<p>I haven’t heard the state funds part. THAT would be really low; I think he has tons of his own $$$$$. </p>
<p>Since I know people who have been targeted unfairly by Spitzer’s AG investigations in the past, I was very amused this morning driving to work to hear all the “Client Number Nine” jokes.</p>
<p>Why would the IRS be monitoring movement of a few thousand dollars in a personal account of a well off individual? Ivana Trump’s handbags cost more than these “escorts”. Something’s not jelling here.</p>
<p>“While not denying that it’s wrong behavior, I think both LaxAttack and I are wondering where this fits in the universe of wrongdoing that politicians engage in, and whether (and why) it should be considered a career-terminating event.”</p>
<p>Because, Kluge, Mr. Spitzer has now allowed organized crime into the governor’s office. There is no way to spin this. Prostitution rings are run by organized crime. This wasn’t a consensual relationship among adults, it was criminal behavior that opened him up to blackmail. what I wonder is who else owns Mr. Spitzer.</p>
<p>As someone reported above, any cash transfer of $10,000 or more has to be reported – and that has been true for 20 years. It’s an essential tool of law enforcement to catch tax cheats as well as drug dealers, bookies, etc. – anyone who does illegal businesses that depend on cash (as most of them do). (For the sophisticated criminals, it doesn’t catch them so much as harass them – deny them full use of a convenient and safe banking system.)</p>
<p>As a matter of practice, banks may report a series of $9,000 cash transactions, too. Successful drug dealers aren’t that dumb – they know that $10,000 transactions get reported, so most will never take more than $9,900 out of a bank at a time.</p>
<p>“Demonized? Isn’t that a little extreme, even for you, Razorsharp? I mean, Spitzer just screwed a call girl. Bush screwed the entire nation, and I don’t see you “demonizing” him.”</p>
<p>No Kluge, he had a business arrangement with criminals. It’s NOT about the sex. Why is it so hard for so many people (men?) to think beyond sex?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because this Gov is a Democrat. But had it been Awwwnald…;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>northeastmom, you misunderstood me. What I find cruel is the individuals here on CC who are speculating that the reason she appeared at his side was due to money. In the couple of hours between learning about her husband’s behavior and appearing at the press conference, I’m sure one of the last things on her mind was how much $$ she could get from him. Bash him if you will, but have some compassion for her.</p>
<p>JHS, why would you think that Mrs. Spitzer would already know that he was consorting with hookers? I can’t believe that. That reminds me of women I used to work with who fooled around with married men. Their justification was always, “Give me a break…Their wives know and could care less!” I never believed it.</p>
<p>"I’m sure one of the last things on her mind was how much $$ she could get from him. "</p>
<p>Unless, of course, he told her. This isn’t a nice man we’re talking about, and his birth family is known to play hardball to the extreme (like personally bankrolling his candidacy for AG and lying about it). I don’t think she said “I’ll stand there and get money,” but I do think she knew that if she didn’t, she’d be closing doors to herself and determining the path she’s going to take very early in the circumstances. </p>
<p>As far as how he got so caught up for such a relatively small amount of money, apparently he became the big fish in the net cast to catch a very large international prostitution ring. In other words, it was the criminal activit that caught attention, not someone going after the governor for the fun of it.</p>
<p>“Because, Kluge, Mr. Spitzer has now allowed organized crime into the governor’s office.”</p>
<p>Yep, that’s what it’s all about. As I’ve said before, I think this whole operation ought to be legal. If he’d gotten laid this way on a trip to Amsterdam or Nevada, I’d say that’s between him and his wife. But entering into a criminal conspiracy with a bunch of professional felons is not OK, especially for someone who entered politics as a prosecutor of organized crime.</p>
<p>zoosermom, I disagree. What ‘doors’ would she be closing? I don’t understand that. Certainly not anything to do with a potential divorce settlement. Her decision to attend, or not to attend, the press conference isn’t going to alter any future distribution of assets. This is an intelligent, well-educated woman. As I said, no one should be judging her actions, in my opinion.</p>
<p>“What ‘doors’ would she be closing? I don’t understand that.”</p>
<p>Any future dealings with her inlaws because that’s where the money is. This is a very smart lady and she wouldn’t take such a decisive step as to not appear at this early date. What you view as “judging” is really admiration of how she has her wits about her in the midst of a crisis. She knows who and what she is dealing with and is conducting herself in a manner so as to leave all options open to herself and her children. God bless her.</p>
<p>dke, I have no idea whether Silda Spitzer knew her husband was consorting with hookers. But, if she’s anything like my wife, I’m sure she has a very rich, detailed understanding of all of his strengths, weaknesses, and in-betweens. And I strongly doubt that the incident caught on tape was a once-in-a-lifetime departure from character. So I assume she knows something of the arrogance, selfishness, recklessness, and, yes, sexuality that this incident reflects. That doesn’t make it OK, or mean that she condoned it, oh no, no, no, no. But it does mean, after years of occasionally basking in the glow of her husband’s brilliant career, that she’s a little bit complicit in his self-destructiveness, and that’s something she has to live with, too. </p>
<p>(P.S.: I said the same thing about Hilary Clinton ten years ago. And I like Hilary Clinton just fine.)</p>
<p>Whoa, JHS. “complicit in his destructiveness”? </p>
<p>This is about HIM and HIS as-yet-uncharged felonies. The NYS Troopers were more “complicit” in turning their backs while all of this went on.</p>
<p>I agree with alwaysamom about the judging of Silda Spitzer here. It is possible that she had just learned of this incident only hours before and is in a state of shock and hurt. I highly doubt that her decision to stand or not with her husband had anything to do with plotting of her financial future. It could end up that she chooses to stay married to her husband…like Hillary or like JHS posted…she may not condone it but it may be in keeping with certain behaviors she has put up with in the marriage anyway and she has chosen to stay even so. I doubt she was thinking too far ahead at that moment. She looked very unhappy in the photos and I am sure it was a difficult moment but he is her husband and she was present at this moment which doesn’t reflect ANY condoning of his behavior. She may opt to stay with him or to leave. I doubt at that moment, any plans of any sort were in her mind but just surviving this dreadful moment. She has children. Her husband is a public figure. She simply was present at this news conference in her role as the governor’s wife. I think judging her isn’t right. She simply appeared at the conference. Now she will have to deal with their personal life and that should be that…personal, and not public, as much as possible. </p>
<p>I agree with Hanna that this wasn’t about just sleeping around and cheating on a wife…none of which would be our business or worthy of a political figure stepping down. It may be, however, that he was involved in illegal activity. If that is the case, public trust is diminished because he has been charged in his political and legal positions to uphold the law. Frankly, I think this was dumb of him. I realze politicians are human and do what many others do but I feel that they have to know that they will be under public scrutiny and should be extra vigilant to walk a clean line while in office and not throw everything away. It is just a dumb move when they have worked so hard and have achieved so brilliantly in their careers.</p>
<p>^Or the same thinking as Elizabeth Hurley toward Hugh Grant, ie you don’t kick somebody when they are down.</p>
<p>NYS GOP gives Eliot 48 hours to resign or they will impeach…</p>
<p>“NYS GOP gives Eliot 48 hours to resign or they will impeach…”
And they should do it. Who is running my state today?</p>
<p>Same as always, ZM. Joe and Sheldon.</p>
<p>Dems doing what Dems do best…</p>
<p>Now I understand why Dems don’t want to extend the Patriot Act.</p>