The official narrative claims that a Long Island bank noticed an odd pattern of payments made by Spitzer between different accounts. The payments were not enormous sums yet the bank claims to have been “concerned” that a large number of transfers were made “so as to fall below the $10,000 reporting threshold.” The Republican bank officials then submitted a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) to the IRS. The payments which totaled up to $80,000, looked suspicious, we are told, and were examined on the basis that they might be an effort to money-launder some bribes. This was reported to the IRS in Hauppauge, Long Island, which in turn referred the matter to the Public Integrity Section in the Department of Justice.
But here are some fair questions as to the credibility of the claims about “possible bribes.” Thanks to his father's real estate fortune, Spitzer is an extremely wealthy man, and his channeling of payments at this comparatively meager level can hardly be viewed as something that raises legitimate suspicion. As money laundering goes, $80,000 is peanuts -- not the sort of thing that would normally raise an eyebrow. So it is reasonable to conclude that it was not the sum involved that captured the interest of the investigators, but rather the name, political affiliation, and office of the person who had been making the money transfers.
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. And in this case, the basis for action is extraordinarily weak. Most importantly, the investigators do not appear to be looking into an alleged crime; they appear to be investigating Spitzer in the hopes of finding something compromising.
As already stated, 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, the PIN of DOJ exists to avoid an appearance that prosecutions are politically motivated. They supposedly do this 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 Bush 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.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
