Is this the best use of the FBI's Resources if there is a real War on Terror? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-10-2008, 03:16 PM

....and is it routine for federal DOJ officials to release the identities of "Johns", in a case like this?

Wire tapping, search warrants, cell phone text messgage interception, why?

From the indictment:

Quote:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...-complaint.pdf

Page 12

7. As demonstrated below, the evidence obtained
during this investigation includes, among other things,
statements of a confidential source who worked with the Emperors
Club; statements of an undercover officer; more than 5,000
telephone calls and text messages intercepted pursuant to courtauthorized
wiretaps; more than 6,000 e-mails recovered pursuant
to court-authorized search warrants; bank records; travel and
hotel records; and physical surveillance.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/ny...l?ref=politics

By DANNY HAKIM and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: March 10, 2008
ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.....

<h3>NY Governor Spitzer is certainly a huge hypocrite, and should resign for that reason,</h3> but the circumstances of this investigation need to be examined by the press....the government certainly won't be doing it.

Why the intensity and the amount of federal LE investigative and analytical reaources brought to bear on these "crimes", during what we have had drummed into us, is a period of "national emergency", code "orange alert", why the release of Spitzer's identity to the press?

The_Jazz · 03-10-2008, 04:18 PM

Let me get this straight - you think that the FBI should just stop all domestic crime-fighting? Or that it's the message that's being sent? Because I vehemently disagree with either sentiment.

The FBI is an internal force only. They look for terrorists here on our shores, among other things.

So host, where was your outrage last year when they handed down indictments on the Chicago Outfit? A quick search reveal 0 threads or comments by you about that.

Inconsistent much?

host · 03-10-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Let me get this straight - you think that the FBI should just stop all domestic crime-fighting? Or that it's the message that's being sent? Because I vehemently disagree with either sentiment.

The FBI is an internal force only. They look for terrorists here on our shores, among other things.

So host, where was your outrage last year when they handed down indictments on the Chicago Outfit? A quick search reveal 0 threads or comments by you about that.

Inconsistent much?

Why "the tone", The_Jazz? I don't think you made a strong enough argument to back what seems like a veiled attack on me.

Here are the facts. This prositutuion "investigation", is, by standards of this national emergency we've been told that we're in, for six years and six months now, and by the 20 year track record of the FBI.....what would you call it....a "pull back"....yeah, 40 percent decline in referrals is a pull back....maybe even a sign of dereliction of duty, a "bullshit" investigation.

Huge resources brought to bear....on a prostitution "ring"? Why?

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1204...googlenews_wsj
Federal Criminal Referrals
For Prosecution Drop
Local Authorities
Get Bigger Load,
TRAC Study Says
By GARY FIELDS
March 7, 2008; Page A8

WASHINGTON -- Federal law-enforcement agencies are reducing the number of cases they are referring for prosecution even though investigative resources have been increased, said a study released yesterday.

According to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, federal criminal referrals for prosecution have fallen 2.4%, to 111,478 last year from 114,197 in 1986, for all cases except immigration. The number of immigration cases nearly quadrupled, to 41,645from 11,551.

The study attributes much of the drop to four agencies: the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service and the Postal Inspection Service. The four are most responsible for white-collar investigations, such as mail, tax and financial fraud, as well as counterfeiting and cyberspace crimes.

<h3>FBI referrals dropped 39% to 25,129 in 2007 from 41,292 suspects in 1987</h3>. The Secret Service's referrals fell 58% to 5,070 from 12,160 in the period.....

The_Jazz, are you saying that you see the investigation and prosecution of this....mulitple murder and racketeering and official corruption, as something to be compared to an investigation of prostituion that prompted, just since last october, if I read it correctly, all of that wire tapping, seeking and execution of search warrants, the gathering and examination of thousands of phone calls, emails, text messages....

You don't see my questions as legitimate, or reasonable, considering everything else I'm showing you?

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Outfit

As the result of an investigation dubbed, "Operation Family Secrets," many mobsters in The Outfit were under indictment as of April 25, 2005 in connection with 18 murders as well as two attempted bombings of the known mob hang outs Tom's Steakhouse, in Melrose Park, Illinois, and Horwath's, in Elmwood Park, Illinois, stretching back four decades. Included were James "Little Jimmy" Marcello, Nicholas Ferriola, Joseph "The Clown" Lombardo, Sr., Michael Marcello, Frank "The German" Schweihs, Frank Calabrese, Sr., Paul "The Indian" Schiro, former Chicago Police Department officer Anthony "Twan" Doyle, Thomas Johnson, Joseph Venezia, and Dennis Johnson. Another successful bombing still unsolved of the electronic store Polk Brothers, in Melrose Park, had been added in the indictment, however no evidence existed in that case and the State's star courtroom witness Nicolas Calabrese had no knowledge of the incident so the charge has subsequently been dropped.

Two among the indicted have died. Frank "Gumba" Saladino was found dead in a hotel in Hampshire, Illinois. FBI Agent Robert Grant said there was no indication of foul play, and he did not believe Saladino, 59, had killed himself. Grant said $25,000 in cash and $70,000 in checks were recovered at the scene. Michael Ricci has also died.

In April 2005, federal indictments for racketeering and murder were brought upon many top mobsters for gangland slayings including Michael "Bones" Albergo, Dan Seifert, Paul Haggerty, Henry Consentino, John Mendell, Donald Renno, Vincent Moretti, William and Charlotte Dauber, William "Butch" Petrocelli, Michael Cagnoni, Nicholas D'Andrea, Richard D. Ortiz, Arthur Morawski, Emil Vaci, Anthony ("Tony," "The Ant") Spilotro, Michael Spilotro and John Fecarotta.

On January 11, 2007, Deputy United States Marshal John Thomas Ambrose, 38, a former supervisory inspector of the Marshals Service's Great Lakes Regional Fugitive Task Force, was charged with revealing information concerning the cooperation and travel plans of Nicholas Calabrese, expected to be a key witness in the government's Operation Family Secrets murder conspiracy case, to an associate of reputed outfit boss John "No Nose" DiFronzo. The current operations are said to be controlled now by Sam "Wings" Carlisi's grandson, Carlo Capinelli, who spends most of his time in Las Vegas, Nevada.

On September 10, 2007, the federal trial based on "Operation Family Secrets" concluded in Chicago. On trial were Joseph Lombardo, James Marcello, Frank Calabrese, Sr., Paul Shiro, and former Chicago police officer Anthony Doyle. The men were accused of a racketeering conspiracy which includes 18 counts of murder, many of which have gone unsolved for decades, although many people have speculated for years some "hits" were carried out by the younger "connected" associates. An anonymous group of jurors heard the case, only known by numbers not their names. All men have been found guilty on racketeering conspiracy, bribery, illegal gambling and tax fraud.[1]

On September 21, 2007, a federal jury in Chicago, in a second round of deliberations, found Frank Calabrese, Sr., committed seven murders, James Marcello two murders and Joseph Lombardo one murder. As a result, the men face up to life in prison because the slayings were committed in the course of the racketeering conspiracy. The jury, however, was unable to reach a decision on the one murder attributed to defendant Paul Schiro.[2]

[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...56&ft=1&f=1001
[2] http://www.thechicagosyndicate.com/2...er-charge.html

Doesn't it seem just as likely that this is an overblown partisan, political, witch hunt, especially with what we know about what this administration has done to partisanize the DOJ?

dksuddeth · 03-10-2008, 05:12 PM

host, are you saying that the spitzer investigation and the microscope on chicago are strongarm tactics being used against democrats?

host · 03-10-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

host, are you saying that the spitzer investigation and the microscope on chicago are strongarm tactics being used against democrats?

It's over, dk....you can stop your game playing. This is a display of the government I presume you have armed yourself to resist....

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.
It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn't hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club. …

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI's Public Corruption Squad.

"We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it," said one Justice Department official

dksuddeth · 03-10-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

It's over, dk....you can stop your game playing. This is a display of the government I presume you have armed yourself to resist....

it's not like I care what elliot spitzer has done, as long as his 'money transfers' weren't done with taxpayer money, but I still ask you, why the notion that this i a bush motivated witchhunt? If anything, chicago needs the enema and jazz may have a point in his questioning your motivations.

dc_dux · 03-10-2008, 06:40 PM

Putting the Spitzer case aside for a sec, I think there is pretty compelling evidence to suggest the possibility of selective prosecution of Democratic elected officials (and/or candidates) over the last seven years by the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales DoJ:

From a 2005 study and updated through 2007:

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/column...ofiling_2.html

Considering that there are marginally a few higher percentage Dem elected officials nationwide than Republican, the numbers certainly raises questions.

And the concerns come from both the left and the right.

In the Siielegman case in Alabama

Quote:

Forty-four former attorneys general, both Democratic and Republican, petitioned the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to investigate the circumstances surrounding the investigation, prosecution, sentencing and detention of Don Siegleman, former governor of Alabama. (more on the Sielegman case and others in GA, Mi, MS...)

