Ah-hah! It was the "someone" at the BANK who alerted the IRS as to "suspicious" transactions.
"Someone " at the bank...Wall Street? Pretty obvious to me.
Roxxxanne wrote:Ah-hah! It was the "someone" at the BANK who alerted the IRS as to "suspicious" transactions.
"Someone " at the bank...Wall Street? Pretty obvious to me.
That is because you are a simpleton.
"NEW YORK (AP) - A law enforcement official says New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's role in a prostitution scandal grew out of a public corruption inquiry triggered by his movement of cash to bank accounts operated by the call-girl ring.
The law enforcement source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Tuesday because of the sensitivity of the investigation.
The official says Spitzer was the initial target of the investigation and was tracked using court-ordered wiretaps, but possible charges against Spitzer have not been decided. "
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VB7N800&show_article=1
Roxxxanne wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:Spitzer is part of the Democratic culture of corruption.
I don't feel any sympathy for him - he knew what he was doing.
LOL the DEMOCRATIC culture of corruption? What planet are you living on?
I live on the planet with a DEMOCRATIC culture of corruption on it same as you.
uesday March 11, 2008 8:27 am
The level of detail in reporting on the Spitzer case catches my eye today. This level of minutiae in the descriptions of the investigation suggests an FBI or USAtty's office source. Defense counsel for any of the potential defendants won't have gone through this much discovery, unless their clients have been cooperating as informants for quite some time -- which is possible given that they were charged via an information and not by a grand jury indictment.
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.
First, from the NYTimes:
...But this was not typical: transactions by a governor who appeared to be trying to conceal the source, destination or purpose of the movement of thousands of dollars in cash, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The money ended up in the bank accounts of what appeared to be shell companies, corporations that essentially had no real business.
The transactions, officials said, suggested possible financial crimes ?- maybe bribery, political corruption, or something inappropriate involving campaign finance. Prostitution, they said, was the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators....
But before long, the investigators learned that the money was being moved to pay for sex and that the transactions were being manipulated to conceal Mr. Spitzer's connection to payments for meetings with prostitutes, the official said.
Then, with the assistance of a confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor's Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using, the investigators were able to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service.
The wiretaps, along with the records of bank accounts held in the names of the shell companies, revealed a world of prostitutes catering to wealthy men. At the center was the Emperor's Club, which arranged "dates" with more than 50 beautiful young women in New York, Paris, London, Miami and Washington.
But its finances moved through the shell companies ?- the QAT Consulting Group, QAT International and Protech Consulting ?- which held bank accounts into which clients wired their payments, according to court papers in the case. (emphasis mine)
Incredibly stupid conduct from a man who worked both in the Manhattan DA's office and as NY's AG, prosecuting among other things, Wall Street firms whose financial transgressions were tracked in similar fashion by investigators and forensic accountants for his office and the feds. Beyond stupid. Especially after 9/11, when financial transactions are tracked constantly and closely by an FBI looking for any anomaly. Using an informant who has flipped as a witness against the target is a fairly common means of nailing someone in this kind of case -- and Spitzer would have known that, too.
Was this "confidential informant" also the defendant who was quoted in the information regarding the difficulty of Mr. Spitzer as a client -- the "not safe" quote? And, if so, why did the USAtty include that part of the conversation in the information using an informant who knowingly put that information on the wiretap record? (If she wasn't the informant or cooperating with the government on Feb. 13/14, then that point is obviously moot.) That's a question worth getting answers to, in my book, because that inclusion seemed solely designed for public humiliation of Spitzer and not for prosecution purposes.
The financial concerns regarding weird, hidden transactions passed through a dummy corp from a public official are legitimate questions that a public corruption investigator would ask -- but I'm still left wondering how this was brought to the FBI's attention, what triggered the reporting, whether the transactions were clustered or otherwise suspicious, or how the pattern emerged that caught the bank's eye? Was it just one questionable transaction, brought to the FBI's attention -- they saw Spitzer's name, and gave his accounts increased scrutiny? Or was it multiple transactions caught and brought in at once as a suspicious pattern of behavior? As a public official, there would be particular questions on public corruption that you wouldn't have with a non-official defendant, and that triggers a whole host of questions on how determinations were made to proceed on this that investigators would have had to ask and answer as they moved the case forward.
