JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/03/quote-of-day_10.html (27 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1205246978-589321  Slashtwo at Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:49:38 +0000

I love all the 'yeah, but's' coming from the Left.
"But at least Dem scandals are hetero!"
Ummm...Barney Frank...Gov. James McGreevey...call your respective offices...
Corruption swings both ways on both sides...Get over yourselves, Lefties.
I always felt that Spitzer was too loud and demonstrative as NY AG to be clean. Apologies should be given to Mr. Ness for the soiling of the name Eliot...

jsid-1205267906-589337  Markadelphia at Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:38:26 +0000

Well, let's see how many critical thinkers we have out there, hmm?

What do we all make of the story of how they discovered all of this? Spitzer's bank alerts the Feds to "unusual" transactions. What is so unusual about someone taking a few grand out of the bank? Why is that unusual? Why were the Feds wiretapping him? And does any of this have anything to do with his fight against Wall Street Tycoons?

jsid-1205272759-589340  Kevin Baker at Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:59:19 +0000

It appears to be "hoist on your own petard." The same tactics Spitzer used were used against him.

As somebody said, "couldn't have happened to a bigger slimeball."

Prosecuting illegality is one thing. Destroying people in the press is another. Extortion and blackmail is something else entirely.

jsid-1205273132-589341  Rob at Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:05:32 +0000

Ooohh Mark---------- has conspiracy going on!

I thought it was a new species of bird to go out and watch and it is really just another politico flipping the bird to the public.

Okay Mark, I've got my anti-thought control tin foil hat. on, let 'er rip!

Spill the beans! Present the evidence. Let's take down the man!!!

jsid-1205275755-589344  DirtCrashr at Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:49:15 +0000

Hangin' out with hookers, doesn't seem to show much self-reflection on Spitzer's part.

jsid-1205295234-589350  Last in line at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:13:54 +0000

He who tires of hookers, tires of life.

jsid-1205309094-589356  Mastiff at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:04:54 +0000


I work in financial services. Suspicious Activity Reports are mandatory in cases where you suspect money laundering, or when the amounts transferred are over $10k, or when there are several smaller amounts intended to avoid the $10k rule.

Mandatory. For everyone. From stock brokers to bankers.

In other words, no, this is not a big conspiracy.

In fact, the prospect of a high elected official involved in money-laundering is enough to set off all kinds of alarm bells, once the SAR is filed. And this is what happened.

Have you ever seen The Godfather, Part II?

jsid-1205324999-589362  karrde at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:29:59 +0000

There is the question of whether banks should tip off the law-men in this way.

If I recall correctly, the original anti-money-laundering laws were put in place circa 1970, with strengthening provisions in the early 1990's and later in the PATRIOT Act.

Mark (and Mastiff, you can correct me if I'm wrong): my best understanding of the methods that caught Eliot Spitzer were that a computer somewhere flagged a series of less-than-$10,000 movements of money as indicative of attempts to hide large movements of money.

It wasn't the size of the amounts that drew attention, it was the patterns AND the size that drew attention.

It seems that banks are using a wide variety of software tools to look for patterns, search for breaks in patterns, and lift the signals of possibly-illegal transactions out of the noise of everyday transactions.

Heck, it sounds like a variation on what credit agencies do with your credit-card history. They will sell information on your spending patterns to marketing firms, to better market things to customers like you.

It is still an open question whether these laws restrict freedom too much; I would say that the banks haven't developed a reputation of raising red flags on innocent transactions. It seems that they are better than the IRS in that respect.

jsid-1205344199-589365  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:49:59 +0000

The questions I asked above were asked by Alan Dershowitz on the various news channels yesterday. I could really give a rip about Spitzer. He could be a great guy or an asshole...it doesn't matter to me.