Corruption investigations in Pennsylvanaia,:

Quote:

Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, charged Tuesday that political reasons motivated the Justice Department to open corruption investigations against Democrats in Mr. Thornburgh’s home state, Pennsylvania.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Thornburgh became the first former Republican attorney general to join with Democratic lawmakers to suggest that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had singled out Democratic politicians for prosecution....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/wa...te.html?ref=us

reconmike · 03-10-2008, 06:47 PM

Could it be possibly that the Dems are just a wee bit more corrupt than the repubs? Because I know in Jersey they are a hell of a lot more corrupt.

dc_dux · 03-10-2008, 06:50 PM

mike.....do the numbers nationwide - state, local, federal (Dems more than 4x Repubs) reflect a "wee bit" to you?

host · 03-10-2008, 06:58 PM

I'm going to set up a stand and sell kool-ade on this forum. The impenetrability of the belief system, exhibited time and time again in the posts, explains why no amount of information will influence anyone who knows what they know.

dc_dux, you could post stats that show no republican prosecutions, only prosecution of democrats and independents, and some would still not question the motives of the Bush administration or of it's DOJ.

reconmike · 03-10-2008, 07:02 PM

Sweet kool-ade, you'll have plenty of Obama fainters and sheep to sell it too,
shame though you'll be taxed to holy fuck on your profits.

dc_dux · 03-10-2008, 07:06 PM

mike....you ignored my question.

Given than there are only about 5-8% more Dem elected officials nationwide than Repub.....do you think 4x the number of DoJ initiated investigations of Dems reflects a "wee bit" or might they appear to objective observers as a bit skewed?

reconmike · 03-10-2008, 07:15 PM

I wasn't ignoring your question DC, your graph shows investigations AND indictments, I want to find a graph of just investigations and just indictments,
to base my judgement if there is any bias.

Reason being is that if the dems were investigated 100 times in 2007 and there were 5 indictments, and there were 25 repub investigations and 0 indictments,that might warrant saying that they could have been politicly motivated.

dc_dux · 03-10-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

I wasn't ignoring your question DC, your graph shows investigations AND indictments, I want to find a graph of just investigations and just indictments,
to base my judgement if there is any bias.

Reason being is that if the dems were investigated 100 times in 2007 and there were 5 indictments, and there were 25 repub investigations and 0 indictments,that might warrant saying that they could have been politicly motivated.

mike.....that seems like convoluted reasoning to me.

Why should Dems even be investigated 4x as often as Repubs, if not for political purposes...even if indictment rates were closer to parity?

From the Shields study/article:
"The disparity between investigation and/or indictments of Democrats in relation to Republicans is statistically significant and could have occurred by chance in less than one in 10,000 samplings."

FYI....there has never been that kind of disparity in DoJ investigations/indictments in recent past administrations, Dem or Repub. This is unique to Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales.

It still doesnt sound like a "wee bit' to me under any circumstances.

host · 03-10-2008, 08:42 PM

reconmike's got a short memory, let's review the history of failed credibility and criminality of the president and his DOJ:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...=1&oref=slogin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 12, 2007
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, <h2>the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.</h2>

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, <h3>about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.</h3>

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.

Mistakes and lapses in enforcing voting and registration rules routinely occur in elections, allowing thousands of ineligible voters to go to the polls. But the federal cases provide little evidence of widespread, organized fraud, prosecutors and election law experts said.

“There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election,” Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031301725.html
White House Cites Lax Voter-Fraud Investigations in U.S. Attorneys' Firings

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A06

White House officials, in providing new explanations of how and why several U.S. attorneys were fired in December, have said that President Bush mentioned to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had heard complaints from Congress that some federal prosecutors were lax in pursuing voter fraud.....

Quote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._mckay13m.html
McKay "stunned" by report on Bush
By David Bowermaster

Seattle Times staff reporter

Former U.S. Attorney John McKay said Monday night he was "stunned" to hear President Bush told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last October that Bush had received complaints about U.S. attorneys who were not energetically investigating voter-fraud cases.

McKay doesn't know if Republican unhappiness over his handling of the 2004 election cost him his job as U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, but the new revelations contained in a Washington Post story are sure to reignite questions about McKay's dismissal and whether it was connected to Washington state's hotly contested governor's race.

"Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor's election, I would have resigned," McKay said. "There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

The conversation between Bush and Gonzales, along with e-mails and documents that the White House plans to turn over to Congress today, suggests the firings of McKay and seven other U.S. attorneys last year may have been politically motivated, despite previous Justice Department and White House denials, according to The Washington Post.

It is not clear whether the materials shed new light on McKay's firing.

Nonetheless, Bush's concerns about voter-fraud investigations will surely heighten the spotlight on how McKay monitored the 2004 race -- and how local and federal Republican officials reacted to his inquiry.

McKay insists that top prosecutors in his office and agents from the FBI conducted a "very active" review of allegations of fraud during the election but filed no charges and did not convene a federal grand jury because "we never found any evidence of criminal conduct."....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...=1&oref=slogin
.....Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”....

