Spitzer, Prostitutes and the Feds
Prostitution Isn't a Federal Crime So Why are Feds Looking Into It
NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned for his involvement in a prostitution ring, raising questions about the Feds' investigating things that aren't federal crimes.
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned after his involvement in a prostitution ring was revealed. Spitzer is one in a line of politicians whose careers were either jeopardized or ended because of their involvement with prostitutes. He is also another politician whose career been jeopardized or ended as the result of a sting by the federal government involving wiretaps.
On March 11, Spitzer admitted that he patronized prostitutes. Last year, after a two year probe by the IRS and the United States Postal Service, Louisiana Senator David Vitter admitted to paying prostitutes employed by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, aka the "DC Madam." Ambassador Randall Tobias and columnist Harlan Ullman of The Washington Times also resigned from their positions because of the scandal. (as an aside, Ullman testified against Palfrey in her litigations with his lawyer Mark Mukasey, son of current Attorney General Michael Mukasey)
Reactions And Theories About the Scandal and its Motivations
The New York GOP has told Spitzer to resign within 48 hours or face impeachment, and Spitzer has chosen to resign effective immediately. While many republicans forgave Vitter (who is still in the Senate), Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA), who was at that time running for President, said that Vitter should be censured by the senate. That hasn't happened to date.
The liberal blogosphere, while admonishing Spitzer in no uncertain terms, has said that the IRS and the Federal agencies that were investigating the prostitution ring have some 'splainin to do about various particulars in the case. Others have troubled reactions to Spitzers calls being wiretapped and tie the Spitzer episode with the case of Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor who was convicted of corruption with very little evidence (and as later revealed, Karl Rove and others at the White House may have had influence in the case).
Still others tie the Spitzer episode to the fight between the White House and the Congress over wiretapping and telecom immunity.
But ultimately, the real question is this: Prostitution is not a federal crime. Pimping is not a federal crime. In fact they are legal in some parts of Nevada. So why is the federal government investigating either of them? And why do the ones they do investigate always end up involve politicians on the list of clients?
It could be because, like telecom immunity, it's not about catching criminals, it's about protecting those politicians if their on the right side (Vitter), or finding something to get rid of those on the wrong side (Siegelman and Spitzer).
Then again, maybe the ones we have seen involving politicians are just coincidences. The media is like a goldfish looking at a bunch of shiny objects, and nothing is more shiny than a prostitute and a politician sitting together. The feds were pursuing Palfrey for "money laundering" (which is a federal crime) and "running a prostitution ring" (which is a crime, if not federal).
