The finger pointing is going to get pretty ugly, pretty quickly, on this one. I think what aggravates people is, as you said, the element of self-righteousness exhibited by politicians from both parties, and then the self-justifications that go on when they get caught. That episode with that Jack Ryan fellow was exactly right. I think it’s best to avoid the whole public moralizing bit, especially if you’re throwing stones from atop a glass house.
T.
Here is some more of the wiretap information -
Spitzer has been identified as Client-9 from the complaint against the Emperors Club prostitution ring. The *New York Times *has posted the complaint, and here is what it says about Client-9:
80. At approximately 4:58 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received an incoming call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that his package arrived today, and Client-9 said good. LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was expecting to have the appointment. Client-9 told LEWIS maybe 10:OO p.m. or so, and asked who it was. LEWIS said it was “Kristen,” and Client-9 said “great, okay, wonderful .” LEWIS told Client-9 that she would give him a final price later, and asked Client-9 whether he could give “Kristen” “extra funds” at this appointment in order to avoid payment issues in the future. Client-9 said maybe, and that he would see if he could do that. LEWIS explained that the agency did not want a model accepting funds for a future appointment, but that she was going to make an exception that way a deposit could be made so that he would have a credit, and they would not have to “go through this” next time. Client-9 said perfect, and that he would call her regarding the room number. (Call 9686R) .
At approximately 7:51 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the balance was around ,“2611 (believed to be a reference to $2,600), but she would give him an exact number later. LEWIS asked if when “Kristen” went to pick up the key she would have to give a name or would she be able to say that she was one of Client-9’s guests for whom he left an envelope. ~EW1~'and Client-9 discussed how to arrange for “Kristen” to get the key to her hotel room. LEWIS said that she would prefer if “Kristen” did not have to give a name. Client-9 said that he was trying to 'think this through.” Client-9 repeated that his balance was '2600," and stated that maybe he would give “her,” a reference to “Kristen,” '3600" and have a thousand on balance. LEWIS suggested making it "1500fl more. Client-9 said that would make it “4100,” and said that he would look for a bank and see about it. Client-9 told LEWIS to let him go down and take care of this, and suggested that maybe he could put it in an envelope with the concierge. (Call 9725R).
At approximately 8:47 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, Client-9 told LEWIS to tell “Kristen” to go to the hotel and go to room 871. Client-9 told LEWIS that the door would be open. Client-9 told LEWIS that there would be a key in the room, but the door would be ajar. LEWIS asked if the hotel staff might pass by the door and close it, and Client-9 said no it was okay. Client-9 explained that the door would not be visibly open, but if someone pushed it, the 4 door would open. LEWIS told Client-9 that his balance was $2,721.41, and that if he wanted to do an additional “150OU or even “2000” it would be better. Client-9 said that he did not know if he could get to a machine to do that, but he would see. LEWIS said that 'Kristen” would go directly to room ,871. Client-9 asked LEWIS to remind- him what 'Kristen" looked like, and LEWIS said that she was an American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds. Client-9 said that she should go straight to 871, and if for any reason it did not work out, she should call LEWIS. (Call 9731) .
At approximately 9 : 3 2 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from “Kristen.” During the call, '“Kristen” said that she was in the room. LEWIS told “Kristen” that she would call her back when she knew when Client-9 would be there. (Call 9734R).
At approximately 9:36 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from “Kristen.” During the call, LEWIS told “Kristen” that “he,” a reference to Client-9, was at the hotel. “Kristen” told LEWIS that she just talked to him. 'Kristen" said that Client-9 was coming’to her. LEWIS told “Kristen” that Client-9 should be giving her “extra,” and that the extra should be deposited into- LEWIS told “Kristen” to text her when he arrived and LEWIS would start the four hours then, and also to let her know if he left early. (Call 9741R).