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/
<body><font size="3"><strong>jurisprudence</strong></font><br clear="all"><span class="clsLarger">The Fraudulent Fraud Squad</span><br><span class="clsSmall"><font color="gray">The incredible, disappearing American Center for Voting Rights.</font></span><br>By Richard L. Hasen<br><span class="clsSmaller"><font color="#CC0000">Posted <font color="#CC0000">Friday, May 18, 2007, at 1:41 PM ET</font></font></span><br clear="all"><br clear="all"><p><div style="clear:both"></div>Imagine the National Rifle Association's <a target="_blank" href="http://nra.org/">Web site</a> suddenly disappeared, along with all the data and reports the group had ever posted on gun issues. Imagine <a target="_blank" href="http://plannedparenthood.org/">Planned Parenthood</a> inexplicably closed its doors one day, without comment from its former leaders. The scenarios are unthinkable, given how established these organizations have become. But even if something did happen to the NRA or Planned Parenthood, no doubt other gun or abortion groups would quickly fill the vacuum and push the ideas they'd pushed for years.</p><p>Not so for the American Center for Voting Rights, a group that has literally just disappeared as an organization, and for which it seems no replacement group will rise up. With no notice and little comment, ACVR—the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws—simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its <a target="_blank" href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008186.html">Web domain name has suddenly expired</a>,<h3> its reports are all gone (except where they have been <a target="_blank" href="http://truthaboutfraud.org/analysis_reports/">preserved by its opponents</a>), and its general counsel, <a target="_blank" href="http://lathropgage.com/people/detail.aspx?attorney=1584">Mark "Thor" Hearne</a>, has <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4556">cleansed his résumé</a> of affiliation with the group. Hearne <a target="_blank" href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008383.html">won't speak to the press </a>about ACVR's demise.</h3> No other group has taken up the "voter fraud" mantra.</p><p>The death of ACVR says a lot about the Republican strategy of raising voter fraud as a crisis in American elections. Presidential adviser Karl Rove and his allies, who have been ghostbusting illusory dead and fictional voters since the contested 2000 election, apparently mounted a two-pronged attack. One part of that attack, at the heart of the current Justice Department scandals, involved getting the DoJ and various U.S. attorneys in battleground states <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html">to vigorously prosecute cases of voter fraud</a>. That prong has failed. After exhaustive effort, the Department of Justice discovered <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?ei=5088&en=277feccfa099c7d0&ex=1334030400&pagewanted=all">virtually no polling-place voter fraud</a>, and its efforts to fire the U.S. attorneys in battleground states who did not push the voter-fraud line enough has backfired. Even if Attorney General Gonzales <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166557/">declines to resign his position</a>, his reputation has been irreparably damaged.</p><p>But the second prong of this attack may have proven more successful. This involved using ACVR to give "think tank" academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections. That cachet would be used to support the passage of onerous voter-identification laws that depress turnout among the poor, minorities, and the elderly—groups more likely to vote Democratic. Where the Bush administration may have failed to nail illegal voters, the effort to suppress minority voting has <a target="_blank" href="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/articles.php?ID=147">borne more fruit</a>, as more states pass these laws, and courts begin to uphold them in the name of beating back waves of largely imaginary voter fraud.</p><p>Perhaps even with the demise of ACVR, the hard work—of giving credibility to a nonproblem—is done. The short organizational history of ACVR, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=4418">chronicled indefatigably</a> by Brad Friedman of the Brad Blog, shows that the group was founded just days before its representatives testified before a congressional committee hearing on election-administration issues chaired by then-Rep. (and now federal inmate) Bob Ney. The group was headed by Hearne, national election counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21015">staffed with other Republican operatives</a>, including Jim Dyke, a former RNC communications director. </p><p>Consisting of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1283">little more than a post-office box</a> and some staffers who wrote reports and gave helpful quotes about the pervasive problems of voter fraud to the press, the group <a target="_blank" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060210111249/www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/letterofintroduction.html">identified Democratic cities as hot spots for voter fraud</a>, then pushed the line that "election integrity" required making it harder for people to vote. The group <a target="_blank" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060209215847/http:/www.ac4vr.com/reports/032405/OhioElectionReport.pdf">issued reports</a> (PDF) on areas in the country of special concern, areas that coincidentally tended to be presidential battleground states. In many of these places, it now appears the White House was pressuring U.S. attorneys to bring more voter-fraud prosecutions.</p><p>ACVR's method of argument followed a familiar line, first set out by <em>Wall Street Journal </em>columnist John Fund in his book, <em>Stealing Elections</em>. First, ACVR argued extensively by anecdote, pointing to instances of illegal conduct, such as someone, somewhere registering Mary Poppins to vote. Anecdote would then be coupled with statistics showing problems with voter rolls not being purged to remove voters who had died or moved, leaving open the <em>potential</em> for fraudulent voting at the polls. Finally, the group would claim that the amount of such voter fraud is hard to quantify, because it is after all illegal conduct, hidden from the public. Given this great potential for mischief, and without evidence of actual mischief, allegedly reasonable initiatives such as purging voter rolls and requiring ID seemed the natural solution.</p><p>At least in hindsight, the ACVR line of argument is easily deconstructed. First, arguing by anecdote is dangerous business. <a target="_blank" href="http://projectvote.org/fileadmin/ProjectVote/Publications/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf">A new report </a>(PDF) by Lorraine Minnite of Columbia University looks at these anecdotes and shows them to be, for the most part, wholly spurious. Almost always the allegations were followed by charges being dropped or allegations being unproven (and sometimes raised for apparently political purposes). Sure, one can find a rare case of someone voting in two jurisdictions, but nothing extensive or systematic has been unearthed or documented.</p><p>Second, there's no question that there's a fair amount of <em>registration fraud</em> in this country, an artifact of the ability in many states to pay bounty hunters by the head for each new registrant. Some unscrupulous people being paid $3 to $5 for each card turned in will falsify registration information, registering pets or dead people or comic-book characters—none of whom will show up to vote on Election Day (with or without an ID). (I, for one, would turn the whole business of voter registration over to the government and couple a universal voter-registration program with a national voter-ID card paid for by the government—<a target="_blank" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=698201">but that's another story</a>.)</p><p>Third, and perhaps most importantly, the idea of massive polling-place fraud (through the use of inflated voter rolls) is inherently incredible. Suppose I want to swing the Missouri election for my preferred presidential candidate. I would have to figure out who the fake, dead, or missing people on the registration rolls are, and then pay <em>a lot </em>of other individuals to go to the polling place and claim to be Mary Poppins or Old Dead Bob, without any return guarantee—thanks to the secret ballot—that any of them will cast a vote for my preferred candidate. Those who do show up at the polls run the risk of being detected ("You're not my neighbor Bob who passed away last year!") and charged with a felony. And for what—$10? As someone who's thought about this a lot, if I really wanted to buy votes in an enforceable and safe way, I'd find <em>eligible voters</em> who would allow me to watch as they cast their <em>absentee ballots</em> for the candidate of my choice. Then, I would pay them. (Notably, ACVR and supporters of voter-ID laws have <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100972.html">generally supported <em>exemptions</em></a> from ID requirements for voters who use absentee ballots.) Or, I might find an election official to change the votes. Polling-place fraud, in short, makes no sense.</p><p>Finally, on the issue of lack of detection: State and local officials have uncovered a fair amount of the absentee-ballot vote-buying I've just described, even though that behavior, too, is illegal and likely hidden from public view. The DoJ devoted unprecedented resources to ferreting out polling-place fraud over five years and appears to have found <em>not a single prosecutable case</em> across the country. The <a target="_blank" href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070411voters_draft_report.pdf">major bipartisan draft fraud report</a> (PDF) (recently <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166287/entry/0/">posted </a>by <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/washington/11voters.html">suppressed</a> by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission [TimesSelect subscription required]) concluded that there is very <em>little</em> polling-place fraud in the United States. Of the many experts the commission consulted, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166287/entry/0/">the only dissenter</a> from that position was a representative of the now-evaporated ACVR.</p><p>Perhaps it is not surprising that ACVR has collapsed as an organization. In what appears to be one of Hearne's last public appearances (where he <a target="_blank" href="http://www.eac.gov/docs/Hearne-Testimony-EAC-2006-Election.pdf">identifies himself</a> [PDF] as having <em>served</em>—note past tense—as counsel to ACVR) before the EAC in December of 2006, Hearne offered the usual arguments. In support of his position that voter-ID laws did not unconstitutionally suppress the votes of poor and minority voters, Hearne cited the decision of the DoJ to approve the pre-clearance of Georgia's voter-ID law, and a law review article supporting such laws, written under the pseudonym Publius. Hearne didn't reveal that the decision on Georgia <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602504.html">was made by political appointees of the DoJ over the strong objections of career attorneys</a> there who believed the law was indeed discriminatory. Nor did he explain that (<a target="_blank" href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/005295.html">as I discovered and blogged about </a>a few years earlier) <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201950.html">Publius was none other than Hans von Spakovsky</a>, then serving as one of the political DoJ officials who approved the Georgia voter-ID law. (President Bush later gave <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fec.gov/members/von_Spakovsky/von_Spakovsky.shtml">von Spakovsky</a> a recess appointment to the Federal Election Commission.) </p><p>The arguments against vote fraud were built on a house of cards, a house that is collapsing as quickly as the U.S. attorney investigation moves forward. </p><p>So Hearne let the organization collapse, and in a bit of irony, a Washington lawyer who bought the <a target="_blank" href="http://americancenterforvotingrights.com/">ACVR domain name</a> has set it <a target="_blank" href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008380.html">to redirect</a> to the Brennan Center's <a target="_blank" href="http://truthaboutfraud.org/analysis_reports/">Truth About Fraud</a> Web site, which debunks ACVR's claims of polling-place voter fraud. But despite the collapse of ACVR, the idea that there is massive polling-place voter fraud has, perhaps irrevocably, entered the public consciousness. It has <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2152116/">infected even the Supreme Court's thinking about voter-ID laws</a>. And it has provided intellectual cover <a target="_blank" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976701">for the continued partisan pursuit</a> of voter-ID laws that may suppress minority votes. Just this week, Republican members of the Texas state Senate are trying to push through a voter-ID law over a threatened Democratic filibuster. Their political machinations have already required a Democratic state senator <a target="_blank" href="http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008406.html">recovering from a liver transplant</a> to show up to vote—and they almost passed the bill when another Democratic senator <a target="_blank" href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4806873.html">came down with the stomach flu</a>. </p><p>Texas legislators should be ashamed. All of this effort to enact a law that would stop a nonexistent problem. If only there were a way to ensure that <a target="_blank" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2136776/">spurious claims of polling-place voter fraud</a> could have disappeared with ACVR.</p><em><a target="_blank" href="http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html">Richard L. Hasen</a>, the William H. Hannon distinguished professor at Loyola Law School, writes the <a target="_blank" href="http://electionlawblog.org/">Election Law Blog</a>.</em><br><br><font face="Arial, Helvetica, Geneva" size="2">Article URL: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/</a></font><script language="JavaScript1.1" src="/revsci/dm_client.js"></script><script language="JavaScript">rs = PStax; DM_addToLoc("thisNode", rs); DM_tag();</script><noscript><img src="http://pix01.revsci.net/J05531/a3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/noscript.gif" /></noscript></p></div></body>

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17168096.htm
Posted on Wed, May. 02, 2007

U. S. ATTORNEYS
2006 Missouri's election was ground zero for GOP
By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

.....The threat to the integrity of the election was seen as so grave that Bradley Schlozman, the acting chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and later the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, twice wielded the power of the federal government to try to protect the balloting. The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly also stepped into action.

Now, six months after freshman Missouri Sen. Jim Talent's defeat handed Democrats control of the U.S. Senate, disclosures in the wake of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys show that that Republican campaign to protect the balloting was not as it appeared. No significant voter fraud was ever proved.

The preoccupation with ballot fraud in Missouri was part of a wider national effort that critics charge was aimed at protecting the Republican majority in Congress by dampening Democratic turnout. That effort included stiffer voter-identification requirements, wholesale purges of names from lists of registered voters and tight policing of liberal get-out-the-vote drives.

Bush administration officials deny those claims. But they've gotten traction in recent weeks because three of the U.S. attorneys ousted by the Justice Department charge that they lost their jobs because they failed to prove Republican allegations of voter fraud. They say their inquiries found little evidence to support the claims.

Few have endorsed the strategy of pursuing allegations of voter fraud with more enthusiasm than White House political guru Karl Rove. And nowhere has the plan been more apparent than in Missouri.

Before last fall's election:

-Schlozman, while he was acting civil rights chief, authorized a suit accusing the state of failing to eliminate legions of ineligible people from lists of registered voters. A federal judge tossed out the suit this April 13, saying Democratic Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan couldn't police local registration rolls and noting that the government had produced no evidence of fraud.

-The Missouri General Assembly - with the White House's help - narrowly passed a law requiring voters to show photo identification cards, which Carnahan estimated would disenfranchise 200,000 voters. The state Supreme Court voided the law as unconstitutional before the election.

