Eliot Spitzer told the New York Daily News the one and only time he saw a prostitute was in 2008 as outlined in the Federal DOJ information filed about his tryst with Ashely Dupree. In truth, that's the only time he got caught. In other words the Steamroller, as he likes to call himself is still lying about his long time, $100,000 a year, multiple escort agency, hooker-habit. It's important to note that a New York Supreme Court Justice Ronald Tills violated the Mann Act, transporting a prostitute over state lines ,and was forced to resign and sent to prison in 2008 only months before Spitzer resigned and avoided prosecution for the same crime. Thus, while it is true that johns are rarely prosecuted in prostitution cases, Spitzer should have been prosecuted for both violating the Mann Act and for money laundering. New York Daily News Editorial Page Editor Arthur Browne was aggressive in seeking the facts on Spitzer's hooker habit. The Steamroller grew petulant.
"Browne: From 1986, I believe, to 1992 you served in the Manhattan district attorney's office? Spitzer: That's correct. Browne: Did you patronize the prostitutes? Spitzer: Absolutely not. Arthur, let me cut this short. You know the whole history of this from my ... Browne: I do not and that's why I'm asking the questions. Spitzer: You can ask, but whatever is there in the public record is the totality of it.
Spitzer's "absolutely not" contrasted markedly with his wriggling and attempted deceptions when asked about his conduct while serving as attorney general, New York's top law enforcement officer.
Browne: From 1998 to 2006, you served as attorney general. Spitzer: That's correct. Browne: What did you do as attorney general? Spitzer: It is delineated in the document that they made public. They put the entirety of their investigation in the public record, and that's it ... That is the totality of what is there and that's what you should rest upon ...
In fact, and, incredibly, considering his answer, the federal complaint described only a single encounter between Spitzer and a prostitute in -- the one that took place in the Washington hotel while he was governor in 2008. The next questions were aimed at determining whether, perhaps, Spitzer had misunderstood what he had been asked. His answers grew more disconnected from the truth.
Browne: Is every liaison in the federal document? Spitzer: Every single one, yes. Browne: Every single one? Spitzer: Yes. Browne: Every single one? Spitzer: Yes.
Following Spitzer's resignation, unverified published reports placed his spending on prostitutes at up to $100,000. Getting a fix on the correct number is a step toward judging whether he knowingly helped the Emperors Club conceal income by wiring funds into secret bank accounts. Read the next transcript secure in knowing that the federal complaint mentions only $4,300 that Spitzer paid in cash in the Washington hotel room:
Browne: How much money was involved? Spitzer: That was set out in that document, Arthur. I really don't know. Browne: There's no total. Spitzer: I could not tell you. I didn't know you were going to want to talk about this in terms of dollars spent. It was in that document or not in that document. If you want me to go back and calculate it, you can make out a request and I'll determine whether or not I wish to allow it. Browne: Well, I do make the request.
And read this transcript secure in knowing that the Manhattan U.S. attorney stated in court papers that "the then-governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, had arranged to transfer funds in a suspicious manner from one of Spitzer's personal accounts" to a secret Emperors Club account:
Browne: The reason that I'm asking, that I believe the total is relevant, is that it got into the question of money laundering by the parties that were running the prostitution enterprise, right? You were a racketeering prosecutor and the attorney general. You were clearly aware of money laundering issues and transactional structuring issues because of your professional work. Am I correct? Spitzer: Is that a question or a statement? Browne: That's a question. Spitzer: Yes, I understand money laundering. Can I cut this short? They investigated that. Browne: I don't want you to cut it short. What I'm asking is, how did you make your payments? Browne: Did you patronize prostitutes during that period? Spitzer: Only what has been revealed in the federal complaint ... Browne: What is the answer to that beyond the federal complaint? What did you do? Spitzer: It's in the federal complaint. Spitzer: Arthur, listen, I'm going to make a few limited statements about this. I made them in cash. There was no money laundering. The federal authorities looked at it thoroughly and said that there was absolutely nothing there. Browne: So, all of your payments were in cash? Spitzer: That's correct. Spitzer: That was not a payment. First of all, I'm not sure if that is what brought it to light. Browne: It's been widely reported that the bank reported suspicious transactions and Garcia has said this and because of that ... Spitzer: No, that was one that was done internal to the bank, which I said to the person -- this is either is or is not in the record -- I said, "Is this proper?" He said, "It's proper." He then did a SARS filing, but the payments I made were in cash. Browne: Was there only one transaction then that tripped you up in terms of the banking relationship? Spitzer: Arthur, I don't know what they saw. I could not know what they saw. I'm telling you my payments were in cash. There was that one SARS filing or maybe two, if I recall, actually. I said to the bank officer, "Is this proper?" He said, "Yes," and then he filed something. Finally, Spitzer said: "You can look at what is in the public record, and that is there. Now, if you want to ask more questions about the particulars of that, I'm simply not going to answer them, because I've answered those questions sufficiently. If you deem I haven't answered them sufficiently, that's fine, and that will be your editorial judgment."
There, Spitzer spoke a full truth. His boldness in issuing misstatements was not the boldness of a liar who is trying to avoid getting caught at wrongdoing. It was the boldness of a man whose ego-driven character allows for forcefully denying reality while expecting the public to accept his word. Why? Because Eliot Spitzer is Eliot Spitzer. What's changed since he fled the governorship as unfit for service is that Eliot Spitzer is five years older." So Spitzer say he only secured the cost of one prostitute on one occasion-in 2008 ,yet in the movie Client # 9 Spitzer says he started utizilng the services the Emporer's Club two years earlier , in 2006. At the 51 minute mark:
Gibney: I want to move on to the Emperors Club. When did that start? Approximately. Spitzer: Some time in '06. Gibney: Early '06? Spitzer: Thereabouts, yeah.
The fact is Eliot Spitzer saw prostitutes the entire time he was Attorney general and into his Governorship, in other words Spitzer lies again.