Department of Justice Misogyny

The latest details revealed in the sentencing of one of the women involved in the former Gov. Eliot Spitzer scandal highlights the pervasive nature of the misogyny of the Department of Justice . . .

The New York Times reported yesterday that:

“The records unsealed on Monday at the sentencing of the booker, Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 33, included the prosecution’s letter detailing her “substantial assistance” to their investigation and her defense lawyer’s sentencing memorandum. In the memorandum, Ms. Lewis’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, wrote that she “provided the government with the names of hotels, the approximate dates of meetings, the names of women the governor saw, different names the governor utilized and different ways the governor paid for these sessions.” . . . He said information his client had provided helped prosecutors determine that Mr. Spitzer had not used government or campaign money to pay for sex, and thus helped lead to the government’s decision not to charge him.”

Wait a minute: Neither the money laundering laws nor the Mann Act (which bans the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes”) require that “government or campaign money” be involved in the transaction. Hence, even a first year law student’s analysis of these statutes would necessarily reveal that former Gov. Eliot Spitzer repeatedly violated the law.

Thus why no prosecution? The reason is that it is the express policy of the Department of Justice that: “Unless minors are victims, prosecutions under [the Mann Act] should generally be limited to persons engaged in commercial prostitution activities, even though commerciality is not an element of the offense.” Stated in English, Johns don’t get charged.

And why is that? I, for one, can’t answer this misogynist policy’s rationale.