Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIR


LaRouche on Spitzer Case:
Targetting the Superdelegates

March 14, 2008 (EIRNS)—This release was issued yesterday by Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).

Lyndon LaRouche was asked to comment on the targetting of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer during his webcast of March 12. His response:

LaRouche: I think, as I know politics, and I know people, and I know business, I don't think that there are many politicians in this country, who have achieved relatively high office, who aren't keeping herds of pigs in their closets. I don't think that organized-crime allows anybody to become their boy, without getting them to commit something they can use against them when they want to in the future. That's the way it works. I don't think that people trust anybody, some people, don't trust anybody, to promote them unless they've got something on them, beforehand, to control them, to threaten them. I would say, "Check everybody's closet."

Now, when you look at it that way, as I look at it because I have some experience in these matters—I've experienced some very nasty frauds and know how they're struck, when the Federal Department of Justice and others create them, hmm, in the name of justice. But, when you look at that, you say, "Why would they come up with something out of the Hell-box, at this time, and to what end?" Well, he had just confirmed an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which he had made, in a sense, earlier, but he'd been pressured to withdraw that and change it. And when he refused to, a couple of days later—Boom!—what happened? Gee whiz! They had something on him, in the Hell-box, and they brought it forward. And said, "Git, git! And the next guy who refuses to take our orders better learn the lesson." You should ask, who's the next target?

I don't think Spitzer has any particular claim on anything of that sort. I think the number of sex freaks in the Congress probably vastly outnumbers—[laughter]— I mean, this is not real! When people fall for this thing, say, "Okay, when did these guys know about this? They got this woman in the closet, huh? They got a number for her, Number something or other. How long did they have that number? Was it somebody in the Department of Justice, of the Bush Department of Justice? Was it somebody else? Why would they have this? Why did they rush to get this into the press now? Why didn't they report it when they had the information? Why did they wait?" So therefore, maybe the people you ought to convict, are the people who sprang this scandal.

Not that I recommend their doing that kind of thing. It's not a nice thing to do, particularly if you're on the public till, because it impinges on your reputation. But! I know politics. I don't know how many other politicians in this country could escape some similar kind of problem. Why? Because that's the system. Not only organized crime, but intelligence services and others, as I know first hand: Before they promote somebody, they make them "trustworthy," by compiling evidence which could hang them any time they get out of line. That's the way politics works. So, I would say, let's open all the closets! Say, "If you've got something you think you ought to confess, confess now! Let's all get out there and have this confessional. A good old-time revival meeting, let's everybody confess! Let's have an official agency to register confessions!" [laughter]

So therefore, when you get a scandal like this, you can assess the situation based on what's going on in society. Well, what I know, this society is immensely corrupt, and people in power are the most likely targets to be entrapped into something which can be interpreted as corruption. We don't have the kind of system that's an honest system, and we have to think about things that way.

The first thing I would say is, I want an inquiry. Okay, Spitzer was called forward. I want to know, on what date did you have this information? Who did you get it from, and on what date? Then ask him: Okay, you passed this information on? Yes. When did you have it? Or, why did you all come forward now, at this particular moment, when he had just confirmed an endorsement of Hillary Clinton? You got the New York Times, all of these people are out there saying, "Ooohh! He's a terrible man, a terrible man." I don't think he's a terrible man. I think he's a typical politician. There are very few exceptions to that, I tell you.