Grasso Case Isn't About Reversing or Settling

Editor's Note: This is a bonus story from Jim Cramer, whose commentary usually appears only on RealMoney. We're offering it today to TheStreet.com readers. To read Cramer's commentary regularly, please click here for information about a free trial to RealMoney.

---

Sometimes there is only one side of the trade. Thursday, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, my friend and a former hedge fund partner, was on the winning side. He won huge against Dick Grasso in New York Supreme Court in front of one of the most rigorous and respected jurists we have, Justice Charles Ramos. There have been reports that, post the ruling, Dick Grasso will not settle with Spitzer's office.

This is a laughable presumption. He won't settle because Eliot Spitzer doesn't want to settle. Dick Grasso could say he wants to settle and that wouldn't matter. I think that if Dick Grasso were to agree with everything Spitzer wanted, Spitzer still wouldn't settle.

It is that simple.

Justice Ramos gave Spitzer a partial summary judgment. People are saying -- again, critics of Spitzer -- that this can be easily reversed. What a wrong takeaway. The takeaway is that Ramos thinks the case is so one-sided in the prosecution's favor that it isn't even worth discussing or pursuing. You rarely see that, because it is so rare that a case is so one-sided.

Anyway, I had to clear the record with a call to CNBC because there is so much misinformation out there.

Oh, and for the record, I repeatedly argued Dick Grasso's case to Spitzer and was told that it was ridiculous to do so.

Looks like Spitzer was right.

Random musings: College students, listen up! RealMoney is offering you something special... a free subscription through May 31, 2007. The only requirement: You must have an email address that ends in .edu. Email [e-mail] to accept my personal invitation to come read my blog every day, plus all the other writers on that great site. Pass it on!

>To order reprints of this article, click here: Reprints