Then, this from the NYSun, which speculates on potential prosecutions lines for misuse of public funds and employees, the Mann Act, and financial transactional charges:
...Law enforcement officials are also expected to try to contact any prostitutes whom Mr. Spitzer patronized, as well as interview Mr. Spitzer's inner circle about their knowledge of his conduct, former prosecutors say.
The situation raised the question of whether the governor may come under pressure to resign to placate prosecutors....
Other prosecutors from other districts could also consider charges.
The U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, is charged with enforcing not only federal laws but the district's municipal anti-prostitution laws as well.
Conceivably any U.S. attorney whose district includes a section of the train tracks that carried the prostitute, identified in court papers as Kristen, from Penn Station in Manhattan to Union Station in Washington, has jurisdiction to try to bring a Mann Act case against Mr. Spitzer, a former federal prosecutor who did not want to be identified because he did not want to appear to be advocating prosecution of Mr. Spitzer, said.
Now, all of that "throw the kitchen sink at him" information is coming from somewhere for this reporter to put into his story -- and several lawyers are named (Andrew Hruska, Todd Harrison, Barry Kamins), along with a host of off-the-record anonymous "several former prosecutors." The hints at questioning associates to see if they were involved certainly add to that pressure around him for "what's my future" discussions.
Then there is this from another NYTimes story:
Mr. Spitzer has not been charged with a crime. But one law enforcement official who has been briefed on the case said that Mr. Spitzer's lawyers would probably meet soon with federal prosecutors to discuss any possible legal exposure. The official said the discussions were likely to focus not on prostitution, but on how it was paid for: Whether the payments from Mr. Spitzer to the service were made in a way to conceal their purpose and source. That could amount to a crime called structuring, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.
Say hello to at least one FBI or IRS agent, most likely, as a source. Plus there are any number of other stories in other NY papers giving more contextual details and pulling quotes from public and anonymous political and law enforcement sources. That's a lot of public pressure and talk of resignation and criminal exposure. And I can't help wondering whether this is coming from the GOP side of the aisle, or the Dem side...or both. Or if the SDNY is signaling that Spitzer should resign and they won't drop a prosecutorial dime on him. Or whether they have more, and this is a signal to his counsel to work on a deal. Any or all of that is possible.
Lots and lots of questions, including all the ones that Jane, and Digby, and Scott Horton raised yesterday...very few answers on any of them this morning.
If you can find a conviction or even a prosecution that concerns hiring an escort who was lavishly com0pensated for her services, please post a link and I will stand corrected. Good luck!
The first person prosecuted under the act was heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who had an affair with a prostitute named Lucille Cameron. Johnson married Cameron so that she couldn't be made to testify against him. Belle Schreiber, a prostitute that had at some point left a brothel and traveled with him to another state, was the next in line to testify against Johnson. He was eventually prosecuted and sentenced to the maximum penalty of a year and a day in prison.
Pioneering sociologist William I. Thomas's academic career at the University of Chicago was irreversibly damaged after he was arrested under the act when caught in the company of one Mrs Granger, the wife of an army officer with the American forces in France, although he was later acquitted in court.
British film actor Charles Chaplin was prosecuted in 1944 by Federal authorities for Mann Act charges related to his involvement with actress Joan Barry. Chaplin was acquitted of the charges, but the trial permanently damaged his public image in the US, and contributed to his departure for Switzerland in the early 1950s.
Canadian author Elizabeth Smart describes being arrested under the Mann Act in 1940 when crossing a state border with her lover, the British poet George Barker, in her (partly fictionalised) book By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept. She memorably intertwines the callous police interrogation aimed at arresting her under this law with quotations about love from the Song of Songs.
In the late 1950s, Kid Cann, a notorious organized crime figure from Minneapolis, Minnesota, was prosecuted and convicted under the Mann Act after transporting a prostitute from Chicago to Minnesota. Although his conviction was later overturned on appeal, Kid Cann was later prosecuted and convicted of offering a $25,000 bribe to a juror at his trial under the Mann Act.
Wow, this has got to be the most idiotic thread yet. And I'm including all of mine in that, so that is saying ALOT.
Roxxxanne,
You shot yourself in the foot!
You said...
