Another Look at Eliot Spitzer
Posted on April 26th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
I saw a few movies at the Tribeca Film Festival over the weekend, and the one I was most impressed by was Alex Gibney’s documentary on the rise and fall of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, tentatively titled Client 9.
Spitzer cooperated with the film, which traces his arc from privileged Manhattan kid to Wall Street-busting New York attorney general to allegedly tyranical governor to perhaps the world’s most famous patron of call girls.
It breaks some interesting news: that Spitzer saw Ashley “I love sex” Dupree, whom we’ve all seen photos of, only once. In fact, there was another woman whom Spitzer favored and saw on numerous occasions in numerous cities; she grants Gibney an interview, but will not allow the footage to be used, and so Gibney recreates his interview with her using an actress. The woman comes across as smart, likable, nothing like Dupree (it would have been fascinating if she’d been the woman with whom he was publicly linked rather than the brain-dead but body-electric Dupree). She’s now a commodities trader.
More important, Gibney compiles a significant amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Spitzer’s fall was the result of calculated actions by political and financial enemies.
One example: In the FBI affidavit (I think) dealing with the Emperors’ Club, the escort service Spitzer used, there are nine “clients” mentioned. Eight of them are dealt with in less than one one page worth of material. Spitzer—Client 9—receives five pages of detail, including the infamous “he kept his socks on” factoid, which proves to be not even true—but would make it easy for any reporter to whom the document was leaked to put two and two together and figure out that Client 9 was New York’s crusading anti-corruption governor.
Another example: The FBI claimed that it discovered Spitzer after looking into a suspicious wire transfer from what proved to be his account of three or four thousand dollars. There are apparently thousands of such wire transfers every day. Why did the FBI investigate this one?
Who are the likely culprits?
Former AIG CEO and Spitzer-hater Hank Greenberg, former director of the New York Stock exchange and Spitzer-hater Kenneth Langone (they tangled over the obscene pay for NYSE chair Dick Grasso), Republican political consultant Roger Stone, and the Bush Justice Department.
There are issues in Client 9, if that’s what this film is to be called, that go well beyond questions of sex, fidelity and morality, but have to do with abuse of power for political and financial gain.
Who wins from this?
Gibney’s answer is footage of Wall Street traders bursting into applause as TV screens show Spitzer’s resignation press conference.
It’s hard not to conclude that, while Spitzer stupidly left himself vulnerable, and that he was a hard-to-like hypocrite, his enemies dug up the evidence, distributed it, leaked it…and toppled a governor who had badly wounded them with his prosecutions.
And we, the public, so obsessed with titillation, played our part like the dupes the Spitzer-topplers presumed us to be, making such a frenzied hullabaloo over a married man paying for sex that Spitzer had no choice but to resign—and a populist champion was ousted from office. (The film is more nuanced about this than I’m being.)
Did the punishment fit the crime? Is New York better off for it? (Clearly not.) Who really was behind the collection of dissemination of damaging information about Spitzer? And could Spitzer possibly make a comeback?
It’s a fascinating film and a powerful piece of journalism. Mr. Gibney, who also made the Academy Award-winning doc Taxi to the Dark Side, deserves all the attention he’s going to get for this film. It’s hot stuff.
14 Responses
4/26/2010 1:08 pm
Who said Ashley Dupree wasn’t likable? I like her just fine.
4/26/2010 1:09 pm
Sorry - what difference exactly would it have made if Spitzer’s favorite whore had been smart?
4/26/2010 1:15 pm
She’s an extremely articulate feminist; I think people might have viewed the matter differently, somewhat less sensationally, if she were the embodiment of Spitzer’s mistakes, rather than Dupree. Hard to say, it’s a theoretical, but what’s clear is that that it was Dupree really killed him.
4/26/2010 1:42 pm
Although I haven’t seen the film, I doubt there would be much difference for Spitzer. Instead, people would question if he was leaving his wife for the smart, call girl. No one asked that question about Dupree because the answer was obvious.
What would have been different would have been the outcome for the woman. Dupree came off as a bimbo and now she’s milking the gravy train with a column, her muzak and some TV appearances. The smart call girl would never have had an opportunity as a commodities trader if her identity became public. Just like those MTV Jersey Shore kids, it pays to be stupid.
4/26/2010 1:56 pm
I can’t wait to see the film. I love articulate feminists who have on-the-job training.
4/26/2010 7:00 pm
Elliot Spitzer routinely abused his office in the service of a campaign measured, in his mind at least, by how many financial and other big shots he could bring to their knees. In hindsight (especially in 2010), its convenient to assume that those bigshots deserved it — every one of them, and their companies, never mind the collateral damage caused both on Main Street and around the world — but if any public figure in recent memory epitomizes “the ends justify the means”, he’s our man. Substitute Dick Cheney for Spitzer and Saddam Hussein for Hank Greenberg and ask yourself — do you reach a similar result? Because, for my money at least, they are both dangerous men, precisely because their zeal is matched by their lack of humility. For evidence of this you need look no further than the WSJ article you link to above. As for the proposition that he may have been set up by the dastardly Bush Justice Department, let me paraphrase a familiar movie: “You’re damn right they set him up!”
4/27/2010 7:20 am
Did you see the NYT video on Belize?
4/27/2010 10:59 am
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/eliot_latest_hooker_8pwaLMHKqIxlEQ5OBVfoYO
4/27/2010 11:12 am
Fred Dicker is a fascinating guy and I enjoy his column, but he’s mixed up in Albany politics so deeply that he’s hardly an unbiased source. Elkind should have called him, but I’m not sure how Elkind’s misstep counts as a slam on Spitzer. Certainly seems extreme to call him a “prostitute” for Spitzer.
4/27/2010 6:52 pm
Richard,
How about a thread on this:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/27/harvard-suffered-losses-goldman-sachs/
4/27/2010 6:56 pm
Goldman-Sachs and Harvard endowment losses:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/27/harvard-suffered-losses-goldman-sachs/
4/28/2010 6:39 am
And this morning, the Boston Globe has an article with the headline “E-mail suggests Goldman knew Harvard would lose”:
http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2010/04/28/e_mail_suggests_goldman_knew_harvard_would_lose/
The Globe acknowledges that the Crimson scooped this story.
4/28/2010 7:21 am
So, wasn’t the head of finance an ex-Goldman partner and didnt he just leave Harvard to go back to Goldman or was it the B Scbool?
4/28/2010 9:33 am
A fellow I once thought a great deal of told me that “Men like to have a secret life.” What I didn’t know was that statement was a hint that that fellow wasn’t dating me just sleeping with me. I think too many people think that their secret lives won’t catch up to them. I’m personally glad to see Spitzer fall. If only as an example of that. And any one who has been blindsided by another’s manipulations probably is, too.