-Two weeks before the election, the St. Louis Board of Elections sent letters threatening to disqualify 5,000 newly registered minority voters if they failed to verify their identities promptly, a move - instigated by a Republican appointee - that may have violated federal law. After an outcry, the board rescinded the threat.

-Five days before the election, Schlozman, then interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, announced indictments of four voter-registration workers for a Democratic-leaning group on charges of submitting phony applications, despite a Justice Department policy discouraging such action close to an election.

-In an interview with conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt a couple of days before the election, Rove said he'd just visited Missouri and had met with Republican strategists who "are well aware of" the threat of voter fraud. He said the party had "a large number of lawyers that are standing by, trained and ready to intervene" to keep the election clean.

Missouri Republicans have railed about alleged voter fraud ever since President Bush narrowly won the White House in the chaotic 2000 election and Missouri Republican Sen. John Ashcroft lost to a dead man, the late Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan, whose name stayed on the ballot weeks after he died in a plane crash.

Joining the push to contain "voter fraud" were Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., who charged that votes by dogs and dead people had defeated Ashcroft, Missouri Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, whose stinging allegations of fraud were later debunked, <h2>and St. Louis lawyer Mark "Thor" Hearne, national counsel to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, who set up a nonprofit group to publicize allegations of voter fraud.</h2>

Many Democrats contend that the efforts amount to a voter-suppression campaign.

"The real problem has never been vote fraud," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo. "It's access to the polls. In the last 50 years, no one in Missouri has been prosecuted for impersonating someone else at the polls. But thousands of eligible voters have been denied their constitutional rights. . . . It's sickening.".....

Besides the president's hyped lies about voter fraud that wasn't there, the biggest impact of this propaganda "Op" was engineered by Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign "National Counsel", Marc Thor Hrearne who created the fake, "authorative" "American Center for Voting Rights" ACVR, which spread it's distortions about voter fraud, and then poof.....it disappeared.

<h3>Tell me, reconmike, if I don't have all this right, this deliberate attempt to destroy the non-partisan professionalism in the DOJ by Bush partisan criminals, what is the accurate account? Where is Thor Hearne's ACVR, read the Loyola Law Prof's article in SLATE.com, displayed above.....if ACVR was a legitimate organization describing an actual voting fraud problem?</h3>

Rekna · 03-10-2008, 09:07 PM

First, What Spitzer did was wrong and he should resign. Second, Craig and Vitter should follow. No self respecting person can call for the resignation of one of these without calling for all three anyone who does is blinded by politics and is the reason that this country is in the shitter.

Second, it is concerning that it took a whole week for the FBI to leak Spitzer fopah but took years to leak Vitters.... There is definitely a problem created by this administration of trying to use its office in order to further its political party illegally. From selective prosecution to stacking the justice department this administration has done far more to hurt this country than any terrorist ever has.

host · 03-10-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

First, What Spitzer did was wrong and he should resign. Second, Craig and Vitter should follow. No self respecting person can call for the resignation of one of these without calling for all three anyone who does is blinded by politics and is the reason that this country is in the shitter.

Second, it is concerning that it took a whole week for the FBI to leak Spitzer fopah but took years to leak Vitters.... There is definitely a problem created by this administration of trying to use its office in order to further its political party illegally. From selective prosecution to stacking the justice department this administration has done far more to hurt this country than any terrorist ever has.

Rekna, there were ten "Johns" included in the indictment 47 page telephone conversations transcript. Spitzer's Feb. 13 to Feb. 14 "transaction" consisting of 5 phone calls, takes up five pages of the 47 total. Why, since he is not charged yet with any crime, are only Spitzer's conversation transcript and identity made public?

This seems to be a Bush partisanized DOJ "Op". Here is how they work it. So far, the government sources "speak on condition of anonymity". They trickle out contradicting "morsels", observe the weak points in their "tale", and then deny whatever crap that they've spewed that fails to float...observe:

Last friday, before Spitzer was thrown in the "mix", the investigation was reported to have been initiated in "2006":

But more recently, they've advised to the NY Times that it began by accident, with Spitzer's money "transfer" to a "shell company". If the invetigation began with the prostitution "ring" in 2006, the FBI, once alerted by the IRS, would quickly know what the company was that received the wire transfer.

All of the other accounts, including the following article, and in the details included in the indictment, fail to describe any wire transfer payment from Spitzer. All we have to do is note the denials and revisions in coming articles.

Quote:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03072008...ers_100827.htm
5G/HR. HOOKERS
EMPEROR GALS GOT A KING'S RANSOM FOR SEX: FEDS
By JENNIFER FERMINO and CHUCK BENNETT

March 7, 2008

...The operation started to unravel after one of the hookers agreed to become a confidential source for the FBI in late 2006..

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/ny...nquire.html?hp
Revelations Began in Routine Tax Inquiry

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: March 11, 2008

....There, in the Hauppauge offices of the Internal Revenue Service, investigators conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks found <h3>several unusual movements</h3> of cash involving the governor of New York, several officials said.

The investigators working out of the three-story office building, which faces Veterans Highway, typically review such reports, the officials said. But this was not typical: transactions by a governor who appeared to be trying to conceal the source, destination or purpose <h3>of the movement</h3> of thousands of dollars in cash, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The money ended up in the bank accounts <h3>of what appeared to be shell companies,</h3> corporations that essentially had no real business.

The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes — maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators.

Soon, the I.R.S. agents, from the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division, were working with F.B.I. agents and federal prosecutors from Manhattan who specialize in political corruption.

The inquiry, like many such investigations, was a delicate one. Because the focus was a high-ranking government official, prosecutors were required to seek the approval of the United States attorney general to proceed. Once they secured that permission, the investigation moved forward.

At the outset, one official said, it seemed like a bread-and-butter inquiry into political corruption, the kind of case the F.B.I. squad, known internally by the designation C14, frequently pursues.

But before long, the investigators learned that the money <h3>was being moved</h3> to pay for sex and that the transactions were being manipulated to conceal Mr. Spitzer’s connection to payments for meetings with prostitutes, the official said.

Then, with the assistance of a confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using, the investigators were able to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service.

The wiretaps, along with the records of bank accounts held in the names of the shell companies, revealed a world of prostitutes catering to wealthy men. At the center was the Emperor’s Club, which arranged “dates” with more than 50 beautiful young women in New York, Paris, London, Miami and Washington.

But its finances moved through the shell companies — the QAT Consulting Group, QAT International and Protech Consulting — which held bank accounts into which clients wired their payments, according to court papers in the case.

One of the booking agents, a woman named Temeka Rachelle Lewis, 32, told a client that wiring his payments to QAT Consulting was safe because it would show up “like as a business transaction,” according to an affidavit filed in federal court the case.

But the transactions proved to be anything but safe for Mr. Spitzer, who, aides said on Monday, was weighing possible resignation.

Last week, Ms. Lewis was one of four people charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan with operating the prostitution ring. Also arrested were Mark Brener, 62, who is accused of heading the operation; Cecil Suwal, 23, who is said to have managed it day to day; and Tanya Hollander, 36, who worked part time as a booker.

The affidavit, which was unsealed on Thursday when the four were arrested, details the secretly recorded conversations that officials said captured Mr. Spitzer’s efforts to arrange a Washington meeting with a prostitute on Feb. 13. It also describes the young woman’s report to the booking agent on her encounter with the governor, shortly after it was concluded.

(Page 2 of 2)

The affidavit does not name the governor, <h3>nor does it name any of the other 10 men described as having purchased sex through the operation. Instead, it refers to them by number, with Mr. Spitzer, according to two law enforcement officials, listed as Client 9.

Mr. Spitzer’s cited rendezvous with the prostitute on Feb. 13 occupies five pages of the 47-page affidavit.</h3> The document recounts parts of a half-dozen conversations Client 9 had with Ms. Lewis, the booking agent, in the roughly 24 hours leading up to his meeting with the prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel.

They discussed whether his deposit would cover the young woman’s travel expenses, whether <h3>his payment had arrived — apparently by mail or overnight courier</h3> — and how she would be admitted to the hotel room he had reserved in Washington. At one point, when the booker tells him it will be a woman who went by the name Kristen, Client 9 said, “Great, O.K., wonderful,” according to the affidavit.

During the last conversation, he asked Ms. Lewis to remind him what Kristen looked like.

The conversations, according to the affidavit, were among more than 5,000 telephone calls and text messages that the federal authorities intercepted during the course of the investigation into the prostitution ring, which began last October. Investigators also seized more than 6,000 e-mail messages, bank records, and travel and hotel records, and conducted physical surveillance...

This entire section of the indictment documenting Spitzer's transaction supports the idea that he intended to make his payment untraceable....mailing cash to the prostitution service's address with no return address on the package.

So how does this practice...client 9 comments that he mailed payment, "same as in the past", come to the attention of the IRS through routine, legitimate means... Spitzer was a prosecutor, not one who would easily permit his payments to QAT to be traced back to him?

