<p>Am I missing something? This is all about a politician hiring a call girl? Is there something more here, or is that it?</p>
<p>^^ That’s what I get out of it…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You really never stop, do you? Shoo, ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to see what I mean can look at coffee’s post history, which includes numerous threads ■■■■■■■■ on both Harvard’s and Princeton’s forums here, including an especially stupid couple of posts on this issue.</p>
<p>hbart724: They don’t. But coffee loves to ■■■■■. It’s annoying, but the world is full of people like that, and all you can do is tolerate them. Or ban them… hmm…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not a big fan of the hypocrisy either. The way I figure it, a person’s personal life in office is his or hers to deal with, so long as it does not effect their judgment with respect to their job.</p>
<p>I’m really not comfortable with my governor dealing with a prostitution ring. Those things are not run by nice people, and I have a problem with my governor dealing with and being open to blackmail by those people. Transporting the prostitute across state lines is also illegal. And for anyone who wants to impute partisanship, I had personal dealings with Governor Pataki for many years and detested him more than I can possibly articulate. Therefore, I was open-minded toward Spitzer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Normally I would agree, but something tells me that a place where the MINIMUM for a 24 hr visit costs $10,000 and can go upwards of $35,000 is run by a different kind of person…</p>
<p>^^ I don’t think that huge charges make the criminals running these rings any nicer.</p>
<p>“Normally I would agree, but something tells me that a place where the MINIMUM for a 24 hr visit costs $10,000 and can go upwards of $35,000 is run by a different kind of person”</p>
<p>Yeah, No. Those people just have bigger houses here on Staten Island.</p>
<p>Did a criminal run it?</p>
<p>By definition, a person who runs a prostitution ring is a criminal.</p>
<p>by definition, the emperors club wasn’t a prostitution ring but rather a high service escort service. It was a legitimate business in numerous global cities…</p>
<p>" It was a legitimate business in numerous global cities…"</p>
<p>Not here and it was and is a prostitution ring. Criminals even use the Internet, can you imagine!</p>
<p>Actually it WAS a legitimate business. There’s nothing illegal with an escort service??? The difficulty is deciding where the line between escort/prostitution occurs. Obviously some sort of prositution happened in this case (if the charges are true, which they appear to be) but calling the owner of the club a criminal is a little premature. Escort agencies are legal…</p>
<p>“Actually it WAS a legitimate business”</p>
<p>Nope. Gee, you are going to screw yourself into the ground with all this spinning! The man broke the law. The law. You know, the law? He broke it.</p>
<p>Zooser you’re really hurting your case. Read up on the laws against escort services. It’s called an “arms length agreement” where the girl and the owner of the business don’t have a cozy relationship so if any prostitution does occur the owner can deny that he took part in it. Escort agencies are 100% legal, this is not disputed.</p>
<p>You HAVE no case. This was sex. Of the “unsafe” variety. Is THAT more clear to you? I wonder if you’re being partisanally-obtuse, or if you really are confused and naive. Not familiar with your posts in other threads. Because you’ve missed the entire point here. Maybe you could go back and re-read what was posted.</p>
<p>Give up, LaxAttack. ZM is correct. The feds have enough taped evidence. NYT has excerpts from the transcript of the phone calls. Plenty there to prove it was money for specific sex acts, paid to the company. Not just to the woman. This is a prostitution ring, not an escort service.</p>
<p>Which is not to say that there aren’t legitimate escort services. There certainly are. This isn’t one of them, and the amount of money involved just makes the proprietors more dangerous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OMG, zoosermom. That was hysterical! Thanks!</p>
<p>Interestingly, while the most TV news sources CNN, etc continue to run a banner that says a wiretap is the evidence, one site --ABC, is reporting that the whole investigation was triggered by a bank reporting suspicious money transfers by Spitizer.</p>
<p>Originally they thought he was hiding bribes or doing something else related to his job!</p>
<p>Vicariousparent, Poetsheart, I’d like to point out to you both that I am now, in fact, a Senior Member here at CC. Even though there were no parties or celebrations of the event, you should feel free to bow.</p>