Snaring Spitzer

Given the Bush administration's record, it's natural to wonder about foul play in the investigation that wound up with Elliot Spitzer's penchant for hookers all over the front pages. And this does indeed seem pretty fishy to me -- investigators, knowing that Spitzer was an Emperor's Club client, seem to have kept their wiretap running even after they had all the evidence they needed to bust the prostitution ring, waiting until they could catch a call from Spitzer, and then once Spitzer was implicated rolled the case up.

On the other hand, this is sort of the good kind of partisan motivated prosecutions. To a large extent the American political system depends on the idea that partisan motives will cause public corruption to be exposed. Spitzer was a rising star, so incentives exist for his political enemies to try to wreck his career. And wreck it they have. But they wrecked it with some bona fide dirt -- whether or not you think prostitution ought to be legal, it unquestionably isn't legal, and governors aren't supposed to be breaking the law. This isn't a trumped-up charge or an innocent man getting railroaded.

All of which reminds me, naturally enough, of The Wire. How is it that the Republican incumbent and his friend the US Attorney manage to let Carcetti's vast coverup go unexposed?

Comments

I'm guessing that the answer to your last question is that they didn't know about it. Which is shocking, as you'd expect someone to have leaked it.

Posted by Joe | March 12, 2008 11:57 AM

Of course cheerleading for partisan prosecutions as ultimately a good thing is cold comfort to Don Seigelman.

Posted by steve duncan | March 12, 2008 11:58 AM

But they wrecked it with some bona fide dirt -- whether or not you think prostitution ought to be legal, it unquestionably isn't legal, and governors aren't supposed to be breaking the law.

This conclusion involves some underlying assumptions that need to see the light of day. Replace the word "prostitution" with the word "speeding" or "jaywalking", and see if the conclusion still makes sense. I don't know whether or not prostitution should be legalized. I do know that breaking the law by paying for prostitutes is nowhere near sufficient grounds for having your poliltical career wrecked. The same goes for a Republican like Vitter.

Larry Craig is a slightly different situation, in that he was making himself a nuisance in a public restroom, rather than taking care of his business privately, so I'm not as sympathetic in that situation.

Posted by Jim W | March 12, 2008 12:00 PM

I'll add one more thing. I keep hearing that Spitzer should be penalized extra for this crime because he had an image as a self-righteous, anti-corruption guy. Also, that it is terrible for a governor and former attorney general to do something like this, because they enforce the law, but its basically ok for a congressman because they are only legislators. These sentiments are completely idiotic. Its as if hypocrisy should be a compounding factor in judging what kind of penalty one should pay. The penalty should have absolutely nothing to do with ones political image or position.

Posted by Jim W | March 12, 2008 12:08 PM

First you say,

This conclusion involves some underlying assumptions that need to see the light of day.

then after a reasoned and logical post you close with this doozy,

Larry Craig is a slightly different situation, in that he was making himself a nuisance in a public restroom, rather than taking care of his business privately, so I'm not as sympathetic in that situation.

There seems to be some significant disconnect taking place somewhere.

Posted by Steve Balboni | March 12, 2008 12:10 PM

As cynical about Bushco as anyone here, but if they were to maximize the political impact, wouldn't they have timed this closer to the election, particularly if Clinton is the nominee?

(Or maybe that had been the intention, but they figure she won't be the nominee).

Or if truly Machiavellian, held back in reserve until Spitzer's career went to the next step - Attorney General? Supreme Court? National office?

Posted by hopeless pedant | March 12, 2008 12:15 PM

"I do know that breaking the law by paying for prostitutes is nowhere near sufficient grounds for having your poliltical career wrecked."

Well, that depends. It might be sufficient grounds if you were trysting with the prostitutes while on official business, using official resources (i.e. taxpayer money), as Spitzer was when he was in DC and staying at the Mayflower. Especially when you rode into the governor's mansion on a reputation as a super-strict, zealous AG who had vigorously prosecuted prostitution rings. And even more especially after you had previously used official resources to conduct illegal surveillance of, and plant false stories about, political opponents.

Posted by Claudius | March 12, 2008 12:17 PM

dude, obviously you haven't been reading the NY Times. they were specifically investigating Spitzer due to the suspicious money transfers. the prostitution ring was just incidental. you've got the whole thing backwards. Spitzer was the target, not the ring.

