Feds shift strategy in bid to snare Spitzer: Campaign finance

Since Eliot Spitzer was exposed as a patron of prostitutes, the Bush Justice Department has hinted at a variety of justifications for making a federal case out this run-of-the-mill sex scandal.

Initially, it was suggested that Spitzer violated the Mann Act, formerly known as the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. That didn't focus group well...

Then, it was reported that the feds might charge Spitzer with a little known financial crime known as "structuring." That is, he might have paid his considerable sex tab in installments in order to avoid generating a paper trail. As it turned out, the public was more interested in the prostitute's tattoos than the Bank Secrecy Act.

Now, a new excuse for a federal investigation is taking shape. Some unnamed officials are telling reporters that Spitzer spent campaign funds for transportation and lodging while he was traveling on campaign business.  The horror!

The New York Daily News, March 13:

When disgraced Gov. Spitzer arranged hookups with high-priced prostitutes at out-of-state hotels, he would always have another reason to make the trip.

Sometimes it was a campaign fund-raiser, sometimes a speech to a political group, sometimes official business like testifying before Congress, according to sources close to the probe, court papers and state records.

The trips raise questions about whether Spitzer used tax money to fund illegal activity or violated laws that prohibit politicians from using campaign funds for personal expenses.

This is one lame excuse for a hit piece.

The lead is that Spitzer bought sex while he was traveling on State or campaign business.

The second paragraph suggests the NYDN reporters actually checked to see what kind of business Spitzer was conducting. It must have been a disappointing trip to the archives. If the New York Daily News had discovered any purely personal getaways, we'd have read about them in 72-point type. Instead, we're told that Spitzer hired prostitutes when he traveled to raise money, make public appearances, or testify before Congress.

No one is alleging that Spitzer spent taxpayer dollars or campaign funds on prostitutes.

On March 15, the NYDN continued in a similar vein:

As the Daily News reported Thursday, federal investigators are looking into whether Spitzer improperly used taxpayer funds and campaign dollars to facilitate his out-of-town hookups.

For instance, records show Spitzer used a state plane to fly to Washington Feb. 13, where he had a liaison with Kristen at the Mayflower Hotel.

He did not use public funds to pay for the prostitute or the hotel room, but used his state credit card to fly home on U.S. Airways.

What the story doesn't say is that Spitzer was testifying before Congress on February 14 about how the municipal bond insurance crisis is affecting New Yorkers. When the New York State starts making the governor pay his own way to Washington to testify, I'm really going to start worrying about the economy.

Someone told the Daily News that Spitzer sometimes spent campaign funds on hotel rooms. Which isn't surprising, considering Spitzer traveled all over the country raising money. As you might expect, he used campaign money for transportation and lodging. While he was on the road, he sometimes hired prostitutes with his own money.

Of course, the vague campaign finance "questions" are a pretext for the DOJ to subpoena financial records from Spitzer's gubernatorial campaign:

Workers for Spitzer's election campaign have hired lawyers, preparing to meet with probers looking into whether Spitzer illegally used campaign donations to get to and from his trysts with hookers.

This week, Kristie Stiles, a Spitzer campaign consultant, retained criminal defense lawyer Charles Clayman, who declined to comment.

Sources said at least one other unnamed campaign worker has also hired a lawyer.

Prosecutors are expected to subpoena both to get them to turn over financial records of Spitzer's gubernatorial campaign [NYDN, March 15]

They've already got Spitzer's financial records back to 1999. Now, they're about to seize his campaign finance records. Again, for what?

If you want to talk about misuse of taxpayer dollars, let's discuss the money Bush's Justice Department has spent on their massive investigation of Eliot Spitzer, from the wiretaps and the failed stakeout at the Mayflower Hotel, to the ongoing inquiries into his personal and campaign finances. This is a very expensive fishing trip.

The purge of the US Attorneys was just one chapter in the much larger story of the hacking of the Justice Department. Remember that the AUSAs who kept their jobs were the "loyal Bushies." Now, they're demonstrating their loyalty by enthusiastically pursuing the administration's enemies. 

Comments

[Eric Jaffa]

A problem with the US Constitution is that the president nominates both federal judges and federal prosecutors.

If we had a system of choosing judges which didn't involve the president, there would be a better chance those judges would put the brakes on prosecutors behaving excessively.

[cfrost]

the public was more interested in the prostitute's tattoos

She's got tattoos? Damn, I didn't see those pictures.

Perhaps if the frustrated weasels at the Dept. of Justice found their own cute hookers they might stick to the business they're supposed to be doing. Like, for example, hounding Wall St. crooks so state officials don't have to.

[julia]

Funny, that, because that was one of the central issues of Troopergate, which was such a spectacular abuse of power that we had to derail state government for six months or so while we debated whether Spitzer, although he was exonerated of responsibility by the not-at-all friendly Andy Cuomo, had done something Bad.

Meanwhile, Joe Bruno, who is under investigation by the feds and who has a crony up on charges for buying him off, is doing a victory lap.

Whatever are the odds.

[Chris O.]

The ways they're trying to charge him are getting pretty ridiculous. Either charge him with being a john or drop it.

