would normally lead to the filing of a suspicious activity report, since such subterfuges are very difficult to detect unless one is already looking for them. This raises the possibility that Spitzer's financial activities were being closely monitored.

It's hardly a stretch to imagine that Spitzer, a man with countless enemies in the financial world, would be the target of such a vendetta.

This in turn raises a host of questions about how and why the subsequent IRS investigation turned into an FBI sting operation. The story being given out by the feds is that Spitzer's financial affairs were investigated initially because of the possibility the transactions involved bribes or kickbacks of some sort.

That's pretty unbelievable. Spitzer is an heir to an immense family fortune, and the amounts of cash in question would almost surely not be large enough to create a reasonable suspicion of bribery in this instance.

Be that as it may, it's far more probable that what happened was something like this: An IRS office is tipped off by officials at various banks that Spitzer is depositing a few thousand dollars in different accounts within a day or two. Realizing it has a potential political tiger by the tail, the IRS then contacts the Department of Justice and the FBI.

At the DOJ, the Public Integrity Section launches an investigation. This unit itself has come under intense criticism during the Bush administration for investigating nearly six times more Democratic politicians than Republicans. Furthermore, many of the section's investigations have seemed timed to coincide with elections and the like.

With a little digging, the feds soon establish that Spitzer is seeing high-priced call girls. This is a petty misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, but the DOJ goes ahead and constructs an elaborate and costly sting operation, for the express purpose of catching one of the country's most powerful Democratic politicians committing a petty crime.

In the course of the sting, Spitzer makes a really big mistake: He pays a call girl to travel from New York to Washington. This puts him in technical violation of an 85-year-old federal law, the Mann Act, which has a long history of being used for politically motivated prosecutions of the worst sort, such as those of the boxer Jack Johnson and movie legend Charlie Chaplin.

Only then is the existence of the investigation leaked to the media.

In sum, this whole sordid business smells bad. One need have no sympathy for Spitzer to recognize that there's a real chance what we're dealing with is a classic abuse of the criminal justice system, designed to take down a powerful political enemy.

That possibility deserves serious investigation - something we can hope the media will get around to undertaking, once they tire of feeding the public salacious details regarding the erotic adventures of Eliot Spitzer.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.

• March 11, 2008

  8:37 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  recursiveprophet writes:

  Good article. Well balanced analysis. Sure hope you're right regarding how he was set up becoming the big story, but doubt it will happen. The Nation may look into it, but lets not forget who owns the major media outlets these days. You think Rupert and his cohorts aren't popping open the Dom bottles?

• March 11, 2008

  9:42 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  arby writes:

  A good article. It's apparent that Spitzer was set up and made a target. I'm not certain why the FBI wanted to ruin the man but they obviously did. I only disagree with one statement. "The American justice system" there is no such thing. Mr. Campos as a lawyer you know that's the truth.

• March 11, 2008

  10:36 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  kathyM writes:

  If Spitzer were a Republican, Campos' tune would be: Another bad-boy Republican doing what all Republicans do, too bad so sad.

• March 12, 2008

  6:52 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  vudumom writes:

  You got that right,kathyM ! Have you noticed when it's a Republican sex scandal the media,the Republicans and especially the Democrats call for an immediate resignation?
  If it's a Democrat ,the excuses start coming out and the person is defended and the public told how such a good person he is?
  Too bad Hillary lost a super delegate.Obama and his separtist church friends must be saying quite a few Amens! today.

• March 12, 2008

  7:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  RJS07 writes:

  He's a democrat, so of COURSE he was set up. Dems don't do that kind of stuff....and when they do, we don't talk about it. I'm sure it's all a mistake.

• March 12, 2008

  7:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JYP3500 writes:

  This article is the typical liberal reaction that was popularized during the Clinton administration: I'm not accountable for my actions; I'm not responsible for anything I say; It's someone else's fault.

  Why can't liberals simply admit this (blatant) behavior is wrong?

  As an independent, I believe any public official caught in these kind of scandals should be removed from office. Let's replace them and move on.

• March 12, 2008

  8 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  "...such subterfuges are very difficult to detect unless one is already looking for them."

