I still didn't read the background article but I see that he did for sure prosecute prostitution ring(s) in the past. Perhaps that was enticing. Dershowitz had some commentary re his doing that in the first place. (No, no link). Well, I'm fine with his resigning, will watch for it.
On the wife, certainly I'm interested in her reaction, which is of course her business. But, she was at whatever meeting the family and advisors had about how to proceed and spoke for him not resigning quickly, or so it was reported. To me, she is the most interesting person in the situation.
ehBeth wrote:
he'd done a pretty good job on cleaning up insurance fraud in the NY/NJ area - I'd hoped that would carry over into other financial areas
You mean he'd done a pretty good job on destroying the insurance industry.
While I understand that the two most detested businesses/professions are insurance and lawyers, stop for a moment and think who has been most hurt by the 'clean up' by Mr. District Attorney/Mr. New York Governor scoured. What was the end result he left in his wake? Yep, it all trickled down to the you's and the me's. We are the ones paying higher insurance premiums for our cars and homes and anything else we feel the urge to buy that requires insurance (to protect from the litigious lawyers who encourage anyone to sue us). At the very end of the day, after billions of dollars in business lost (and taxes from those business profits), thousands of lost jobs, companies bankrupted and closed, employees earning less salaries than before, clients being charged more (up-front), loss of shareholder value, 401Ks and pension plans destroyed, can you honestly say that his slash and burn only hit the guilty? Unfortunately we the general public, the innocent bystanders were standing in the vicinity when Spitzers bombs were dropped and even though he knew it, we are casualties of war - his battle to get to the top.
For a man who would stop at nothing to get to his ultimate ambitious goal of President of the United States, Mr. Spitzer made it very clear that he would slash and burn to get to where he wanted.
His holier than thou proclamations about cleaning up industries, business, prostitution rings, and many others, were nothing but lip service apparently.
It makes you wonder what other things he rammed down our throats (pardon the pun) when he apparently was doing them himself.
Butrflynet wrote:What I'd like to know is, now that the IRS and FBI are aware of this call girl organization, will we be hearing the names of their other customers? Surely their other customers are paying similar amounts of money that should have raised eyebrows at banks, the IRS and FBI.
Spitzer wasn't their only customer. Who are the others? Will they too be investigated and publicized?
Apparently when Hank handed over his P.I.'s report to the FBI and encouraged wire taps of this 'establishment', his attention had been focused solely on Mr. Spits and no-one else.
Any other well-known person who happens to emerge from this foray will just be incidental.
Spitzer As Client 9: Read Text Messages From Spitzer To Pros
It is clear that the latest call-girl episode was not Spitzer's first with the Emeror's Club VIP. He had an account with them and an unused balance of $400 at the time of the latest event. The biggest problem for Spitzer is that his paying the woman to travel from New York to Washington D. C. is a violation of the Federal Man Act Law (crossing state lines. If Spitzer is indicted for anything, it will be the Man Act.
I hate to watch the wives of such unfaithful husbands having to stand by their men as they make public statements. How difficult that must have been for Spitzer's wife. At least he didn't have his three daughters join him at the microphone. ---BBB
Spitzer As Client 9: Read Text Messages From Spitzer To Prostitute
The Huffington Post | March 10, 2008 03:39 PM
Gov. Eliot Spitzer is believed to be the man identified as Client 9 in an affidavit in the federal investigation into a prostitution ring known as Emperor's Club VIP.
A wiretap recording captured "Client 9" on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room.
Some highlights:
Client 9 - believed to be Spitzer - paid $4,300 for a woman named "Kristen" to come from New York to D.C. A portion of that money, however, likely went to credit for future appointments.
"Kristen" was described as "an American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds." Client 9 had to be "reminded" what she looked like, suggesting that this was not the first time the two had done business.
Client 9, according to another woman associated with the Emperor's Club, "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe." There was no elaboration.
"Kristen" described her interaction with Client 9 -- which took place on Valentine's Day -- as follows:
'I don't think he's difficult. I mean it's just kind of like . . . whatever. . . I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that's why girls maybe think they're difficult . . . ," she continued. "That's what it is, because you're here for a [purpose]. Let's not get it twisted - I know what I do, you know."
Below is the section of the affidavit detailing Spitzer's alleged activities:
++++++
b. February 13, 2008, Interstate Transportation
From New York To Washinqton, D.C.
73. On February 11, 2008, at approximately 10:53 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, sent a text message to CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. In the text message, LEWIS wrote: 'Pls let me know if [Client-9's] 'package' (believed to be a reference to a deposit of money sent by mail) arrives 2mrw. Appt wd b on Wed." (Call 3728C). SUWAL sent a text message back to LEWIS, stating: 'K." (Call 3731C).
74. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 2:37 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called a prostitute who the Emperors Club marketed using the name "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS left a message for "Kristen" that the "deposit" had not arrived today, but that they should be able to do the trip if the deposit arrived tomorrow. (Call 9324R) . At approximately 4 : 03 p.m. , LEWIS received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" said that she had heard the message, and that was fine. LEWIS and "Kristen" then discussed the time that "Kristen" would take the train from New York to Washington, D.C. LEWIS told "Kristen" that there was a 5:39 p.m. train that arrived at 9:00 p.m., and that "Kristen" would be taking the train out of Penn Station. LEWIS confirmed that Client-9 would be paying for everything - train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room service, travel time, and hotel. LEWIS said that they would probably not know until 3 p.m. if the deposit arrived because Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring. (Call 9362) .
75. At approximately 8:12 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the "package" did not arrive today. LEWIS asked Client-9 if there was a return address on the envelope, and Client-9 said no. LEWIS asked: "You had QAT . . .," and Client-9 said: "Yup, same as in the past, no question about it." LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was interested in having the appointment tomorrow. Client-9 told her 9:00 p.m. or 10:OO p.m. LEWIS told Client-9 to call her back in five minutes. (Call 9460R) .
76. At approximately 8:14 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, at the 0937 Number. During the call, LEWIS told BRENER that Client-9 had just called about an appointment for tomorrow, and that he had around $400 or $500 credit. SUWAL said that she did not feel comfortable saying that Client-9 had a $400 credit when she did not know that for a fact. SUWAL and BRENER talked in the background about whether Client-9 could proceed with the appointment without his deposit having arrived. (Call 9462R). At approximately 8:23 p.m., LEWIS called Client-9, and told him that the 'office" said he could not proceed with the appointment with his available credit. After discussing ways to resolve the situation, LEWIS and Client-9 agreed to speak the following day. (Call 9467R) . 77. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 9:22 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, sent a text message to ''Kristen." In the text message, LEWIS wrote: 'If D.C. appt. happens u will need 2 leave NYC @ 4:45pm. Is that possible?" (Call 9515R). "Kristen" wrote back: "Yes." (Call 9516R) .
78. At approximately 3: 20 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that they were still trying to determine if his deposit had arrived. Client-9 told LEWIS that he had made a re'servation at the hotel, and had paid for it in his name. Client-9 said that there would be a key waiting for her, and told LEWIS that what he had on account with her covered the "transportation" (believed to be a reference to the cost of the trainfare for "Kristen" from New York to Washington, D.C.). LEWIS said that she would try to make it work. (Call 9636R). At approximately 3:24 p.m., LEWIS, using the 6587 Number, called CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. LEWIS explained to SUWAL what Client-9 had proposed. SUWAL told LEWIS she would call her back. (Call 9642R) . At approximately 3 : 53 p.m., MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, using the 0937 Number, called LEWIS at the 6587 Number. BRENER and LEWIS discussed the problem about Client-9's deposit. (Call 9654R). At approximately 4:18 p.m., SUWAL, using the 3390 Number, sent a text message to LEWIS at the 6587 Number, stating: "[Plackage arrived. Pls be sure he rsvp hotel." (Call 9659R) .
79. At approximately 4:21 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle, " the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called "Kri~ten.~ During the call, LEWIS told "Kristen" that the package had arrived, and that "theyu (believed to be a reference to MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," and CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendants) just got the mail. LEWIS told "Kristen" to get to Penn Station and call her when she picked up her tickets. (Call 9661R) . At approximately 4 :48 p.m., LEWIS sent a text message to "Kristen," stating: "TRAIN INFO Departing from Penn St. Arriving 8 Union St. Washington, DC NYC to DC Train # 129 Dep. 5:39pm Arr. 9pm." (Call 9G79R). At approximately 4:54 p.m., LEWIS sent another text message to "KristenItt stating: "TRAIN INFO Return trip DC to NYC Train #84 Dep. 2/14 8:35pm Arr. ll:57am." (Call 9683R).
80. At approximately 4:58 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received an incoming call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that his package arrived today, and Client-9 said good. LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was expecting to have the appointment. Client-9 told LEWIS maybe 10:OO p.m. or so, and asked who it was. LEWIS said it was "Kristen," and Client-9 said"great, okay, wonderful ." LEWIS told Client-9 that she would give him a final price later, and asked Client-9 whether he could give "Kristen" "extra funds" at this appointment in order to avoid payment issues in the future. Client-9 said maybe, and that he would see if he could do that. LEWIS explained that the agency did not want a model accepting funds for a future appointment, but that she was going to make an exception that way a deposit could be made so that he would have a credit, and they would not have to "go through this" next time. Client-9 said perfect, and that he would call her regarding the room number. (Call 9686R) .
81. At approximately 7:51 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the balance was around ,"2611 (believed to be a reference to $2,600), but she would give him an exact number later. LEWIS asked if when "Kristen" went to pick up the key she would have to give a name or would she be able to say that she was one of Client-9's guests for whom he left an envelope. ~EW1~'and Client-9 discussed how to arrange for "Kristen" to get the key to her hotel room. LEWIS said that she would prefer if "Kristen" did not have to give a name. Client-9 said that he was trying to 'think this through." Client-9 repeated that his balance was '2600," and stated that maybe he would give "her," a reference to "Kristen," '3600" and have a thousand on balance. LEWIS suggested making it "1500fl more. Client-9 said that would make it "4100," and said that he would look for a bank and see about it. Client-9 told LEWIS to let him go down and take care of this, and suggested that maybe he could put it [the hotel key] in an envelope with the concierge. (Call 9725R).
82. At approximately 8:47 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, Client-9 told LEWIS to tell "Kristen" to go to the hotel and go to room 871. Client-9 told LEWIS that the door would be open. Client-9 told LEWIS that there would be a key in the room, but the door would be ajar. LEWIS asked if the hotel staff might pass by the door and close it, and Client-9 said no it was okay. Client-9 explained that the door would not be visibly open, but if someone pushed it, the door would open. LEWIS told Client-9 that his balance was $2,721.41, and that if he wanted to do an additional "150OU or even "2000" it would be better. Client-9 said that he did not know if he could get to a machine to do that, but he would see. LEWIS said that 'Kristen" would go directly to room ,871. Client-9 asked LEWIS to remind- him what 'Kristen" looked like, and LEWIS said that she was an American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds. Client-9 said that she should go straight to 871, and if for any reason it did not work out, she should call LEWIS. (Call 9731) .
83. At approximately 9:32 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, '"Kristen" said that she was in the room. LEWIS told "Kristen" that she would call her back when she knew when Client-9 would be there. (Call 9734R).
84. At approximately 9:36 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS told "Kristen" that "he," a reference to Client-9, was at the hotel. "Kristen" told LEWIS that she just talked to him. 'Kristen" said that Client-9 was coming'to her. LEWIS told "Kristen" that Client-9 should be giving her "extra," and that the extra should be deposited into- LEWIS told "Kristen" to text her when he arrived and LEWIS would start the four hours then, and also to let her know if he left early. (Call 9741R).
85. On February 14, 2008, at approximately 12:02 a.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" told LEWIS , that "he," a reference to Client-9, had left. LEWIS asked "Kristen" what time he got there, and "Kristen" said "15 after . . . maybe 10." LEWIS asked "Kristen" how she thought the appointment went, and "Kristen" said that she thought it went very well. LEWIS asked "Kristen" how much she collected, and 'Kristen" said $4,300. "Kristen" said that she liked him, and that she did not think he was difficult. "Kristen" stated: 'I don't think he's difficult. I mean it's just kind of like . . . whatever. . . I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that's why girls maybe think they're difficult . . . . " "Kristen" continued: "That's what it is, because you're here for a [purpose]. Let's not get it twisted - I know what I do, you know." LEWIS responded: "You look at it very uniquely, because . . . no one .ever says it that way." LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe - you know - I mean that . . . very basic things. . . . "Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that . . . I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex? . . . You know what I mean." Near the end of the call, LEWIS and "Kristen" discussed "Kristen's" departure via Amtrak, the room that Client-9 had provided for "Kristen," and "Kristen's" share of the cash that Client-9 had provided to her. (Call 9750R)
Heeven wrote:Butrflynet wrote:What I'd like to know is, now that the IRS and FBI are aware of this call girl organization, will we be hearing the names of their other customers? Surely their other customers are paying similar amounts of money that should have raised eyebrows at banks, the IRS and FBI.
Spitzer wasn't their only customer. Who are the others? Will they too be investigated and publicized?
Apparently when Hank handed over his P.I.'s report to the FBI and encouraged wire taps of this 'establishment', his attention had been focused solely on Mr. Spits and no-one else.
Any other well-known person who happens to emerge from this foray will just be incidental.