On February 14, 2008, at approximately 12:02 a.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a “Rachelle,” the defendant, received a call from “Kristen.” During the call, “Kristen” told LEWIS , that “he,” a reference to Client-9, had left. LEWIS asked “Kristen” what time he got there, and “Kristen” said “15 after . . . maybe 10.” LEWIS asked “Kristen” how she thought the appointment went, and “Kristen” said that she thought it went very well. LEWIS asked “Kristen” how much she collected, and 'Kristen" said $4,300. “Kristen” said that she liked him, and that she did not think he was difficult. “Kristen” stated: 'I don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s just kind of like . . . whatever. . . I’m here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that’s why girls maybe think they’re difficult . . . . " “Kristen” continued: “That’s what it is, because you’re here for a . Let’s not get it twisted - I know what I do, you know.” LEWIS responded: “You look at it very uniquely, because . . . no one .ever says it that way.” LEWIS continued that from what she had been told “he” (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe - you know - I mean that . . . very basic things. . . . “Kristen” responded: “I have a way of dealing with that . . . I’d be like listen dude, you really want the sex? . . . You know what I mean.” Near the end of the call, LEWIS and “Kristen” discussed “Kristen’s” departure via Amtrak, the room that Client-9 had provided for “Kristen,” and “Kristen’s” share of the cash that Client-9 had provided to her. (Call 9750R).
Let’s see what recent history tells us about this topic. Lying about sex is OK. Sen. Craig took the conviction and still did not leave. Let alone the Clinton You-will-have-to-drag-me-out-kicking-and-screaming approach. Wasn’t there a guy in the south recently who did fall on his sword when caught?
Now that I am thinking a bit about it, I will say that if he can get through the next couple of days without too many piling on, he may try to ride it out. Of course the problem is that as a prosecutor he chased prostitution pretty hard so he will not have any misunderstanding/ignorance arguments on his side.
Wow! Interesting transcript. You would think that a guy who had run prostitution prosecutions would have a thought or two about how to make a meeting with one.
Don’t forget Sen. David Vitter (R, LA) who was accused of having a long-term relationship with a female prostitute, and he’s still in office.
That said, I think Spitzer is done. He used to be AG and has had some problems with the Legislature, so I think it may just be a matter of time. Politically speaking, he’s probably neutered, making this a pretty steep fall for somebody who was discussed not so long ago as a national politician.
Either way, he’ll probably be fine - his family is extremely wealthy and he is still extremely well-connected. He’ll survive in some form, but his political career is probably over.
I don’t think Spitzer rolls that way (fight it out). He may do the right thing, from what published reports are saying, and resign. He can do a little time in the wilderness, rebuild his reputation, and come back stronger than ever. He’s a person of obvious talent and a career of service to the public. Even if he is a New York Democrat (hahaha!) ;-))
Of course, that’s provided he doesn’t get indicted and then do a little jail time on a federal charge. But, like Chris Rock says, he could then run for mayor of D.C. (hahahahahahaha!).
T.
I just watch the clip on CNN and my question is why drag the wife up there in front of all the cameras after the guy is the one caught red handed? Why humiliate her in front of the public?
$2g $4g what the hell do you get?
I think this may help define a disqualifying offense. Just as pot used to be an automatic DQ for the Supreme Court, but is no longer, I wonder if vanilla extramarital sex is moving on to the OK list.
As for the Federal charges, always a possibility, but you have to wonder if the career justice guys have any stomach for chasing him on it. Not chasing the johns is one of the iniquities in prostitution. Maybe if they can turn it in to a money crime, they will chase him for it.
I just watch the clip on CNN and my question is why drag the wife up there in front of all the cameras after the guy is the one caught red handed? Why humiliate her in front of the public?
Because politics at this level is a team sport. If she stands there with him, J. Q. Public is supposed to believe that since it is not a big deal to her, it should not be a big deal to the public. Who knows? Maybe she was in the know.
Well, I’m sure that he and his career have been her main agenda for quite some time. Why stop now. It always plays better if the harmed wife plays noble and silent during the whole process. I can’t imagine that there is much “normal” about being a first lady of anything (town, state, country).