[B-Money]

All the BS aside, does anyone here think that Spitzer should NOT have resigned? I mean seriously, this guy is a scumbag and a hypocrite. I do not know if the Feds chasing him down onother charges are warranted but the fact of the matter is he got caught with his dick in the honey pot! And Admitted it! So his resignation had to happen. Any disagreement on that?? Are people pissed about the "hit" seemingly out on him by the DOJ now? Is that the issue?

[Norman Costa]

Lindsay,

Thanks for the coverage of this issue. One more reason I'm supporting and voting for Nader.

[B-Money]

Ugh Nader! What a wasted vote! No offense, really. But this guy will NEVER have a chance. But go ahead and do it. The Repubs will thank you and the others who vote for Nader.

[cfrost]

Nader. Remember the old saw about pissing into the wind? The wind won't stop and you'll just get wet.

[The Phantom]

I don't get what makes Nader tick. A weird personal ambition to get 4% of the vote or whatever.

[togolosh]

Eric - the problem is not that the President nominates judges. The problem is that the Senate has abdicated its duty to serve as a check on presidential power. The current notion that the confirmation process should not take into account the judicial philosophy of nominees is absurd. Asking judges how they reason about the law, including their reasoning on critical issues likely to come before them on the bench, is not just reasonable, it is required if the confirmation process is to serve its purpose. If the Senate had done its job Alito would not be on the bench, Scalia and Roberts would have faced a hard fight, and we'd have a much more balanced Supreme Court. I predict that as soon as there is a Democrat in the White House the Senate will remember its duty. IOKIYAR.

[cfrost]

does anyone here think that Spitzer should NOT have resigned?

Of course he should have resigned. He’s a self-righteous dick who painted himself into a corner from which it would be impossible to govern. He’d have been pretty much useless as New York’s chief executive.

The issue here however is: what exactly is the DOJ trying to do here? At some point a prosecutor decides whether pursuing a case is worth the time and public money. The guy is already toast; he’s resigned and he’s global laughing stock. He’s not likely to commit the shocking, horrible crimes that menaced New York State again. - It’s not like he’s a junkie who has to keep burglarizing to support his yen. He’s already had to confront his daughters with the whole mess.

So, does the DOJ feel that structuring is a crime so pervasive and dangerous that it is imperative that a public example must be made? Is white slavery so out of control that the DOJ has to step in to protect our wimmens? Using public money on extracurricular activities is certainly wrong: has there been a rash of state officials pouring taxpayer money into hooker chasing? If so, it’s got to be stopped!

Or has there been a discussion at the DOJ about how 1. Democrats need to be crushed, and crushed completely, whenever the opportunity presents itself, and/or how 2. (Much more importantly) anyone who tampers with the machinery on Wall St. needs to be fucked eight ways from Sunday to make sure no one tries it again?

[Eric Jaffa]

togolosh -

If Senators were great, then the current system would be fine. But they aren't great, and ideally the Framers would have anticipated that possibility.

I would support a Constitutional amendment to get both the president and Senators out-of-the-process of choosing federal judges.

There should be a part-time federal job called "Judicial Selector," which people get elected to and then choose judges by votes of 70%+ between them.

[B-Money]

Eric:

What do you then propose? We elect every single federal judge in this country? No offense sir, but I think the Founders were a bit wiser than yee and set a sound structure and system on which the federal judiciary is composed.

This argument and bitching happens whenever one side of the political aisle is peeved. In the 80's it was the Dems, in the 90's the Reps, now it's the Dems again. The reality is that the Shrub Administration has actually been lax in its judiciary appointments. There remain numerous vacancies in the various circuits across the country. This is due mainly to the fact, IMHO, that the radical schmucks Bushy and his cronies would offer up would be smacked down.

As for togolosh's assertion that the USSC is not balanced, well I disagree. The major votes always come down 5-4. That IS balance. It is just that you do not agree with the way the Court is slanted currently. As for Alito and Roberts, they are FAR less conservative than feared, at least from early indications. They certainly do not swing the way of Scalia or Thomas.

[Norman Costa]

Re: Nader

After John Edwards, there's no candidate willing to take on the corporate and moneyed interests that have too much power for a democracy to thrive. Did you know there was cheering on the floor of the NYSE when the news of Spitzer's scandal broke? Lindsay is writing about the possible abuse of prosecutorial discretion. I've witnessed it, personally, at the county and state level. Political power gets wielded in the service of personal and a corporate interests with lots of money. Contractors who abuse clients and consumers don't get prosecuted. Whistle blowers and citizens who organize political campaigns against corruption have to run a gauntlet of legal harassment and trumped up charges. An organizer of an independent political party at a county level was prosecuted for submitting bogus names in a certification petition. Guess who signed the petition forms with phony names, including names of the dead from 9/11? The answer may be found in the fact that the local republicans took over the independent party and endorsed the republican candidates. I've seen embezzlers and insurance frauds go free without prosecution in spite of hard evidence of multiple felonies. At the same time a women steals a blank check and cashes it for $100, and is prosecuted with great enthusiasm and press coverage. I wish the major parties could field a candidate with some intestinal fortitude and a platform to deal with the unnatural concentration of wealth and control of our corporate powers.