To people like FDL’s Christy Hardin Smith, the fact that law enforcement officials gave the media the background of the Spitzer investigation — particularly that it arose from Spitzer’s suspicious financial transactions, not some politically-motivated witch hunt into Spitzer’s sex life — is of course evidence of a politically-motivated witch hunt:
If this is a government source for these reports, that says to me that someone wants this story out there in spades.
There are any number of people who have an axe to grind with Gov. Spitzer, and NY politics is certainly a hardball environment — but this is a serious amount of detail to be throwing out publicly in a case which has not yet been indicted. Which makes me wonder if the public pressure isn’t designed to force a resignation rather than having to prosecute him…
The more obvious explanation is that the info was leaked to head off the conspiracy theories spun by partisan hacks like those blogging at FDL. However, if the feds think Spitzer’s underlying alleged crime under the Mann Act is not truly worthy of a prosecution, let alone the possible “structuring” offense that carries a potential sentence of five years in prison, and would be satisfied by Spitzer’s resignation, that leniency apparently would also be evidence of a politically-motivated witch hunt.
While remaining on the “witch hunt” talking point, I note an aspect of the Scott Horton piece I failed to address this morning:
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…
This appears to refer to a “study” by Donald Shields and John Cragan on the partisan breakdown of corruption investigations by the Department of Justice under George Bush. Horton either does not know or does not care that this “study” has been debunked several times over by Pat at Stubborn Facts (here, here and here, for starters). Perhaps the fact that one of the officials in the “study” is Shields’s sister might have raised a red flag for Horton and his fellow tinfoil-hat models.
Ah, but rather inconveniently, the “structuring” regs requiring banks to report “suspicious activity” are something in the – wait for it – “Bank Secrecy Act” of 1970.
And while the name is kinda Orwellian, I doubt anyone in 1970 had Eliot Spitzer in mind.
Which would be why the feds would probably be happy with Spitzer’s resignation. And why it’s the opposite of a witch hunt.
Could someone please photoshop a tinfoil hat onto a big giant sour grape for me please?
The dogswamp is just precious today.
I’m sure he was just doing research.
The fact that a married NY State Governor was caught paying top dollar for escort “services” (an illegal act) and was using money he had hidden to pay for it (another illegal act) is apparently not enough of a reason for the story to be “out there in spades”. No, it must be due to some deeper motive, and it must be political.
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
What exactly IS the opposite of a witch hunt, Karl? A runcible spoon?
It still is funny, Education Guy.
Dan
Bernie Ward not only claimed he was doing research, he said he was trying to expose Republican pedophiles and expose their hypocrisy as part of the research.
Yeah. There was a Vatican priest who tried using something similar recently, and I seem to recall something about Pete Townshend.
Some now claim that’s a spork.
Is there a double standard in play here vis a vis Larry Craig and D. Vitter?
Why bring Larry Craig into it if you aren’t going to bring every misdemeanor-acting Congressman into it. What Larry Craig did is less harmful than Patrick Kennedy driving (and crashing) his car on Capitol Hill under the influence of drugs. Is there a double standard?
Victor,
Craig faced the legal consequences of his act. He tried to get out of his guilty plea, but is stuck, and the Senate Ethics Committee is looking into it. It’s my understanding that Vitter is beyond prosecution due to the statute of limitations. AFAIK, neither was involved in violations of federal law.
Victor – Not on this side of the aisle. In the media and on the Left, the answer to your question would be yes.
So we all agree, Spitz shouldn’t resign?
I’d like to drag it out, Victor. Because I’m cruel that way.
Lots of us think Larry ought to have resigned, BTW.
Spitzer allegedly used the escort service for more than a year, a source close to the investigation told WNBC.com.
Via Drudge.
Soooo, the amount of money involved here is pretty hefty because we can all do the high-end escort math. Shame, shame on those ChimpyBurton bank people for doing their job!
Whether Spitz should resign or no is up to Spitz. But we can agree that he should be prosecuted, right Victor?
It’s not the prostitution that’s gonna get Spitzer, I have a feeling it’s money laundering.
Those two almost always go hand in hand.
Craig should resign because he hasn’t got the judgement got gave a garden slug.
So we all agree, Spitz shouldn’t resign?
Politicians only resign for selfish reasons- because they think they’ve lost their power or because they are too ashamed to face the public with what they’ve done (which is rare).
