Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Fair Is Fair: Name Client No. 2, No. 3, etc.

By R. Queisser  Posted by R. Queisser (about the submitter)     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

Can we all agree that justice is blind (not blond or brunette) and that the laws which apply to former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer apply to us all?

And shall we then stipulate that “all’ of us really means “every one of us”?

Good. That little formality is now out of the way.

Since Federal employees-- those folks we taxpayers pay to conduct the people’s work-- discovered through routine investigative procedures that Eliot Spitzer patronized a high priced hook-up outfit (i.e., prostitution ring) we can all be glad that our taxpayer dollars have resulted in the exposure of possible criminal law violations. We even get a double benefit, as taxpayers, because the investigators at the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office have identified both New York State misdemeanors and Federal felonies.

Let us next consider the logical follow-through aspect of this current question, i.e., what do taxpayers deserve from this Federal examination of wiretap and banking transactions? Because it clearly follows that if investigations revealed Mr. Spitzer’s foibles to the public simply because he may have broken state and Federal laws, then the public also deserves to know the identity of every other client of QAT who was similarly identified in the Feds’ extensive examinations of myriad phone calls, e-mail and text messages, and wire transfers between every other client and the QAT company.

So I would assume that the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Southern District office will soon be releasing the identities of ALL the known clients of QAT, that is, Client #1…through…Client # n, am I not correct?

- Advertisement -

What, you say? Don’t expect it any time soon? Ridiculous! If Spitzer’s acts were discovered by public employees, and Spitzer’s acts were worthy of public exposure by Federal employees (whom we pay), then why should we taxpayers settle for knowing the name of just one of QAT’s clients?

What if other clients had names like Jones, Smith, or Johnson? Or what if QAT’s other clients had names like Ashcroft, Cheney (whose phone number was on the DC Madame’s list) or Boehner?

Either way, we taxpayers deserve to know the names of ALL of QAT’s clients, domestic or international, because we paid for the investigations and we must be the sole judge of which names are relevant to release to the public.

Please excuse me while I look for the FOIA form. I’ll be busy for a little while.

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Dump the CEOs Before Investing in U.S. Industry

Show Me a Preacher Who Has Two Suits

Cancel the Superbowl! Or, Vince Lombardi Was a Putz!

Caveat Emptor, Congress!

Here Is Why Sarah Palin As VP Works--For Now

Gaza 2009; Warsaw, 1943