Quote:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...-complaint.pdf

PDF viewer pg 34

b. February 13, 2008, Interstate Transportation
From New York To Washinqton, D.C.
73. On February 11, 2008, at approximately 10:53 p.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the
6587 Number, sent a text message to CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie,"
a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. In the text
message, LEWIS wrote: 'Pls let me know if [Client-9's] 'package'
(believed to be a reference to a deposit of money sent by mail)
arrives 2mrw. Appt wd b on Wed." (Call 3728C). SUWAL sent a
text message back to LEWIS, stating: 'K." (Call 3731C).
74. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 2:37 p.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the
6587 Number, called a prostitute who the Emperors Club marketed

PDF viewer pg 35

using the name "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS left a message
for "Kristen" that the "deposit" had not arrived today, but that
they should be able to do the trip if the deposit arrived
tomorrow. (Call 9324R) . At approximately 4 : 03 p.m. , LEWIS
received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" said
that she had heard the message, and that was fine. LEWIS and
"Kristen" then discussed the time that "Kristen" would take the
train from New York to Washington, D.C. LEWIS told "Kristen"
that there was a 5:39 p.m. train that arrived at 9:00 p.m., and
that "Kristen" would be taking the train out of Penn Station.
LEWIS confirmed that Client-9 would be paying for everything -
train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room
service, travel time, and hotel. LEWIS said that they would \
probably not know until 3 p.m. if the deposit arrived because
Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring. (Call
9362) .

75. At approximately 8:12 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that
the "package" did not arrive today. <h3>LEWIS asked Client-9 if
there was a return address on the envelope, and Client-9 said no.
LEWIS asked: "You had QAT . . .," and Client-9 said: "Yup, same
as in the past, no question about it."</h3> LEWIS asked Client-9 what
time he was interested in having the appointment tomorrow.
Client-9 told her 9:00 p.m. or 10:OO p.m. LEWIS told Client-9 to
call her back in five minutes. (Call 9460R) .

76. At approximately 8:14 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called
MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, at the 0937 Number.
During the call, LEWIS told BRENER that Client-9 had just called
about an appointment for tomorrow, and that he had around $400 or
$500 credit. SUWAL said that she did not feel comfortable saying
that Client-9 had a $400 credit when she did not know that for a
fact. SUWAL and BRENER talked in the background about whether
Client-9 could proceed with the appointment without his deposit
having arrived. (Call 9462R). At approximately 8:23 p.m., LEWIS
called Client-9, and told him that the 'office" said he could not
proceed with the appointment with his available credit. After
discussing ways to resolve the situation, LEWIS and Client-9 I
agreed to speak the following day. (Call 9467R) .
77. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 9:22 p.m.,
TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the
6587 Number, sent a text message to ''Kristen." In the text
message, LEWIS wrote: 'If D.C. appt. happens u will need 2 leave

PDF viewer pg 36

NYC @ 4:45pm. Is that possible?" (Call 9515R). "Kristen" wrote
back: "Yes." (Call 9516R) .
78. At approximately 3 : 2 0 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that
they were still trying to determine if his deposit had arrived.
Client-9 told LEWIS that he had made a re'servation at the hotel,
and had paid for it in his name. Client-9 said that there would
be a key waiting for her, and told LEWIS that what he had on
account with her covered the "transportation" (believed to be a
reference to the cost of the trainfare for "Kristen" from New
York to Washington, D.C.). LEWIS said that she would try to make
it work. (Call 9636R). At approximately 3:24 p.m., LEWIS, using
the 6587 Number, called CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate,"
the defendant, at the 3390 Number. LEWIS explained to SUWAL what
Client-9 had proposed. SUWAL told LEWIS she would call her back.
(Call 9642R) . At approximately 3 : 53 p.m., MARK BRENER, a/k/a
"Michael," the defendant, using the 0937 Number, called LEWIS at
the 6587 Number. BRENER and LEWIS discussed the problem about
Client-9's deposit. (Call 9654R). At approximately 4:18 p.m.,
SUWAL, using the 3390 Number, sent a text message to LEWIS at the
6587 Number, stating: "[Plackage arrived. Pls be sure he rsvp
hotel." (Call 9659R) .
79. At approximately 4:21 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a "Rachelle, " the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called
"Kri~ten.~Du ring the call, LEWIS told "Kristen" that the
package had arrived, and that "theyu (believed to be a reference
to MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," and CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie,"
a/k/a "Kate," the defendants) just got the mail. LEWIS told
"Kristen" to get to Penn Station and call her when she picked up
her tickets. (Call 9661R) . At approximately 4 :48 p.m., LEWIS
sent a text message to "Kristen," stating: "TRAIN INFO Departing
from Penn St. Arriving 8 Union St. Washington, DC NYC to DC Train
# 129 Dep. 5:39pm Arr. 9pm." (Call 9G79R). At approximately
4:54 p.m., LEWIS sent another text message to "KristenItts tating:
"TRAIN INFO Return trip DC to NYC Train #84 Dep. 2/14 8:35pm Arr.
ll:57am." (Call 9683R).
80. At approximately 4:58 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS,
a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received
an incoming call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told
Client-9 that his package arrived today, and Client-9 said good.
LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was expecting to have the
appointment. Client-9 told LEWIS maybe 10:OO p.m. or so, and
asked who it was. LEWIS said it was "Kristen," and Client-9 said...

levite · 03-11-2008, 01:25 AM

Nonviolent "vice" crimes are a complete waste of time and resources. No Federal crime-fighting entity should spend any time on them, and local police forces should make them minimum priority. Few things irritate me more than seeing my tax dollars paying for our government to hold up a hypocritical and archaic moral standard about sex, or an ignorant and racist standard for drug use. As far as I'm concerned, so long as no one gets hurt, the government has no business playing zipper patrol, or checking what people put in their pipes and smoke.

I look at investigations like this, and I think, "How much did this cost?" How much could we have improved a public school, or how many poor kids could we have fed lunch, or how many people's health care could have been paid, by the money we just pissed away to out a bunch of people who were fucking.

All I can see is that the FBI just spent a huge amount of money, and devoted an enormous amount of its resources away from catching murderers, rapists, armed robbers, and terrorists in order for us to find out two things:

1. Men will pay for sex, even if it's illegal.
2. A politician turned out to be a hypocrite.

Yeah, that's money well spent.

The_Jazz · 03-11-2008, 04:58 AM

Gee, host, could Spitzer have made some enemies in the corporate world when he was AG? Nah, couldn't be. It could NEVER happen that someone with an axe to grind would get wind of this investigation and start a leak. I mean it's not like Spitzer managed to get a billionaire fired from his own company or anything. Or that he hammered Wall Street with corruption charges.

And FBI officials with law school friends on Wall Street would NEVER let something gossip about something juicy like this.

Host, you LOVE to see conspiracies among the Republicans. Your world seems to be either black or white. I see shades of grey and admit that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You've never made any such admission.

You've supplied no proof that this was a DoJ "hit job" as you put it. You can "suspect" all you want, but you have zero proof of that. Regardless of how much information you try to bury me under (and I suspect that's coming since it's your trademark), it will be, at best, vague speculation until someone comes forth and admits it. Which we both know will never happen. And that makes my theory equal yours in credibility.

dc_dux · 03-11-2008, 05:05 AM

Jazz.....I agree that the Spitzer case may be shades of gray.

But its harder for me not to see black and white when top DoJ and FBI officials comment:

"Since 9/11, we have had to prioritize how we use our resources, placing our national security programs first. But at the same time, we made public corruption our top criminal investigative priority."

and then come to find that democrat officials represent about 48% of all elected officials nationwide, but have been the subject of 70+% of the DoJ investigations/indictments of elected officials over the last seven years.

The_Jazz · 03-11-2008, 05:30 AM

Corrolation does not equal causation.

The "outrage" here is over Spitzer. Not anything that happened (or, possibly, didn't happen) in Alabama. Do I think it's possible the DoJ has targeted prominent Democrats? I'll go farther and say that they probably did. Did those Democrats break any laws? Again, they probably did. Should the DoJ be going after more Republicans? Yes.

But this is about Spitzer. He broke the law. He pissed a lot of powerful people off. When they got the chance to hit him back, they did. And you know what? They were right to do so. Again, he broke the law. It sucks to be him.

Personally, I'd just as soon treat all elected officials with the same level of respect across the board. That means that I assume that they aren't dirty until I see a reasonable amount of proof or hard facts. There are folks on this board, on both the left and the right, that assume that the other side is dirty just because it's the other side. I refuse to play that game.

dc_dux · 03-11-2008, 06:47 AM

Jazz....if you want to make this solely about Spitzer, thats fine.

I think there is a much broader issue at play that gets to the question of the OP:

Is this the best use of the FBI's Resources if there is a real War on Terror?

This administration has made public corruption the highest priority for investigation after national security and above violent crime covered by federal law, crimes against children, civil rights violations, and other white collar crime.

Then went on to actively initiate or pursue investigations against Democrats at a far greater rate than Republicans.

