Talk:Eliot Spitzer

Archives Archive 1

Prostitution scandal

I think it should also be mentioned that he was involved in a recent prostitution scandel involving the empress god website, how he is client no. 9. as more comes in, i'll add it if you want. crazyconan —Preceding comment was added at 00:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Here's a sandbox for a possible future article solely about Spitzer's prostitution scandal. (Justmeherenow (talk))

Right now the article claims he was linked to a "call boy". That is incorrect. He was linked to a prostitute. I'd change it myself but the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.220.130 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Planet Jupiter

What an ass, couldn't happen to a nice person. Not sure why the article mentions planet jupiter. doesn't explain, its under the section detailing the driver's license program. searched the referenced sources for "jupiter," and I could not find it.

perhaps it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.159.66 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Monoline insurers

Spitzer is forcing a settlement of a major debate in US economic history -

I don't see any content on this subject.--Shtove (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Religion"

As the article makes clear, Spitzer did not grow up in a religious household. If necessary, "Jewish" can be included as "religious background" or "cultural" / "ethnic" background. But I don't see why religion is a relevant trait for politicians anyway; no one would list a religion in the Wiki page for an athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.222.200 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Hey, if a Muslim kills someone, its a "Muslim Killer." So now that a Jewish man has used a prostitution ring, suddenly everyone wants to cover up the religion? How about some standards here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.93.55 (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I think religious identifications are okay as long as they are truthful.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone had put religion back in the infobox. There is absolutely no evidence that he is religious, on the contrary. I have put "Jewish American" as "nationality". I know that's not quite right, we really need an option for "background" or "ethnicity". (FYI I'm not jewish, not religious and would be making the same argument if we were talking about Islam rather than Judaism.) Sam Staton (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

why full protect?

Why the full protect? Semi-protect is enough!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think most of us would agree. Carter | Talk to me 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. There are no edit wars, just vandalism. Whoever did this put the wrong level of protect. This article does need semi-protect though. --Tocino 18:42, 10 march 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Full Protect is too much. --345th (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

16 minutes from the first edit on the breaking news to the full protect, with semi-protect at 11 minutes... is this a record? Wnt (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now the article claims he was linked to a "call boy". That is incorrect. He was linked to a prostitute. I'd change it myself but the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.220.130 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PBAdvised: Have created new subarticle Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

That is all. --Justmeherenow (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE... remember that our sister project Wikinews is for breaking stories... See WP:NOT... hold off on updating this page or creating new pages until things are set and finalized and we know for sure what is going on. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NO! There is enough news to put it up on Wikipedia now. It is relevant, it is important, and Wikipedia should be kept current. The information is more than enough to write solid articles. Please stop with the erasing of all of this information on his article and the subarticle. --Mystalic (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of the event is fine here. Lawrence § t/e 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, develop the events here and then if things get big enough the other article can be created. It is currently a protected redirect to this article. KnightLago (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The main news needs to be in WikiNews, which is now referenced from here. After things stabilize the encyclopedic details should be put here for posterity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow u all r fast! It is evening (7pm) here & this info is just breaking. Go wikipedia ! 70.108.92.126 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Created Emperor's Room as a redirect to here. Why? Because it's something people will be looking for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution section removal

Please stop removing it. Lawrence § t/e 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer spoke, he apologized for not upholding the standards of his office and his family. He DID NOT resign at that time. Please update the section with this news - Spitzer has NOT resigned (yet). -nk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.117.249 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NO... Do NOT update anything... do not even mention this yet. Per WP:NOT - "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". At this point we do not know the details of the inditement, we do not know if he is going to resign... we do not know what the historical significance of this is. WAIT until we know... then add it to the article. Please... a few hours will not kill us. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT does not reflect the reality of how breaking news is handled on Wikipedia, or how it has been handled here for the nearly four years I've been here. Wikipedia has a well-deserved reputation of being the first source people can go to for up-to-date treatment of breaking stories. Several media articles have been written about this fact. It is futile to try to change it. Mike R (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He loves his prostitutes, doesn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.15.28 (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution Ring

