investigation of the prostitution ring itself was triggered by an investigation of Spitzer.

[napi21]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002589
(snip)

However, there is a second tier of questions that needs to be examined with respect to the Spitzer case. They go to prosecutorial motivation and direction. Note that this prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. This section is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions. During the Bush Administration, his Justice Department has opened 5.6 cases against Democrats for every one involving a Republican. Beyond this, a number of the cases seem to have been tied closely to election cycles. Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats. So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:
{/b]

The article was written by Scott Horton and he was interviewed on the Thom Hartmann show yesterday. He doesn't dispute that Spitzer broke the laws against prostitution, BUT it sure does look like the NY AG's were going after Elliott the same way they went after Siiegleman in Alabama. Scott's position is that Spitzer should resign BUT we also should investigate just how many laws were broken by the DOJ folks in their effort to "GET HIM"
no matter what it took.

It's an interesting read.

[ananda]

1. You should see the propaganda mongers at work on cable news.

They're saying that banks are required to report unusual or suspicious transactions or patterns,
that they were originally going after the prostitution ring and money-laundering and just sort of
found Spitzer there by accident and were then compelled to go after him.

Quite a spin, eh....

[theboss]

6. Well, banks ARE required to report suspiscious activity

That's been the law for nearly 40 years.

It seems like Spitzer led them to the prostitutes and not vice versa.

[BadgerLaw2010]

8. Anti-money laundering law is old news.

Any cash transaction over $10K is automatically reported. Doing what Spitzer did, chopping up money to get it under the flag and then trying to remove his name from the wires is also reported under what is known as a Suspicious Activity Report.

[Junkdrawer]

2. If they didn't get Spitzer EXACTLY when they did, NY State...

would have gone to Democrats for a generation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2988882&mesg_id=2988882

[napi21]

3. IF this investigation BEGAN with illegal wiretaps of Spitzer, that's

proof that it was a politically motivated attempt to bring down another Dem. Governor. The bank transfer & prostitution investigations came LATER! THOSE investigations coverup the illegal wire tapping!

[Junkdrawer]

5. If you're a politician, KKKarl has an EXTENSIVE file on you...

and he will use that information whenever he needs to. And he has a LARGE network of co-workers that will backfill apparent "triggers".

[BadgerLaw2010]

9. Who said anything about the wiretaps being illegal?

There is no reason to do that in an investigation of criminal activity, and several very good reasons not to do that. Chief among them is that you cannot use the evidence...oh snap!

It's not as if its hard to get wiretaps to investigate someone who is laundering money.

[napi21]

10. You misunderstood what I said. I, as well as several others, are

saying that Spitzers phones, emails, etc. were tapped BEFORE there were any suspicions of illegal activity. Similar to the case in Alabama where Rover asked the Pub lawyer to follow Ex Gov. Siegelman and try to get compromising pics of him. She DID follow him, but he wasn't doing anything wrong!

IF Spitzer's phones etc. were tapped JUST to try to find something they could use to bring him down, THAT'S ILLEGAL! The illegally obtained info on banking activity they heard about during the WT was used as the foundation to get the bank to issue the "Suspicious Activity Report".

[BadgerLaw2010]

11. Your assumption is irrational.

If the search you are conducting is not lawful, it taints everything that comes after it. "Plain view" does not apply when you weren't lawfully there in the first place. Illegal conduct can thus trash an entire investigation.

Which is why Feds don't tend to be stupid about this sort of thing.

And what good is warrantless blackmail? That's a crime in and of itself and one that will have tremendous blowback for anyone involved in it when it is discovered (i.e. used).

[kentuck]

4. Sort of like...

We found Monica while we were looking for something else?

[PSPS]

7. That's an important distinction

Law Enforcement is supposed to begin investigations with crimes, not people. In this case, it definitely does look like they were digging into Spitzer trying to find something to nail him with.