It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why the Bush Administration "Watergated" Eliot Spitzer

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:35 PM
This is an interesting angle to the Gov. Spitzer scandal, it puts a new twist on why the governor was taken down. Can this be true? Can this be a political ploy by the Democrats to steer the scrutiny back towards the Republicans and the Bush administration? i don't know but it is something that makes you go Hmmmmmm?

The spectacular and highly bizarre release of secret FBI wiretap data to the New York Times exposing the tryst of New York state Governor, Eliot Spitzer, the now-infamous "No.9," with a luxury call-girl, had less to do with the Bush Administration’s pursuit of high moral standards for public servants. Spitzer was likely the target of a White House and Wall Street dirty tricks operation to silence one of its most dangerous and vocal critics of their handling the current financial market crisis.

A useful rule of thumb in evaluating spectacular scandals around prominent public figures is to ask what and who might want to eliminate that person. In the case of Governor Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, it is clear that the spectacular "leak" of government FBI wiretap records showing that Spitzer paid a high-cost prostitute $4,300 for what amounted to about an hour’s personal entertainment, was politically motivated. The press has almost solely focused on the salacious aspects of the affair, not least the hefty fee Spitzer apparently paid. Why the scandal breaks now is the more interesting question.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:45 PM
Here is an article by Elliott Spitzer, from the same website:

"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..."
"Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation."

Looks like you're right on the money.

posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:47 PM


I like the term 'spitzered'

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 01:18 PM
Ouch, if this gets any traction in the news it will become ugly. The National banks have been fleecing the US for decades, but no one was ever allowed to talk about it...

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:20 PM
If Spitzer was on to something, then he should have been more careful how he spent his money.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 02:24 PM
I definitely will be disappointed if ATS doesn't connect the dots on this. I think the Administration had everything to to lose if it allowed Spitzer to go uncheck in the coming months.

Here are more thoughts:'

top topics

log in