Spitzer Accused Of Threatening Man In Restaurant For Complimenting Home Depot Founder

Eliot_SpitzerFormer New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is back in the news and it could not be more bizarre. This week Spitzer was  accused of allegedly threatening to stab a restaurant patron’s crotch for stating that he respected Spitzer’s nemesis, Home Depot founder Kenneth Langone.  Jamie Antolini says that Spitzer yelled “I’ll get a f**king knife and stab you right in your f**king cock!”  Spitzer resigned as Attorney General after disclosure of his patronage of high-end prostitutes.

Antolini said that he drew the ire of Spitzer by saying Langone was an “amazing guy” and that “Ken Langone should have been president.”  He said that after Spitzer said he would stab Antolini in the cock, Spitzer left but came back to the table to make additional abusive comments.

Restaurant security was reportedly called and Antolini says that there is a videotape.  Lisa Linden, Spitzer’s spokeswoman, said that Spitzer was out for this mother’s 90th birthday and that it was Antolini making the aggressive remarks. She denies Spitzer made any threats.

The most surprising confirmed fact?  Eliott Spitzer still has a spokesperson.

Spitzer was a liberal icon in New York and viewed as something of an avenging angel of the left.  After his demise, friends in the media and business worked to try to rehabilitate him. He was given a series of jobs and media gigs at CNN and MSNBC.  He tried and failed to win the primary for city comptroller in 2013.  Then in 2016, Spitzer was accused of assaulting a young woman in a $1000 a night hotel room. Spitzer was already under investigation after he was accused of choking a Russian woman at the Plaza Hotel.  

Svetlana Zakharova Travis, 25, has been identified by New York media as a $5000 a night prostitute who previously wrote about her work as a call girl, including an article entitled  “Sex is Sex, but Money is Money.”  However, Travis later recanted her charge against Spitzer after fleeing to Russia.  She was then arrested at JFK International Airport on charges of grand larceny by extortion. Prosecutors claim that Spitzer paid her roughly $50,000 to keep secret certain “intimate details” of their relationship.  Travis also faced later forgery and identity theft charges.  What was most damaging from the Travis affair was the indication that Spitzer may be continuing the pattern of self-destructive and potentially illegal conduct with prostitutes that led to his resignation.

The latest controversy will likely turn on that videotape.  There could be a basis for assault charges if these allegations are correct.  However, as shown in the Travis matter, it is important to not jump to assumptions about Spitzer’s culpability.   The Plaza incident reflects how celebrities like Spitzer are under a constant public lens.  We have not heard from the other witnesses on whether Andolini was being rude and taunting Spitzer as the later was trying to have a dinner with his mother.  The only thing that we know fo sure is that clearly someone is lying.

As for the possible charges, this could be assault in torts but in criminal law it would likely be charged as something like public disorder or menacing as shown below (which can be a felony or a misdemeanor). Given the fact that no weapon is alleged to have been brandished, it would seem at best a weak misdemeanor case (and one that I would view as unnecessary):

S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
  A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
  1. He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person
in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death
by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to
be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
  2. He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of
conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally
placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of
physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
  3. He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in
violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such
order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was
present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight
of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law,
or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in
another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the
respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose
behalf the order was issued.
  Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
  A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical
menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another
person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical

116 thoughts on “Spitzer Accused Of Threatening Man In Restaurant For Complimenting Home Depot Founder”

  1. “it would seem at best a weak misdemeanor case (and one that I would view as unnecessary)” -JT

    Yes. And they apparently have a history of running into each other; Antolini seems to go out of his way to goad Spitzer.

    “Antolini, a self-described moderate Republican, said he twice previously tried to get the Democrat Spitzer’s goat by mentioning Langone’s name within earshot — at a Knicks game earlier this year, and on Madison Avenue last year. “I just find it hysterical,” he said.”” -NY Post

    1. News flash–people are allowed to mention that they like someone. Allowed to openly declare their admiration for someone. Allowed to declare that a certain individual would make a great President. This isn’t Spitzer’s world, where the perverted and psychotic former AG runs or controls the opinions of others. If this is how the nut job reacts, when he is within earshot of opinions with which he disagrees, then he should be hospitalized and treated. Not normal, sane behavior, by any standard. He is a ticking time bomb and a sick freak. Individuals should be capable of expressing their opinions about those with whom he disagrees or dislikes and without fear of threats of sexual violence. Yes. That is what this was–an imminent threat of bodily harm and sexual violence directed at another man. Somehow, someway, since the victim had a c×%k, instead of a p%÷÷y, the sexual element of this story is dismissed. Ignored. Had Spitzer claimed that he would stab a female, in her p%÷÷y, would we be reacting differently? You bet that we would. Spitzer is a loose cannon, with a short and unpredictable fuse. The most frightening, of all, is the position of authority and immense power which was once held by this sick, perverted guy. That really should be the issue. . .how unstable and, potentially, violent individuals are capable of obtaining and securing such high level positions. Shocking.