Posted by Nathan | March 12, 2008 12:21 PM

"I do know that breaking the law by paying for prostitutes is nowhere near sufficient grounds for having your poliltical career wrecked."

Really? I think Spitzer's behavior is disgusting, and I have no problem with his career being wrecked over it (even though I was a real admirer of that career up until then).

I think Bill Clinton's behavior was awful, too, though I disagreed with the impeachment effort since the underlying sin in Clinton's case was not against the law, and, frankly, I think impeaching a president is more serious business than insisting on resignation from a state governor.

Posted by Dissenter | March 12, 2008 12:26 PM

Its as if hypocrisy should be a compounding factor in judging what kind of penalty one should pay. The penalty should have absolutely nothing to do with ones political image or position.

I've heard a lot of people say those things make Spitzer more hypocritical, but I haven't heard anyone say he should suffer any greater legal penalties. If one argues Spitzer should resign but Vitter doesn't have to for this reason, then yes, Spitzer is being penalized more politically, but political justice works much differently than legal justice. When it comes to politics, hypocrisy matters.

Posted by ibid | March 12, 2008 12:27 PM

I think people can argue about the FBI pursuing prostitution (I don't have a problem with it here, but I can see an argument).

But once the decision to go after the prostitution ring was made, I think it was almost certainly the right decision to (within reason) go until they nailed Spitzer. There was, at the least, a high degree of risk that information that he was involved would leak. Better to get the goods than to create an untenable situation where innuendo was flying but no clear proof existed. Imagine the trench warfare that would have ensued. I think the FBI was right to tie this up in a bow. They have saved both sides an awful lot of howling.

Posted by anon | March 12, 2008 12:27 PM

I think the key is that it is bona fide dirt. No one framed him. They may have nailed him with extra glee and malice aforethought, but not on a trumped up charge.

As for seriousness of the crime--there's the rumored mafia links of the escort service. Even without such rumors, compare and contrast the following threats:

"Spitzer, we got film of you jaywalking across 36th street at Madison on February 13th. If you don't vote the way we want on Bill 379, that photo hits the Sun next week..."

"Spitzer, we got film of you ****, *****, and ******** Kristin at the Mayflower on February 13th. If you don't vote the way we want on Bill 379, those photos hit the Sun next week, plus video on the internet...."

If a politician puts himself in the first situation, even diehard opponents aren't going to work themselves up much. In the second....well, part of being in office is showing some judgment and common sense, which he tossed flagrantly to the wind on this one.

Posted by Deborah | March 12, 2008 12:33 PM

Reading the timeline I found here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_294.php, it definitely looks like they extended the investigation to "get" Spitzer. It started from his suspicious activities, which were pretty quickly tied to the prostitution ring, but it also looks like there were others, whose names haven't been leaked and who haven't been forced to resign from their jobs, involved. It's hard not to see the fingerprints of politics on this affair.

And to Matt's second point about The Wire, your point lands firmly on the theme that David Simon has been putting out in his various post-finale interviews: the papers are missing the big stories. Who at the Wire's Sun would get the leak? And since the Sun was implicated in the story, would those editors have run with a story that embarassed the paper? Also, in Spitzer's case, he's made some serious enemies in the banking community. I think they were more than happy to report his activities to the IRS and get the ball rolling.

Posted by J. | March 12, 2008 12:41 PM

Reading the timeline I found here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_294.php, it definitely looks like they extended the investigation to "get" Spitzer. It started from his suspicious activities, which were pretty quickly tied to the prostitution ring, but it also looks like there were others, whose names haven't been leaked and who haven't been forced to resign from their jobs, involved. It's hard not to see the fingerprints of politics on this affair.

And to Matt's second point about The Wire, your point lands firmly on the theme that David Simon has been putting out in his various post-finale interviews: the papers are missing the big stories. Who at the Wire's Sun would get the leak? And since the Sun was implicated in the story, would those editors have run with a story that embarassed the paper? Also, in Spitzer's case, he's made some serious enemies in the banking community. I think they were more than happy to report his activities to the IRS and get the ball rolling.

