Spitzer's selective prosecution?
Update Below
----
As I wrote yesterday, the question of how NY Governor Eliot Spitzer got pulled into a hooker investigation was something not entirely clear to me, nor was the fact that he was being wiretapped. In fact, initial reports seemed to suggest that an ongoing investigation of a prostitution ring caught Spitzer via wiretap:
"The wiretap captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9."
Today we learn that a suspicious money transfer was reported by Spitzer's bank to the IRS and although Spitzer was only recently snagged in the investigation, the probe appears to have been going on for a year or so centering on suspicious transactions:
"The rendezvous that established Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s involvement with high-priced prostitutes occurred last month in one of Washington’s grandest hotels, but the criminal investigation that discovered the tryst began last year in a nondescript office building opposite a Dunkin’ Donuts on Long Island, according to law enforcement officials."
If you go on to read the article you will find that the movement of money was OUT of Spitzer's accounts, not IN. How can this be suspected bribery? Apparently I am not the only one to try to make this circle fit into a square container:
"What's wrong with this version of the story? At least one thing seems to be glaringly wrong: This wasn't money moving INTO Spitzer's accounts, as it would be if the crimes involved were bribery, political corruption, or "something inappropriate involving campaign finance." This was cash moving OUT of Spitzer's accounts -- based on everything we've heard, from his personal accounts.
When somebody is moving large amounts of cash OUT of their personal accounts, I suppose it's possible that they're bribing somebody else or something, although if they're already a Governor, that doesn't seem very likely. What it suggests is precisely what happened here: That they're spending money on something for which they don't want a paper trail, perhaps because they don't want their spouse to know about it. And while some of those things may be illegal (prostitution, gambling, drugs), by no means all of them are (supporting a mistress, indulging a taste for clothes or wine that is more expensive than one's spouse thinks is appropriate, etc.).
The other thing that seems odd is that these were apparently CASH TRANSACTIONS, which are extraordinarily difficult to trace. And yet somehow, investigators supposedly knew that this money.
<snip>
How, pray tell, did the investigators know that without FIRST getting wiretap or other evidence showing where it was going? Presumably, the front businesses for this prostitution ring were combining Spitzer's cash with cash from other customers, so the amounts wouldn't even be the same. But even if the amounts WERE the same, with the large number of cash businesses in the New York area, it strains credulity to think they could match the amounts up and tell with any degree of certainty at all where his money was going."
Right. So what prompted this investigation into Spitzer, who appears to be the target, rather than the actual prostitution ring? Moreover - as pointed out above - what miracle led the investigators to track anything when they only seemed to have gotten a warrent to wiretap the prostitution ring well after the investigation began? Finally, I am curious how the press got wind of client #9's real identity so damn quickly and from whom?
How did Senator David Vitter (Republican) pay for his hookers in New Orleans and DC and why is he not being charged with anything? Why is no one demanding that he resign?
The timing of this whole thing bothers me as well. Consider that more and more evidence is amounting with regard to Karl Rove's involvement in Alabama and the imprisonment of Don Siegelman. The mainstream news actually began to finally pick this up. Now, as though by magic and even though this investigation has gone on for a year, Spitzer is suddenly indicted. I am not an attorney, but can someone explain to me what it is that I am missing here that would account for this strange series of events?
Ultimately, however, all of this doubt really does reflect the amount of damage the Bush administration has done to the Department of Justice. No matter what the allegations or even confessions are, I no longer have faith in our DOJ and I imagine I am not alone in this. That is the real scandal of all of this. Don't you think?
Update:
I realized reading over my posts that I sound like I am defending Spitzer. I am not and ONLY not because he prosecuted prostitution cases in the past and rather vocally too. That hypocrisy is why I am not remotely defending Spitzer's choice of entertainment. What I am defending, however, is the right of all Americans to feel that they are not political targets, investigated illegally until some wrong-doing is finally located that can be used against them. Nor should Americans feel that because they belong to a political party they are above the law.
Spitzer's sexual activities really only affect his relationship with his wife and family. They only affect us if those relationships are illegal, which in this case it appears to be so. But to target and investigate someone in hopes of finding something illegal is also illegal. I am not comfortable right now that Spitzer was legally investigated, despite the allegations of what he was actually caught doing and the fact that it was a criminal activity.
And I am certainly not comfortable with the hysteria over two consenting adults having sex, while no one cares that the Bush administration lied us into an illegal war in which nearly a million Iraqis have been killed and tens of thousands of Americans have either been destroyed or killed. I am also not happy that the illegal domestic spying this administration has engaged in appears to have nothing to do with terrorism. I am not surprised by this, of course. What I am surprised by is that no one else seems to care that the White House is more interested in sex between consenting adults than in catching a terrorist. |
