Author
|
Topic: Spitzer gets a pass, as johns almost always do
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 06 November 2008 11:54 PM
quote:
No U.S. Prostitution Charges Against Spitzer By DANNY HAKIM, NYT, November 7Former 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 08:51 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SwimmingLee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14847
|
posted 09 November 2008 06:25 AM
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
|
|
|