All law enforcement is legal - some more legal than others
All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.
That sentence should send chills.
Check out this Albany Project post - as they bring you a Harpers article that has this section:
However, there is a second tier of questions that needs to be examined with respect to the Spitzer case. They go to prosecutorial motivation and direction. Note that this prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. This section is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions. 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. Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats. So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:
Remember the 60 Minutes piece on Don Siegelman Alabama governor?
All you commenters - I’m not justifying Spitzer’s actions and, yes, he is damaged goods. He appears to have solicited a prostitute with his own money. There is a history of public officials overcoming adverse publicity. A long history. So, let’s wait to see how the Spitzer situation plays out. I’m not sure all the information has been made public yet.
I’m just asking you to read the Harpers article and ask the question - How did this come about?
Related posts:
People are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, oil prices continue to rise, families lose homes, 47 million people have no health insurance, and none of these problems will be resolved by focusing on the extra-marital affairs of any individual.
keep in mind that the mann act being cited for this prosecution is never used and when it is only for political or cultural based prosecution. Way back when it was used to arrest rock and roll pioneer chuck berry for going out with white women. That says it all about the mann act. I am suspicious of the motivations as well.
First, Spitzer hasn’t been charged with anything - it’s the hookers.
Second, the first count of the indictment, which is against the hookers and their agency, charges racketeering. So it’s not just the Mann Act.
Finally, it appears that this was uncovered by the IRS, who were looking at the large cash transactions used by Spitz to fund this fuckfest. Politicians moving around large amounts of cash deserve a look-see, no matter which party they’re from.
I agree that some of the Bush Admin prosecutions are politically motivated, but the real issue here is whether Spitzer is up on a bullshit charge. The answer right now looks like a big “no”.
I think the Mann act is a stupid law as are the laws against prostitution. But Eliot Spitzer knew full well what the laws were when he violated them (prostitution) and tried to skirt them (packaging).
Posts like this make you look as foolish as the Republicans re-posting Randy Kuhl press releases. I thought btp got it right earlier this morning.
Rotten -
Foolish is jumping to conclusions before all the information is public and rushing to judgment.
Did you miss this piece of the post?
You’re right. On the other hand, I doubt the reason he and his attorneys are meeting with the Justice Department today in NYC today is to discuss tee times at Hilton Head this weekend. More likely it’s a plea deal arrangement.
Spitzer is a smart guy and a tough attorney. I assume that he’d be fighting this if it were some kind of politically-motivated witchhunt. He isn’t. I don’t think that’s foolishly jumping to a conclusion.
And I sure do agree that all the information hasn’t been made public yet. There are going to be reams of detail released.
ugh…I don’t think I want all of the details.
I doubt whether anyone is defending Spitzer anymore than people defended Clinton.But there are political forces and there is often selective prosecution. One always needs to be alert for these things. Clearly we don’t know all the facts or what Spitzer is doing right now.
It remains true however, that a number of TV “expert” lawyers (like that silly Nancy Grace) are citing the Mann Act issue as if it is a serious one. That is what I am responding to.
I don’t see how linking to an article in Harper’s is like reprinting a press release.
The point was details - I wanted the details so not to jump to conclusions. Analysis please not speculation.