babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Spitzer gets a pass, as johns almost always do

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Spitzer gets a pass, as johns almost always do
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 06 November 2008 11:54 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

No U.S. Prostitution Charges Against Spitzer
By DANNY HAKIM, NYT, November 7

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer will not face criminal charges for patronizing a high-priced prostitution ring, federal prosecutors announced on Thursday.
The announcement, a five-paragraph statement from Michael J. Garcia, the United States attorney in Manhattan, ended almost eight months of uncertainty for the disgraced governor, whose lawyers had been quietly making their case to the country's most prominent prosecutor's office that he ought not be charged. And it ended the possibility that Mr. Spitzer, once an aggressive prosecutor himself, would have his private life explored in a public criminal case.
Mr. Spitzer resigned as governor in March, two days after The New York Times reported that he had been a customer of the Emperor's Club V.I.P., a prostitution service that charged as much as $5,500 an hour.
Mr. Garcia said in the statement that his office had found that "on multiple occasions, Mr. Spitzer arranged for women to travel from one state to another state to engage in prostitution." But the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said.
"We have determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against Mr. Spitzer," Mr. Garcia said in the statement. "In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this office, as well as Mr. Spitzer"s acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter."
The policy, detailed in the Justice Department's manual for United States attorneys on how to carry out their duties, advises that unless minors are victims, prosecutions "should generally be limited to persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities"(...)



As if he hadn't been!

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 01:47 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BUMP
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 November 2008 02:31 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ya, I heard this on the late news, everything is okay because he used his own money
quote:
But the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 04:50 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was a politically motivated takedown from the beginning. Justice was never going to be done because justice was never the point.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 11:02 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fascinating timing that they waited after the vote to let him off.
Norway is to join Sweden in a few weeks in outlawing the buying of "sexual services", both in Norway and by Norwegian men abroad.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Fascinating timing that they waited after the vote to let him off.
Norway is to join Sweden in a few weeks in outlawing the buying of "sexual services", both in Norway and by Norwegian men abroad.

Fascinating. Will Norwegian women be allowed to hire hustlers?


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 04:37 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I doubt it.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 November 2008 07:08 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's pretty stupid. Why shouldn't people be allowed to buy sex if someone wants to sell it. I sell my brain to the company I work for. Why shouldn't i be able to sell my dick as well?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 07:16 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd certainly buy it if it comes separate.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 07:37 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
would that be "trading up" for you Martin.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 07 November 2008 07:43 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Huh? Maybe I'm reading that wrong, so what they are saying is if you use your own money then it's not illegal? *scratches head*
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 07:45 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They do what they want and they call it the law.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 07 November 2008 07:51 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
They do what they want and they call it the law.

Well I'm not surprised that he let him off, as you said in the title Johns almost always do. I'm just more surprised that the reason they came up with is just so blatantly contravening the actual law. You'd figure that they'd be a little more creative but then again I guess legal doublespeak is somewhat creative.
Though I suppose what is more troubling is the number of people in the public that will read that and go, 'oh okay...' and leave it at that.


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 07 November 2008 07:53 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
These were federal prosecutors. Whether or not prostitution is a criminal offense is a matter of state law. Federal law only comes into play if Spitzer used campaign or public money, or if he transported someone across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. Spitzer actually did do the latter, but what the DOJ is saying is that as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, they've decided to only go after those who do that for commercial purposes (i.e. people running an interstate prostitution ring).

Spitzer's not totally in the clear here, yet. Either a New York or a D.C. district attorney could presumably still decide to pursue him under New York or D.C. law.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 07:58 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElizaQ:
Huh? Maybe I'm reading that wrong, so what they are saying is if you use your own money then it's not illegal? *scratches head*

It was the FBI that did the investigation on the suspicion of a federal crime. This announcement is saying that there will be no federal charges. I haven't heard anything about whether there are charges pending in any more local jurisdiction but my hunch is that they'll just let it drop.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 07 November 2008 08:01 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah okay that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 08:51 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't that, to a letter, the "oh okay" reaction you were concerned about?
quote:
robbie_dee's defense of the prosecutors: (...)Federal law only comes into play if Spitzer used campaign or public money, or if he transported someone across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. Spitzer actually did do the latter,...

Yes he did.

quote:
...but what the DOJ is saying is that as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, they've decided to only go after those who do that for commercial purposes (i.e. people running an interstate prostitution ring).

No, that's your interpretation. The press release quotes the law very clearly as applying to persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities. Spitzer was, paying big money to a commercial prostitution organization. Robbie_dee is suggesting that only pimps and prostituted persons are engaged in such activities. Spitzer was arrested because, as a buyer and co-organizer of this crossing state lines, he also was.
And now they are giving us this b.-s. about his "acceptance of responsibility" about what now turns out not to be a crime anyway and about "the public interest not being served by a filing of charges"!
Prosecutorial discretion indeed! What a load of...