  Baloney. The software used to expose such activity has been in use for years and is routinely applied to all such irregular activity, regardless of its source. It produces its results without the aid of targeting, it is applied universally. By usinhg hookers for over 10 years, however, Spitzer put the bullseye on his own back; it was just a matter of time before the software exposed him. There was no abuse of the criminal justice system, the only abuse was administered by Spitzer and it was against the Mann Act.

  Funny how this 1960s brain-fried liberal, PC, bends over backwards to try to excuse the criminal behavior of another fellow liberal. Spitzer is no criminal, PC concludes, he's a victim of the abusive misapplication of the criminal justice system.

  Did PC accomodate Mr. Craig in the same manner?

• March 12, 2008

  8:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  dilligaf writes:

  Come on this is about targeting people by our government. I'm a democrat and Spitzer must go. I'm not defending him. He did a stupid thing. But it is scary how our government can dive into our personal records. But it does become a political game. He should have been caught trying to pickup a man in a public airport bathroom. The GOP may have said that's OK>

• March 12, 2008

  8:16 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  SPITZER'S SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR TRIGGERED THE SYSTEM:

  For one thing, the governor initially drew the attention of federal investigators because of cash payments to an account operated by a call-girl ring, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of because of the sensitivity of the case. Banks are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports to the government whenever they observe something they fear may be a crime.

  In court papers, Client 9—identified by another law enforcement official as Spitzer—hurried to get more than $4,000 in cash to pay a call girl at a Washington hotel. That kind of activity, repeated over time, is just the kind of thing that would set off alarm bells with a bank's compliance officer, who is trained to be on the lookout for what is called structuring or "smurfing"—a pattern of transactions aimed at hiding the nature or purpose of certain money.

  A half million or so times a year, banks alert federal government officials of suspicious transactions. There is no threshold of $10,000 as is generally believed.

  This liberal sleazebag though that he was above the law that he, himself, inforced for years.

• March 12, 2008

  8:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Gene writes:

  Suppose Cheney was targeted by the whacko-enviro-Demo, when he grabbed his arm, Campo?

• March 12, 2008

  8:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Faux_Noise writes:

  Spitzer should resign.

  Can anyone who agrees with me tell me why David Vitter should still be serving in the Senate?

• March 12, 2008

  8:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Adeline writes:

  On Feb. 14, the day after his most recent tryst, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece by Spitzer explaining how, in the absence of federal intervention into predatory lending practices, the state attorneys general tried to step in to protect their citizens. Spitzer wrote that not only had the Bush administration refused to intervene, but allied itself with the banks that were indulging in these practices by invoking a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act that prevented state attorneys general from regulating predatory lenders - the banks.

• March 12, 2008

  8:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rickg19611 writes:

  Translation.... the criminal should be given a free pass since those evil law enforcement people are enforcing the law. Being a Democrat gives him an extra "get out of jail free" card since we can't expect Democrats to obey they laws they pass on the rest of us.

• March 12, 2008

  9:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  keeemosabe writes:

  Why is this handled so differently from the Vitter episode?... where Republican Vitter's was protected for weeks trying to evade the press. This hits the press instantly and Spitzer sole focus. All others go free. This looks like the thumbs of politicians are on the judicial scale. Only the Republicans and Wall Street crooks are thrilled about this development.

• March 12, 2008

  9:16 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Mtnsjohn writes:

  Aw....The Ritter Defense. Deflect deserved criticism by playing the victim card. Funny though....it appears Spitzer isn't the one playing it at his press conference, but Campos wants to play it for him.

  Stupidity! When one has been a high profile prosecutor touting morals and ethics beyond reproach, one needs to have morals and ethics beyond reproach. The least of what he did was set himself up for one heck of a case of blackmail. Better that the Feds discovered it before the mob. If he spent thousands for a few hours with a callgirl, how much more would he have been willing to spend to save his position, reputation and to keep it from his wife and family? What laws would he have put his pen to? Who would he have pardoned?

• March 12, 2008

  9:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  bobba writes:

  Mr Campos,

  Your article should have ended with, "Eliot Spitzer is a world-class hypocrite and fool, who more or less asked for the political and personal catastrophe that has befallen him."

  Everything else was a waste of print.

  Because all you're doing here is fueling partisanship. Instead of plain and simply standing up and saying, "He was wrong," you have to come out and say, "He was wrong, BUT..."

  WHAT?

