Calling all Kossacks to put away the tin foil
Since the Spitzer story broke only 11 hours ago I have seen a disturbing amount of diaries with spots that shine like tin foil (not to call out, but look on the rec list). Granted, with the Bush Justice Department we have ample evidence to be suspicious. Don Siegelman is likely only one of those we will discover to have been falsely prosecuted for political purposes. However, this does not mean that every Democrat investigated and convicted is the victim of conspiracy. I was planning to publish Part II of my series on voter behavior today. However, I felt this was important enough to postpone it. Also, it will take much less time (I've sadly got real work to do). Therefore, I have pulled together my reactions to various diaries and am putting them out for you to consider. It is not as well researched or substantive as I like my non-snark diaries to be, but it voices an opinion that seems to be oddly absent from the Kos community.
[Update] Well, there are now almost 1000 comments, a great many very misguided, on the Spitzer thread on the rec list. The place is covered in tin foil. For those of you who have taken the time to read this diary, thank you. I hope you found it interesting and are willing to hold back the instinct to accuse the DOJ before all the facts are in. I just want to say that we have truly done Don Siegelman a disservice if we lose the credibility to defend him against Justice Department corruption because of we've cried wolf here. As this story has developed I've gotten some things right and others wrong. My thanks to Tod and Over the Edge for their insight.
First, I have seen a trend in comments and diaries comparing the case of Spitzer with that of Don Siegelman. While they are both Democratic Governors indicted by this Administration, the comparison, in my view, stops there. Governor Siegelman purports to have been railroaded; and the facts seem to bear him out on this claim. Governor Spitzer, however, admits to having paid for prostitutes. This is a crucial difference and it would be a disservice to Governor Siegelman to ignore that. The danger in crying wolf is that we lose the credibility to advocate for those who were wrongly targeted.
Second, I have seen questions about why Governor Spitzer's bank alerted the IRS rather than asking him about the large transactions. The implication is that they were acting with some nefarious purpose. Without knowing the details of the case, the most probable answer is that it was following the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). It requires, amongst other provisions, that banks file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) with the IRS of all cash transactions involving $10,000 or more; or if multiple transactions add up to $10,000 or more within 24 hours. Reports on other sorts of transactions for which requirements are lower (most notably Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) where a bank has much more discretion to report transactions they find questionable) would have been filed with FinCEN, not the IRS; so the transaction we are considering is the withdrawal or transfer of a large amount of money (in cash).
Update Under reconsideration a Money Instrument Log (MIL) is another possibility. This would be filed if Governor Spitzer used a money order or cashiers check and also reported to the IRS.
Update The best description of the cash transactions I have seen so far is found here. However, the type of report it is purported to have been and the agency to which it was referred are inconsistent. There is at least a missing step; perhaps FinCEN referred the reports to the IRS for some reason? Regardless, Governor Spitzer comes off as shockingly boneheaded in the article. Moreover, it shows that the central issue of contention, which is the tin foil claim that an SAR was filed because the DOJ was watching Spitzer, is settled. The account activity was clearly the sort of thing that will set off alarms; no matter who does it.
The report to the IRS was not part of some conspiracy. The BSA is a good law; it is part of the everyday practice the government uses to catch money laundering. If a CTR comes up on a Governor's bank account, you want it checked on.
Third, there has been a lot of talk about the Mann Act. Yes, it does have a dubious history including its use for prosecution of (one of my comedic heroes) Charlie Chaplin. However, its intent is not bad; and this sort of offense seems to be just the sort of thing it was designed to criminalize. Questions about what the US government is doing prosecuting these cases are somewhat silly. Prosecutors go after prostitution rings. The Public-Integrity unit looks into money laundering charges, which seem to have been the origin of much of this. I understand that actions taken by the Bush DOJ demand extra scrutiny, but nothing here seems suspicious on face.
Finally, the insinuation that Bloomberg "knew something" really reaches for the tin foil. Contributions to Joe Bruno? Please. The fact that he is friends with A.G. Mukasey is evidence of nothing. Please, as our fearless leader oft says, "This is a reality based community."
I simply urge everyone to avoid innuendo.