      1. “He is a ticking time bomb and a sick freak.”

        Bam, you are probably right, but he is an icon for many on the left. The left likes sick nuts.

          1. “You’re an idiot, Allan.”

            Of course, you will say things like that anonymous. You are a parasite that likes sick nuts. Your contributions are nil.

              1. He’s far from an idiot. You just don’t agree with him, which, according to you, makes him an idiot. What are you? Related to Spitzer? I assume that you are the black sheep of the family–the one with no money, no power and no influence.

                  1. So says the King of all Idiots. Your posts are pathetic, at best. Most simply pity you. It must suck to be you.

              2. Thank you, Bam Bam.

                Anonymous, you repeat yourself. Does that mean you have run out of things to say? Your line of defense is one retort deep. Not too bright, but everyone already knows that.

        1. Spitzer had kinky sex with da hookers and got fired. T rump had kinky sex with da hookers and got elected da leader of da MAGAS.

          1. Spitzer broke the law. Trump didn’t and Trump didn’t need to use hookers. But, perhaps you know more about hookers than most.

      2. It’s good that you got that off your chest, bammer.


        And there’s this:

        “Antolini said the argument lasted about 20 minutes before Spitzer was escorted out of the Greek restaurant. He said he did not see Spitzer carrying a knife and will not file a police report with the NYPD.”

        From the NY Post article:

        “Scandal-scarred former Gov. Eliot Spitzer was favored by his real-estate-​titan father — who gave him millions more in his will than he left to his other two children, and who also appointed him executor of his $500 million estate.

        “Eliot Spitzer, 55, and his mother — who was bequeathed the Central Park South apartment she shared with Bernard, as well as 20 percent of his estate — were also tapped to oversee his business interests.”

        There’s more to this than meeds the eye, bammer.

  2. Spitzer is in the Sleazeball Hall of Fame. The Sleazeball Museum is just across the river in Fort Lee, NJ.

  3. Never trust a male who is porking ‘high end” prostitutes. He is choosing the rear not the front side of the aisle so to speak. So he is bent. He might as well use a high end guy. But, this was his end.
    Only dog knows what this argument here was about.

  4. I found it odd that a waiter would speak with a restaurant customer about politics…this over-familiar “Hi, I’m so-and-so and I’ll be your server tonight” has finally gone too far…

    The story linked above about Spitzer’s assault on the prostitute makes one wonder whether the Travel Ban should be extended to Russians (is the woman a worthy, skilled immigrant?).

    1. The travel ban only relates to those countries known to have significant terrorist activity, but don’t vet their emigrants sufficiently to insure that they are not terrorists.

  5. I always knew Spitzer should have ended his relationship with Ivana Kutchyakokoff . Now we have another Russian influence scandal.

  6. “Spitzer yelled “I’ll get a f**king knife and stab you right in your f**king cock!”

    For fun:

    Trump yelled “I’ll get a f**king knife and stab you right in your f**king cock!”

    The response would be: This is locker-room talk! Trump is a fighter and punches back. Poor little liberal snowflakes can’t handle being triggered by salty language: a nation of sissies we have become. Political correctness must be stopped! Build the wall! Who’s going to pay for it? Mexi-we-are.

    1. extending the speculative Trump monologue, “and, kill you on Fifth Ave. No prosecutor, no judge and no Republican voter will care.”

      1. Try as you might, there is no correlation to what Trump may have said. No correlation, whatsoever. I know. . .I know. .
        .you are fascinated with Trump. . .infatuated with Trump. . .and everything which occurs is always compared with Trump, regardless of any nexus; however, Trump was speaking–perhaps, inappropriately–that he could get away with murder. He was relaying–again, perhaps, inappropriately–that he was, invincible. A comment which was not made during the heat of an argument, as the comment was made in a flippant and joking manner. On the other hand, Spitzer, in a fit of anger and some sort of a tizzy fit, threatened–with, what I envision to be, veins popping–that he was going to stab a man, in his genitals. A man who had enraged him. Perturbed him. Teased him. Angered him. Yes, Linda. . .there is a difference. A huge difference. I suspect that, even you, through the haze in which to appear to operate, know that. Spitzer directly threatened someone in the midst of an altercation. Quite, quite different. He was incensed. It would be reasonable to interpret his words as an immediate threat. No one felt threatened by Trump. No one. Okay, well, maybe just you. You are fascinated with Trump. You see Trump, everywhere and in every situation. Seriously, give it a rest.