Posted by J. | March 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Reading the timeline I found here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_294.php, it definitely looks like they extended the investigation to "get" Spitzer. It started from his suspicious activities, which were pretty quickly tied to the prostitution ring, but it also looks like there were others, whose names haven't been leaked and who haven't been forced to resign from their jobs, involved. It's hard not to see the fingerprints of politics on this affair.

And to Matt's second point about The Wire, your point lands firmly on the theme that David Simon has been putting out in his various post-finale interviews: the papers are missing the big stories. Who at the Wire's Sun would get the leak? And since the Sun was implicated in the story, would those editors have run with a story that embarassed the paper? Also, in Spitzer's case, he's made some serious enemies in the banking community. I think they were more than happy to report his activities to the IRS and get the ball rolling.

Posted by J. | March 12, 2008 12:45 PM

Just an observation about what some perceive as a politically-motivated wiretap: In another life, I was a federal investigator, though never on anything so high-profile. And, politically I'm a Progressive.

If it had been an investigation of a prostitution ring, initially based on the allegation of Spitzer's involvement as a client, then it would have been a politically-motivated prosecution. The political dimension of a Governor participating in even a 'victimless' criminal act is inescapable, but politics didn't play much of a part.

However, would I have argued to keep a wire going in an unacknowledged hope of catching a state Governor? You bet.

It's about the law -- and it's also about the undeniable satisfaction (and potential career enhancement) in landing a high-profile, celebrity big fish.

And there are private notions of morality, even some grade-school satisfaction in punishing the popular kid, the member of the tribe gotten out of line: I can imagine some of the Agents involved thinking, You were a prosecutor; you were the Attorney General of the State of New York; you were supposed to be on our side. You made a bad choice and you're gonna pay for it.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 12, 2008 12:45 PM

To a large extent the American political system depends on the idea that partisan motives will cause public corruption to be exposed.

Modulo the fact that political motives at an individual level rather than partisan motives were assumed, this is how the system is indeed supposed to work. Doesn't anyone read Federalist #10 anymore?

All of this nostalgia about "in the old days people weren't so political" is BS and all this neo-feudal pearl clutching of "politicians should stop playing politics" from the MSM is frankly un-democratic.

Now I wonder when people will realize that ambition is supposed to check ambition and reward those who's ambition leads them to start tearing into BushCO instead of dismissing them as "oh, s/he's just trying to play politics". At some level, BushCO is the fault of the American people -- even if we say we hate BushCO, it won't mean a damned thing unless we collectively reward those who, even if for political reasons -- heck especially for political reasons -- go after BushCO with political gain.

So long as we don't elect people who vigorously oppose BushCO, we're supporting Bush CO. Don't people get that? To adapt the words of Bush's supposed favorite philosopher -- "those who are not against BushCO are with BushCO".

Posted by DAS | March 12, 2008 12:52 PM

I asked my friend who is a DA about this and her explanation was pretty plausible: prosecutors always want to nail the Big Fish in a case like this, particularly when the Big Fish is the reason the case got started in the first place. It's not necessarily partisan so much as a natural sense of competitiveness and professional pride.

Jim W. said:

Replace the word "prostitution" with the word "speeding" or "jaywalking", and see if the conclusion still makes sense. I don't know whether or not prostitution should be legalized. I do know that breaking the law by paying for prostitutes is nowhere near sufficient grounds for having your poliltical career wrecked. The same goes for a Republican like Vitter.

I tend to agree with this in general, but the scope of Spitzer's spending changes things a bit, doesn't it? The analogy here is between a politician getting busted with a joint versus another getting busted with $40k worth of Super Grass. I think the scale of Spitzer's spending is what is driving a lot of the story here.

Posted by owenz | March 12, 2008 12:53 PM

The entire Spitzer scandal is clearly just a convoluted hommage to The Wire.

Posted by Martin | March 12, 2008 1:00 PM

Spitzer was a rising star, so incentives exist for his political enemies to try to wreck his career. And wreck it they have.

Seems to me Spitzer wrecked his own career.

He is one of the people who made an effort to put into place the banking regulations that monitor the finanicial activity of "pep"s in the first place.

And then, as a "pep," starting making irregular financial transactions to facilitate his illegal, hypocritical activity.

