It begins with innocent questions: how could this possibly be done by some backwards fundamentalists against the most powerful military and country in the world? Which then goes to the more ludicrous "It's completely unthinkable the government could have something like this happen within our borders nowadays." Then it goes completely bat-shit with "only our government could possibly do something of this magnitude."
Well the Eliot Spitzer saga is slowly taking a similar road. First the story is getting waaaaaaay too much attention from the media even though, boo-frickedy-hoo, nobody paid as much attention to David Vitter being caught in the DC Madame's stable of users. Now it's not illegal to hire an escort, and nobody has said Vitter had sex with the escort. So the parallel between Spitzer and Vitter is a false one. Also, GOVERNOR SPITZER IS THE GOVERNOR OF THE THIRD LARGEST STATE IN AMERICA. DAVID VITTER IS A SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA, ONE OF 100 PEOPLE IN THE SENATE!
Anyway, within a day of the scandal being brought out into the public, we've got the Marxist legal teams of the left trying to point this as a Republican smear campaign and dirty tricks by the Bush Department of Justice.
Here's the post, my dissection afterwards:
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 [U.S. Attorney] 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.
1. The Department of Justice went into Defcom 3 against the prostitution ring, not Eliot Spitzer. Lots of clients have come up in this, to make it seem like "the DoJ was looking to smear or indict Spitzer" is idiotic and dishonest. Next, if the bank recognized the transfer as being something that would be untoward, they're not going to tell the person committing the untoward act "hey, why are you doing this?" because then if he engages in the crime again, he may be even more slick about what he's doing.
2. A U.S. Attorney is focused on this because this involves clients from all over the fucking country. Again, this was about prostitution not Eliot Spitzer.
3. AS. FUCKING. PROOF. HE. WAS. RECIDIVIST. And not only recidivist, but unbelievably and disgustingly brazen about his actions. Implying that this is a Don Siegelman situation is absolutely retarded.
You, I swear, will soon see posts by people like Nicole Belle implying that this is an abuse of power by the Justice Department attempting to remove a Democrat governor, and they had targeted Spitzer purely.
This will of course lead to someone on Daily Kos going "George W. Bush was the one who slept with the hooker, and the DoJ is picking on Spitzer to resign. Spitzer being a neoconservative Zionist plant took the fall so we could continue stealing Arab oil with the Jews in Israel! How come you people aren't smart enough to see this?"
|