The alleged involvement in a prostitution ring is merely an allegation from an unnamed source at best and shall not be reported to Wikipedia as 'verified' as the author wrote until such a claim has been made. Wikipedia shall not be used as a gossip page. Feel free to add this claim once it has been verified. Dryamaka (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer just admitted it on the news. We're fine to report this. Lawrence § t/e 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the prostitution section, what you are doing is vandalism. KnightLago (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He admitted that he's connected to the ring. It is now public record- stop removing the section.Saxophobia (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE... why the rush? Breaking news should be posted at our sister project, Wikinews... not here. Wait until we know more about this. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He admitted his involvement. We only briefly covered the incident in the article. I don't see what the big deal is here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. People will search for him; we're #1 or #2. That's why it's included. What we have is wholly compliant with our policies.Lawrence § t/e 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we don't really know anything... I listened to his statement, he did not actually admit to anything. Link to Wikinews if you must (ie support our sister project)... but please, for this article, wait until we actually know something. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly- this is merely an allegation, admitted or not, and once again, Wikipedia shall not be used as a gossip board until a true and VERIFIED claim is made. Do not post again. Dryamaka (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it an allegation if he ADMITTED he did it?? Lawrence § t/e 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And even if it is an allegation, it's sourced. Therefore, it stays. --clpo13_(talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He was caught on a federal wiretap and also admitted to the allegation. What more verification do you need? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ECx8) None, that I can think of. Lawrence § t/e 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news should be placed in WikiNews. Once again, users should post this type of information on WikiNews. Dryamaka (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this info can go to both. Lawrence § t/e 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT is also fairly reliable; they are not a gossip column. --Chris (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the NYT now, [1] Lawrence § t/e 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stick with a single argument. First, you say it's only an allegation (it's certainly not just that). Then you say Wikipedia shouldn't post breaking news. I get the feeling that you just don't want this reported... --clpo13_(talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer has only admitted his involvement in the ring- not that he will resign. The article stating he would resign, as reported by WNBC has been 'updated' and removed. I will allow this, not the resignation. Dryamaka (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your benevolence. Lawrence § t/e 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about the resignation should not have been added to the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it can be added, it just can't say "he will resign". It has to say what the sources say; that "sources report he may resign". Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By including speculation (even if it attributed), the article will essentially become a news ticker. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Nishkid. 'Sources say he might resign' sounds too speculative and gossipy at best.Dryamaka (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

please stop adding rumor. if he resigns at that point we should say he resigned, not "some say he might resign" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

please remove rumors "There is widespread speculation that Spitzer will resign his office; however, he did not announce that he would do so at the press conference"

I'm very disappointed in the handling by the wiki community on this issue. allowing rumors to stand unchanged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.222.71.77 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"At 3 p.m. Fox News reported — inaccurately — that Mr. Spitzer was going to resign and a little later that he had been indicted by prosecutors for the Southern District of New York, but when Mr. Spitzer made brief comments at 3:18 p.m. he did not step down, nor did he did not address any of the specifics of the case."[2] Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article reports that "On March 10, 2008, Spitzer revealed to his aides that he had patronized a "high-class" prostitution club called Emperors Club VIP." But then it goes on to say "...after the Governor's press conference, at which Spitzer neither denied the prostitution allegation nor said anything about resigning." Either he "revealed that he was involved" or he "neither denied the prostitution allegation..." In my opinion, he can't do both. Can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.63.229 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a NYT report from unnamed sources that Spitzer revealed **to his aides** that he was involved. There was also a news conference in which Spitzer did not deny any (which one?) prostitution allegation. Why is that so hard to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.228.47.11 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WHAT DOES "FOX NEWS" HAVE TO DO WITH THE CITATION? WHETHER THERE IS SPECULATION ON RESIGNING IS ONE THING, BUT THAT REUTERS CITATION DOES NOT EVEN MENTION FOX! That section should be REMOVED for the same reason that many here doubted that the entire story of the Governor's involvement with a prostitute and/or escort service? Just because Fox hears something or is merely speculating has nothing to do with this biographical article; moreover, it is not for this article to chastize Fox, as that is for another article entirely. Signed, A CONCERNED CITIZEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.64.108 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the current version - Fox news hasn't been mentioned for several hours. The current version cites a Reuters report which states a) the Republican minority leader in the NY Assembly is calling for Spitzer's resignation and b) Spitzer made no mention of resigning at his press conference. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Reggie... WHEN I WROTE THE ABOVE COMMENT was a mere few minutes after I read the Fox News stuff, and it wasn't "several hours", because I wasn't even aware of the scandal. Before you comment on my comment, you should have read the version I read. Signed, A CONCERNED CITIZEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.64.108 (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Info in leader