That is pretty dumb.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 12, 2008 1:12 PM

These sentiments are completely idiotic. Its as if hypocrisy should be a compounding factor in judging what kind of penalty one should pay. The penalty should have absolutely nothing to do with ones political image or position.

Picture this - a doctor (or Congressman) who for years has crusaded for recognition of legitmate medical uses of marijuana is busted for possession of same, versus, a Giuliani-type prosecutor with headline convictions of drug dealers busted for possession.

Same offense, same penalty? Kidding?

dude, obviously you haven't been reading the NY Times. they were specifically investigating Spitzer due to the suspicious money transfers. the prostitution ring was just incidental. you've got the whole thing backwards. Spitzer was the target, not the ring.

Does anyone (other than, apparently, Matt) disagree?

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 12, 2008 1:22 PM

Well, according to this story in Harpers, it looks like it very well may have been a political prosecution:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002589

Posted by dantonj | March 12, 2008 1:28 PM

What it reminds me of is Dan Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama that is currently in prison. There's every reason to believe that he WAS an innocent man who got railroaded for partisan reasons, and yet he's still there.

Posted by beckya57 | March 12, 2008 1:29 PM

The coverup wasn't really that widespread (or at least it didn't need to me), and the serial killer was caught so there's probably not that many people looking into it. The only possible spoiler seems to be Bond, since if Carcetti stays in office, he might recponstitute his chances against Nerise.

Posted by JM | March 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Same offense, same penalty? Kidding?

Yes. Not kidding. Obviously, there's no legal penalty for hypocrisy. Politically, it depends on how people, such as voters, react. I'm arguing it shouldn't matter for much. His recent behavior is presumably due to sexual compulsions and temptations, which, given his previous job, make him a hypocrite. So what?

Posted by Jim W | March 12, 2008 1:31 PM

How would the USA know about it? I'm not exactly sure. People may not like Carcetti, but they'd rather deal with him than the Republicans.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 12, 2008 1:37 PM

On the other hand, this is sort of the good kind of partisan motivated prosecutions. To a large extent the American political system depends on the idea that partisan motives will cause public corruption to be exposed.

Maybe, but I suspect we'd be better off without having to mix politics and prosecutions.

I've thought it would be a good idea -- if wholly within the realm of fantasy -- to make the Justice Department/Police Power a fourth, quasi-independent branch or organ of government under the supervision of the other three branches. In other words, an independent prosecutorial power as well as an independent judiciary.

Posted by Jasper | March 12, 2008 2:14 PM

Okay so governors aren't supposed to be breaking the law - fair enough. But President's aren't supposed to be breaking the law, ignoring the law, ordering torture, and so on.

Which of the two is acceptable? I take Spitzer easy.

Also, we need to be careful here. This is not a case of corruption - its most like a speeding ticket. Corruption is what the Bush administration did when they fired the US Attorneys.

Exposing corruption is a good thing. Exposing prostitution is irrelevant and incompetent.

Posted by George | March 12, 2008 2:30 PM

"Or if truly Machiavellian, held back in reserve until Spitzer's career went to the next step - Attorney General? Supreme Court? National office?

Posted by hopeless pedant | March 12, 2008 12:15 PM"

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, it's better to strangle that baby in its crib before it can become a threat.

But really, I had never made up my mind about Spitzer's actions as AG because I didn't know enough details about the issues at hand, but unfortunately this makes the job of anyone in the future who wants to legitimately clean up Wall Street harder.

Posted by Reality Man | March 12, 2008 3:31 PM

That's a false choice, George. Why should either alternative be acceptable?

As a New Yorker, I think it's good to find out that my governor is a total hypocrite. If Spitzer hadn't been such a law-and-order prig, I'd give him a pass on the prostitutes. But that still doesn't excuse the financial improprieties; that's what he's going to be prosecuted for, if anything.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 12, 2008 3:48 PM

A favor, if you please.

Can you please avoid putting Wire spoilers in the main post - keep them 'below the fold?' Or at least relegate them to specific wire-titled posts? Some of us don't get HBO but have caught the series on DVD - and are hooked. I look forward to re-reading you and your colleagues wire-blogging after season five is released, but have been trying to assiduously avoid any wire related posts until then

Posted by Kolohe | March 12, 2008 4:47 PM