http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/eliot_spitzer_resigns.php

"Spitzer was able to do this through the power of the Martin Act, which gives the New York State attorney general practically despotic powers to go after fraud. Among the provisions: the prosecutor does not have to prove that there was intent to commit fraud, that any transaction took place, or that anyone was actually defrauded; he can interrogate potential defendants with no rights to an attorney or against self incrimination; he can keep the investigation secret or make it public, just as he pleases; and can subpoena just about anything. Practically the only limitation on the AG is his goodwill and sense of fair play. Eliot Spitzer was not overgenerously endowed with either.

Banks and others came to the table because Spitzer would launch these investigations and then use a carefully orchestrated series of press releases and leaks to torpedo their stock price. But many of the more spectacularly incriminating sounding excerpts from subpoenaed documents were so misleadingly taken out of context that they would have been grounds for a libel suit if he'd been a journalist. Don't get me wrong--many of them were guilty. But this kind of tactic doesn't distinguish between the guilty and the innocent; anyone in a credit-dependent industry whose stock value is plummeting would have to negotiate, because Spitzer's inquiry could shut them down. (Can and did, in some cases--indeed, he apparently nearly shut down Merrill's asset management business until a judge reversed the order.) Often, these shaded into personal vendetta--Dick Grasso's pay package seems like he was grossly overvalued, but what business is it of Eliot Spitzer's how much a private body pays it's CEO? This has nothing to do with the reasons we regulate financial markets.

Moreover, all his quick settlements screwed the investors he was supposed to be protecting. The unjust settlements extorted money from those firms' shareholders and dumped it into state coffers. And the just ones did nothing for investors: the money went to the states, not to the people who had allegedly been defrauded. Shutting the investigations down quickly forestalled discovery that would have helped clients sue. Eliot Spitzer got the headlines; investors got nothing.

Felix Salmon argues that it was a good thing that Eliot Spitzer put the fear of God into Wall Street, and I take his point--the cozy practices that had become common by the end of the nineties needed to change. But it's not clear to me that these prosecutions gave them anything but a fear of Eliot Spitzer. Whoops. In a liberal democracy, it matters how you punish people for their crimes--"they got Al Capone for tax evasion" is not a triumph, it's tyranny. "

GG,

It is a wonderful effort to try to rise above the Drudgian muck, and I don't see any option other than to try, even if it is predestined to fail.

And remember, it is not as though Feingold or Holt or Dodd or so many others have not tried addressing complex issues in other than sound-bites; if the response to Obama opens up even a little more space for them, it will be wonderful.

re: me and http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com - did you have a brain fart or something? All I wrote is that even if it is predestined to be a failure, it is worth a try to raise the political discourse. How does that give me a major malfunction or turn me into a wingnut?

Until I read GG's article, the connection between releasing HRC's schedules and the Lewinksy affair did not even occur to me. I had thought that the schedules would be mined for seeking HRC's connections to political donors and for signs of influence on President Clinton's decisions.

I have no doubt, however, that the ABC crew expects to be in the running for the Pulitzer.

Examine McCain's speeches in the Senate. It will show if he is indeed ignorant or if in public he's being { deceitful, fatigued }.

That everyone else is bound by their goals, whether or not their goals and ideas were a mistake. Even people who disagreed with them from the start are supposed to work to succeed at their goals. That is the Slaughter plea.

"I am indeed a conservative and I think it's time to talk about military isolationism, and it's likely outcomes. What do think will happen if we pull out of Iraq and demonstrate an unwillingness to interfere elsewhere? It's something that has to be considered and weighed."

---------- While the US is tied up in Iraq, where else can the US actually interfere? Why is even Afghanistan on the cusp of failure?

If you're not a military isolationist, then Iraq is a big mistake because it makes incredible any US threat of interference anywhere else. You want to pull out of Iraq in good order ASAP to keep the "willingness to interfere elsewhere" a viable option.

On the pro side for us, we have no more combat deaths, save enough money to pay ALL debt, and the world will love us for leaving them to their own devices. That's pretty darn good for us, don't you think?

On the con side for the rest of the world, might will be right and it's likely that regional conflicts will escalate out of control until a nuke is used. It's enevitable, and better there than here. Hopefully it will scare everyone into playing nice.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we can enjoy our geographic blessings, secure our borders, and grow our economy in peace. What could be better?

Without actual military interference perhaps the US has helped keep the peace across the Taiwan Straits and on the Indo-Pak border. I say perhaps, because who knows all that actually happened.

It would seem that the actual exercise of power diminishes it.