Hypocrisy, thy name is Spitzer

The New Republic reminds me that I forgot to highlight this from the Times:

As attorney general, [Spitzer] also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force.

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.

“”This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. ”It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”

One hesitates to dredge up old battles, but this is why I was so unmoved by Clinton's proclamations that his behavior was a private affair: the lawsuit was prosecuted under laws that, as I understand it, he himself had signed into law. As far as I was concerned, he was one of only 536 people in the country who should have had to answer questions about this sort of on-the-job . . . er . . . performance.

Update Steven Bainbridge has a pretty good roundup

Comments

That's not hypocrisy. A hypocrite is one who professes a belief that he really does not hold. Spitzer simply broke the law.

Posted by Eddy Elfenbein | March 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Hypocrisy is as innate a human behavior as breathing. It's the unbelievable level of stupidity that shocks me.

Posted by J | March 10, 2008 5:41 PM

The link seems to go to Googlemail.

Posted by dearieme | March 10, 2008 5:45 PM

When are these Dem-on-Dem hate crimes going to stop? Now the Obamamaniacs are after Spitzer because he dared to endorse Clinton? Is there anyone they won't mow down in their bid to seat their nominee, whether the majority of Dems agree or not?

Given the remaining primaries, even with revotes in Michigan and Florida, it doesn't look like either Dem may have the delegates necessary to outright take the nomination. But if Clinton's ahead, well to hell with the rest of us seems to the battle cry.

The entire discussion is completely polluted with constant, vicious mud slinging, and contrary to what they like to believe, Obama and his crew of surrogates and supporters are just as bad as Clinton, maybe worse, because they don't appear to have loyalty to ANYONE but him, not the party and not the country.

I don't like that Obama gives his supporters permission NOT to vote for Clinton if she wins, and slams the door on working out a deal between he and Clinton. Who's side is he on? His own apparently. At the rate it's going, neither of them will have the necessary delegates, and the super delegates will pick Obama because they'lll be too afraid of what his supporters will do if they don't. THAT'S JUST WRONG! And I think everyone knows it.

Is it Oba-black-mail?

Posted by Teri B. | March 10, 2008 6:08 PM

Here's the interesting question, which I read somewhere but cannot remember where: Did Spitzer prosecute those other rings at the behest of, er, "his" ring? That is, was he blackmailed into a prosecution that was designed to stifle competition? If so would that be a Sherman Act problem?

Posted by TigerHawk | March 10, 2008 6:10 PM

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a respondent's sexual history was not admissible evidence in sexual harassment cases. The Violence Against Women Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, included provisions to make sexual history admissible in sexual harassment cases. President George H. W. Bush vetoed the act. After Clinton became President, the Democratic Congress passed the law again, and this time Clinton signed it.

So the reason Bill Clinton had to testify about his affair with Monica Lewinsky during the Paula Jones case was because of a Democratic bill he personally signed into law, overriding the judgment of President George H. W. Bush.

By the way, George H. W. Bush vetoed a reauthorization of the Independent Counsel statute on the grounds that said statute was abused as a cover for partisan witch-hunts. Bill Clinton signed the re-authorization into law when the Democratic Congress sent it to him, with a pretty little speech about how President Bush's reasons for vetoing it were wrong.

So the reason Bill Clinton had to deal with Ken Starr was because of a Democratic bill he personally signed into law, overriding the judgment of President George H. W. Bush.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | March 10, 2008 6:12 PM

O.L. writes:

The Violence Against Women Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, included provisions to make sexual history admissible in sexual harassment cases. ... So the reason Bill Clinton had to testify about his affair with Monica Lewinsky during the Paula Jones case was because of a Democratic bill he personally signed into law, overriding the judgment of President George H. W. Bush.

As boring as it is to rehash the Clinton stuff at this point, I will point out that this is not actually true, for two reasons:

1) VAWA became law after the Jones case was brought, and only applied prospectively.

2) VAWA made evidence of other sexual assaults -- not just "history" -- by the same defendant admissible in civil suits for sexual assault. (See Fed. R. Evid. 415.) So even under VAWA, it seems unlikely that evidence regarding a consensual relationship with Lewinsky would have been admissible.

O.L.'s point about the independent counsel statute is correct so far as I know.

Posted by alkali | March 10, 2008 7:06 PM

Spitzer's hypocrisy aside, isn't anyone hrmphing that our limited law-enforcement resources, oh-so strained trying to stop terrorists from blowing us to smithereens (so we are told), are instead being diverted to monitoring high-end prostitution rings?

Posted by ram | March 10, 2008 7:16 PM

ram, I'm certain the U.S. government can afford to go after both terrorists and prostitutes.

Posted by Hei Lun Chan | March 10, 2008 9:28 PM

Clinton supporters have been chiming about Rezko for weeks, and despite the media attention on this, no one has found anything wrong with their relationship.

On the other hand, here's not just a supporter, but a superdelegate, who is the governor of Hillary's senatorial state - now implicated in crimes against women and the People of New York. And Hillary... "wishes he and his family the best".

Uhm, what about her state and the exploited victims?

Posted by wolf | March 10, 2008 10:54 PM

Your Bainbridge link is wrong - it just links to Gmail. I believe you want this:
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/was_eliot_spitzer_a_john/

Posted by Maud | March 11, 2008 12:41 AM