        1. Regarding Linda: “You are fascinated with Trump. You see Trump, everywhere and in every situation.”

          A raging imagination. Must be a spurned secret love interest.

        2. Fascination and obsession “everywhere” – oligarchs, notably the Koch’s, Bannon (fyi -Huffpo has very humorous tweets from the public about Trump’s chief strategist in an article today e.g. “his shirt collars are at half mast”), and Trump. Oh, and it would be remiss to ignore the alleged time travel back 75 years to declare fidelity to William Bayer’s Stalin.
          To reduce the number- may consider decampment from Bannon- after Breitbart abandoned Nehlen, even Neo-Nazi’s left Bannon/Mercer. But, will keep Trump because he is President and is in the news daily.

          1. Linda, you are so freaking weird. Do you post on other blogs with this totally disconnected stream of consciousness?

            1. Lol! Imagine her, sitting at your Thanksgiving table, and all you do is simply ask is if she would kindly pass the mashed potatoes. Imagine. I’m sure that it would elicit a long diatribe about potatoes being popular in Russia, where Stalin probably ate his fair share of them during his lifetime, with something about Bolsheviks thrown in, for good measure.

          2. ” time travel back 75 years to declare fidelity to William Bayer’s Stalin.”

            Congratulations Linda, you finally learned that Stalin was a product of the 1920’s extending into the 1950’s and not the 1950’s and beyond. Keep learning about Stalin and the people that supported him even after it was learned about the tens of millions he killed and the millions he put into slave camps. You might even learn that as a leader you like him better especially since he would agree with a lot of your rhetoric whether it is true or false though no one that wished to remain alive wanted to anger Stalin by disagreeing with him too much.

            1. Fred Koch Sr., in particular, wouldn’t have disagreed with Stalin? If he was making money through Stalin, as reported, wouldn’t some of the blood of the millions killed be on his hands?

              1. Linda, Koch did have dealings with Stalin before the war and the US government did as well. The US government during WW2 even supplied Stalin with needed equipment for the war. In any event, Fred Koch Sr. leaned things you haven’t yet learned. He learned to despise communism and to hate Stalin.

                Today we have a better accounting of what Stalin did, but that doesn’t stop people like you from believing and repeating crazy things.

                1. The Koch sons learned how to turn a democracy into an oligarchy (ALEC Exposed). They were (and, are) a driving force in reducing the share of national income going to labor. It is at its lowest point in recorded U.S. history.

                  1. “driving force in reducing the share of national income going to labor. It is at its lowest point in recorded U.S. history.”

                    Linda, let me provide you with a simple ‘economic principle’, correlation is not causation.

                    Additionally, let us do a fact check of Picketty’s calculations regarding how money is distributed.

                    1)What metric did Picketty use to determine his numbers?

                    His metric provided some interesting numbers and things one could think about. No doubt a tremendous bit of work, but was that indirect measure even accurate? The answer is no. Do you understand the fallibility of indirect measures? Probably not. However, even accepting his measurements that distort reality, were his conclusions correct? That is where he fails big time.

                    2) The conclusions were based upon relative comparisons. Do you know what those comparisons were?

                    3) Why in the US do quite poor individuals actually have more of the income than Picketty calculated?

                    Oligarchy is always a concern, but if that is your primary concern then you should be much happier with Trump than the former president.

                    Answer #1,2 and 3 if you can. If you can’t then that means you never read Piketty’s book and you never tried to understand it so your use of Pickety is nothing more than name dropping.

                    On the issue of oligarchy, you don’t seem to be doing any better. You sound a bit like a Stalinist, but what was Stalin? The very strong leader of an Oligarchy where his voice was almost the only one that counted.

                    1. “Trump’s V.P. is the Koch’s guy, who Indiana elected, saw govern and, wanted no more of.”

                      In other words, Linda, all you do is name drop to boost your nonsense. We hear Piketty over and over again and you don’t even know the basics of his study or what his book said. NAME DROPPER

                      Presently you add two more names the V.P and Koch. Prove to us that the V.P. serves Koch. Is it more name dropping and linkage devoid of substance?

                      Can you not discuss a singular topic without changing the subject and going on a rant? Pure ignorance.

                    2. I repeat the three basic questions Linda (the name dropper) and now you can howl Oligarchy, Oligarchy, Oligarc…

                      1)What metric did Picketty use to determine his numbers?

                      His metric provided some interesting numbers and things one could think about. No doubt a tremendous bit of work, but was that indirect measure even accurate? The answer is no. Do you understand the fallibility of indirect measures? Probably not. However, even accepting his measurements that distort reality, were his conclusions correct? That is where he fails big time.

                      2) The conclusions were based upon relative comparisons. Do you know what those comparisons were?

                      3) Why in the US do quite poor individuals actually have more of the income than Picketty calculated?

  7. Eliot Spitzer, aka “Client 9” went downhill as NY AG when he was going after Wall Street guys. If “Client 9” would have kept his belt buckled & pants zipped instead of paying $30,000/hour for hookers, there would have been some Wall Street convictions.

  8. Based upon the specific conduct alleged, it’s none of the statutes mentioned.

    It didn’t involve brandishing a weapon, or even possession of a weapon, since Spitzer is alleged to have made it clear that he’d have to go and GET one. And it didn’t involve any sort of violation of a court order requiring Spitzer to go nowhere near the alleged victim. And it didn’t involve any sort of pattern of behavior — any series of incidents — stalking or otherwise.

    And the least offense mentioned above (apparently a third degree misdemeanor) requires the alleged victim to be in fear of “imminent” injury, serious or otherwise.

    “Imminent — adj. — about to happen” Oxford online

    By clearly stating that he’d have to go get a knife, Spitzer escaped the statutory language. Infliction of injury cannot be assessed or believed to be “imminent,” if the offender first has to go and get the weapon the use of which is threatened.

    Plus, as evidence of whether the alleged victim was actually in fear, as required by the statute, if the guy had any reason to fear (and didn’t merely believe that Spitzer was just shooting off his mouth as people sometimes do when they get angry), he’d have immediately left the vicinity and not hung around until Spitzer decided to go get a knife. So unless the video shows the alleged victim hastily vacating the vicinity upon issuance of the alleged threat, the requisite element of fear would appear to be lacking. And even if he were in fear (perhaps frozen in place by fear), the threatened injury still doesn’t qualify as “imminent,” when Spitzer has made no move to go and get a knife (and I don’t care how close they were to the kitchen where they keep all the restaurant weaponry). Saying that he’d have to GET a knife subtracts “imminent,” and that statute becomes inapplicable (unless the alleged victim thought being penis-stabbed is necessarily fatal).

    Where I come from, the worst Spitzer could reasonably be charged with — keyword “reasonably” — is disorderly conduct — a minor misdemeanor about as serious as a parking ticket — and he wouldn’t even be charged with that if he had just been sitting around minding his own business when the situation arose — hadn’t started it and hadn’t been hauled in for behaving that way before,

    1. Remember, there is no need to access a weapon–namely, a knife–in this specific situation. Let’s assume that he, Spitzer, is seated, at a table, in a restaurant, with his elderly mother. Knives, abound, and are, routinely, on all of the tables, so there is no need to travel any sort of a distance and seek to obtain the weapon mentioned in the purported threat. The threat, therefore, is imminent and very real as it could have been executed at any moment and in, what I assume was, a confined and crowded environment. This alternation didn’t occur in an open field, in the middle of the country.

      I just wonder about the poor, elderly mother, out with her son and simply trying to celebrate her birthday. She, most probably, didn’t flinch at the commotion, as I suspect that her beloved son has had some severe, mental and emotional issues for some time, perhaps, even ones played out in childhood. It’ll probably be a relief to get back to the quiet and calm confines of her nursing facility, where the only squabbles are over the remaining dishes of dessert on Green Jello Thursdays.

      1. Doesn’t matter whether knives were all around or not. Spitzer said he’d have to GET one — indicating that he either wasn’t aware that there were knives immediately present or that he wasn’t talking about a butter knife. The criminal behavior — the threat — is the specific action taken — which in this instance (based upon the information provided) is the specific language used. Saying that he’d have to “get” a knife means he didn’t have one, or didn’t believe he had one. Unless he then proceeded to make some physical movement to procure a knife, the requisite element — that the infliction of injury is “imminent” — does not apply.

