Consequences for Spitzer

[Lemon law]

We have to understand that there is a difference.

Spitzer ran on a platform of prosecuting these types of sins in others. And becomes a hypocrite when it turns out he has feet of clay. And democrats are not supposed to do that.

Vitter is a republican and ran on the platform of a social conservative in the religious right mold. Everyone expect such a republican to be be a giant hypocrite and its comes as a relief when they are thus exposed. And its becomes a pleasant change, because this time, the fellow is not engaged in buggering someone of his own sex like the average thus exposed Republican.

Its always mysterious the way these double standards work when a republican is just trying to share his love of the people and practice trickle down economics.

They don't call the GOP God' own Party for nothing.

 

[piasabird]

The answer is Spitzer was stupid enough to leave a paper trail of payments for services. Also if you have one payment to one individual and you catch him red handed and you know where the money was wired and you know what it is for, then you can go back and look at previous wire transfers to the same place and make a safe assumption they were all for prostitution, and now you can bring multiple charges. If the wire transfers were used to commit a crime you may also have federal wire charges. The police should bring multiple charges and make him serve time for the events back to back.

One other thing is to make sure no campaign funds were being used for illegal purposes. This would bring up all kinds of charges from campaign finance violations, to tax evasion.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Can't use campaign funds funds for hookers and booze? Richard Daley must be spinning in his grave.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The answer is Spitzer was stupid enough to leave a paper trail of payments for services. Also if you have one payment to one individual and you catch him red handed and you know where the money was wired and you know what it is for, then you can go back and look at previous wire transfers to the same place and make a safe assumption they were all for prostitution, and now you can bring multiple charges. If the wire transfers were used to commit a crime you may also have federal wire charges. The police should bring multiple charges and make him serve time for the events back to back.

One other thing is to make sure no campaign funds were being used for illegal purposes. This would bring up all kinds of charges from campaign finance violations, to tax evasion.

I believe (at least speaking for myself) that the legal differences are clear and not what is in question. What is the topic is the reaction from the affiliated party members and the reaction from the opposition party:

Repub reaction to Vitter:

For much of the day, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a friend and fellow social conservative helped shield Vitter from reporters and photographers - all assigned to capture Vitter's first day back to the Capitol.

Coburn, a physician, escorted Vitter into the weekly Republican policy luncheon through a back door, and then, after the lunch, past waiting reporters and onto the Senate floor, which is off limits to the media.

Vitter made a brief statement to his Republican colleagues at the luncheon, reportedly reiterating the comments he made in Louisiana. Applause could be heard inside the room. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who like most members wouldn't disclose what Vitter said, reported that his comments went over well.

"People were very supportive," Thune said. "People realize he has worked through this this past week. I think everybody is ready to move forward."

.........

Vitter's Republican Senate colleagues generally praised him for taking responsibility and making amends with his wife. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said he was "really impressed" with Wendy Vitter, who at Monday's press conference said her husband was her best friend.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, exemplified the forgive-and-forget view voiced by Senate Republicans.

"My attitude is he's doing everything he can to rectify the mistake he made and should be allowed to do so," Hatch said. "I'm a great believer in redemption."

The Dem response:

Reid stopped short of calling for an ethics committee investigation of the freshman senator and is not likely to, preferring to let the scandal play out on its own.

Of course, there are Vitter's views to take into consideration also.

Vitter on Clinton's impeachment:

"Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.

The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that "proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

Vitter on abstinence:

Vitter advocated abstinence-only sex education, emphasizing abstinence while excluding issues involving birth control and safe sex.[36] He said, "Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidance that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm...by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness."

Vitter on Same-sex marriage:

Vitter believes strongly that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman. In 2003, Vitter proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriages.

