Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
Frankly, I couldn't care less about what a politician does in the sack, whether they paid for it or not. Like my Grandfather always said, "A stiff prick has no conscience."
Problem here is that he is a high profile character in violation of a federal law (granted the Mann Act is archaic, but it's still on the books). The Justice Department has to go after the guy with all they've got or risk losing credibility by not prosecuting the big fish. The irony of him being a former attorney general, assistant district attorney, and huge anti-crime governor only adds to the necessity of prosecuting.
|
They haven't charged Spitzer, and they were investigating him BEFORE they found out about the prostitution ring.
How many times do you think the IRS gets forms from banks documenting cash transactions over $10k or groups of closely sequenced cash transactions adding up to over $10, and refer them to the FBI for investigation and the FBI quickly dismisses the inquiry, if it is true that FBI referals for prosecution on all crimes are down 39 percent since 1987?
Why is it reasonable that the FBI would pursue a full blown investigation of a wealthy man like Spitzer, over such relatively small, considering his wealth, amount cash transactions? He apparently was removing cash from an account, not putting it in.....hardly evidence to trigger a legitimate bribe taking investigation....he also was in a bitter political feud with republican legislative opponent, Joseph Bruno.
It is not the first recent democratic government that this partisanized DOJ had set it's sites on.....