  Is it at all suprising the financial companies may have targeted him? That they may have 'taken the gloves off?' He's the one who started that particular war, and he's the one who first took the gloves off when he used his position of power to oust Hank Greenberg from AIG on what ended up being specious charges (no charges were ever filed against Mr Greenberg and nearly all charges against AIG have been dropped). Meanwhile Warren Buffet, whose companies engaged in nearly identicle accounting methods, remained above even a sniff of wrongdoing. So if you want to talk about selective prosecution...

  To make matters worse, reports began surfacing of PERSONAL threats coming from the NY Attorney General and directed towards those who dared to publicly defend Mr. Greenberg. That was the moment it went from a bare knuckle bout to a no-holds-barred battle in the back alley. And rightly so. Mr. Spitzer kept raising the stakes while abusing the rules.

  That it was a financial transaction that did this man in is quite appropriate, don't you think? But to make it into a Democrat-Republican thing is ridiculous. This was a man who abused his power, made enemies, then contributed to his own demise. End of story. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, it would be an almost epic Shakespearean fall, except there was nothing noble about it...

• March 12, 2008

  9:36 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  keeemosabe writes:

  Selective prosecution itself is illegal and is grounds drop charges. He could be impeached but it seems that would need to wait for a CONVICTION. If he wanted he may well beat this charge....like Republicans said Larry Craig should fight his charges. It's remarkable to watch those who condemn Spitzer twist their rhetoric to fit their agenda.

• March 12, 2008

  9:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  keeemosabe writes:

  Spitzer resigned. To all those dogpilers above, please explain why Vitter and Larry Craig are still in office and why you want to overlook that?

• March 12, 2008

  10:08 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GWM writes:

  Keeemosabe, how's the Lone Ranger doing these days? You are correct, both Vitter and Craig should have been forced out of office. Vitter did not use public funds and Craig did not pay for his toe tapping. Both, however are a disgrace and should not be in office. But, and however, are these instances only on one side of the aisle?

• March 12, 2008

  10:22 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  keeemosabe writes:

  Keeemosabe is what Tonto called the Lone Ranger. I am fine, Thank you. When Tonto said, "Keeemosabe" he was trying to say, "Mr. Know-it-all." :)

• March 12, 2008

  10:44 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Mtnsjohn writes:

  Keemosabe,

  You know what "Tonto" means in Spanish?

• March 12, 2008

  10:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  NDeeZ writes:

  A coupla things...the $10,000 threshold is history, and Campos should've known it. The software looks for patterns (cuz it would be easy to get around a $10,000 threshold by making two thousand $5 payments) and focuses in on people in position to be blackmailed, etc.
  Secondly, what an idiot Spitzer was--he knew exactly what the authoritities would be looking for, and he did it ANYWAY? As a Deomcrat, I didn't condemn Larry Craig et al because of the sex act, but because of the hypocrisy--so now I condemn Spitzer for the same thing.

• March 12, 2008

  10:53 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GWM writes:

  Keemosabe, I know that you were the Lone Ranger. It is interesting that you call yourself "Mr. Know-it-all" BECAUSE as Mtnsjohn points out, Tonto means idiot. So, which is it?

  I am just yanking your mask Lone. So, are these instances of corruption and infidelity weighted on either side of the aisle?

  Mtnsjohn, I did not know that. Thanks for sending me to google.

• March 12, 2008

  10:56 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GWM writes:

  Yeah, I know I mixed that up. I was so surprised by the Tonto xlation. Lone, you are not Tonto, but what about the question of which party is the worst?

• March 12, 2008

  11:51 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  GWM writes:

  Sorry bropous, who is Dhimmis?

• March 12, 2008

  11:58 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kbrigan writes:

  I don't care whether or not he was "targeted." Anyone who thinks buying human beings is sane or ethical behavior doesn't belong in office. (And, not BTW, buying human beings should be a felony in all circumstances. And, yes, I'm saying any man who presumes to buy a woman is insane.)

  The problem is that other similar criminals are going undetected, (and that criminals who wind up exposed, i.e. Schwarzenegger, even though their bullies tried to keep their crimes hidden, are not appropriately prosecuted and/or jailed) not that this one in particular was revealed.

  I don't care how he was outed, so long as he was.

• March 12, 2008

  12:15 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  kathyM writes:

  Campos (and his ilk) have often said conservatives are conspiracy nuts, seeing a commie in every corner, etc.

