http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595903774513758.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
Eliot Spitzer wasn’t prosecuted for his use of prostitutes or related offenses in 2008 because he agreed to surrender New York’s governorship. But there was another investigation that was also left unresolved by his resignation. And now that he’s seeking to become New York City’s comptroller, the case raises still more questions about his fitness for office.
In 2007 Mr. Spitzer’s staff enlisted the state police in gathering damaging information about a political opponent, former state Sen. Joseph Bruno, and then released it to the press. According to a March 2008 report from the district attorney of New York’s Albany County, Mr. Spitzer denied in an interview with prosecutors that he directed the effort to gather the information and also denied that he ordered its release.
But a former Spitzer communications aide and loyalist, Darren Dopp, told a very different story when granted immunity. According to the D.A.’s office, Mr. Dopp described under oath the events that led to the release of the information.
According to his testimony, Mr. Dopp was told by a colleague in June of 2007 that “Eliot wants you to release the records.” Mr. Dopp told investigators that he then went to Mr. Spitzer to confirm the order. “Yeah, do it” was Mr. Spitzer’s reply, according to Mr. Dopp, who then asked if the Governor was “sure” he wanted to, given how angry Mr. Bruno was likely to be.
Mr. Spitzer replied, “[expletive deleted] him, he’s a piece of [expletive deleted], shove it up his [expletive deleted] with a red hot poker,” according to Mr. Dopp’s statement. The former aide elaborated that Mr. Spitzer had “turned a little red” and was “spitting a little bit” as he talked while trying to drink a cup of coffee. “He was spitting mad,” added Mr. Dopp.
Any reasonable person would interpret Mr. Spitzer’s reported comments as an order to release the information. Either Mr. Dopp or Mr. Spitzer was lying at the time, and Mr. Dopp had much less incentive to do so. New York voters might want to ask if lying to a district attorney is acceptable behavior for the official charged with overseeing New York City’s pension funds.