Apparently, neither Vitter or his wife can live up to their word or beliefs/standards :

in May 1999, Vitter replaced Congressman Bob Livingston after Livingston resigned due to an adultery scandal.[1][93][43] Vitter said about Livingston's decision to resign, "It's obviously a tremendous loss for the state. I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess", referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal of President Bill Clinton.[94] In 2000, his wife, Wendy Vitter, commenting on the same scandal, said, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me," referring to the incident of Lorena Bobbitt severing the penis of her husband and to Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton.[93]

 

[Lemon law]

There is not a dime's worth of difference in the basic let down of Spitzer and Vitter. Both used prostitutes and both got caught in slightly different ways.

As the oldest profession still thrives today. Why do we have this big hang up about sex and what amounts to victim less peccadilloes?

And we can have a President who lies us into wars, gets hundreds of thousand of people killed, and because we don't know if he is cheating on his wife, he is regarded a moral man?

In my eyes, Elliot Spitzer has done much good in this world, and its sad to see him go in this manner.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is not a dime's worth of difference in the basic let down of Spitzer and Vitter. Both used prostitutes and both got caught in slightly different ways.

As the oldest profession still thrives today. Why do we have this big hang up about sex and what amounts to victim less peccadilloes?

And we can have a President who lies us into wars, gets hundreds of thousand of people killed, and because we don't know if he is cheating on his wife, he is regarded a moral man?

In my eyes, Elliot Spitzer has done much good in this world, and its sad to see him go in this manner.

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

To be fair to LL.....

He never quantified prosecuting anyone for prostitution as part of the "doing much good in the world".

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is not a dime's worth of difference in the basic let down of Spitzer and Vitter. Both used prostitutes and both got caught in slightly different ways.

As the oldest profession still thrives today. Why do we have this big hang up about sex and what amounts to victim less peccadilloes?

And we can have a President who lies us into wars, gets hundreds of thousand of people killed, and because we don't know if he is cheating on his wife, he is regarded a moral man?

In my eyes, Elliot Spitzer has done much good in this world, and its sad to see him go in this manner.

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

I think the ugly angle in all this (as noted) is that Spitzer's work primarily consisted of prosecutions against big corporate interests in defense of the 'little guy'. I'm not defending what the guy did - only to whom he did it. He pissed off alot of powerful people.

And like Clinton he gets thumped for not keeping it in his pants.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: superstition
I know there are differences, but in both cases we have outrage over hypocrisy concerning a crusading for the public morality politician who was exposed with connections to a prostitution ring.

That's very very similar. In one case, we have a huge scandal. In another, we have a whitewash.

While many valid have already been pointed, I think another needs mention:

Spitzer had no political support from the Dems in his state. The Repubs were going to move to impeach him. The DoJ is going to prosecute him. Spitzer has a long record of involvemnent with this prostitution ring, the NY tabloids would be all over this for some time to come. No political support and big sh!t storm headed his way. And there's only so many battles a person can fight at one time.

Vitter? He got some support from Repubs and the Dems really were'nt interested in going after him. After Bill Clinton, they've spent a lot of time making the case that infidelity is a personal matter. It would have been difficult for them to pursue. Again, for the reasons already mentioned, they can't go after him for "crime". Vitter had no sh!t storm on the horizen. I think many just prefer to leave it in the hands of his constuents.

IMO, the governor of NY is a much more important job than being a legislator. Spitzer's (legal) problems would have been a big problem for the state of NY and it's government. A problem the people of NY did not want, apparently.

Spitzer's role a former prosecutor makes the "politics' of the situation uniquely bad for him, too.

Fern

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Fern

Vitter? He got some support from Repubs and the Dems really were'nt interested in going after him. After Bill Clinton, they've spent a lot of time making the case that infidelity is a personal matter. It would have been difficult for them to pursue. Again, for the reasons already mentioned, they can't go after him for "crime". Vitter had no sh!t storm on the horizen. I think many just prefer to leave it in the hands of his constuents.

I agree with the points that you are making. But how does that justify the hypocrisy of the Republican party (state & fed) in condeming someone for infidelity when they are protecting their own?

The party itself has long espoused the views that morality, family and christian values are what is most important in our country and in our leaders and yet when one of their own does it, they all clamor around to show their support for him/her. Unless of course it was a homosexual encounter or affair and then they try to throw them under the bus.

Vitter isn't the only example of this and it isn't a phenomena that only occurs once in a lifetime either.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Fern

Vitter? He got some support from Repubs and the Dems really were'nt interested in going after him. After Bill Clinton, they've spent a lot of time making the case that infidelity is a personal matter. It would have been difficult for them to pursue. Again, for the reasons already mentioned, they can't go after him for "crime". Vitter had no sh!t storm on the horizen. I think many just prefer to leave it in the hands of his constuents.

I agree with the points that you are making. But how does that justify the hypocrisy of the Republican party (state & fed) in condeming someone for infidelity when they are protecting their own?

The party itself has long espoused the views that morality, family and christian values are what is most important in our country and in our leaders and yet when one of their own does it, they all clamor around to show their support for him/her. Unless of course it was a homosexual encounter or affair and then they try to throw them under the bus.

Vitter isn't the only example of this and it isn't a phenomena that only occurs once in a lifetime either.

I think there are a number of factors involved:

1. Hyprocricy
2. Political motivation (rank politics)
3. Circumstances of the incident.

Clinton was in the WH, and fooling around with a much younger woman. Plus, I think things have changed since. I doubt we'd see impeachment efforts again. They'd probrably stop at censure etc.

Foley? I thought he perhaps treated unfairly. But he resigned so quickly it's hard to know how that would've played-out. But I'll note, here again, he was fooling arouind with young people sent to DC to be interns. Kind of bad to be seen as some sort of "predator", gay or straight.

Craig had the fig leaf of claiming "innocent" mis-understanding. I think the Dems would have a hard time pushing it because it was, if anything, concensual gay sex. I don't see how they wanted to take up the personal "sex" thing, much less complain about homosexual conduct. A misdemeanor? That's not much to work with. A felony maybe, but not a misdemeanor. I think they all just decided to leave this up to his voters, like Vitter.

I think these Repubs coming from conservative districts get some heat from their constuents to make a "statement" against such sexual shennanigans. I think the Dems have problems making a fuss about them. I've no doubt both sides face some pressure from party political operatives to either damage or support the accused in an effort to regain or retain the seat etc - Pure political calculation. And that's hyprocrisy.

It all sets up a very weird dynamic when these things occur.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

To be fair to LL.....

He never quantified prosecuting anyone for prostitution as part of the "doing much good in the world".

Did he have to? We hear that ES prosecuted prostitution rings, no? Isn't it just a fact?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is not a dime's worth of difference in the basic let down of Spitzer and Vitter. Both used prostitutes and both got caught in slightly different ways.

As the oldest profession still thrives today. Why do we have this big hang up about sex and what amounts to victim less peccadilloes?

And we can have a President who lies us into wars, gets hundreds of thousand of people killed, and because we don't know if he is cheating on his wife, he is regarded a moral man?

In my eyes, Elliot Spitzer has done much good in this world, and its sad to see him go in this manner.

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

I think the ugly angle in all this (as noted) is that Spitzer's work primarily consisted of prosecutions against big corporate interests in defense of the 'little guy'. I'm not defending what the guy did - only to whom he did it. He pissed off alot of powerful people.

And like Clinton he gets thumped for not keeping it in his pants.

Judging from the usual good quality of your posts I'm assuming you didn't mean you're defending big corporate interests which is how your post seems to read.

What this guy did, in my opinion, is throw into doubt the motives of anybody trying to do good. The guy's a swine and I don't want him or his ilk on my team.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is not a dime's worth of difference in the basic let down of Spitzer and Vitter. Both used prostitutes and both got caught in slightly different ways.

As the oldest profession still thrives today. Why do we have this big hang up about sex and what amounts to victim less peccadilloes?

And we can have a President who lies us into wars, gets hundreds of thousand of people killed, and because we don't know if he is cheating on his wife, he is regarded a moral man?

In my eyes, Elliot Spitzer has done much good in this world, and its sad to see him go in this manner.

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

I think the ugly angle in all this (as noted) is that Spitzer's work primarily consisted of prosecutions against big corporate interests in defense of the 'little guy'. I'm not defending what the guy did - only to whom he did it. He pissed off alot of powerful people.

And like Clinton he gets thumped for not keeping it in his pants.

Judging from the usual good quality of your posts I'm assuming you didn't mean you're defending big corporate interests which is how your post seems to read.

What this guy did, in my opinion, is throw into doubt the motives of anybody trying to do good. The guy's a swine and I don't want him or his ilk on my team.

The guys a douche - and thanks for understanding what I meant and not what I typed

I'm not willing to close the book on him. You are correct that this chapter in his life has introduced an element of doubt and irreparably harmed those who pursue the "greater good". The rest of his life is up to him. He can spend it truly repairing the damage to his family and reputation if he so choses.

I don't mean a "Madison Avenue" repair job. I mean a serious life change from this period of depravity and hedonism with a genuine commitment to service and humanity.

Otherwise ... fk him ...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is not a dime's worth of difference in the basic let down of Spitzer and Vitter. Both used prostitutes and both got caught in slightly different ways.

As the oldest profession still thrives today. Why do we have this big hang up about sex and what amounts to victim less peccadilloes?

And we can have a President who lies us into wars, gets hundreds of thousand of people killed, and because we don't know if he is cheating on his wife, he is regarded a moral man?

In my eyes, Elliot Spitzer has done much good in this world, and its sad to see him go in this manner.

How is prosicuting some people for doing what you are doing doing much good in the world? Wow!

I think the ugly angle in all this (as noted) is that Spitzer's work primarily consisted of prosecutions against big corporate interests in defense of the 'little guy'. I'm not defending what the guy did - only to whom he did it. He pissed off alot of powerful people.

And like Clinton he gets thumped for not keeping it in his pants.

Judging from the usual good quality of your posts I'm assuming you didn't mean you're defending big corporate interests which is how your post seems to read.

What this guy did, in my opinion, is throw into doubt the motives of anybody trying to do good. The guy's a swine and I don't want him or his ilk on my team.

The guys a douche - and thanks for understanding what I meant and not what I typed

I'm not willing to close the book on him. You are correct that this chapter in his life has introduced an element of doubt and irreparably harmed those who pursue the "greater good". The rest of his life is up to him. He can spend it truly repairing the damage to his family and reputation if he so choses.

I don't mean a "Madison Avenue" repair job. I mean a serious life change from this period of depravity and hedonism with a genuine commitment to service and humanity.

Otherwise ... fk him ...

Ah, see! My turn not to say what I should have meant, that as long as he's untransformed I don't want him on my team. Absolute condemnation ain't good.

 

[superstition]

I'm glad to see some detailed analysis here. I see a huge double standard, regardless of the legal differences. And, the way the case was buried/whitewashed is very hypocritical.

Someone mentioned a difference in the level of hypocrisy between the two cases, but consider this statement from Vitter:

"I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," Vitter said in June 2006, about the importance of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The most important issue facing our society is SAME-SEX MARRIAGE!!! Isn't this the same line of whacko reasoning we're dealing with with Miss Nazi congresswoman at the moment? Also, given the way he was banging DC hookers while saying there is nothing more important than "protecting marriage" is some of the highest-level hypocrisy I've seen, although it doesn't surprise most of us as it's been exposed so many times, particularly recently with Haggard, Foley, Livingston, Vitter, and others.

 

[superstition]

She's dead, but I doubt the Republican Teflon coating will rub off causing Vitter to retract his retracted apology.