  Well, look who's talking conspiracy now!

• March 12, 2008

  12:29 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  ham writes:

  Campos, you're a nut. Spitzer got the same treatment he extended to others. There was no "conspiracy" to get him. Other than he was a grandstanding moralist who used his powers abusively.

• March 12, 2008

  12:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  jvb writes:

  I am highly elated with kathyM's sentence. Thank you Jesus: Her vocabulary includes more than two words. A guest on talk radio with no ex to grind claims W. Bush with Republicans still empowered wanted to get rid of Spitzer. The reprehensible Gene takes the opposite ground predicated on his ignorance. Hammer Spitzer for his violation of the law he swore to uphold; however, to seek his departure just because he gets laid and in doing so spreads the wealth is repugnant.

• March 12, 2008

  12:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  rickg19611 writes:

  Yeah... only the low IQ crowd believes that Republicans took over Spitzer's mind and body and MADE HIM commit the crimes.

  Are Democrats really dumb enough to think anyone will believe their defense of their criminal governor? Obviously so.

• March 12, 2008

  1:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  wow writes:

  I think I'm pretty liberal minded, but I do so love to see a liar tumble. I don't care if he's Democratic, Republican, or Martian...He broke the law and his vow to uphold it, after bludgeoning others with it. May his next job be at 7-11.

• March 12, 2008

  2:23 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  NDeeZ writes:

  First of all, he's not 'buying a human being.'

  He's renting one.

  And tell me, if a giant human can chose to use his body to play professional football, why can't a woman choose to use her body for sex?

  They can't ALL be victims, can they? Can't SOME of them be entrepreneurs?

• March 12, 2008

  2:42 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KenB writes:

  I don't understand why so many of you are railing at Paul Campos for "defending" Spitzer. It sure doesn't seem to me that he did. All Campos did was raise the same issue that struck both me and my wife independently, that it seemed unlikely the FBI would get involved unless there was a politically motivated decision to go after him.

  Eliot Spitzer is an idiot and deserves to be forced from office, regardless of his political affiliation. But what is the bigger threat to our country, a governor getting a little on the side or an administration illegitimately using its power to bring down an opponent? Pardon me, but I believe it is the latter.

• March 12, 2008

  3:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  rjnova writes:

  Leave it to Campos to excuse Spitzer, a fellow lawyer whose conduct is always excusable, especially by other lawyers. I delight in the humiliation and scandalous publicity Spitzer is getting, although the liberal media always goes easy on its own. This may very well be retribution by Wall St. biggies because Spitzer was an extortionist who used his AG position to extort hundreds of million dollars from corps on highly questionable grounds. They paid him off to halt his malicious prosecution and bad publicity. He was basically operating like trial lawyers who bring class action litigation knowing a corp. will payoff to avoid the publicity and lawyers will collect big legal fees while the plaintiffs see a few bucks.

  Campos sees so little criminal activity here because Spitzer is a fellow Democrat. Spitzer is in far more trouble if authorities choose to prosecute him. Transporting women across State Lines for immoral purpose was meant to halt white slavery. This is criminal activity plain and simple. And Spitzer would have delighted in using the same on one of his targets. In all likelihood he has already plea bargained the criminal charges because lawyers always find an out for their fellows. You know expecting the same courtesy if they have problems. I hope he is disbarred and has to live off the millions of dollars his family provided him.

  It looks like your normal arrogance that comes with powerful positions and fawning liberal media attention they afford their own. This will all fall off the radar screen and Spitzer will be portrayed the victim and not the crook that he is.

• March 12, 2008

  3:11 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  djb writes:

  Let me see if I understand the good professor's point...

  A former prosecutor and current head of New York State's law enforcement has been using shell accounts to pay tens of thousands of dollars to a multi-state criminal organization. In doing so, Spitzer has failed to report and prosecute an organization he clearly knows is committing multiple felonies.

  And while the professor calls Spitzer a "hypocrite and a fool", his big concern is that the government shouldn't have been looking so hard at Spitzer's activities.

  Wow. That kind of reasoning leaves me at a loss for words.

  If I were your instructor, Professor Campos, I'd recommend strengthening your arguments by relying less on ad hominem attacks and unsupported supposition.

• March 12, 2008

  3:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  djb writes:

  KenB, Spitzer could have gotten "a little on the side" without involving a criminal organization or breaking the law.

