LaRouche on Spitzer Case: Targetting the Superdelegates


Richard Moore

LaRouche on Spitzer Case: Targetting the Superdelegates
13 Mar 2008

March 13, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche, during his webcast of March 12 (see, was asked to comment on the targetting of New York 
Governor Eliot Spitzer. 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 they're 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!" 

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.

newslog archives:

How We the People can change the world

Escaping the Matrix:

The Phoenix Project

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

Community Democracy Framework:


Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)