Sunday, March 16, 2008
A CRUSADER BROUGHT DOWN
Bringing down Eliot Spitzer was quite an accomplishment for the feds in the Bush administration. Let us overlook for a moment the fact that it was indeed Mr. Spitzer himself who was caught arranging a meeting with a prostitute, and the negatives that entails. Let us look for a moment instead at just how and by whom this feat was accomplished.
Who did it? How? Why? Perhaps the answers are not all in, but some are.
If we had confidence that our federal system of justice works objectively and free of political considerations, then we would not now be raising questions.
But we need to be reminded of the backdrop of the unsettled controversy over politicized U.S. District Attorneys, the Attorney General’s resignation, and departure of Rove from the White House.
Evidence indicates that the prosecution powers of district attorneys had been perverted into political vendettas against democratic politicians in key races. Congress cannot get its subpoenas or contempt citations enforced by the Bush Justice Department to ferret out the details.
The prior democratic governor of Alabama is in prison on what appears to media analysts as trumped up charges and crooked political prosecution. Media observers are calling for his release, and discipline for those involved in that process. This, too, is a part of the backdrop.
Now, what are we told about how Mr. Spitzer’s indiscretions with the prostitution organization were found? Was there some local investigation of the prostitution ring where his name appeared as was true of other similar political cases in Washington? No?
Then just how did all this start? Was Mr. Spitzer a federal target? The answer is “Yes,” acknowledged by government spokespersons.
Apparently the laws designed to track drug money, organized crime activity, and tax evasion are applicable to any of us writing checks or transferring cash in amounts of $5,000 (or perhaps less). So, the IRS and the Justice Department can use this law selectively to snoop on public figures and any private citizens upon whom they desire to keep check. They admit doing so for Mr. Spitzer, a government figure.
This “routine” IRS check, which we had believed happens selectively to criminals or randomly to everybody, led to calling in the Justice Department and the FBI to launch a full scale investigation of these transactions. Finding that the funds had gone to suspicious entities that turned out to be fronts for prostitution, the FBI and federal prosecutors then sought and obtained a federal judge’s permission to wiretap of the governor’s telephones, monitor his e-mail mails, and text-messaging surveillance.
Sure enough, with all these resources brought to focus on Mr. Spitzer and his private affairs, they eventually wound up with his voice endangering the nation by arranging for services to be provided at the Mayflower Hotel.
Do we really believe that Mr. Spitzer has been caught and is probably guilty of procuring services of prostitutes as alleged? Sure.
Do we believe that his bank just happened to report Spitzer’s account for suspicious activity without a flag? Do we believe that federal tax officials just happened to be looking over his bank reports and spotted Mr. Spitzer’s transactions accidentally?
Do we believe that the IRS involves the whole federal machinery to investigate any and all such transactions for just anybody? Do we believe that Mr. Spitzer’s prominence as a democrat political leader had nothing at all to do with his records being examined, or with full federal investigative and prosecutorial power being brought to focus his personal affairs?
It would take a huge measure of credulity to answer “yes” to these questions. But if we cannot answer “yes” with any certainty, then we must raise the more significant questions of selective prosecution and political subversion of the federal regulatory and justice system.
If indeed the federal justice system has again been brought to bear upon either a guilty or an innocent individual for personal, partisan, or political reasons, then this is by far the most serious offense involved.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Who did it? How? Why? Perhaps the answers are not all in, but some are.
If we had confidence that our federal system of justice works objectively and free of political considerations, then we would not now be raising questions.
But we need to be reminded of the backdrop of the unsettled controversy over politicized U.S. District Attorneys, the Attorney General’s resignation, and departure of Rove from the White House.
Evidence indicates that the prosecution powers of district attorneys had been perverted into political vendettas against democratic politicians in key races. Congress cannot get its subpoenas or contempt citations enforced by the Bush Justice Department to ferret out the details.
The prior democratic governor of Alabama is in prison on what appears to media analysts as trumped up charges and crooked political prosecution. Media observers are calling for his release, and discipline for those involved in that process. This, too, is a part of the backdrop.
Now, what are we told about how Mr. Spitzer’s indiscretions with the prostitution organization were found? Was there some local investigation of the prostitution ring where his name appeared as was true of other similar political cases in Washington? No?
Then just how did all this start? Was Mr. Spitzer a federal target? The answer is “Yes,” acknowledged by government spokespersons.
Apparently the laws designed to track drug money, organized crime activity, and tax evasion are applicable to any of us writing checks or transferring cash in amounts of $5,000 (or perhaps less). So, the IRS and the Justice Department can use this law selectively to snoop on public figures and any private citizens upon whom they desire to keep check. They admit doing so for Mr. Spitzer, a government figure.
This “routine” IRS check, which we had believed happens selectively to criminals or randomly to everybody, led to calling in the Justice Department and the FBI to launch a full scale investigation of these transactions. Finding that the funds had gone to suspicious entities that turned out to be fronts for prostitution, the FBI and federal prosecutors then sought and obtained a federal judge’s permission to wiretap of the governor’s telephones, monitor his e-mail mails, and text-messaging surveillance.
Sure enough, with all these resources brought to focus on Mr. Spitzer and his private affairs, they eventually wound up with his voice endangering the nation by arranging for services to be provided at the Mayflower Hotel.
Do we really believe that Mr. Spitzer has been caught and is probably guilty of procuring services of prostitutes as alleged? Sure.
Do we believe that his bank just happened to report Spitzer’s account for suspicious activity without a flag? Do we believe that federal tax officials just happened to be looking over his bank reports and spotted Mr. Spitzer’s transactions accidentally?
Do we believe that the IRS involves the whole federal machinery to investigate any and all such transactions for just anybody? Do we believe that Mr. Spitzer’s prominence as a democrat political leader had nothing at all to do with his records being examined, or with full federal investigative and prosecutorial power being brought to focus his personal affairs?
It would take a huge measure of credulity to answer “yes” to these questions. But if we cannot answer “yes” with any certainty, then we must raise the more significant questions of selective prosecution and political subversion of the federal regulatory and justice system.
If indeed the federal justice system has again been brought to bear upon either a guilty or an innocent individual for personal, partisan, or political reasons, then this is by far the most serious offense involved.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
