And somewhere Elliot Spitzer is saying, "What, you mean I could have borrowed, stole, or found a

[RB TexLa]

spine and stood up for myself?"

[BrklynLiberal]

1. What he did was a 5 on a scale of 1-10..with 9 being what Blageyvich did.

I think Spitzer was targeted...not to excuse his infidelity...but there are so many politicians who do what he did, and worse, and none of them get the details leaked to the world.

[aquart]

2. Definitely targeted.

[camera obscura]

3. I agree. I don't usually buy into theories like this but it seems obvious to me.

and sad... because Spitzer took a stand when the SEC was asleep at the wheel, and they took him down for it. Now look where we are... the SEC is still clueless and we've been swindled by Madoff.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I recall an article he wrote a while back saying that we were heading for problems

I will see if I can find it..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
<snip>

The Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal began on March 10, 2008. Less than a month after his article about the predatory lending.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07legal.html?_r=1
The decision not to press charges against former Gov. Eliot Spitzer for his involvement with a high-priced prostitution ring last year came as no surprise yesterday to several former prosecutors and defense lawyers, many of whom said that the case, while full of lurid and suggestive details, would have been hard to prosecute.

“It’s not surprising,” said Andrew B. Lachow, who once ran the public corruption unit in the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan that has for months been investigating Mr. Spitzer. “There just wasn’t much there that would have called for prosecution.”