There is compelling evidence that the firing of the US attorneys is directly related to the unwillingness of some of those attorneys to pursue public corruption when none existed or were pressured to expend an inordinate amount of resources to target Democrats at the expense of other investigations.

The system of justice is undermined even by a perception of such politicization and it places a cloud over every investigation, including the Spitzer case.

The_Jazz · 03-11-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Corrolation does not equal causation.

dc_dux · 03-11-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The system of justice is undermined even by a perception of such politicization and it places a cloud over every investigation, including the Spitzer case.

The_Jazz · 03-11-2008, 08:53 AM

Well, I'm not going to fall into the trap of quoting myself again. We won't get anywhere with that.

I think that Spitzer falls outside of this "cloud" based on who he is, what he's done in the past and what he did to draw attention to himself in the first place.

Spitzer was arguably the second highest profile governor in the country behind Schwartzenager last week. He moved money around in a way designed to hide it. The banks, by law, were required to report it. The FBI, again by law, was required to investigate it. It turns out he was actually doing something illegal, just not what they thought.

Is the White House happy this happened? There's no way that I could argue that they aren't with a straight face. Does that mean that they went out and set him up? Not at all. The guy knew what he was doing and pursued it full force. It was an illegal act, and he knew it.

Explain to me exactly where the vast right wing conspiracy is in this one again.

dc_dux · 03-11-2008, 09:04 AM

Jazz....I am not suggesting a right wing conspiracy in this case...even if Hank Greenburg was a Bush "pioneer" and a buddy of Rove.

Its clear that the larger issue of selective prosecution is not of interest here.

I will save it for another discussion....perhaps after the US District Court rules on the recent House contempt of Congress charges against Bolton and Miers who refused, under orders from Bush, to answer questions about the possible firing of the US attorneys for political reasons.

Quote:

The House Judiciary Committee Monday went to court to enforce its contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, arguing that the Bush administration has no right to block them from testifying about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-03-10.html

The_Jazz · 03-11-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I will save it for another discussion....perhaps after the US District Court rules on the recent House contempt of Congress charges against Bolton and Miers who refused, under orders from Bush, to answer questions about the possible firing of the US attorneys for political reasons.

For the record, I fully support the House action and hope and expect for it to move swiftly through the courts.

And equally for the record, Greenberg knew about the B bids for Marsh that brought him down. That's been established quite well by this point. He alse knew exactly what he was doing with the CV Starr stock and manipulated it like the master he is. I like him personally, and I respect most of what he's done over his career. I still do several million dollars of business with him at CV Starr now. That said, he had his hand in the cookie jar and deserved to get it slapped. If he were part of this conversation, I'd tell him that. And I'd also ask him what he was thinking allowing his son to get appointed chairman of Marsh.

florida0214 · 03-11-2008, 05:42 PM

If only this much effort was taken to expose every corrupt politician. We would use us all of our resources and domestic terrorism would be rampant.

I say yeah to sacking politicians. Then again, they are all pretty much doing the same things. Some are better at hiding it then others.

dksuddeth · 03-12-2008, 05:59 AM

would this investigation also be a cleverly orchestrated strong arm tactic of bush's?

host · 03-12-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Gee, host, could Spitzer have made some enemies in the corporate world when he was AG? Nah, couldn't be. It could NEVER happen that someone with an axe to grind would get wind of this investigation and start a leak. I mean it's not like Spitzer managed to get a billionaire fired from his own company or anything. Or that he hammered Wall Street with corruption charges.

And FBI officials with law school friends on Wall Street would NEVER let something gossip about something juicy like this.

Host, you LOVE to see conspiracies among the Republicans. Your world seems to be either black or white. I see shades of grey and admit that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You've never made any such admission.

You've supplied no proof that this was a DoJ "hit job" as you put it. You can "suspect" all you want, but you have zero proof of that. Regardless of how much information you try to bury me under (and I suspect that's coming since it's your trademark), it will be, at best, vague speculation until someone comes forth and admits it. Which we both know will never happen. And that makes my theory equal yours in credibility.

I'm not going to do anything other than what I always do, and that is to use this amazing internet medium to put in front of you, the info that shapes my opinion. You insist that it be presented in USA Today "Mcnews" length "snippets", but that is not how I think it best to present it. Neither do the folks who put together the NY Times and the Washington Post.

I am sharing some points that I am in agreement with, and you probably are not.

If you think this thread and the points I've posted in it are "off the mark", please consider the following observations and opinion, and then take another look at the "kindergarten" the "Spitzer" thread has deteriorated to.

It's almost as if Mr. Greenwald waded through that thread and then wrote what appears below, isn't it?

I could see what has overtaken the "Spitzer" thread, happening in a "general discussion" forum, but it's discouraging, yet not unexpected to see it happening in this forum. I'm not "the problem" in "the Politics" forum, The_Jazz, and you do me a disservice posting like you did in your post I've quoted. You encourage the wrong "direction" on this forum, sometimes, and you certainly attempt to discourage me for the method and the direction I try to take it and keep it going towards.

I am pleased to set this thread next to the "Spitzer" thread for a side by side comparison. Which thread is intended to influence you to think, and which one sets a course that could lead you to end up trading "fart" jokes?

Who is it, if you had to pick one TFP Politics forum participant, that, time and again, predictably attempts to "raise the bar" on this forum? Is it the posters who have made the "Spitzer" thread, what it has become? Is it you?

Take a quick glance at your last ten posts on this forum that do not include orange colored text, and then glance at my last ten. Do my practices here really warrant what you sent at me? Do you see "a problem" over at the "Spitzer" thread? Might you scrape it up and transfer it over to "general discussion" so it stops stinking up this place?

I think you and I see different potential for this forum. That's fine, but the position I'm trying to set the bar in, no matter how partisan or biased you think my views are (I do support, to the best of my ability, a high percentage of the opinions I post), doesn't anticipate pages #2 and #3 of the "Spitzer" thread.

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ion/index.html

........* All decent people agree that what Eliot Spitzer did is repulsive, morally disgusting and totally nauseating -- which is why it's so important to learn about and report on every last titillating detail about what he did, the kind of sex he had, with whom he had it, how many times he had it, and <a href="http://www.pagesix.com/story/spitzer+s+hooker+revealed">what his partners looked like</a>-- <h3>because it's all so completely appalling that it's critical that we stay fully informed.</h3>

* Because Eliot Spitzer is a wretched hypocrite who mercilessly and cruelly prosecuted others for the very acts in which he himself engaged, and because he's so very sleazy, there's <a href="http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/11/eliots-mess/">no reason to question</a> the vast, <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/12/campos-was-spitzer-targeted/">extraordinary law enforcement resources expended</a> -- <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/12/campos-was-spitzer-targeted/">under highly unusual circumstances</a> -- by the Bush DOJ and FBI to investigate a crime that the Federal Government almost never prosecutes. Therefore, here's what we should ignore in order to focus on the much more important matters of Spitzer's sex life and his relationship with his wife (which is very much our concern), from today's <a href="http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page94?oid=198602&sn=Detail">The Wall St. Journal</a>:

<h3>It isn't clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases; search warrants usually suffice. Wiretap applications generally are reserved for serious crimes, such as drug, weapons and terrorism-related cases. There typically are no more than 1,400 wiretaps in use nationwide at any given time.</h3>

* Governors who hire adult prostitutes must resign immediately lest the public trust be forever sullied. Presidents who break the law by spying on Americans with no warrants, who torture people in violation of multiple treaties and statutes, who start hideously destructive wars based on false pretenses, who repeatedly proclaim the power to ignore laws, and who imprison people -- including Americans -- with no charges of any kind, should remain in office for as long as they want. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an irresponsible, shrill, partisan radical.

UPDATE: Caveats that should be unnecessary but won't be:

Yes, prostitution is against the law in New York. No, Eliot Spitzer is not entitled to break the law. Yes, Eliot Spitzer should be treated the same as any average citizen who hires prostitutes (neither better nor worse). No, I have no sympathy for Spitzer personally given how aggressively he prosecuted multiple prostitution cases and how guilty he is of rank hypocrisy and overzealous prosecutions....

loquitur · 03-13-2008, 09:13 AM

Host, there is a "public integrity" section in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of NY. Its function is to deal with wrongdoing by high-ranking people. That's what it exists to do. Do a bit of a search and you'll see they have gone after people in both parties. The SDNY US Atty's office is (from personal experience) highly professional. Yes, local US Attys need clearance from DC to follow leads that point to high-ranking elected officials. That doesn't mean this was a partisan witch-hunt. Remember, young prosecutors make their names by taking down big shots. Thus has it ever been, thus ever will it be.

Host, are you really arguing that if some Republican officeholder in NY was paying for hookers by carefully calibrated wire transfers, and the SDNY USAO got info about it from the IRS who got info from the banks, that the SDNY USAO Public Integrity section wouldn't investigate, and possibly prosecute? That's just not realistic - they live for this stuff.

Willravel · 03-13-2008, 09:20 AM

The best use of the FBIs resources would be to gather evidence against the president, vice president, both current and previous secretaries of state, both current and previous secretaries of defense, and several other key political dumb fucks, and then present the evidence to the House and Senate.

