Don’t get us wrong! We have no love for Eliot Spitzer. He tried to have Raoul removed as chairman of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct because of the book we wrote called “Schmucks” (which he admitted to never having read). We did not believe that a book is an I.E.D., but apparently it was enough to frighten and upset a number of people. It seems Spitzer was a tough guy with everybody and tried to throw people in jail, but the only thing that scared him was a book.
The reason we believe he got a raw deal was because Clinton, who admittedly committed perjury and obstruction of justice, ended up being a rock star. It is well known that when you commit perjury or obstruction of justice, you will receive jail time, since these are acts that go to the very heart of our system of justice that is based on people telling the truth under oath. Clinton, thanks to DNA, and thanks to a girl who didn’t bother going to a dry cleaner, was clearly guilty of both – perjury and obstruction of justice. This is all not to mention his other crimes of a sexual nature – just ask Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey. But we were never particularly upset by Clinton committing adultery because, after all, it only took him about 15 minutes to commit adultery, and he had the rest of the day to be president (excluding the amount of time it took him to run from motel to motel).
The commentators say Spitzer committed crimes that were involved with his visit from a prostitute. This is nonsense as any prosecutor can tell you. The Mann Act, which he allegedly violated – taking a girl across state lines for sexual purposes – has only been used in cases of commercialized prostitution such as running a prostitution ring, or organized crime. Neither was true in his case. The talking heads said he was guilty of a crime called “structuring,” which means if you deal in amounts of less than $10,000 with a bank to avoid the federal regulation of reporting any transactions $10,000 or over, it is a crime. However, this is aimed at people who are utilizing illegal funds such as in cases of money laundering. Spitzer, a very wealthy man, simply used his own money. It is strictly between his wife and himself if he wants to have an item in his family budget for hookers.
The difference between Clinton and Spitzer was that nobody seemed to like Spitzer. He acted in a nasty and arrogant fashion – but this is not a criminal offense. This certainly should not be the reason why he had to give up his job – for which he was elected by the largest plurality in New York history – for acts of a private nature much less serious than those of the president. Mrs. Clinton, who was complicit, or at least covered up for the president, is now running for president herself. By these standards, Mrs. Spitzer should be emperor.
Related special offer: