The W
Views: 98375793
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.8.14 0434
The W - Current Events & Politics - Holy Cow - Spitzer is dirty? (Page 3)
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.65
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
(373 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (43 total)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Well, of course I'm speculating. I don't work at the bank, and I'm not involved in this at all.

I still contend that "imprudent curiosity" happens with just about every system that people have access to. I'm not guaranteeing that it happened in the Spitzer case, but to say that it's not possible is probably going too far in the other direction.

PS> I'll have to rummage for the link, but I read something that pointed out that the office that investigated Spitzer has a 5:1 ratio of D/R investigations this year, is part of the Justice Department (which has a questionable record of non-partisanship recently), and that the names of the people involved in the D.C. madam case MONTHS ago have not come out.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 73 days
Last activity: 2 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.00
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    I'll have to rummage for the link....
Perhaps it was this one (cbsnews.com)
    Originally posted by Scott Horton
    There may well be a story-behind-the-story. How did the case against Spitzer get launched? Was he brought down by a politically motivated investigation?

    The IRS 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.

    The information now available raises unsettling issues about the conduct of the Justice Department. One close parallel involving a prostitution investigation is the case of the "D.C. Madam." In that case, federal prosecutors have proceeded against the prostitution ring and have shown little interest in the customer list, which is said to include a former high-ranking Bush Administration official (Randall Tobias, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development) and a U.S. Senator (David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana). The prosecutors' conduct in the "D.C. Madam" case has been remarkably deferential to the public figures involved. That case cannot be squared with the investigation into Governor Spitzer - it points to a double standard.



(edited by Downtown Bookie on 23.3.08 0111)


http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    I still contend that "imprudent curiosity" happens with just about every system that people have access to. I'm not guaranteeing that it happened in the Spitzer case, but to say that it's not possible is probably going too far in the other direction.

    PS> I'll have to rummage for the link, but I read something that pointed out that the office that investigated Spitzer has a 5:1 ratio of D/R investigations this year, is part of the Justice Department (which has a questionable record of non-partisanship recently), and that the names of the people involved in the D.C. madam case MONTHS ago have not come out.

I'm speaking more about financial crimes; I don't know anything about the Justice Dept., other than the unflattering stuff in DB's article and in other, similar articles. In the Spitzer case, the initial activity in his account triggered the SAR. And, activity which will trigger this type of report is monitored by an automated process. So, no individual began the process; it was uncovered the same way as suspicious credit card activity. Of course, once it started, the second step was figuring out what was going on in the account and linking the account to the account holder and the 'know your customer' regulations.

Regardless, for financial system stuff, 'imprudent curiousity' may happen on occasion, but it's pretty tightly monitored and people will get (and have gotten) fired really quickly for it.

Having said that, if you want to bash the Justice Dept or the AGs at either the state or federal level, I'm certainly game for that!

(edited by Corajudo on 24.3.08 0823)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread rated: 6.65
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread ahead: Clinton's Tax Returns
Next thread: DOJ Approves Sirius-XM Merger
Previous thread: Obama's Speech
(373 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Pat Buchanan's name was dropped in some book that came out a few years ago, right? I remember hearing this, but Buchanan has praised Nixon for years, and it seems odd that a speechwriter would know that much about the inner workings of the White House.
- eviljonhunt81, Author: Bush 41 = Deep Throat (2005)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Holy Cow - Spitzer is dirty? (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.095 seconds.