During his tenure as New York's Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer's office was noted for its willingness to leak information damaging to the targets of its investigation in an unethical attempt to pressure them to "compromise" when Spitzer had a weak case but needed to score PR points. Many views those leaks as running right up to the edge of ethical conduct -- or crossing that line. Reporters, of course, viewed those leaks as acceptable, so never raised questions about the conduct of the leaker -- Darren Dopp.

Unfortunately for Dopp and his boss, it appears that years of playing fast and loose with ethics and the law has caught up with them.

This week, though, a withering report by the attorney general’s office found that some of Mr. Spitzer’s top deputies crossed an ethical line by ordering the State Police to gather embarrassing information about Mr. Bruno to share with reporters.

The report and its revelations have rocked an administration that appeared to relish political combat — a Spitzer biography, after all, was called “Spoiling for a Fight” — and they raised new questions about the bellicose, competitive ethos of an administration that has at times seemed more adept at breaking eggs than at making omelets.

But then again, why should we be surprised. Spitzer and Co. were known for splashy announcements about questionable lawsuits, demands for settlements, and leaks to friendly reporters designed to damage their opponents in teh public eye and prejudice juries. Why should they have changed simply because the moved to the Governor's Mansion?

The New York Times, of course, is more interested in salvaging the Spitzer Administration than in seeing justice done. After all, it has run a puff-piece on Dopp, another concerned about how the Administration can salvage itself, and a third that applies a radically different standard than they would if this were, for example the Bush Administration. Note the failure of Spitzer's top aides to cooperate with the investigation.

Two of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s top staff members refused requests from the attorney general’s office that they submit to interviews in the investigation of the administration’s use of the State Police to tarnish a political rival.

The two men, Darren Dopp, the communications director, and Richard Baum, the secretary to the governor, are considered Mr. Spitzer’s closest advisers, and their roles in the internal effort to damage Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno have drawn intense attention. The governor has repeatedly said that his staff fully cooperated with the investigation. Mr. Dopp was suspended indefinitely by the governor on Monday, and no action was taken against Mr. Baum.

According to documents and interviews, Mr. Dopp and Mr. Baum never subjected themselves to questions under oath from investigators in Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s office.

Instead, on Sunday, the day before the report was released, they submitted two-paragraph statements sworn before the governor’s legal counsel that minimized their role.

I'm curious -- had Scooter Libby taken such a course, would the New York Times have found that acceptable? If the Bush Administration chose to follow such a path in any investigation, would the New York Times have let that matter pass? hardly -- but since Spitzer is a friendly Democrat, what do you expect. Biased reporting, double standards -- that's the New York Times.