KOmmies Defend Eliot Spitzer

Was there any real possibility that this DUFU edition would be about anything other than the Eliot Spitzer scandal? Of course not. But before we get into the juicy and very FUnnie details of the KOmmie reaction to this scandal, we must lead off with this incredible song parody by our own Charles Henrickson called PROSTITUTIN' SPITZ to the tune of Puttin' on the Ritz:

If you're guv
And wish you knew
Where to get love
Why don't you do
Like hypocrites
Prostitutin' Spitz

Girls with names
You find out after
Play their games
And soon you hafta
Call it quits
Prostitutin' Spitz

Hooked up with a thousand-dollar hooker
Now you're stuck inside the pressure cooker
Lookin' snookered

Call-girl tricks
Of pure excitement
Pay for kicks
With your indictment
Paging Fitz
Prosecutin' Spitz

Have you seen the prostitute
Chargin' high and lookin' cute
You're a famous VIP
Now we write your RIP
Phone calls
And wiretapping
Net falls
It's you they're trapping
Spendin' lots of cash
For a thrill and a rash

If you're guv
And wish you knew
Where to get love
Why don't you do
Like hypocrites
Prostitutin' Spitz

Girls with names
You find out after
Play their games
And soon you hafta
Call it quits
Prostitutin' Spitz

Hooked up with a thousand-dollar hooker
Now you're stuck inside the pressure cooker
Lookin' snookered

Call-girl tricks
Of pure excitement
Pay for kicks
With your indictment
Paging Fitz
Prosecutin' Spitz

(Wiretapdancing)

Hooked up with a thousand-dollar hooker
Now you're stuck inside the pressure cooker
Lookin' snookered

If you're guv
And wish you knew
Where to get love
Why don't you do
Like hypocrites
Prostitutin' Spitz
Prostitutin' Spitz
Prostitutin' Spitz
Prostitutin' Spitz

So with all the mirth generated by the Eliot Spitzer scandal, it appears that the KOmmies are taking it very seriously. In fact, they believe that Spitzer was probably framed as you can see in this KOmmie THREAD titled, "The Spitzer story -- Something doesn't add up." So what doesn't add up, KOmmies? A self-righteous governor who made a name for himself prosecuting people and companies including small (not elite) prostitution rings gets caught up making cash payments to an elite prostitution ring for the well-heeled called Emperor's Club VIP. Perhaps Spitzer thinks he can weather out this storm without having to resign but the bad news for him is that this is the type of scandal that generates tons of jokes (and song parodies) so the publicity won't be dying down. So let us now watch the KOmmies try in vain to defend poor widdle Eliot Spitzer in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering how a humble Lutheran pastor seems to know so much about the subject of prostitution, is in the [brackets]:

The Spitzer story -- Something doesn't add up

[Your defense of Spitzer doesn't add up but continue with the comedy...]

The New York Times this morning has a story about the origins of the Spitzer investigation that, at least to me, simply doesn't make sense. Apparently, the investigation didn't start with some big organized crime investigation that happened upon a prostitution ring, and that happened to lead to Switzer. Supposedly, it began with an investigation of money movements by Switzer that led, to the complete suprise of the investigators, to a prostitution ring. Except that the explanation in the story simply doesn't make sense.

[Perhaps you were drinking too much of a Spritzer since this investigation was of Spitzer, not Switzer.]

What's wrong with this version of the story? At least one thing seems to be glaringly wrong: This wasn't money moving INTO Spitzer's accounts, as it would be if the crimes involved were bribery, political corruption, or "something inappropriate involving campaign finance." This was cash moving OUT of Spitzer's accounts -- based on everything we've heard, from his personal accounts.

[His flash cash for the Ho's.]

When somebody is moving large amounts of cash OUT of their personal accounts, I suppose it's possible that they're bribing somebody else or something, although if they're already a Governor, that doesn't seem very likely. What it suggests is precisely what happened here: That they're spending money on something for which they don't want a paper trail, perhaps because they don't want their spouse to know about it. And while some of those things may be illegal (prostitution, gambling, drugs), by no means all of them are (supporting a mistress, indulging a taste for clothes or wine that is more expensive than one's spouse thinks is appropriate, etc.).

[The same Spitzer who was self-righteously investigating small prostituion rings was spending big bucks on the elite Emperor's Club VIP prostitution ring. So if he knew about this prostitution ring from first-hand experience, why didn't he prosecute it? Selective prosecution.]

The other thing that seems odd is that these were apparently CASH TRANSACTIONS, which are extraordinarily difficult to trace. And yet somehow, investigators supposedly knew that this money:

[Blame a high-class blabbermouth ho'.]

How, pray tell, did the investigators know that without FIRST getting wiretap or other evidence showing where it was going? Presumably, the front businesses for this prostitution ring were combining Spitzer's cash with cash from other customers, so the amounts wouldn't even be the same. But even if the amounts WERE the same, with the large number of cash businesses in the New York area, it strains credulity to think they could match the amounts up and tell with any degree of certainty at all where his money was going.

[Anyone here think this KOmmie would come up with all these excuses if Client #9 were a Republican?]

Is it really possible that the Attorney General of the United States approved an investigation of a sitting state Governor, based on no more than the fact that the Governor was withdrawing unusually large amounts of cash from his personal accounts? If there's more than that, it's not apparent from anything in the article, or anything in the Complaint (to the pdf of which there is a link in this article.

[Don't forget the element of the blabbermouth ho'. Plus I think his bank reported his unusual cash withdrawals. BTW, this brings to mind the very subtle cash withdrawals from the bank in Dial M For Murder. In this case, Dial M For Mistress.]

I make no excuses whatseover for Spitzer, who engaged in monumentally risky and stupid (not to mention hypocritical) behavior, but what bothers me even more than his behavior is that major investigations are being undertaken based on no more than the fact that a public figure is using somewhat larger than normal amounts of cash -- and that seems to have been almost the only possible basis for the investigation of Spitzer in this case. Because frankly, that suggests a return to the bad old days where one of the major activities of the FBI was gathering dirt on every politician in Washington (not to mention civil rights leaders and others who had somehow run afoul of J. Edgar Hoover), which was then used to intimidate them politically. And that's much more disturbing to me than Elliot Spitzer's tawdry, and apparently very expensive, personal life.

[You make no excuses for Spitzer? Gee, I was under the impression that your whole thread post was one big excuse for Client #9.]

UPDATE: Another thing that bothers me about this, and bothers me greatly as a former DOJ lawyer, is that it would appear that somebody associated with federal law enforcement revealed to the press that "Client 9" was Elliott Spitzer, and that would seem in itself to be a serious violation of ethics, if not a criminal violation if it was grand jury information. Somehow, I doubt that there will be the kind of concerted investigation into who leaked this information that there was into where Spitzer was spending the cash that he was withdrawing, and that also disturbs me. Anybody who leaks confidential information from a criminal investigation should at a minimum be fired, and if it's grand jury information, they should be prosecuted.

[This from a KOmmie who is probably okay with leaks of the FISA program to the New York Times. And now to hear more excuses from his fellow KOmmies...]

I agree. Something smells here, because of the reasons you laid out. Had Spitzer been spending quietly for, let's say, a surprise Valentine's Day tryst WITH his wife to some expensive destination, would that be drawing the attention of the IRS office in Hauppauge and then the NYC office of the FBI? Hope the Times and others pursue these questions.

[Spitzer will be spending not so quietly on the divorce settlement with his lawyer wife. She will cost him much more than the Emperor's Club VIP. Spitzer can kiss his bank account goodbye, RIP. Hee! Hee!]

Spitzer should have come out swinging. His position should have been that he was setting up the DoJ to show just how political it had become. A few innocuous cash transfers, a sham rendezvous and bam it hits the papers that he's done something wrong.

[That sounds like a good lame excuse. Was he also investigating the practice of unsafe sex?]

He just brought that young lady to his hotel room to give her some fatherly advice. Indeed, the fact that he occupied her time with such innocuous pursuits as parchesi and prayer prevented a crime from being committed.

[An illegal game of Scrabble was prevented.]

Now, I have to agree that Spitzer was an idiot to imagine he could do things like that and get away with it. So was David Vitter, so was Larry Craig, so was... well, the list goes on, and on. But since the threshold for reporting of odd transactions is said to be ten thousand dollars, isn't it odd that Spitzer's transactions even showed up on the radar? That makes on think that there may be a great deal more to this story than has yet been revealed. Wouldn't this have been an effort started under Alberto Gonzales? I think both sides of this matter have some explaining to do.

[Those so was guys are EVIL Republicans so they get prosecuted without KOmmie protest.]

We have better people and better causes to defend than Spitzer.

[Like William "Icebox" Jefferson.]

At the same time that the Justice Department was not investigating Repugs like Karl Rove...

[Karl Rove has already been indicted on May 12. 2006.]

Spitzer was a fool to think his own behavior would not be under a microscope. To be "Mr. Morality" and hiring thousand dollar an hour hookers - transporting them across state lines in violation of the well known Mann Act was just plain stupid - and arrogant. People may have been looking for something - but Spitzer served it up on a silver platter - nothing vague or questionable about it. His actions were illegal and he knew it - hence the structuring of transactions to hide them.

[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]

Crossing state lines. Now, you may not like the fact that it's a Federal offense, but it is. That's a major difference between this instance and others (Monica) that it's being compared to.

[LOL! By arranging for the hooker to cross state lines in order to preserve his sacred anonymity, Spiter unwitting broke the law.]

Spitzer is probably in a WTF mode right now and is trying to figure out how and why this happened to him. Meanwhile, his wife is dealing with 'the other' issue.

[That oddly leaking Spritzer on Spitzer.]

We need an investigation of the investigation!

[We need an investigation of the investigation of the investigation!]

If you watched CNBC, which is a business news channel as I did yesterday you'd see the venom seeping out as I did. Granted some of it was merited, particularly since he was such a hypocrite about it. They were taking glee in beating Spitzer while he was down. Absolute glee.

[Why I've even heard that there are already parody songs about this scandal.]

Remember, Spitzer must be really hated by Bushco. He brought a lawsuit against them because they were capriciously saying that states can't have their own emissions standards. Does it smell like oil? You betcha! And where's there is oil find Bush and Cheney.

[And don't forget Haliburton.]

I woke up this morning with Mukasey on my lips.

[A certain high class Emperor's Club VIP hooker woke up with a Spitzer Spritzer on her lips.]

I work in the financial services industry, and we have to follow rigorous anti-money-laundering protocols. The movement of money by Spitzer fits the guidelines under which we are supposed to report. Once initiated, every step down the line is governed by protocol. Tipping off the subject gets you yourself heavily penalized. Such an investigation is not out of line - they happen all the time. Every bank and brokerage has an anti-money-laundering unit.

[Stop making so much sense!]