Does that mean that the "establishment" is a legal entity conducting legal business now or is it just that everyone is looking the other way because too much could be revealed about other currently unknown customers?
Quote:You mean he'd done a pretty good job on destroying the insurance industry...
For a man who would stop at nothing to get to his ultimate ambitious goal of President of the United States...
And there's the present monetary crisis he's yet to apologize for, and the baby-eating and his role in that subduction zone subsidance off Sumatra in 2004.
Alterman's quick bit on this news
Quote: I've been searching for a heart of gold (and I'm getting old)
So does the world really need a comment from yours truly about Spitzgergate? Well, first off, I'm ashamed on behalf of the Jewish people. Who the hell ever heard of paying $5,500 an hour for sex? And this guy thought he could be president? For shame, sir, for shame. But seriously, folks. I don't think prostitution is morally wrong, though I do think it a distasteful way to make a living. Irrespective of whether it's right or wrong, however, it's not going away. And it's a much more clear-cut case that it ought to be legalized -- taxed, policed and regulated for the protection of the prostitutes themselves and the good of the legal system and social peace. We pay a terrible price for turning people into criminals for something that they are going to do anyway, and it's a horrible waste of police resources, when we should be improving public health and offering these poor, exploited girls and boys health insurance and a road to a better way to make a living (if they want one).
But this story is about arrogance, not prostitution. And so Spitzer has to go. He's made himself an indefensible liability to all the causes about which he professes to care, including the party that nominated him. And if I were Hillary Clinton, I'd be on his ass to get out today, since this is going to remind everyone of one of the many reasons the Clintons can be such a trial for our political system and the indulgences they demand from their supporters. In the meantime, anyone who offers up a loud moral condemnation of Spitzer's sexual morality should be asked to sign a sworn deposition saying that they have never paid for sex ...
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/?f=h_column
blatham wrote:Quote:You mean he'd done a pretty good job on destroying the insurance industry...
For a man who would stop at nothing to get to his ultimate ambitious goal of President of the United States...
And there's the present monetary crisis he's yet to apologize for, and the baby-eating and his role in that subduction zone subsidance off Sumatra in 2004.
Heyy, you makin' fun o'me man?
Spitzer was the bull-dog who initiated the insurance industry investigation, and while the issues behind the investigation I am not denying existed, he deliberately tried to put AIG and Marsh specifically out of business.
80% of the souls working in the insurance industry had no knowledge of or participation in the contingent commissions and/or fraudulent quotes and other downright unethical practices that went on. That the industry needed to be cleaned out and told to smarten up and play right was not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. It was the way in which the man and his pack of dogs did it, they cut and slashed their way through the industry without any consideration of the innocent victims they would hurt, and hurt badly.
In my opinion he was a man without a conscience and apparently .... I was right.
And this sheer delight on his being caught with his pants down is nothing to do with my opinion of his using a prostitute or two (I leave that issue to his wife and family), I think we pretty much rolled our eyes with Clintons indiscretions! The fact that Spitzer is a scum-bag is what makes me delight in his comeuppance. I hope he is investigated as thoroughly as he investigated others and he is stripped of his reputation and everything that means the most to him.
Feel bad for the wife and kids tho'.
Butrflynet wrote:Heeven wrote:Butrflynet wrote:What I'd like to know is, now that the IRS and FBI are aware of this call girl organization, will we be hearing the names of their other customers? Surely their other customers are paying similar amounts of money that should have raised eyebrows at banks, the IRS and FBI.
Spitzer wasn't their only customer. Who are the others? Will they too be investigated and publicized?
Apparently when Hank handed over his P.I.'s report to the FBI and encouraged wire taps of this 'establishment', his attention had been focused solely on Mr. Spits and no-one else.
Any other well-known person who happens to emerge from this foray will just be incidental.
Does that mean that the "establishment" is a legal entity conducting legal business now or is it just that everyone is looking the other way because too much could be revealed about other currently unknown customers?
No, I inserted establishment in quotation marks to emphasize that I am being facetious. I call it an establishment for want of a better word. I am pretty sure there wasn't anything legal about it.
Spitzer is the big-news-ticket and I am sure that the others who may have frequented this ring are hoping his face and story will continue to be broadcast so that they may quietly slip into the shadows.
Heeven wrote:
Quote:Heyy, you makin' fun o'me man?
Mayyyyybbeeeee. If I was, it would have been directed at a certain whiff of absolutism, eg
Quote:In my opinion he was a man without a conscience
Hardly likely to be true, is it?
Quote:Spitzer was the bull-dog who initiated the insurance industry investigation, and while the issues behind the investigation I am not denying existed, he deliberately tried to put AIG and Marsh specifically out of business.