He should resign if either of those two things are true.
Comment by Pablo:
Whether Spitz should resign or no is up to Spitz. But we can agree that he should be prosecuted, right Victor?
Sure, with the proviso that the Feds or the Bank didn’t violate any “prior notice” clause that would have made all that banking information and subsequent wiretapping evidence inadmissible in court.
Victor, if that evidence is inadmissable, that wouldn’t preclude testimony from the other players as to the particulars of the transaction, nor would it negate his public statement that he fucked up.
And being a law enforcement official, he should get the book thrown at him if convicted.
Bank didn’t violate any “prior notice†clause that
What kind of “prior notice” clause are you talking about here, Victor?
He’s thinking that they might have had a duty to inform him that they were investigating him for suspicious transactions, MayBee. Doesn’t make much sense, but there you are. I guess the theory is he was entrapped?
Oh btw, the target of the wiretaps appears to be the prostitution ring, not Spitzer, so that theory won’t float anyway.
So sad when lefty trolls try to do law, though it’s hard to be surprised when geniuses like Horton and Smith are leading the way.
BTW, anyone thinking that if the FBI, IRS and DoJ all managed to fundamentally screw up the investigation of a sitting Governor as Victor suspects, that Spitzer would be laughing his a$$ off and playing the victim, instead of issuing a public apology for a private matter?
Prosecutor: “Governor Spitzer, you approached enmployees of the Emperor Club, waved fistfuls of cash under their noses and requested sex acts from them in explicit terms. What is your defense?”
Spitzer: “ENTRAPMENT!”
Man, why did you refer me over there… I’ll never get that 15 minutes back, not to mention the confusion it caused me… How can so much cognitive disonance exist in one place without a rip in the time-space continuum? I’ve obviously got no chance of “understanding” the left-wing “mind”….
LOL, I’m no Spitzer apologist, or left-wing troll (just reference any of the numerous Hagee Threads here at PW).
My interest comes from my personal experience with the “structuring” statues, and how it was my understanding that the Bank had to give notice to the individual whose transactions triggered the “structuring” alarm bells, with the option of letting said individual go on the record with some level of reasonable excuse that might explain the troubling transactions prior to contacting the IRS.
The difference might be as significant as that found between a misdemeanor and felony offence. If they can’t use the banking stuff all they have is solicitation, albeit interstate, while this remains scandalous and ironic- I think it’s rather unremarkable in terms of mandating his resignation given the previous examples (e.g. Vitter, Craig).
It should be mentioned that I am still unclear on the specific NY Statues regarding “prior notice”.
The bank is not the state, Victor. If the bank failed in some duty to Spitzer, he can sue them. That doesn’t equate to wrongdoing on the part of the government.
Victor
I couple of summers ago I received a letter informing me transactions in an account I held were automatically reported to the government – IOW they didn’t hold off to hear why or what before, it’s automatic.
As it happened, because of the type of account it was, the # of transactions of that type of account triggered the automatic reporting the bank told me after I received the letter. It was a money market and it was not triggered by the amounts transfered it was # of transfers. (it didn’t even matter the transfer was into my personal checking account to use it for whatever the hell I chose to use my money for.)
So perhaps there are no ‘specifics’ that would in any way protect the individual in a case subsequently determined to warrant prosecution. Perhaps the law merely allows a bank to do some customer relations type information gathering prior to ratting you out to the Feds. Because I doubt the law gives banks much leeway in terms of reporting potential violations that raise flags; but instead allows them the courtesy of telling you why you are about to be turned in.
Oh, and Vitter and Craig aren’t executives, nor are they law enforcement officials. Barney Frank is still in Congress and Gerry Studds hung out for a good while. They don’t have to govern. They don’t have to lead. Spitzer does. That’s going to be tough to do with this on the table.
my understanding that the Bank had to give notice to the individual whose transactions triggered the “structuring†alarm bells, with the option of letting said individual go on the record with some level of reasonable excuse that might explain the troubling transactions prior to contacting the IRS.
Do you have a link to a banking agreement or statute that may say such a thing?
Maybe some enterprising ‘journalist’ should ask Spitzer if he has received any such communications from his financial institutions.
As I recall it, Banks are even required to report all deposits made into an individual’s account, starting at $10,000 and obviously including paychecks. Back when I was rich I made many such deposits, was never notified, and never worried about it.
But if I was Spitzer I certainly would have worried about money-laundering surveilling regulations, especially if I was doing something illegal with the money. Others have suggested, therefore, that Spitzer either wanted to get caught or thought he was invisible.
Yes, they have to report all transactions over 10K (how much lower is the real limit? You get to guess, along with the Narcotistas), but for “structuring” they’re looking more for patterns of activity rather than the amounts. Rapid transfers through layers of shell companies, for example, which I gather is what got Eliot on the radar.
He was just too smart to plan ahead and take out cash in odd amounts and staggered times to build up a cash reserve he could hit for his playtime activities.
Brains, that’s what stands out.
my understanding is that Victor’s concern is justly placed, except for the fact that Spitzer is a sitting high-level official. In other words, you and I would get notice that there are possible irregular transfer activities occuring in our account that triggered the notification to the Feds.
because of his role as a public executive (I recollect that is the definition of governor), however, issues of possible suspected bribery or money laundering supercede notification.
in other words: yes for you, no for Eliot.
I was also told that what made the determination so easy to actually open a file was the off-shore nature of the transfers. So if he paid cash, despite his having to regularly withdraw thousands of dollars, there’d be no file.
mcgruder- find me a link that says that, and I’ll believe you.
It seems to me a bank giving notice that they are about to notify the Feds would be interference.
I know I’ve transfered large sums of money and not gotten a notification that it would be reported, even though I know it would have been.
You are a reporter, you should be able to find a legitimate source.
Pretty bossy today MayBee
Pretty bossy today MayBee
I’m trying to work my way up from 2-diamond to 3-diamond.
MB: I cant. It is based on a conversation with an FBI agent on the condition I don’t use it in a story. More directly, since I wasn’t going to be writing a story on this, but I was curious and this thread popped up, I figured what the hell?
I come in peace and was interested is all; Im not seeking to shoot bullets in your posts, and frankly, just enjoying the noodling around.
to be clear, they–the financial enforcement authorities–argue privately that the perception of arbitrary and capricious enforcement on this issue is a great tool in their arsenal. Also a good tool: stupid people like Eliot.
personally, it seems rather intuitive that the lowest hanging fruit with respect to investigating money-laundering is looking at wire transfers to off-shore accounts.
I’m trying to work my way up from 2-diamond to 3-diamond.
Well, unfounded humility ain’t gonna cut it.
Offhand, I have no argument with mcgruder — there may well be cases where notice is required, and cases where they are not — and that Spitzer’s case is one of the latter. My objection was to Victor’s unsupported blanket suggestion that said notice would always be required, for there are few “alwayses” in the law.
MB: I cant. It is based on a conversation with an FBI agent on the condition I don’t use it in a story.
So the FBI agent said the bank has to ask you to explain suspicious transfers you make before they call the Feds, but you weren’t allowed to use that information in a story. Oookey.
My bank tells me in its privacy policy:
“There are other situations when we may disclose to third parties the customer information we collect as permitted or required by law. Third parties could include government entities, courts or other entities (in response to subpoenas and other legal processes), and those with whom you have requested us to share information.”
—
Now, I could be wrong, but your fact sounds to me like the fact that white phosphorous caramelizes the skin, or that to accept a presidential pardon one must accept one’s guilt.
If you’re looking for financial shenanigans that indicate clandestine unlawful activities by the account holder, notifying the holder that they’re under investigation wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense, would it?
What exactly IS the opposite of a witch hunt, Karl?
Apparently there is no opposite to a Right Wing Witch Hunt, Dan. It’s like Global Warming: the lack of evidence is even stronger proof of its existence.
From the SAR Form [pdf] itself:
—
Notification Prohibited Federal law (31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(2)) requires that a financial institution, and its directors, officers,
employees and agents who, voluntarily or by means of a suspicious activity report, report suspected or known criminal
violations or suspicious activities may not notify any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported.
In the instructions, it says:
c Retain any confession, admission, or explanation of the
transaction provided by the suspect and indicate to
whom and when it was given.
It does NOT say getting a confession, admission, or explanation is a legal requirement. It is not even submitted to the Feds.
Filing an SAR is a requirement for the bank, and I would imagine some banks would ask customers for an explanation as a way of helping that customer.
I didn’t read the law, either, but remember it discussed at the time as a requirement that banking institutions report all 10k and greater transactions, period. I took that as my “notice”.
