dagblog - Comments for "Eliot Spitzer: John or Patsy?"

The Madoff situation is

DF — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:36:48 +0000

In reply to As you note, DF, the evidence

The Madoff situation is curiously short on detail at this point. One thing is certain: There's way too much funny stuff going on with money right now.

As you note, DF, the evidence

acanuck — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:34:00 +0000

In reply to Eliot Spitzer: John or Patsy?

As you note, DF, the evidence that Spitzer was "investigating" Madoff is pretty thin. (In any case, I'm unclear whether even a law-and-order governor can tell a state attorney-general whom to probe.)

Multiple sources now say Spitzer's family firm was a client of Madoff's, and may have lost millions in the scam. So it's unlikely Spitzer had specific suspicions about Madoff's investment operation.

But I do love me some conspiracy theory, and there is no basis to trust that a thoroughly corrupted DOJ acted impartially. Spitzer had already made plenty of enemies. Just not Madoff.

No question about it. There

DF — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:20:00 +0000

In reply to If so, he certainly gave them

No question about it. There appears to be little doubt that he was involved with a prostitute. Of course, there still seems to be some question as to how exactly probable cause was established. Perhaps he simply (and naively) didn't think that it was possible for him to be caught in such a manner.

If so, he certainly gave them

Donal — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:52:17 +0000

In reply to Eliot Spitzer: John or Patsy?

If so, he certainly gave them an easy means to pounce on him.