80% of the souls working in the insurance industry had no knowledge of or participation in the contingent commissions and/or fraudulent quotes and other downright unethical practices that went on. That the industry needed to be cleaned out and told to smarten up and play right was not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. It was the way in which the man and his pack of dogs did it, they cut and slashed their way through the industry without any consideration of the innocent victims they would hurt, and hurt badly.
I admit I don't know anything really about what you refer to above. Can you steer me to some good source (who didn't wake every morning gnarling about Spitzer) to give me information?
Actually I'm right slap-bam in the industry so a lot of it is internal stuff that I have seen and heard (no official documents to share, I'm sorry).
Sounds like an excuse to you I'm sure, but I'm one of those apparently rare breeds .... a hated insurance professional who actually has a code of ethics and sticks to them.
Like all good soldiers, I am generally loyal to my current employer and then beat the **** out of them once I've moved on.
In this case, however, much as it kills me to admit it of the big bucks businesses who are selfish, greedy, don't-care behemoths, the majority of people who got destroyed were the good innocent poorer people and it made me sick to my stomach. These are the casualties that Spitzer and his team were prepared to make. Maybe he does have a conscience but he sure don't use it. It wasn't in active mode when he cheated on his wife either.
Ah ha! Well, that explains EVERYTHING!
No, I don't take your response as any sort of cop-out. Personal familiarity with a situation is surely valuable.
If you do bump into any careful account (or if anyone else here knows of one), I'd be appreciative of the tip. I could go searching, but business-related matters (or newspaper business pages) attenuate what little consciousness remains available to this drug-smoking lawbreaker (though I hasten to add that call girls have always been beyond my financial grasp)
heeven wrote :
Quote:Spitzer was the bull-dog who initiated the insurance industry investigation, and while the issues behind the investigation I am not denying existed, he deliberately tried to put AIG and Marsh specifically out of business.
80% of the souls working in the insurance industry had no knowledge of or participation in the contingent commissions and/or fraudulent quotes and other downright unethical practices that went on. That the industry needed to be cleaned out and told to smarten up and play right was not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. It was the way in which the man and his pack of dogs did it, they cut and slashed their way through the industry without any consideration of the innocent victims they would hurt, and hurt badly.
any suggestions on how the job should have been done ?
Quote:As attorney general, Spitzer took cases relating to corporate white collar crime, securities fraud, internet fraud and environmental protection. He most notably pursued cases against companies involved in computer chip price fixing, investment bank stock price inflation, and the 2003 mutual fund scandal. He also sued Richard Grasso, the then-chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, who he claimed had violated his position after receiving an upwards of $140 million as a deferred compensation pay package.
i certainly would not want to excuse spitzer's wrongdoing (and stupidity) ,
but from where i sit , it seems that he did some jobs that should have been done long ago - why did it have to come to those financial wrongdoings in the first place - no one else wanted to tackle the bigshots ???
one can also look at the current mess with ABS - many small investors are being hurt badly there .
or look at the downfall of NORTEL - usually a lot of "little" people get hurt .
there are almost always many "ordinary" people that get hurt in these situations - just like in a war - yet we still have them .
hg
I just heard in the evening news that he spent $80,000 over the last 6 years. What a colossal boob he is. This is a recording.
ragman
How would you feel about spitzer had this not happened? Or, version 2, how did you feel about him four days ago?
80,000... divided by four in an approximation gives us 20 x.
Well, really, I don't care in the larger sense as prostitution is the longtime way of the world, this seeming like among the least victimizing of examples... but I'm interested in what I think myself re who gets anything working, from St. Francis to, say, Mussolini and the near apochryphal trains, to various military governments. Here we have a guy, a hero or a robot of ambition, with an eye to fixing stuff, titilated by that stuff himself. Surely a story as a classic to be.
As I said before somewhere, my interest is with the wife and children, none of my business.
What did Ms Spitzer, the Baptist from NC ever see in jerky Eliot from NY?
Ragman wrote:I just heard in the evening news that he spent $80,000 over the last 6 years. What a colossal boob he is. This is a recording.
And the significance of how much of his own millions he blew (no pun intended) on a prostitute would be...?
I am sure his wife might have other uses for that money but it is none of our business.
Miller wrote:What did Ms Spitzer, the Baptist from NC ever see in jerky Eliot from NY?
Yup, what a jerk, endorsing Hillary Clinton and all that.
For the record, there has been no confirmation by a legitimate news source verifying the 80k figure. It is just gossip at this point.