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 07 November 2008 09:00 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]No, that's your interpretation. The press release quotes the law very clearly as applying to persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities. Spitzer was, paying big money to a commercial prostitution organization. Robbie_dee is suggesting that only pimps and prostituted persons are engaged in such activities. Spitzer was arrested because, as a buyer and co-organizer of this crossing state lines, he also was.
And now they - and robbie-dee - are giving us this b.-s. about his "acceptance of responsibility" about what now turns out not to be a crime anyway and about "the public interest not being served by a filing of charges"!
Prosecutorial discretion indeed! What a load of...

The article you linked says the following:

[QUOTE]The policy, detailed in the Justice Department’s manual for United States attorneys on how to carry out their duties, advises that unless minors are victims, prosecutions “should generally be limited to persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities.”


Since the source referenced is a policy manual and not a statute, that reads pretty clearly to me to be a case of prosecutorial discretion. The law says transporting prostitutes across state lines is a federal offense. The "policy" of the Justice Department is only to bring charges to enforce that law against "persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities."

And by the way, Martin, fuck you. Just because I am trying to explain the Justice Department's position to another poster, doesn't mean I endorse the contents of that position. I was not previously familiar with your posting history here, but I've started to pay attention. For a so-called male feminist, you sure do like to wave your dick around.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 09:20 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I edited the post to focus on what you *are* saying and justifying.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 07 November 2008 09:35 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Once again, it is the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney who have defined the term "commercial prostitution activities."

Since prostitution is by definition the exchange of sexual services for money or other compensation, one could say there's no-such thing as "non-commercial" prostitution activities. If there's no exchange of service for compensation, its not prostitution its just sex.

Clearly the U.S. attorney does not follow this definition of the term "commercial prostitution activities," or else they would be prosecuting Spitzer. But that's not my opinion, that's the U.S. attorney's. I haven't tried to justify anything. In my opinion Spitzer is a scoundrel and I would have no sympathy for him regardless of the penalty he faced.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 07 November 2008 09:44 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Focusing on Spitzer's behaviour and the prosecutions fine parsing of the law to avoid trying him on the charges is to miss the point of this particular prosecution.

Spitzer was lining up fraud charges against major Wall St. players. The DOJ was instructed to take him down to avoid that, the prostitution thing was just the excuse.

This is not to justify his behaviour, or suggest that he not be prosecuted, but this is not a case in which you can look at to determine the normal policy positions of the prosecutors.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 08 November 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yawn - someone bought sex. In this case, for way too much money. His political career is over because of it and that's far more of a substantial penalty than a court was likely to give out.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 08 November 2008 11:08 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The old "he's suffered enough" cliché... trotted out whenever someone from a dominant caste gets caught breaking the law.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 08 November 2008 11:28 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What should Spitzer be convicted of? And why should he be charged at all? This moralizing and criminalizing of sexuality is highly distasteful.

Rather, we should be ensuring that the women and sex workers involved in this case receive equal reprieve.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 08 November 2008 11:31 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"sexuality"? Are all things sexual sacred in your worldview, regardless of harm to others and to the community?
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 08 November 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I largely agree with Catchfire on this... the moralizing and criminalizing of sexuality is distasteful... if there is going to be a discussion on prostitution, I would prefer to see talk about harm reduction rather than a neo-Victorian shaking of fingers.
From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 08 November 2008 04:39 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What harm was there, except to the Spitzer family finances (putting aside the impact of adultery - you can do that for free)? Exploitation, though technically true becomes a bit hard to argue at $5,500 an hour.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 09 November 2008 04:07 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"sexuality"? Are all things sexual sacred in your worldview, regardless of harm to others and to the community?

Well, I don't know how you do it, but I tend far more towards the profane.

Joking aside, I know your feelings on prostitution and I agree that sex workers need to be protected, and I acknowledge the hypocrisy in all levels of this case. But I can see no benefit in prosecuting Spitzer here--to the women exploited or to the 'community', whatever that means.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SwimmingLee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14847

posted 09 November 2008 06:25 AM      Profile for SwimmingLee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
That was a politically motivated takedown from the beginning. Justice was never going to be done because justice was never the point.

Yeah. Isn't this between Spitzer & his wife ?

Spitzer was one of the leading politicians in terms of investigating "troubles in bank land".

My guess is, lots of Washington pols. use sex workers. Why was Spitzer singled out for investigation ?


From: LASIK-FLap.com ~ Health Warning about LASIK Eye Surgery | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 November 2008 07:08 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SwimmingLee:
Why was Spitzer singled out for investigation ?

You answered your own question. He had a history as an effective prosecutor when he was AG and he was targeting fraud in the investment banking industry.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca