Fed Case Against Spitzer Is Strong

By John Carney

The New York Post’s Page Six reports the Feds are close to indicting disgraced governor Eliot Spitzer.

The federal case against him is so strong that prosecutors had no interest in striking cooperation agreements with the ringleader of Spitzer’s hooker-supplier, Emperors Club VIP, and his second in command, sources told The Post’s Murray Weiss.
Prosecutors have records of Spitzer’s transactions, phone records and taped conversations with Emperors Club, and are confident they need little more to nail him on charges that could include violating prostitution laws and money laundering, sources said. Probers are also said to be looking into whether he used campaign funds to pay for his pleasures.

It’s too early in the morning for us to feign outrage or disgust at the revelation that a wealthy and powerful man favored the company of a young, beautiful woman to that of his wife, and was willing to pay for it. But we remember writing something about how the episode demonstrated a dark crack in the character of the man we had elected governor. Oh, right, here it is. Go there is you want to be outraged all over again.

Feds Have Spitzer Cornered [New York Post]

Comments (9)

  1. 1
    Posted by guest | June 10, 2008 at 8:47 AM

    My sleepy eyes first read that headline as “Fed Case Against Spitzer Is Wrong” and I expected another Carney-esque polemic of legal contrarianism, like the whole backdating thing.
    Oh well.

  2. 2
    Posted by HAM05 | June 10, 2008 at 8:47 AM

    great article in ny mag a few weeks ago about infidelity in men – basic conclusion was that its completely normal and to deny it would be to deny nature.
    spitzer was a high profile guy who couldnt go to 1oak on monday night to nail a hottie, he had to pay for their “discretion”. granted it didnt work out, but his heart (penis) was in the right place.

  3. 3
    Posted by John Carney | June 10, 2008 at 8:57 AM

    @8:47,
    We’re still working toward that. Let’s see the actual charges, and then perhaps we’ll let loose with our legal contrarianism.

  4. 4
    Posted by guest | June 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM

    “no interest in striking cooperation agreements with the ringleader of Spitzer’s hooker-supplier”
    I would say that if my wife was reading too

  5. 5
    Posted by guest | June 10, 2008 at 9:30 AM

    If the (love) glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
    –Calgary Schmooze

  6. 6
    Posted by guest | June 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM

    “Go there is you want to be outraged all over again.”
    I guess that it was too early for you to feign outrage and for you to use proper grammar.

  7. 7
    Posted by guest | June 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM

    Happy hour reunion at Spitzer’s Corner on verdict day?

  8. 8
    Posted by guest | June 11, 2008 at 5:14 AM

    Screw you guys, it just shows Spitzer is a normal dude and not some pshycho who thinks teh penis is evil. Friggin Jesus land.
    In fact, I’d vote for a president who did a few hookers over some douche who denies his/her sexuality. “Mr President, did you have sex with that woman?”, “Yeah, I did the biatch *and* her crazy friend. Shiiiat, its great being prez.”

  9. 9
    Posted by saramand | May 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM

    New scandalous video!!!
    I watched this is nude video HERE:
    http://thebestfreevideos.net/?x=sex
    the best combination of quality & speed It’s absolutely free!

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.

   or