when pigs fly! Remember how the media handled that case? The GOP didn't ask for him to resign. The judge refused to reveal the client list. It was only revealed because of Larry Flynt 'Hustler' Call May Have Prompted Vitter Admission. The girl from this case can sell her story, but the DC Madam couldn't sell her list or reveal it? Even to pay for her defense! OK so when will some one raise this point on TV? I have been waiting for several days? Why are they thinking of trying to prosecute him now that he is exposed? At last The New Republic has in "Was the investigation of Eliot Spitzer politically motivated?" But I can tell you how the corporate media will spin the story.
They will pick someone inarticulate aging liberal who can't drive home a point. Then they will have done the obligatory story on this point of view and move on. Remember Sen. Vitter ran on a family values platform? Where are the dem back benchers asking GOP spokeperson on the air, why they didn't call for his resignation? Why he didn't do the right thing like Elliot Spitzer did and resign? I mean come on does anyone think the GOP wouldn't do this? Why can't we get some fire spitting dems and progressives doing this? I have been trying to get on local talk radio to make this point. Why do we know who client #9, and #6 are from this list, but not from the DC Madams?
BTW this isn't a defense of Elliot Spitzer's conduct, I was always worried about him taking on all the billionares of Wall St. that makes enemies. But he did the right thing in resigning, and I hope he and his family can heal themselves, and he can get help with his addiction and learn to make better choices.
Just so everyone here understands why I'm raising this point. Forget about this case. People get distracted about any case involving sex (and race but that's another topic) look at how this justice department operates.
Spitzer's request that his name be removed could have been a legitimate trigger for an SAR. But there are some fair questions as to the claims about bribes. Thanks to his father's real estate fortune, Spitzer is an extremely wealthy man, and his channeling of payments at the level suggested can hardly be viewed as something that raises legitimate suspicion. As money laundering goes, $40,000 to $80,000 is peanuts--not the sort of thing that would normally raise an eyebrow. Here it is not the sum involved that triggered suspicion; it is the person who made the payments. Similarly, the suggestion that these payments might have been bribe payments which were being laundered is absurd. In fact they were payments made by Spitzer, not receipts. The facts offered barely meet a plausibility test. Most significantly, there was no basis to suspect bribery--which is what ostensibly launched the entire probe. Several reports about this case have suggested that it is somehow routine for prosecutors to go through the financial records of public officials to look for evidence of corruption. But in the absence of specific grounds justifying the investigation (for instance, an informant complaining about a bribe) prosecutors have no such authority. In this case, the basis for action is extraordinarily weak. Most importantly, the investigators do not appear to be looking into a crime, they appear to be investigating Spitzer in the hopes of finding something compromising.
The SAR put the matter in the hands of the IRS. In the last six years, the IRS has begun to amass an astonishing record of politically motivated investigations--most recently one targeting Barack Obama's church.
The IRS, according to the official line, noting that the matter related to a public official, turned it over to the Public Integrity Section (PIN) at the Department of Justice. In theory, PIN exists to avoid an appearance that prosecutions are politically motivated by insuring the application of uniform national standards. Practice at PIN has, however, been difficult to reconcile with theory. PIN has emerged as one of the most highly politicized branches of a highly politicized Justice Department. According to a study done by two university professors, under President Bush PIN has initiated 5.6 cases involving Democrats for every one case involving a Republican. This statistical data strongly suggest that PIN has a habit of aggressively pushing cases on the basis of partisan political criteria.
Just so people understand this, it's not just about sex. They are investigating Sen. Obama's church, and going after 5.6 Democrats for every Republican. What's even more remarkable is that this has occured during a time when the GOP has dominated Presidency, the US Senate and House, had a Gubernatorial majority, a majority of state legislators, a conservative majority on the courts, and a 2 to 1 fundraising advantage over the dems. Yet during this time they stil found 5.6 more democrats in positions that they could receive bribes??? I hate to use a case like this to point this out. It's hard to defend this conduct but I thought the same thing when the former democratic governor of Alabama was sent to jail, now we know better. I think we should look at this angle more.