In my lower societal position, even I assume the law has other provisions. But did Spitzer, the NY State AG for 8 years and the one doing the illegal activity, even read the law?
“Lots of us think Larry ought to have resigned, BTW.”
Really, Collins; Who wanted him to resign. and where was that stated?
A cursory review of your archives unearthed nothing.
Speaking as an Idahoan I damn sure wanted him gone. Perhaps I didn’t state that here, perhaps you just can’t find it. Either way, I don’t give a fuck what you think.
Oh for fuck’s sake, seman. You’re so busy hunting for the mote in our eyes you’re willing to overlook the fucking redwood in your own. When Barney “I Had No Idea He Was Running a Prostitution Ring” Frank, Ted “Bitch Said She Could Swim” Kennedy, and “Cold Cash” Jefferson are hounded from the Democrat party, you can justifiably hunt for our denunciations of Craig. He sure as hell didn’t get a lot of support around here.
Which, BTW, is the exact opposite of how the loony left’s treating Spitzer. Positing that it’s all a dirty trick, and declaring that the evidence that it wasn’t just proves it was is pathetic, sad, and delusional.
Well, unfounded humility ain’t gonna cut it.
I admit I may have a certain appeal to men with a serious Helen Thomas fetish.
Jeez. Firedog, talkleft et al are still trying so hard to find something the Feds did wrong at the same trying so hard to ignore Elliot was putting people in jail for prostitution at the same time he was hiring prostitutes.
Beeeezare.
I’m up there at comment #20 saying the same thing now that I said then. I don’t recall any disagreement. Do you ‘cleo, or are you just pulling this idea out of your ass?
This one from FDL is a GEM!!!
“IMVHO, this was just a political hack job, the GOP’s version of ratf*cking aggressive opposition research. The Bushies don’t like playing defense, answering questions about Mark Foley, David diapers Vitter, and Larry I’m-not-gay Craig. So they told the DoJ to find some high ranking Dem with a sex problem. They got the goods on Spitzer first and then to cover their illegal surveillance planted the story about the bank reporting suspicious transactions. My guess is that they destroyed all the evidence they had accumulated prior to whatever bank documents exist. No facts, but the GOP isn’t real creative. This is what they’re best at and they think it constitutes governance. YMMV.”
ROVE, YOU MAGNIFI…
You know the drill.
Lemme unnerstand. Didn’t Mandy, Jane and the other progtards say last year that the utes on the Duke lacrosse team were wrong to hire the two dancers even if nothing happened, although they were certain something happened, because it objectified womyn, yada, yada, yada. Now they are saying don’t worry about Spitzer because it is just sex? I’m seeing a flat out disconnect as usual with the positions of those idiots.
Cleo is a filthy, stinking troll, and a gentlecommenter’s unwillingness to play along with it betrays only a refined sense of decorum.
They got the goods on Spitzer first and then to cover their illegal surveillance planted the story about the bank reporting suspicious transactions.
Oh Gawd, straight from the Firedog brain trust. Pretty funny the dipshits over there don’t realize Spitzer actually did sort of do this to Republicans in his state.
Poster children for cognitive abstinence, every one of them.
What a shock that cleo wants to change the subject, and who can at best offer a lame sneaky version of “the other side does it too”.
This isn’t about anyone but Spitzer, but nice try.
I didn’t think you were near that old MayBee. okay, really, I just wanted to go slightly OT. a month or so ago someone gave my mom tickets to go see Helen Thomas speak at Florida Atlantic U. mom didn’t know what she was in for. she summed it up as “She really doesn’t like George Bush.” heh.
At least y’all are consistent.
MayBee,
It would be a mistake to say that the law requires prior notice to the account holder before they go to the IRS. What I said implied as much and that was a mistake and I’m sorry.
However, the law does provide the Banks a reasonable amount of discretion in determining that certain accounts that might otherwise appear to meet or exceed the internal “structuring” guidelines could be qualified for an exempt status, overriding the necessity of contacting the IRS.
In the process of making the determination whether a specific account would qualify for this exempt status, the bank would be very well within the law to send out a form letter (accompanied with color brochure) that notified the account holder of a potential problem (e.g. “structuring”), and asked for the acct. holder to go on the record with a reasonable explanation.
My personal experience confirms as much, as I am looking at this exact type of letter and brochure from my personal bank right now.
The only question I had was whether or not this was a requirement in the state of NY, and it appears that it’s not.