What's the difference between Spitzer and Bill Clinton?

[Autonomy]

Disregarding any element of hypocrisy on Spitzer's part, which might not be applicable to Bill Clinton, the difference between the two is that Spitzer actually broke the law. Bill Clinton did not. Both were victims of a right-wing conspiracy to some extent, but Spitzer's act of hiring prostitutes was inherently illegal. Having an affair between mutually consenting adults, as in the case of Clinton, is not a criminal matter. (If you don't believe that, please cite an instance in the last few decades where someone was criminally charged for adultery.)

No matter how much I like Elliot Spitzer, and no matter how much I hated the repigs of the 90's who targeted Clinton, they got Spitzer dead-to-rights. They got him, and it's his fault. Entirely.

We need to separate our political persuasion from our insistence on lawful behavior, imo. We can like Spitzer's policies and politics, but we cannot support his behavior in this matter. And in that sense, it is totally separable from the objections against the Clinton-Lewinsky Matter.

I'm not saying anyone is saying otherwise; I'm just saying.

[Warpy]

1. Spitzer violated an Edwardian era law against transporting

a hooker plus the laws against prostitution while Clinton didn't break any laws.

That's the main difference. Spitzer would have opened himself to formal charges, ridiculous though they might be, had he stayed in office.

[Autonomy]

10. I agree that prostitution is debatable

as t whether it should be a crime. The across-state-lines matter is only relevant IF there is a crime in the first place, and then it only becomes a jurisdictional matter. But the fact is, prostitution is currently a crime, and to enter into such a debate in this case also opens up the debate of Spitzer's hypocrisy, which I am trying to avoid in this discussion.

[DJ13]

2. Spitzer had to pay for it?

:shrug:

[Autonomy]

13. Had to? He DID. n/t

[El Supremo]

3. The Pubes would disagree. The Clenis lied to Congress.

But who doesn't these days?

[guitar man]

5. who doesn't lie to congress?

the people who refuse to show up when they get a subpeona....:grr:

[leftynyc]

6. A republican led senate

declined to convict on perjury (or obstruction). They'll have a hard time arguing that now although he did admit to "misleading" testimony during the Paula Jones nonsense.

[napi21]

7. Name me ONE Pub who HASN'T lied to Congress IF they ever

testified! The only way I can think of one would be someone who took the 5th and didn't say anything!

[Autonomy]

8. Actually he didn't lie to the grand jury

They asked if he had sex with "that woman", he asked them to define "sex", they defined it, and by their defintion, he truthfully answered that he did not. He lied to the American people, but not to the grand jury, no matter what the right-wingers say.

[joeybee12]

4. Also, Bill Clinton was very popular and people forgave him...Eliot

has been disappointing as governor, from what I hear.

[Autonomy]

15. Depends whom you ask. n/t

[joeybee12]

20. I think I'll ask 78% of the American people at that time...n/t

[Autonomy]

32. I think we're disagreeing to agree here. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

9. What needs to be questioned

is the fact that there was an investigation started on Spitzer. Yeah, he got caught breaking the law, but with limited resources, there's always a choice to make on where investigators direct their resources. I'm convinced Spitzer was targeted because of enemies he made on Wall Street and within the Republican Party.

[Autonomy]

11. Exactly!!!

You hit the heart of the issue. Thank you. My point is that they GOT him. In this way it is the same as Clinton, in that both were targets of the right wing, but the difference is that they GOT Spitzer, and that we cannot support him because of that. Good riddance to a man that we could have liked.

[coalition_unwilling]

12. Excuse me, Clinton committed perjury under oath (in a civil disposition).

Spitzer has only thus far been 'accused'

[joeybee12]

14. Never tried for perjury...perjury is hard to prove...

...you can say he allegedly committed perjury, but that never went to a trial.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Wasn't he dis-barred??? -n/t

[Winterblues]

24. Not for committing perjury..

He gave misleading testimony which he agreed he might have done but he did not commit any crime.

[Autonomy]

16. See post 8

Clinton did not lie under oath.

[joeybee12]

19. Six of one, half dozen of the other...some would argue he did lie...

...but it never went to trial, and he didn't say this in front of a grand jury, I believe...wasn't it just in the taking of the depositions?

[coalition_unwilling]

22. There's also the nasty little matter of sex discrimination. When a

superior has sex with a subordinate in an employment relationship, a prima facie case for sex discrimination can be made simply because the subordinate so favored may have gained at the expense of other subordinates not so favored. But, hey, excuse me for being a stickler.

[Winterblues]

25. How about the CRIMES he was charged with

What,.....He wasn't CHARGED with any CRIMES..Just slurs from people on forums such as this one..

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Sex discrimination isn't a 'slur' It's a matter of settled employment discriminationcase law, as you

would discover if you spent more than 5 minutes researching the topic

[Winterblues]

34. You are indeed slurring a man

He was never charged with any such thing. You are accusing him, no one else officially ever did. So what would you call that other than an anonymous slur? You keep insisting that Clinton committed a crime although he was never charged with any. He did admit to misleading testimony but that is not a crime, just unethical behavior for an attorney. That is why he was temporarily disbarred. It was for a five year time period only.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. When a superior has sexual relations with any subordinate in an

employer-employee relationship, a prima facie case exists for sexual discrimination. Subordinates who were not recipients of sexual favors from the superior in question can make a well-established case that the sexual fraternization constituted sexual discrimination against them. As I wrote earlier, this is a settled matter of employment law, as any 5 minutes of research would easily establish.

I will admit that I am not an expert on what employment law and sexual discrimination precedents exist for unpaid interns (not a traditional employer-employee relationship). Perhaps a lawyer reading this could weigh in with his or her perspective?

That the mainstream corporate whore media chose not to disucss the 'sexual discrimination' dimension of "l'affaire Lewinsky" does not mean that sexual discrimination did not occur. That Clinton was not CRIMINALLY CHARGED with perjury does not mean that perjury did not occur.

So it is most decidedly not an 'anonyomous slur,' try as you might to slur me with the charge of making an anonymous slur.

[Autonomy]

26. Sorry for being a sticklet, too

but a prostitute is not a subordianate. It's more of a contractual relationship. That said, I really wanted to stay away from nature-of-prostitution (legality and otherwise) arguments in this thread. Point noted, however.

[Winterblues]

23. No he did not and he was never charged with it either.

:shrug: Sorry right wing talking points don't count only facts please..

[Autonomy]

28. He as in Spitzer? He admitted it.

that's why he resigned. Lol.

[coalition_unwilling]

29. Yes, Clinton most assuredly did commit perjury and was eventually

dis-barred for it. That he wasn't charged criminally with perjury is neither here nor there.

[Autonomy]

31. that's the thing; Clinton did not perjure himself n/t

[booley]

17. sticking point

he broke the law.

It's a stupid law and in my opinion a victimless crime.

But he's a public official with a rep for "tough on crime" that broke the law.

I liked spitzer. I wish this was all some kind of horrible mistake. But the mistake was spitzer's.

If we cant' police our own, what moral authority do we have to comment on the Con's collective perfidy?

[Autonomy]

30. Thank you.

My point exactly.

[The Straight Story]

18. about $5000

:)

[CK_John]

33. Bill was in DC and Elliot had to fly to DC and make it a Federal case. n/t