• March 12, 2008

  3:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  KenB writes:

  Yes, djb, he could have, but that only sidesteps my point. I would still argue that the greater threat to the country is an administration illegitimately using its power to bring down an opponent.

• March 12, 2008

  3:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  Spitzer's suspicious financial behavior, reported to authorities by the banks as is required by the law, was under investigation by the Feds several weeks before it was learned that this suspicious financial behavior involved call girls. This is not really all that complex; but is very challenging for PC whose twisted understanding of the law is "ready, fire, aim." Such suspicious financial behavior is reported by banks to the authorities, as required by law, about 500,000 times a year.

• March 12, 2008

  3:35 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  denverinfidel writes:

  Campos needs to do more homework before defending his scumbag ideological heros. As has been pointed out, $10k means nothing. If any powerful governor doesn't think people are watching their finances, then they deserve everything they get. He made his own bed. When you act like a thug and use your prosecutorial powers to shake down enemies and further your political career, payback can be holy hell. I have no doubt he was set up. But I also have no sympathy for someone who gives their enemies everything they need on a silver platter (think of bubba here).

  Vitter and Craig are degenerates, but they didn't commit felonies, and neither one has Spitzer in their last name. Call it two sided all you want, but its reality. If Spitzer was a republican you can be sure Campos wouldn't care about his banking privacy.

  There are plenty of idiots on both sides you can point to. How is Ted Kennedy still in office? How about "Sheets" Byrd? Packwood got away with it for years. Barney Frank is a degenerate pedophile, and everyone knows it. None of this is new. What makes it so big is that it was a pathological egomaniac like Spitzer who did it and made it so easy to catch him.

  Sending wires via the fed reserve for illegal purposes? How many people has he prosecuted for exactly that crime??? Probably many hundreds. I love watching self-rightous politicians train-wreck their lives. Considering the lives and careers Spitzer managed to ruin, it will take weeks for the smile to come off my face.

• March 12, 2008

  3:45 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  djb writes:

  KenB, no sidestep intended. He procurred his getting "a little on the side" in a way that is possibly illegal. He wouldn't be under legal investigation if he'd just had an affair.

  As for your point of an administration "illegitimately using its power to bring down an opponent", there is no evidence of that at this point.

  The full story will get out in time and if the evidence shows that members of the government broke the law or targeted Spitzer without any probably cause then I and most of America will demand that "heads roll".

• March 12, 2008

  3:45 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  flimflam writes:

  Ahh, the perfect defining of todays Republican Party. More evidence of an out of control ideologically driven federal bureacracy is A-OK, but throw in a Democrat and some titilating sex and holy cow, watch them come out of the woodwork. One has to wonder what causes this Republican preoccupation with other people's sex lives.

• March 12, 2008

  5:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  DEM. SLEAZEBAG NOW FACING JAIL TIME:

  It's believed Spitzer may have spent up to $80,000 on as many as nine illegal prostitutes, according to various media reports.

  There were rumors that the once-heralded Democrat had negotiated a plea deal to avoid jail time in the case, but U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia squashed those rumors. "There is no agreement between this Office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, relating to his resignation or any other matter," he said in a statement to CBS 2.

  That leaves Spitzer open to being indicted and facing prison time. While that remains up in the air, what is certain is that Spitzer has left a hideous mark in the annals of New York politics.

• March 12, 2008

  5:27 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  epaminondas writes:

  A consenting adult payed another consenting adult for a few hours of sex. This is what we spend millions of dollars combating? But then, it only takes a glimpse of this forum to realize that this country is full of idiots. epaminondas out.

• March 12, 2008

  5:42 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Oh_Wise_One writes:

  epaminondas- look in the mirror for an idiot.

• March 12, 2008

  6:59 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Jack_Ryan writes:

  So the former top law enforcement official for the State of NY and current Governor breaks the law and some of you morons have no problem with that? The fact that he did it and seriously thought he wouldn't get caught is amazing. Here's a guy that stopped at nothing, used every trick in the book available to him as AG, due to his own actions, is now in the cross hairs of system he used to head, and it's a Republican or media hatch job?

  And good old James Carville is out there "oh it's just sex", “it's a personal matter”. Try selling that excuse to your wife, jackass, see how fast she'd get Cheney's gun and lays your sorry ass out.

  You people have sunk to an all time low.

  What a bunch of flipping hypocrites…

• March 12, 2008

  8:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  NDeeZ writes:

  I love Dick Armey's comment during the whole Clinton-Monica thing--(paraphrasing) "If it'd been me, I'd be lying in a pool of my own blood, hearing my wife ask 'How do I re-load this damned thing?'"

• March 12, 2008

  11:10 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  freethinker07 writes:

  Spitzer says he is guilty. Craig says he is innocent. Maybe, just maybe, both of them are telling the truth.

• March 13, 2008

  7:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  "Client 9" could face the following charges:

  * Money laundering for trying to conceal the source and recipient of financial transactions.

  * Tax evasion, if he was a knowing party to an all-cash business that wasn't filing taxes.

  * Violation of the Mann Act for paying for the trip from New York to D.C. by the call girl known as "Kristen."

  * Misuse of state resources, if he used his state-issued credit card for hotels or meals with prostitutes as well as if he was being protected by State Troopers during his dalliances.

  * And finally, soliciting prostitution.

  There's also the question of whether Spitzer used campaign funds for these trysts, which opens up a whole other litany of charges from fraud to federal election violations.

  Court documents and published reports indicate perhaps as much as $80,000 were transferred from Spitzer's account to a trio of dummy companies that were fronts for the escort service.
  As you can see, this is no laughing matter for the former governor. Money laundering alone carries a maximum 20 years in prison.

  Seems to me that even if Demo Spitzer was "targeted," he sure was a great target.

• March 13, 2008

  9:14 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  NDeeZ writes:

  C'mon...look at her pictures; if you had a spare $4000, you'd hit that, right?

  My informal survey sez 89.6% of ALL men would, the other 20.4% being gay or liars.

• March 13, 2008

  9:16 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  NDeeZ writes:

  Bad math; 10.4 percent. Hmmm...an even lower number.

• March 13, 2008

  10:09 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  In order to minimize your Bimbo Footprint, make sure that you buy "Hooker Offsets" from your local pimp. I hear Al Gore is offering them at a discount.

• March 13, 2008

  1:55 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Trythinking writes:

  So now the liberals want CO2 classified as pollution and prostitution to be legal. Where is NOW on all this? Where were they with Clinton/Lewinsky? This is a typical liberal response, "We don't like the outcome, so let's have a retroactively change of the rules". Gore won the popular vote so he should have won. Hillary needs Florida and Michigan so they should count. Etc

• March 14, 2008

  7:28 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Houstongolfnut writes:

  Banks routinely look at political leader's bank accounts for signs of bribes. Evidently, this practice can reap other rewards. Or is this just another case of our government spying on Americans? Life has ways of eventually dealing with #ss holes and this most deserving example got his.

• March 14, 2008

  1:21 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  kbrigan writes:

  To KenB:

  Someone presuming to buy a human being is not "getting a little on the side." Having sex is normal, sane, human behavior. Making someone into a slave, whose body can be used as if it were plastic, or kleenex, or trash, and not inextricably connected to a heart, mind and soul, is insane, inhumane, and ILLEGAL behavior. And, it's insane, inhuman and ILLEGAL regardless of whether or not the victim cooperates in her own destruction. Prostitution is a form of self-mutilation as surely as someone's cutting their own flesh. And your hero actually gets off on the idea of someone hating herself enough to mutilate herself. Your hero GETS OFF ON SUICIDE. Enjoying and exploiting someone else's despair, desperation and self-hatred is NOT "getting a little on the side."

  Way to minimize barbarity.

• March 17, 2008

  9:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  webviking0579 writes:

  First of all, anyone except a clueless clown like Paul Campos knows that a "sting operation" is where a law enforcement official or person cooperating with a law enforcement agency attempts to engage in illegal activity with the target of the investigation. Where did that happen in the Spitzer case? Nowhere! Spitzer was reported because of suspicious banking activity, which led to the holding company that owned the elite escort agency that Spitzer was doing business with, which was enough evidence for a judge (a judge, not a Bush Administration official) to grant a wiretap, which led to evidence that Spitzer was hiring hookers. Campos can call it politically motivated if it helps him dream sweet dreams of liberal fantasy at night if he wants, but the fact of the matter is that Spitzer walked right into this mess and knew it. That's why he resigned.