She looks pretty bummed out, but, is it because he cheated on her, or because he’s such an idiot and got caught linked to a prostitution ring and ruined their big plans. Who knows?
I don’t think it can be considered ‘vanilla’ sex when one is paying for it. (I know…but we always pay for it). The simple thing about this case, IMO, is that fact that the Governor broke a law. Period. The sex doesn’t matter, it is the transaction for sex that does. No elected official should be allowed to stay that far above the law.
You are making my point. Time was, the affair alone would have been enough to run him out of office. I don’t disagree with the crime part of your statement, although I might change it to above the law, period. Rather than some degree of violation.
The problem with the crime is that people don’t get too worked up over prostitution. If the media starts talking about him violating the white slavery law, instead of the Mann Act, that will be my clue that he is toast.
I don’t think it can be considered ‘vanilla’ sex when one is paying for it. (I know…but we always pay for it).
Well, not so fast there young man. Given that the esteemed governor of New Jersey left office a few years back for an alledged homosexual affair with someone he hired and put in charge of New Jersey’s homeland security department (with apparently no qualifications for the job) might just actually warp this current case into just “vanilla” sex.
Supposedly, aides were saying Spitzer was going to announce resigning, but didn’t. Maybe some handlers/advisors are telling him to try holding off on the decision and see if he can wait it out. Those federal charges though, that would be make it pretty tough.
I agree. I think DOJ could’ve whitewashed him out of it, for all intents and purposes, if it had wanted to. The whole Mann Act thing, though, should be sending a shiver down the collective Spitzer camp spine. If, as was said, you start hearing the press short-stroke the “white slavery” or “interstate transportation of…” angles, then he’s done like dinner.
The interesting take from the NYT article was the Bruno-Spitzer relationship, and just who would be the Governor should Spitzer resign, and who would be in charge of the state if the current LT. Governor ends up in the top job. Seems it would be Bruno. This is just too cosmically ironic to describe in words.
T.
Beautiful! James Carvelle is on CNN saying don’t resign over a little prostitution, it is just embarassing. He also wants to know about who his enemies are that are pushing this thing. He is looking for the dirty trick and pointing at the likely suspects, his wall street enemies or politics. He leaves himself an opening by saying stay unless there is some financial crime we are not hearing about yet.
Isn’t the federal government now involved, due to the Mann Act? Hmmmm… .who else is from New York? Hmmmmm… And, who does the U.S. Attorney General report to?
Quote from Spitzer’s May, 2007 endorement of Clinton:
“When we look around the globe today, when we look around our nation, we see crisis,” Spitzer said at a campaign event in New York.
The first-term governor said that the country faces a crisis in foreign policy, domestic economics and ethics. “A crisis,” he said, “that needs somebody tall to stand up with pride and say, ‘I am proud to lead this nation.’’
I’m sure that Mrs. Spitzer isn’t the only lady giving Spitzer that “You are SUCH a dumb ass” look today.
Here’s the questions I want answered:
I couldn’t help but have that Godfather II scene run through my head where Tom Hagan says she has no family, no one will ever know, just tell your people you are going to stay with your friend Michael Corleone for a few days…
**Beautiful! James Carvelle is on CNN saying don’t resign over a little prostitution, it is just embarassing. He also wants to know about who his enemies are that are pushing this thing. He is looking for the dirty trick and pointing at the likely suspects, his wall street enemies or politics. He leaves himself an opening by saying stay unless there is some financial crime we are not hearing about yet. **
How like Carville to take that tack. He’s a real Southern gentleman, what with his implication that prostitution is basically a victimless crime. The problem is the public moralizing that Spitzer engaged in previously, and the fact that any tempering of that stand now, by Spitzer, is bound to catastropically wound him in terms of any effectiveness he may have in dealing with a hostile legislature and the public at large, outside of the chi-chi moral relativists in New York city.
T.
You’re saying that he’d be vunerable to charges of hypocrisy, even though the people making the charges might not even think the underlying behavior is wrong?
No wonder Tri in OC had him confused for a Republican. 