        I’ve been involved in a case with similar (not identical) issues, based upon a similarly-worded statute, and I can tell you from that experience that “imminent” is the fail-point of this Spitzer “crime.” And I’d bet that Spitzer knew that, and that is why, out of control as this narrative makes him appear, he had enough self control to say he’d “get” a knife and stab the guy, instead of just blurting out “I’m going to stab you.” If he’d blurted out, “I’m going to stab you,” he’d be ensnared in the language of the statute. By informing the alleged victim that he’d have to “get” a knife, he demonstrated that he didn’t have one and, thus, there was to risk of “imminent” injury related to the specific threat made.

        That’s how it works. You can’t read more into a verbal threat than is contained in the threat itself. If you’re going to charge someone based upon something they said, then you are restricted to examining precisely what they said, without reading other possibilities into it.

        Another course for future incidents of this kind would be for the legislature to change the language of the statute and remove the word, “imminent.” But they clearly put that word in there for a reason (whatever that might be), so it’s as important as any other word in the statute and cannot be ignored based upon possibilities that aren’t represented in the language of the threat.

        1. William Bayer – we must consider the context here. We are out for dinner for mother’s 90th bday. What son does not bring the cake? The cake requires a knife. All Spitzer had to do was go back to the party table and he had a suitable weapon. The threat is imminent and Spitzer is dangerous.

          1. Not unless he made a physical movement that could reasonably be interpreted as going to get a knife. See, that’s what I’m talking about — you can’t layer things that didn’t happen or might have happened onto the alleged threat. It’s as good of an example as any of Turley’s website’s motto, “Res ipsa loquatur” — although I’m not certain that that’s what Turley intends.

            The threat speaks for itself. Spitzer divided a single threatened act into two parts — the getting of a knife and the using of the knife. Nobody has ever been threatened by somebody GETTING a knife — especially in a restaurant. It’s the specified USE of the knife that is threatening. Without actually getting the knife, or at the very least making some sort of movement or gesture to get a knife, there is no threat under the statutes cited.

            That’s why I said that, where I come from, Spitzer might — might — get charged with disorderly conduct, per the following statute:

            Ohio Revised Code 2917.11 Disorderly conduct.

            “(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

            (1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

            (2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

            (3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response; ***”

            See — some places do have statutes that would apply to Spitzer’s conduct as described. Apparently the statutes where this incident transpired aren’t concerned with people acting this way. Either that or Turley didn’t mention a more-applicable statute.

            And all of this isn’t saying that I condone the behavior. It just doesn’t appear to be criminal at that location. Just because one doesn’t approve of certain kinds of behavior doesn’t mean it has to be criminal.

            1. While you claim that others are reading more into the story than furnished therein, you, on the other hand, seem to fail to read enough into what Spitzer claimed and asserted. You assume facts which are not, in fact, in evidence. You assume, without any information, specifically mentioned in the article, that Spitzer failed to make any gestures or movements to indicate that he was attempting to secure a knife. You have no clue, from the manner in which the sketchy facts are presented, whether Spitzer was making any threatening gestures or attempting to secure a weapon. The story is silent as to that information. Just as you admonish others not to read more into a set of facts, you should not assume that there aren’t more facts than the ones presented. Facts which would tend to support a specific criminal charge or charges against Spitzer. We do know, from the minimal facts found in the story, that Spitzer, in fact, left the table, only to return with additional remarks. Could one reasonably assume that said act, of leaving, satisfy the requirement of said threat being interpreted as imminent? The problem of reading more into a story is only outdone by not reading enough into a story and assuming that all of the facts have been presented–facts which would justify–or, not justify–very specific criminal charges.

      2. “It’ll probably be a relief to get back to the quiet and calm confines of her nursing facility, where the only squabbles are over the remaining dishes of dessert on Green Jello Thursdays.” -bam bam

        She may still be living at 200 Central Park South.


        1. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bernard-spitzer-father-gov-eliot-spitzer-dies-90-article-1.1996215

          “Shiva will be observed at 4 p.m. at 200 Central Park South, Apt. 27-A, where Bernard and his widow, Anne Spitzer had been living with their caretakers.

          “The Spitzer real estate empire — which includes commercial and high-end residential buildings — counts prime addresses in its holdings, such as 200 Central Park South, 800 Fifth Avenue, 210 Central Park South, 350 W. Broadway, and 150 E. 57th St.”

          This was back in 2014, but I doubt that “she’s in a nursing facility, where the only squabbles are over the remaining dishes of dessert on Green Jello Thursdays,” quoting bam bam.

