The Times' big Eliot Spitzer scoop may cover the paper in political-journalism glory. But the Journal takes the prize in first-day coverage of the legal jeopardy that Spitzer may face. Considering that the New York governor's downfall all stems from decisions of whether to investigate criminal wrongdoing, it's curious that the Times let the competition walk away with this one.
The Times' Danny Hakim and William Rashbaum nailed down half of the legal equation by looking at the financial angle. Rashbaum's sidebar on the origins of the investigation quotes "several" anonymous law enforcement officials as saying that suspicious cash transactions drew IRS scrutiny. Only once the probe had started did it become clear that the cash was being spent on prostitutes, and was not bribe money or stolen campaign donations. In their main story, Hakim and Rashbaum write:
[O]ne law enforcement official who has been briefed on the case said that Mr. Spitzer’s lawyers would probably meet soon with federal prosecutors to discuss any possible legal exposure. The official said the discussions were likely to focus not on prostitution, but on how it was paid for: Whether the payments from Mr. Spitzer to the service were made in a way to conceal their purpose and source. That could amount to a crime called structuring, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
That turns out to be the sole mention of prostitution-related legal jeopardy, at least that I could find in news columns. Even the Times' editorial went further:
While few clients of prostitutes face criminal charges, law-enforcement affidavits raise at least the possibility of criminal charges based on transporting a woman across state lines for prostitution.
That's the angle that the Journal hits more directly, to its credit. Even before 6 p.m. on Monday, Dan Slater on the WSJ Law Blog credited veteran law reporter Laurie Cohen with an explanation of the Mann Act implications. Cohen shares a byline with Amir Efrati today on the lead story (subscription required), which ends with this:
Lawyers said customers of prostitutes are rarely charged, although they didn't rule it out in this case. A century-old law known as the Mann Act prohibits the movement of prostitutes -- or women intended to participate in "immoral" acts -- between states or from the U.S. to a foreign country. The prostitute who served Client-9 traveled to Washington from New York.
The case is being handled by public-corruption prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. A spokeswoman for the office declined to comment on possible charges against Mr. Spitzer.
Michael Bachner, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney's office, said: "The Mann Act really was designed more towards those who get someone to travel against their will....If Spitzer gets indicted, it would seem to me he would be indicted based on who he is rather than what he's done."
As for possible state charges, Mr. Bachner said, "customers are rarely prosecuted in the state," and charges that are brought are typically disposed of with a plea to disorderly conduct, "which is akin to a traffic ticket."
A video accompanying that story online today, by legal editor Ashby Jones, also tackles that legal angle. But it was produced too early on Monday to lend much substance today.
Does the prostitution-law angle matter if it's finances, or a political deal, that end up determining Spitzer's fate? Yes, if we take seriously our obligation to explain how relevant laws work. This wouldn't have been investigated, and money wouldn't have been furtively flowing to and fro, if prostitution weren't illegal. So how exposed Spitzer is to the actual underlying criminal charge is part of the story.