If you can find a conviction or even a prosecution that concerns hiring an escort who was lavishly com0pensated for her services, please post a link and I will stand corrected. Good luck!
Then you immediately follow that up with a whole list of prosecutions and/or convictions that fit your description...
Quote:The first person prosecuted under the act was heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who had an affair with a prostitute named Lucille Cameron. Johnson married Cameron so that she couldn't be made to testify against him. Belle Schreiber, a prostitute that had at some point left a brothel and traveled with him to another state, was the next in line to testify against Johnson. He was eventually prosecuted and sentenced to the maximum penalty of a year and a day in prison.
Pioneering sociologist William I. Thomas's academic career at the University of Chicago was irreversibly damaged after he was arrested under the act when caught in the company of one Mrs Granger, the wife of an army officer with the American forces in France, although he was later acquitted in court.
British film actor Charles Chaplin was prosecuted in 1944 by Federal authorities for Mann Act charges related to his involvement with actress Joan Barry. Chaplin was acquitted of the charges, but the trial permanently damaged his public image in the US, and contributed to his departure for Switzerland in the early 1950s.
Canadian author Elizabeth Smart describes being arrested under the Mann Act in 1940 when crossing a state border with her lover, the British poet George Barker, in her (partly fictionalised) book By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept. She memorably intertwines the callous police interrogation aimed at arresting her under this law with quotations about love from the Song of Songs.
In the late 1950s, Kid Cann, a notorious organized crime figure from Minneapolis, Minnesota, was prosecuted and convicted under the Mann Act after transporting a prostitute from Chicago to Minnesota. Although his conviction was later overturned on appeal, Kid Cann was later prosecuted and convicted of offering a $25,000 bribe to a juror at his trial under the Mann Act.
BTW, you aint right!!
Your joke was priceless, and I needed the laugh.
Define "lavishly paid".
I'm sure that at the time, a hooker that charged $10 was considered to be "lavishly paid".
So, its all relative, and it also depends on the times you are comparing, doesnt it?
Define "lavishly paid".
I'm sure that at the time, a hooker that charged $10 was considered to be "lavishly paid".
So, its all relative, and it also depends on the times you are comparing, doesnt it?
BTW you told the board that Spitzer was resigning as "I type this." That was yesterday, what happened. You obviously have a problem discerning reality.
By staff writers
March 12, 2008 04:31pm
NEW York's Governor spent up to $US80,000 ($85,000) on prostitutes who he asked to not wear a condom, it has been reported, as sordid details emerged in the sex scandal that threatens to hound him from office.
Eliot Spitzer became embroiled in the scandal on Tuesday when it was reported that he was linked to a US probe into a prostitution ring.
Mr Spitzer was caught on a listening device spending more than $4000 at the Emperor's Club call girl service.
Anonymous officials involved with the case have now been reported by the Associated Press as saying that Mr Spitzer had spent as much as $US80,000 with the service.
It is not clear over what time period that would have been, but the $4000 was reported to have paid for one night with a prostitute named Kristen with credit left over for future sessions.
That suggests Mr Spitzer made at least a couple of dozen visits to the prostitution service.
On the night of the visit with Kristen, Mr Spitzer booked two hotel rooms - one for him and one for her. He then slipped away from his security agents and met her in her room.
Court documents quoted a conversation between Kristen and an Emperor's Club employee about Client 9 - Mr Spitzer, officials have said.
"(He) would ask you to do things that ... you might not think were safe," the employee said.
"I have a way of dealing with that. ... I'd be, like, listen, dude, you really want the sex?" Kristen replied.
An official said that conversation to Mr Spitzer's request that prostitutes agree to unsafe sex and Kristen's refusal to do so.
When the scandal broke, Mr Spitzer appeared at a press conference with his wife to apologise for his actions. There were immediate calls for his resignation, but he has remained in office and been silent on his future since the appearance.
It has since been speculated that he might delay a resignation to use it as a bargaining chip with prosecutors. Or he may try to ride out the scandal and then continue in the job, albeit suitably chastened.
But his political opponents smell blood and are planning impeachment proceedings if he refuses to step aside.
And opponents on Wall Street have said Mr Spitzer's predicament is "too good to be true". "If he had any shame, he would've already resigned," one said.
