Spitzer: Qs for the Justice Department? (Updated)
It's a measure of where we all are that one day after the Spitzer scandal broke, and in a fairly complete vacuum of context, questions are being raised about whether it's a politically motivated hit job from the Bush Justice Department.
This is partly the result of confusion about how the probe began. If it started with his bank records, what was so suspicious about them? But it also stems from the unfortunate recent history of the DoJ's US Attorney firings scandal.
Consider this blog from Harper's Magazine by Scott Horton, the Manhattan lawyer who played a fairly important role from a perch at the NYC Bar Assn. in pressing the issue of torture and mistreatment of prisoners in the wake of Abu Ghraib:
"During the Bush Administration, his Justice Department has opened 5.6 cases against Democrats for every one involving a Republican. Beyond this, a number of the cases seem to have been tied closely to election cycles."
And: "In the current environment, the reservoir of trust is tapped. The Justice Department needs to submit to some questions about how this probe got launched, who launched it, and to what extent political appointees were involved in its direction."
Also has some interesting history on the use of the Mann Act for politically motivated prosecutions....
Update: For more on skepticism from the left, see this item in Firedoglake.
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (9)
Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake has more...
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/10/some-questions-about-the-spitzer-incident/#
ABC is reporting that Eliot Spitzer came under the attention of the Feds because his bank reported "suspicious money transfers" to the IRS. The Justice Department brought it to the FBI's Public Corruption Squad, who looked into it and found that payments were made to a company called QET, which did business as The Emperor's Club.
All kinds of questions arise here:
1. Why would the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself if there was a suspicious transfer? Spitzer is a longtime client, a rich guy and the governor. We're talking thousands of dollars here, not millions. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that they spotted a "suspicious transfer" made by the governor, and that this is how things began. It's possible it was just ordinary paperwork the bank had to file with the government whenever some particular flag was raised, but if that's the case, why did the DoJ go to DefCon 3?
2. What is a USA doing prosecuting a prostitution case? This isn't normally what the feds spend their time with.
3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony. Sources familiar with the investigation say that he sent a prosecution memo to DC two months ago asking for authority to indict a public figure (Spitzer). Which means they had their case made long before the wire tap of February 13. Why did they then include this line from that conversation in the complaint?
LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe -- you know -- I mean that...very basic things...."Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that...I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex?...You know what I mean."
This salacious detail does not seem like it's necessary to make their case, and appears to be added for no other purpose than to destroy Spitzer's career.
4. How did Spitzer's name get leaked to the media, and who did it? Didn't happen to Dave Vitter.
5. Why did Mike Bloomberg suddenly start talking about running for governor recently? And why did he give $500,000 to Joe Bruno? He's good buddies with Mike Mukasey. What did he know and how did he know it?
6. The Mann Act? Are you kidding?
7. Spitzer's been in the line of fire of the GOP hit squad for a while. Roger Stone, Roger Stone, Roger Stone.
There are all kinds of things about this that just don't pass the smell test.
Alabama.........Bill Canary..........investigate the Federal case against the former Democratic Governor and all will become clear.
While it's fun to conspiracy theorize, the truth seems to be much less exciting. Newsday is currently reporting that Spitzer's bank noticed that he specifically transferred $10,000 by breaking it into smaller amounts (to avoid fed. reporting obligations) and then, if that wasn't stupid enough, he called the bank asking that his name be removed from the transactions. If this didn't raise a red flag, nothing would havel. The bank was then legally obligated to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
Suspicious Activity Report (SAR)? What an exotic term for a cover-up! Let's use this "legal obligation" against the bank and their CEOs, CFOs, the board of trustees and the rest of the crooks. Newsday may have a good reason to parrot what the bank justifies their criminal act with.
99monkeys, a SAR is not exotic at all. They're common. So, despite what you and Oliver Stone may make of this, banks and other financial institutions are OBLIGATED to file a SAR when such activity occurs and face penalties when they should have filed a SAR but chose not to. I suspect banks and other financial institutions file thousands of SARs per year. So you are basically arguing that the bank should have made an exception for Spitzer and risked government sanction by not filing a SAR in light of this clearly suspicious activity when it was obligated by law to do so. This has nothing to do with partison politics and has everything to do with, at least from what we know now, with the private sector and law enforcment doing their jobs.
JoeC, I couldn't care less about Spitzer, he was part of law enforcement, and only laws that are wrong have to be forced on its citizens. So smelling some of his own manure may do Spitzer well. I do, however, care about my freedom, something you not only gave up freely with what you state, but also seem obligated to rationalize with BS.
Of course you are right, you need a nanny to feel safe in your doctrine, so watch Nanny 911, and punish yourself.
99monkeys, I'll try to respond, even though you make little sense.
"only laws that are wrong have to be forced on its citizens"
Ok, that's nice. And who is the final arbiter of what laws should and should not be enforced? You?
"I do, however, care about my freedom, something you not only gave up freely with what you state, but also seem obligated to rationalize with BS."
The only thing I mentioned was what is being reported, now by several news outlets, as the genisis of the investigation; the filing of a SAR. These reports clearly refute what was written here and a few other places pointing to a Republican-led conspiracy to topple Spitzer.
A few moments ago you had no idea what a SAR was. Now, however, you think you are informed enough about its intent, purpose and practical affect to conclude it somehow infringes upon your freedom. Further, according to you, anyone who points the law out to is "rationaliz[ing]" it and has given up their own freedom. Sounds a little silly (and paranoid) don't ya think?
"Of course you are right, you need a nanny to feel safe in your doctrine, so watch Nanny 911, and punish yourself."
Um, I have no idea what this even means, other than it appears Ted Kozinsky has gotten ahold of a computer with Internet access in prison. Hi Ted!
This will be my last comment to this thread, since what I write seems to go way over your head:
If you don't know Nanny 911 you must be incarcerated yourself! It's one of the most popular shows on TV in the USA.
Yes, Monkey Boy, you are sooo smart that your points, if you can call them that, go over my head. Please, oh please, can you dumb down your brilliant Timothy McVeigh-like paranoid ramblings to my Neanderthal level so that I can understand them? Oh, and I know Nanny 911 is a TV show. Just don't understand your nebulous reference to it and how it applies to my simply pointing out an article reporting on the genesis of the Spitzer investigation. But we already established I'm not intelligent enough to keep up with you. Wait, do you hear that? Sounds like the prison medical staff is arriving to take you back to the safety of your round, rubber room. Buh bye, Ted!