The info keeps on getting removed from the leader. I can't reinsert it, I'm getting close to a 3rr. But I think that it belongs there. It is what he famous for, at this time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! To ignore such a famous and important part of his (ex) career violates WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying that should be the only part of the leader, it should be mentioned. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're just crystalballing the importance of this event. If he resigns, then it's definitely worth mentioning in the lead. Of course, the rest of the lead would need to be rewritten for balance (info about his tenure as attorney general, governor, prosecutor, etc.). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's screaming headlines all over the place. Its crystalballing to suggest that this event would end up being unimportant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't spit back the policy pages I use to affirm my argument. They don't apply both ways. Once he resigns, then it's worth mentioning in the lead. For now, it's just another political scandal. Spitzer's had tons of those in his tenure. Why aren't you arguing that they should also be mentioned in the lead? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Its what he's famous for now. If it ends up being a muchadoaboutnothing then it can be removed. Isn't that the point of the edit tab? How can you edit any bio of a living person if you start worrying about the long-term implications of each incident in their lives?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not about what he is famous now. The lead is is supposed to serve as a thorough and concise outline of the entire article. This scandal is not the source of his notability. He had a ~90KB long article before today. Assuming it's not all a bunch a fluff, there must be a number of important things that Spitzer has done in his lifetime (career as a prosecutor, attorney general, governor, etc.). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to remove something because he's also famous for other things. Add the other things to the lead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether the current scandal should be mentioned in the lead, it does seem like this article's lead is relatively short compared to others, maybe it could be expanded somewhat. (though the assertion that "things shouldn't be removed" is wrong since ultimately the lead is constrained in size) --Underpants (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NishKid is right; commenting in the lead is entirely premature. Let's err on the side of caution, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. A Train^talk 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The scandal should be at least mentioned in the lead; I think that it is obvious enough, at this point, that this incident is one that will out weight most other things he will be known for....at least for the forseable future. He has admitted it in my judgement. I think we would have put the Lewinski scandal in the lead for Clinton.--Waterwindsail (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Wikinews... put "breaking news" reports there... not here

Folks, this is a BLP... as such we have VERY strict rules about what we can and can not say. Rumors and press speculation should not be included. We have not seen the SDNY's indictment, so we do not know what it alleges Spitzer to have done. This entire thing is drippng with speculation. In the last 15 minutes I have see us say definitively that Spitzer has resigned, that he has admitted to the allegations, etc, etc, etc... all of which have proven to be inaccurate. This is encyclopedia writing at its worst! We are here to write an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Wikinews was created as the proper venue for posting the latest bit of information... we should be holding off a bit, and waiting to see what the end result is. An encyclopedia takes a historical perspective, not an immmediate one. Please review the guidelines and policies that deal with breaking news... all of them frown on the type of "I have the latest report!" writing that had been going on here. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, there is no BLP violation in what you removed, that I just reverted. Please do not do that again without support; it would be a vandalism edit. What exactly is a BLP violation about this content? Be specific and get consensus. Lawrence § t/e 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We can let a day elapse before posting things. there is no benefit to posting things this quickly. Blueboar is right, we are not writing a newspaper here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

'Can' is not 'have to' Arkon (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the speculation could go. However, Spitzer did make a brief public statement apologizing, so removing the whole thing seems like going too far. Granted, he didn't put words to what exactly he was apologizing for. Is that what the concern is? The surrounding context (eg. the evidence in the federal investigation, the public statement beside his wife, both nearly crying) make it seem like they would have clarified if there was a chance the press could mistakenly assume it was about something other than what they were apologizing for. --Underpants (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me revise my comments to clarify what i meant; we can post a basic sentence identifying the basic issue, but that should be it. there is no need for further details right now on any emerging allegations, comments, etc, etc. any emerging news item less than 24 hours old which is about any sort of political scandal, controversy, etc, etc, should not be described here with more than a one to two-sentence summary. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a clear case of undue mention putting a press conference at the very top, holding a press conference is not likely to be news for longer than a few days, the press conference line should be chronological like everything else, with significant historical events in the headline. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthropological motivation Mr.Spitzer was driven by concerning the prostitution scandal

What was the motivation Mr. Spitzer was driven by ? Thrillseeking due to his temperament ? Curiosity of the unexperienced ? Or is his marriage unhappy? Are there some newspaper articles about the causes ?91.39.170.100 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)In the German-speaking countries, where Mr. Spitzer's ancestors came from, "spitzer" means " hornier" ("spitz , spitzer , am spitzesten", see Brothers Grimm's dictionary of the German language). Just as in Goethe's world-famous tragedy "Faust" : "Oft kann man der Leute Wesen aus ihrem Namen lesen." "The character of most men you can recognize in their name". Similarly , the name "Brown" was applied to brown-haired Europeans, e.g. This comment is not intended as a joke nor as a criticism of Mr. Spitzer's actions.91.39.170.100 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be going out on a limb here, but......well, "esS—iyE—ehX"?--Justmeherenow (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mann Act constitutional?