I'd be really happy with the FBI after that.

loquitur · 03-13-2008, 09:46 AM

yeah, the purpose of law enforcement is to help you grind your political axes. Good one, will.

Willravel · 03-13-2008, 09:54 AM

The FBI investigates federal crimes. This isn't rocket science.

loquitur · 03-13-2008, 10:49 AM

yeah, the ones YOU think need to be prosecuted.

I have a healthy fear of and respect for prosecutors and prosecutorial discretion, Will. You should read Title 18 of the US Code one day. It will send a chill of fear down your spine to see how much is illegal and how easy it is to catch just about anyone on some violation or other. A huge part of the reason this isn't a police state is that the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have guidelines for exercising their discretion as to where the enforcement resources get used and under what circumstances.

I once was able to talk a US Attorney's Office and a division of the DOJ out of prosecuting a client - but let me tell you, it was a real nail biter for a while, and the guy who was suing my client hired a well-connected law firm to lobby for a prosecution. It turns out that I persuaded them that what my client did wasn't a crime. But it's very clear that this is a serious power that the govt has, and it has to be exercised wisely. It isn't always. The thought of converting it into a political tool is a horror.

Willravel · 03-13-2008, 10:59 AM

A federal crime is a federal crime, regardless of Title 18.

Title 18, part 1, chapter 19, § 371

host · 03-13-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Host, there is a "public integrity" section in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of NY. Its function is to deal with wrongdoing by high-ranking people. That's what it exists to do. Do a bit of a search and you'll see they have gone after people in both parties. The SDNY US Atty's office is (from personal experience) highly professional. <h2>Yes, local US Attys need clearance from DC to follow leads that point to high-ranking elected officials.</h2> That doesn't mean this was a partisan witch-hunt. Remember, young prosecutors make their names by taking down big shots. Thus has it ever been, thus ever will it be.

Host, are you really arguing that if some Republican officeholder in NY was paying for hookers by carefully calibrated wire transfers, and the SDNY USAO got info about it from the IRS who got info from the banks, that the SDNY USAO Public Integrity section wouldn't investigate, and possibly prosecute? That's just not realistic - they live for this stuff.

Quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...60908320080311
Probe that snared Spitzer did not need OK from top

Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:38pm

.....A federal official said Justice Department headquarters in Washington had been aware of the prostitution probe, but the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, which led the investigation, had not requested approval to go forward.

"The United States attorney <h3>was not required to seek, and did not seek, approval of the attorney general or the deputy attorney general with respect to any investigative steps taken in this matter,"</h3> the official said........

....and loquitur, point me to any attributed public statement by anyone from federal law enforcement or DOJ, aside from US Attorney fo SDNY Garcia's denial that Spitzer's resignation was linked to any discussion with Garcia's office related to criminal charges, that refers to Spitzer related to this prostitution ring indictment.

In addition to the news article I've provided contradicting your lofty description of the investigative approval process, how has the distribution of confidential investigative information in this case, how it relates to Spitzer, been anything other than an unattributed smear campaign of leaks communicated by unidenitified DOJ and Federal LE officials to the media?

Contrast how the DOJ had conducted this investigation compared to Fitzgerald's investigation and containment of leaks in the Libby matter.

Post one attributed statement about Spitzer and the indictment from a government official....one, loquitur !

loquitur · 03-13-2008, 11:55 AM

I had read that the local USAO did seek and get a green light once Spitzer's name popped up. That was yesterday.

And host, don't rely on news articles to tell me how investigations go. I worked in the SDNY courthouse, and I can tell you that reporters ALWAYS got it wrong on the cases I worked on. If you want to know how investigatiosn are run, pull down the flippin' DOJ guidelines and read them. Also the AUSA manual.

The Public Integrity section lawyers were the ones behind Garcia during the news conf, and they were given a special private area in the USAO to work on the case, precisely to prevent premature leaks. You didn't hear anything until after the indictment, did you? It was three relatively junior AUSAs who did the legwork on this one. Your mind is running away with conspiracy theories.

When yo'ure done reading the DOJ guidelines and the AUSA manual, come back and we'll talk. I'm not interested in what the NY Times says.

EDIT: host, I didn't mean to be snotty in this post, but I spent three years in law school, a year of a judicial clerkship and 24 years in legal practice, and I got pretty annoyed having you lecture me about how the legal process works, based on - of all things - an article in the NY Times.

echo5delta · 03-17-2008, 10:56 AM

Partisan bullshit aside, my first reaction to the heavy-handedness of the FBI in this case is that there's some potential for the Feds to invoke the RICO act, since there were hookers and/or clients crossing state lines.

I AM NOT AN ACTUAL LAW-TTORNEY, but RICO could potentially be invoked. I don't know how likely that is, but it came up during some discussion with friends last week.

It is, after all, racketeering in a sense. And apparently the legal profession has twisted the hell out of RICO already.

Just a thought. Loquitur, you or other professionals feel free to tell me how full of shit I may be. *wink*

loquitur · 03-17-2008, 02:30 PM

it might technically come within the RICO statute, depending on the extent of the ongoing contacts with the principals - but I have to tell you, most federal district judges would be enormously pissed if some prosecutor tried making this into a racketeering case, and would say so. This isn't what the RICO statute was designed for. Well, maybe the principals might be vulnerable to a RICO count - maybe. Spitzer? Doubtful.

Most of my experience with RICO is on the civil side, and I have yet to have a RICO claim survive a motion to dismiss. (Of course, I was on the defendants' side in those cases, so I'm happy).

03-10-2008, 04:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Let me get this straight - you think that the FBI should just stop all domestic crime-fighting? Or that it's the message that's being sent? Because I vehemently disagree with either sentiment. The FBI is an internal force only. They look for terrorists here on our shores, among other things. So host, where was your outrage last year when they handed down indictments on the Chicago Outfit? A quick search reveal 0 threads or comments by you about that. Inconsistent much? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-10-2008, 05:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	host, are you saying that the spitzer investigation and the microscope on chicago are strongarm tactics being used against democrats? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-10-2008, 06:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Could it be possibly that the Dems are just a wee bit more corrupt than the repubs? Because I know in Jersey they are a hell of a lot more corrupt. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-10-2008, 06:50 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	mike.....do the numbers nationwide - state, local, federal (Dems more than 4x Repubs) reflect a "wee bit" to you? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-10-2008 at 06:52 PM..

03-10-2008, 07:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Sweet kool-ade, you'll have plenty of Obama fainters and sheep to sell it too, shame though you'll be taxed to holy fuck on your profits. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-10-2008, 06:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
host Banned	I'm going to set up a stand and sell kool-ade on this forum. The impenetrability of the belief system, exhibited time and time again in the posts, explains why no amount of information will influence anyone who knows what they know. dc_dux, you could post stats that show no republican prosecutions, only prosecution of democrats and independents, and some would still not question the motives of the Bush administration or of it's DOJ.

03-10-2008, 07:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	mike....you ignored my question. Given than there are only about 5-8% more Dem elected officials nationwide than Repub.....do you think 4x the number of DoJ initiated investigations of Dems reflects a "wee bit" or might they appear to objective observers as a bit skewed? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-10-2008 at 07:11 PM..

03-10-2008, 07:15 PM	#13 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I wasn't ignoring your question DC, your graph shows investigations AND indictments, I want to find a graph of just investigations and just indictments, to base my judgement if there is any bias. Reason being is that if the dems were investigated 100 times in 2007 and there were 5 indictments, and there were 25 repub investigations and 0 indictments,that might warrant saying that they could have been politicly motivated. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-10-2008, 09:07 PM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	First, What Spitzer did was wrong and he should resign. Second, Craig and Vitter should follow. No self respecting person can call for the resignation of one of these without calling for all three anyone who does is blinded by politics and is the reason that this country is in the shitter. Second, it is concerning that it took a whole week for the FBI to leak Spitzer fopah but took years to leak Vitters.... There is definitely a problem created by this administration of trying to use its office in order to further its political party illegally. From selective prosecution to stacking the justice department this administration has done far more to hurt this country than any terrorist ever has.