          1. anonymous – thanks for the update on the rich and famous. It appears her only problem is when Eliot takes her out in public. 😉

                1. Caretakers = paid help = staff, Paul. (When Bernard Spitzer — her husband — was still alive, they had “caretakers”, too — people to cook, clean, shop, attend to their needs, etc., and nurses, as well, when necessary…)

                  “Her mental health” in none of my business. Or yours.

  9. Jamie Antolini says that Spitzer yelled “I’ll get a f**king knife and stab you right in your f**king cock!”

    If true, then I suspect that Spitzer is having problems either getting or maintaining an erection. I guess The Blue Pill fixes stuff like that, but it is worth noting the sexual nature of Spitzer’s threat. Plus, a “knife” is also a phallic symbol, which further supports my hypothesis.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. In our current climate, the purported victim need only appear in court, dressed, all in black, and shout, fist pumping–ME TOO–as this threat should be construed as sexual harassment and/or abuse. Why not? Because it is one man threatening another man with harm of a sexual and violent nature? How, so old fashioned of you! How, so homophobic of you! Spitzer put another undividual–yes, albeit, a man–in fear of a sexual assault and/or attack. Why is no one mentioning sexual intimidation? Harassment? Wouldn’t that have been cried if Spitzer had done, exactly the same, and the alleged victim was a female? Interesting. No mention of that angle. Nada. How primitive and bourgeois!

    2. Squeeky – he is doing this at his mother’s 90th bday party. I wonder what the entertainment was for her 89th?

  10. And after his original public sex transgressions resulted in his departure from the governorship, his political benefactors arranged for a high-paying job with various news outlets, as described in the article. That is more embarrassing to our system of politics than the banter of a fallen governor turned low-class bully.

  11. It is his mother’s 90th bday party. You would think he could keep his cool for that. I do hope that he is not TO big to arrest.

    1. Of course, we don’t know (or at least I don’t) what kind of person Spitzer’s mother is. 90 years old conjures and image of Whistler’s Mother, but she might just as easily be something more like an old WWF wrestler that earned her living as a bar bouncer after retiring from the ring. Could be it was a great party in her mind. She might even be the person who taught Spitzer the expression, “stab you right in your f**king cock!”

      1. Willam Bayer – could just be a family expression. Although, I would expect domestic violence calls if it is.

        1. Well, nobody in my family spoke that way. Not even swearing was permitted (I never got to swear until I went away to college, but I think I eventually made up for lost time), much less obscenity connected to threats of violence. Our next door neighbors when I was very young were the family of my very best friend, Pete, at that age (between zero and 10 years old, let’s say). They were wonderful people, however when Pete’s mom got annoyed with something Pete had done — and he did get into some things — she had a habit of preceding whatever admonition she was about to deliver to Pete by saying, “Oh, damn it all, Peter.”
          That was enough for my mom to pull me aside one day and mention to me that I should take notice of the fact that, while others can do as they like, we don’t speak that way in our family.

          I also had a friend or two whose parents lived by standards more similar to Spitzer’s remarks quoted in this piece (although that particular knife target is a new one on me — maybe it’s a New York expression), so nothing would surprise me about someone else’s upbringing, and I wouldn’t automatically assume that there was anything shocking to Spitzer’s mom about the incident just because my own mom might have found it disturbing. Thinking of my friend Ricky’s mom, I could picture Spitzer’s mom having a good laugh over the incident — not even close to considering it a party-mood spoiler.

      2. WB – LOL! True, one never knows – maybe the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree.

        Read “Hill Billy Elegy” by JD Vance a while back and I was shocked at the crude, “descriptive” language his grandmaw allegedly used.

          1. Thanks Squeeck. Mind you I can hold my own when cussing – indeed one of my fav words is “c*nt” which for some reason many Americans find uber vulgar. But “d!ck” is okay?! Sexism if ya ask me! =)

      1. Like Bubba, your hero, Billy Clinton.

        Like Hickory, your heroine and Bubba’s wife-in-name-only, Hillary Clinton.

        Like Obummer, the former Traitor in Chief, Hussein Obama.

        Need I go on??

      1. Antolini’s Republican humor… DOA… like the parody of a Verizon puppet by Trump’s FCC Chair, Dubya looking for WMD’s under his bed and Clint Eastwood’s empty chair.
        At least Lindsay Graham can hit a funny note, “If Trump doesn’t call himself a genius, no one else will.”

        1. “no one else will.”

          Lindsay Graham continued: “he is my president and he’s doing a good job on multiple fronts”

          That is a bit more of the answer.

Leave a Reply