The current revision says he was wiretapped for violating the "Mann Act" against transporting females across state lines for "immoral purposes", a charge that could not have been laid if he were homosexual. Don't the precedents against sodomy laws mean that he no longer can be discriminated against for being heterosexual? Wnt (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, how many months were the Republicans tapping his phone?

I don't think this information is out yet, but if you run across it... thanks! Wnt (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They weren't tapping his phone, they were tapping the escort's phone. Or are you trying to imply that they knew who they would catch if they went after this particular ring? I have not seen even an iota of speculation along those lines, certainly nothing that belongs here. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at The Smoking Gun documents, it seems as if it was the prostitution outfit whose phones were being wiretapped, not the Governor. He apparently had the bad luck of using a pimp/madam who was under surveillance. Once the sources firm up, the article can probably be worded to show it wasn't his phone that was tapped, but it's probably OK for now.Nesodak (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The initial article I read was ambiguous; this one does not specifically address the issue but says Spitzer was under investigation before the prostitutes and led the FBI to them. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, it was the act of prostitution across state lines that violated the Mann act. What would being heterosexual have to do with it? Also, as pointed out above, he hasn't been charged it's the ring that has.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for this discussion, but too bad. The foregoing doesn't answer the Constitutionality problem. The Constitutioanality of the Mann Act doesn't depend on who the investigatin was aimed at. But in any case the Mannn Act doesn't discriminate against heterosexuals. If a homosexual for some reason decided to transport a female across state lines for "immoral purposes" the law would apply to him as well. It might discriminate against men because only woman can be victim of this crime but then there's a standing problem................

Early Reports say that he won't be charged with anything as of yet (Talk to user Seanwarner86)

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Business POV

The views held by businesses on Mr. Spitzer are not fully covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they should be mentioned until there's more information about the case. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Anyone reading the article can already see that he's investigated businesses and there's been no information as to how this influenced the case.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please: no minute-by-minute updates

If you want to maintain the article, fine. But please do not add "published reports" that he has scheduled an announcement for a few minutes or even a few hour from now. Let's compromise: let's cut it off at six hours. Predictions in published reports for stuff more than six hours from now...sigh, OK. Anything shorter timeframe than that belongs at Wikinews. Just wait for the facts of lasting value to evolve, then you can all rush in to "be there first". Ugh.--Ttimespan (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be useful to keep the article up to date with the NYT allegations, but these constant insertions of speculation regarding his resignation are getting annoying. Once it happens, then let's put in the article. No crystallballing, please! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a user that keeps on adding "and Public Disgrace" to the title of the recently added "Prostitution Scandal" section. It is commentary and has been removed twice by other users, Just wanted to bring it up to the attention of Wikipedians here that Wikipedia articles are not for inserting commentary and to give a head up to others to watch out for this kind of stuff.--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should also make note that it wasn't a call boy as mentioned in the wiki entry, it was a call girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.227.35 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See also

I added Lieutenant Governor of New York David A. Paterson, which is the appropriate place for this information. Bearian (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When things calm down, I'll add it back in. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Add it back in? I thought you just added it to the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate

The paragraph that mentions troopergate contains numerous grammatical errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.25.194 (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Client number nine

I am so pleased this buzy body wanker has got what he deserved.

Anyway, I've redirected variations on "client number nine" to this page Domain of lighting (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dutch version of this lemma

Could not be added, since the article was locked..

[[nl:Eliot L. Spitzer]]

Done --Elliskev 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scandal section placement

I've removed the scandal section from the Governorship section. This scandal doesn't have anything to do with his Gov'ship. It was replaced without an explanation. I reverted that. Can I get some comments on whether or not there is agreement with one over the other? --Elliskev 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage proposal

Does this sound like a misleading subhead to anyone else? I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw it. Imgboi (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The investigation was initiated after his bank reported suspicious transactions..."

So is it normal in the United States for your bank to act like an arm of the police and report suspicious (and relatively low dollar amount) transactions to authorities?

Are there any published rules, laws or guidelines as to what exactly constitutes transactional activities that rise to the level of law enforcement investigation?

And why didn't Spitzer know about them, and why didn't he simply conduct these transactions in cash or on a credit card?