03-11-2008, 01:25 AM	#18 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	Nonviolent "vice" crimes are a complete waste of time and resources. No Federal crime-fighting entity should spend any time on them, and local police forces should make them minimum priority. Few things irritate me more than seeing my tax dollars paying for our government to hold up a hypocritical and archaic moral standard about sex, or an ignorant and racist standard for drug use. As far as I'm concerned, so long as no one gets hurt, the government has no business playing zipper patrol, or checking what people put in their pipes and smoke. I look at investigations like this, and I think, "How much did this cost?" How much could we have improved a public school, or how many poor kids could we have fed lunch, or how many people's health care could have been paid, by the money we just pissed away to out a bunch of people who were fucking. All I can see is that the FBI just spent a huge amount of money, and devoted an enormous amount of its resources away from catching murderers, rapists, armed robbers, and terrorists in order for us to find out two things: 1. Men will pay for sex, even if it's illegal. 2. A politician turned out to be a hypocrite. Yeah, that's money well spent. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

03-11-2008, 04:58 AM	#19 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Gee, host, could Spitzer have made some enemies in the corporate world when he was AG? Nah, couldn't be. It could NEVER happen that someone with an axe to grind would get wind of this investigation and start a leak. I mean it's not like Spitzer managed to get a billionaire fired from his own company or anything. Or that he hammered Wall Street with corruption charges. And FBI officials with law school friends on Wall Street would NEVER let something gossip about something juicy like this. Host, you LOVE to see conspiracies among the Republicans. Your world seems to be either black or white. I see shades of grey and admit that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You've never made any such admission. You've supplied no proof that this was a DoJ "hit job" as you put it. You can "suspect" all you want, but you have zero proof of that. Regardless of how much information you try to bury me under (and I suspect that's coming since it's your trademark), it will be, at best, vague speculation until someone comes forth and admits it. Which we both know will never happen. And that makes my theory equal yours in credibility. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-11-2008, 05:05 AM	#20 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Jazz.....I agree that the Spitzer case may be shades of gray. But its harder for me not to see black and white when top DoJ and FBI officials comment: "Since 9/11, we have had to prioritize how we use our resources, placing our national security programs first. But at the same time, we made public corruption our top criminal investigative priority." and then come to find that democrat officials represent about 48% of all elected officials nationwide, but have been the subject of 70+% of the DoJ investigations/indictments of elected officials over the last seven years. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-11-2008 at 05:09 AM..

03-11-2008, 05:30 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Corrolation does not equal causation. The "outrage" here is over Spitzer. Not anything that happened (or, possibly, didn't happen) in Alabama. Do I think it's possible the DoJ has targeted prominent Democrats? I'll go farther and say that they probably did. Did those Democrats break any laws? Again, they probably did. Should the DoJ be going after more Republicans? Yes. But this is about Spitzer. He broke the law. He pissed a lot of powerful people off. When they got the chance to hit him back, they did. And you know what? They were right to do so. Again, he broke the law. It sucks to be him. Personally, I'd just as soon treat all elected officials with the same level of respect across the board. That means that I assume that they aren't dirty until I see a reasonable amount of proof or hard facts. There are folks on this board, on both the left and the right, that assume that the other side is dirty just because it's the other side. I refuse to play that game. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-11-2008, 06:47 AM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Jazz....if you want to make this solely about Spitzer, thats fine. I think there is a much broader issue at play that gets to the question of the OP: Is this the best use of the FBI's Resources if there is a real War on Terror? This administration has made public corruption the highest priority for investigation after national security and above violent crime covered by federal law, crimes against children, civil rights violations, and other white collar crime. Then went on to actively initiate or pursue investigations against Democrats at a far greater rate than Republicans. There is compelling evidence that the firing of the US attorneys is directly related to the unwillingness of some of those attorneys to pursue public corruption when none existed or were pressured to expend an inordinate amount of resources to target Democrats at the expense of other investigations. The system of justice is undermined even by a perception of such politicization and it places a cloud over every investigation, including the Spitzer case. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-11-2008 at 06:52 AM..

03-11-2008, 08:53 AM	#25 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Well, I'm not going to fall into the trap of quoting myself again. We won't get anywhere with that. I think that Spitzer falls outside of this "cloud" based on who he is, what he's done in the past and what he did to draw attention to himself in the first place. Spitzer was arguably the second highest profile governor in the country behind Schwartzenager last week. He moved money around in a way designed to hide it. The banks, by law, were required to report it. The FBI, again by law, was required to investigate it. It turns out he was actually doing something illegal, just not what they thought. Is the White House happy this happened? There's no way that I could argue that they aren't with a straight face. Does that mean that they went out and set him up? Not at all. The guy knew what he was doing and pursued it full force. It was an illegal act, and he knew it. Explain to me exactly where the vast right wing conspiracy is in this one again. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-11-2008, 05:42 PM	#28 (permalink)
florida0214 Crazy Location: South Florida	If only this much effort was taken to expose every corrupt politician. We would use us all of our resources and domestic terrorism would be rampant. I say yeah to sacking politicians. Then again, they are all pretty much doing the same things. Some are better at hiding it then others. __________________ "Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

03-12-2008, 05:59 AM	#29 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	would this investigation also be a cleverly orchestrated strong arm tactic of bush's? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

03-13-2008, 09:13 AM	#31 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, there is a "public integrity" section in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of NY. Its function is to deal with wrongdoing by high-ranking people. That's what it exists to do. Do a bit of a search and you'll see they have gone after people in both parties. The SDNY US Atty's office is (from personal experience) highly professional. Yes, local US Attys need clearance from DC to follow leads that point to high-ranking elected officials. That doesn't mean this was a partisan witch-hunt. Remember, young prosecutors make their names by taking down big shots. Thus has it ever been, thus ever will it be. Host, are you really arguing that if some Republican officeholder in NY was paying for hookers by carefully calibrated wire transfers, and the SDNY USAO got info about it from the IRS who got info from the banks, that the SDNY USAO Public Integrity section wouldn't investigate, and possibly prosecute? That's just not realistic - they live for this stuff.

03-13-2008, 09:20 AM	#32 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The best use of the FBIs resources would be to gather evidence against the president, vice president, both current and previous secretaries of state, both current and previous secretaries of defense, and several other key political dumb fucks, and then present the evidence to the House and Senate. I'd be really happy with the FBI after that.

03-13-2008, 09:46 AM	#33 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	yeah, the purpose of law enforcement is to help you grind your political axes. Good one, will.

03-13-2008, 09:54 AM	#34 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The FBI investigates federal crimes. This isn't rocket science.

03-13-2008, 10:49 AM	#35 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	yeah, the ones YOU think need to be prosecuted. I have a healthy fear of and respect for prosecutors and prosecutorial discretion, Will. You should read Title 18 of the US Code one day. It will send a chill of fear down your spine to see how much is illegal and how easy it is to catch just about anyone on some violation or other. A huge part of the reason this isn't a police state is that the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have guidelines for exercising their discretion as to where the enforcement resources get used and under what circumstances. I once was able to talk a US Attorney's Office and a division of the DOJ out of prosecuting a client - but let me tell you, it was a real nail biter for a while, and the guy who was suing my client hired a well-connected law firm to lobby for a prosecution. It turns out that I persuaded them that what my client did wasn't a crime. But it's very clear that this is a serious power that the govt has, and it has to be exercised wisely. It isn't always. The thought of converting it into a political tool is a horror.

03-13-2008, 10:59 AM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	A federal crime is a federal crime, regardless of Title 18. Title 18, part 1, chapter 19, § 371

03-13-2008, 11:55 AM	#38 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I had read that the local USAO did seek and get a green light once Spitzer's name popped up. That was yesterday. And host, don't rely on news articles to tell me how investigations go. I worked in the SDNY courthouse, and I can tell you that reporters ALWAYS got it wrong on the cases I worked on. If you want to know how investigatiosn are run, pull down the flippin' DOJ guidelines and read them. Also the AUSA manual. The Public Integrity section lawyers were the ones behind Garcia during the news conf, and they were given a special private area in the USAO to work on the case, precisely to prevent premature leaks. You didn't hear anything until after the indictment, did you? It was three relatively junior AUSAs who did the legwork on this one. Your mind is running away with conspiracy theories. When yo'ure done reading the DOJ guidelines and the AUSA manual, come back and we'll talk. I'm not interested in what the NY Times says. EDIT: host, I didn't mean to be snotty in this post, but I spent three years in law school, a year of a judicial clerkship and 24 years in legal practice, and I got pretty annoyed having you lecture me about how the legal process works, based on - of all things - an article in the NY Times. Last edited by loquitur; 03-13-2008 at 12:08 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

03-17-2008, 10:56 AM	#39 (permalink)
echo5delta Crazy Location: Swamp Lagoon, North Cackalacky	Partisan bullshit aside, my first reaction to the heavy-handedness of the FBI in this case is that there's some potential for the Feds to invoke the RICO act, since there were hookers and/or clients crossing state lines. I AM NOT AN ACTUAL LAW-TTORNEY, but RICO could potentially be invoked. I don't know how likely that is, but it came up during some discussion with friends last week. It is, after all, racketeering in a sense. And apparently the legal profession has twisted the hell out of RICO already. Just a thought. Loquitur, you or other professionals feel free to tell me how full of shit I may be. wink __________________ "Peace" is when nobody's shooting. A "Just Peace" is when we get what we want. - Bill Mauldin

03-17-2008, 02:30 PM	#40 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	it might technically come within the RICO statute, depending on the extent of the ongoing contacts with the principals - but I have to tell you, most federal district judges would be enormously pissed if some prosecutor tried making this into a racketeering case, and would say so. This isn't what the RICO statute was designed for. Well, maybe the principals might be vulnerable to a RICO count - maybe. Spitzer? Doubtful. Most of my experience with RICO is on the civil side, and I have yet to have a RICO claim survive a motion to dismiss. (Of course, I was on the defendants' side in those cases, so I'm happy).