If it was anyone else, you'd figure that party trumps principle and not give it a second thought. But for Spitzer to appear to be so full of his own rectitude, and then just kind of say what Hevesi did was wrong but, hey, he's done a stupendous job so a little bit of pilfering is OK?
Does Spitzer have jurisdiction, theoretically? If he does, should he be expressing an opinion, sans investigation? Not really the kind of thing that makes you think this guy is any different from a hundred other guys.
Comments (3)
You have it 100% correct. Spitzer should be investigating Hevesi, not endorsing him. I'm sure Spitzer would have jurisdiction over public corruption cases, don't you think?
Also, why should anyone take Hevesi's word for it that the reimbursement should be "only" $84,000? If the driver was "on call" 100% of his time to Mr. Hevesi, but he only drove Mrs. Hevesi "40%" of his time, Hevesi should still reimburse 100% of the driver's time to the taxpayers since the driver would have attented to Mrs. Hevesi's transportation needs before any of his other duties (whatever they might have been).
Just more of the same from the Albany good old, good old boys network. Spitzer should be ashamed of himself.
What's the difference with what Mr. Hevesi's done and what the school administrators in Roslyn did?
Taking unauthorized public funds for personal use is taking unauthorized public funds for personal use. Right?
Why did the Roslyn folks have to make restitution and do jail time and Mr. Hevesi just gets to pay back what he has determined he owes?
Something is not adding up here.
Eliot Spitzer is Eliot Snoozer when it comes to investigating or prosecting fellow lawyers & politicians. Check out more facts and references here: http://lawyersunregulated.blogspot.com/