If you scroll down a bit, you will see a comment thread between me and my former Enron comrade, Duffbert, where we toss around my feeling that Spitzer's exposure (eeeeew!) was triggered by a politically-motivated "destroy that guy" directive from On High.
Naturally, I took the side that the smell of the Bush DoJ pervades this affair. Tom argued that evidence of criminal actions was uncovered and that's that.
Scott Horton, the reporter who first wrote about his suspicions that politics was at the bottom of the investigation, has refined his arguments, which are worth reading here. Yes, it's the 'New Republic', and, therefore, a partisan forum. Still, I think there is much here that merits thought, specifically:
"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."
Read the whole thing. We don't think we are being completely paranoid here.
UPDATE: Ace reporter Greg Palast has more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
And if you read the comments in the TNR article, you'll see there are two ways to view it. Or, you can be partisan (either way) and choose to only see your own side of the story, labeling everyone else a hack or moron if they don't agree with you.
And no, I'm not calling you a hack or moron, Barry... I'm just looking at some of the more colorful comments. :)
As you well know, I'm not one to spend much time getting worked up over politics. However, the last eight years have definitely shown me that all is not well in Washington. I agree there could well be a political element to this, and some vindictiveness in how things were leaked and portrayed. But there also is plenty of room for the core facts of violation of banking laws, possibility of extortion payoffs to shell corporations, and engaging in illegal commerce.
If he had come out and said "none of this is true, and I intend to fight these allegations", then you may be able to play the "guilty till proven innocent" card. But (to his credit), he basically 'fessed up to the crime (without admitting to it in a public statement so as to indict himself). This says (to me) that regardless of motivation, he got caught in a series of activities that could not legally be defended.
I'm willing to concede there's more to the "politically motivated" angle than I first thought. But I'm far from ready to blame Spitzer's downfall on the Bush administration. I think he did himself in pretty well with no external help.
"I think he did himself in pretty well with no external help."
And that's where we agree to disagree: I think he did himself, with plenty of external help.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-callgirls15mar15,1,5140925.story?track=rss
Read it between the lines, from my perspective. Pay attention to:
"Det. Mark Gilkey has seen it all as a prostitution unit investigator for the Washington, D.C., Police Department for the last 26 years. But he said he cannot remember more than one or two politicians or celebrities who have been caught using such services and arrested or publicly outed.
Gilkey ran an undercover storefront investigation for a few years in which D.C. police were able to see the credit card receipts for various prostitution rings, including the names on the invoices. "It was shocking," he said. "The amounts [of money] and also the people -- movie stars, celebrities, people in politics, the sporting world."
But the names of the clients never became public, which is not unusual in such cases, he said. And most clients never get caught at all."
You're right... we're going to agree to disagree here. I still accept your point that there may well be political motivation involved. On the other hand, I can't accept the "well, everyone does it so I don't see why he is being called to account for it" defense.
Again, I am simply questioning why we don't have the names of Clients 1-8, and I'd love to know who (unethically, if not illegally) leaked the identity of Client 9 to the Mass Media.
It's reasonable to assume that 1-8 are equally well-heeled men, occupying positions (so to speak) of some power and authority in their respective worlds.
If they ever do come out (so to speak), I'd be curious to see the GOP/Dem proportions. Just wondering.
As am I...
True...
It would be interesting...
:)
Post a Comment