What does matter is how the DOJ, who is supposed to be catching Al Qaeda, is mucking around with this crap. Who cares? Dershowitz pointed out quite astutely that wiretapping is NOT normal procedure for the FBI in cases like this. He claims, and I agree completely, that this was completely politically motivated. People that Spitzer pissed off in the past wanted to get him. It's not a conspiracy...it's a no brainer.

jsid-1205349644-589369  Randy at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:20:44 +0000

First of all, DOJ is not "supposed to be catching Al Qaeda". That's a job of the CIA and DoD, unless they find a cell here in the US. AQ is not a criminal organization, it's a terrorist organization, you don't arrest them, you kill them. Treating terrorism as a criminal manner has been a major mistake made by the US since back to the 70's(by ALL administrations).

Maybe wiretapping for something like this is not SOP, but if I were an FBI agent going after a high profile person like this, I'd damned well want overwhelming proof and dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

If the investigation was started for political purposes, it looks like the guy is actually dirty. So sad, Too Bad, Sucks to be him. So long as the process followed (i.e. getting valid warrants for the taps, etc)is legal, and the evidence is real, not manufactured, I don't see a problem with this, any more than using a drug dealer's tip to start an investigation to take out another dealer.

I can stand an arrogant prick as long as he's honest and competent. Looks like he was dishonest and a hypocrite to boot. And he apparently has along history of using politically motivated investigation to advance himself. Spitzer, meet Karma. She is a bitch.

I can't help but wonder if Dershowitz and the other talking heads would be so concerned if the good ex-Governor had an (R) after his name?

jsid-1205353571-589370  Markadelphia at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:26:11 +0000

Well, Spitzer being gone is actually good news for Obama fans (me) as that is one less superdelegate for Hillary. So I have no ax to grind her.

In regards to Al Qaeda, I was speaking of cells here in the US. That is what the FBI should be spending their time on...not dumb ass shit like this.

jsid-1205356327-589372  KCSteve at Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:12:07 +0000

It's my understanding that the wiretaps were done because they thought Spitzer was the victim of blackmail.

jsid-1205373841-589374  Mastiff at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:04:01 +0000


In regards to Al Qaeda, I was speaking of cells here in the US. That is what the FBI should be spending their time on...not dumb ass shit like this.

Just curious: should the FBI spend resources investigating hate crimes? That's a distraction from al-Qaida. What about murder for hire? That's also a distraction from al-Qaida. In fact, what about the whole range of crimes listed by the FBI as within their purview, barring counterterrorism?

Remember, if we're afraid to investigate public corruption or the possibility thereof in favor of counterterrorism, then the terrorists have won…

jsid-1205374956-589376  Kevin Baker at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:22:36 +0000

No fair using logic and consistency, Mastiff!

jsid-1205424200-589396  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:03:20 +0000

"should the FBI spend resources investigating hate crimes?"

No, because I think the definition of hate crimes is ludicrous. A crime is crime, pure and simple. What needs to happen is that if officers of the law don't investigate a crime due to bias, they should be fired immediately.

The FBI's top priority should be Al Qaeda. Other crimes should be prioritized after that one...with violent crime being at the top and non violent crime being lower on the ladder.

My bias is showing, though. I don't think prostitution is a crime. Sorry. It's already legal in one state in our country. I also think that all drugs should be made legal.

jsid-1205429124-589399  Randy at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:25:24 +0000

Mark, I think you meant to say that you don't think prostitution is wrong. It certainly is a crime in 49 states of the union.

I agree with you on "hate" aka "thought" crimes. (I must not be feeling well today! ;-) That's 2 posts today!)

I think the results of the past 6+ years shows that the feds are going after AQ, but the primary front against them is in the purview of the Intel agencies and DoD overseas.

Most violent crimes are not Federal crimes, but the jurisdiction of state and local LE.

I think taking down corrupt, hypocritical (and stupid as he was in this case) is a great thing for the FBI to do. I wished they'd do more. The entire elected city governments of NYFC, Chicago, DC and New Orleans, and a good majority of legislators in this country could do some actual good for the first time in their lives picking up trash wearing orange jump suits and pink underwear.

jsid-1205436154-589405  rich at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:22:34 +0000

Adding to Randy's comment I would suggest the entire state government and probably all of the county governments of New Jersey.

I hear people say at least Louisiana is worst then we, but I'm not too sure lately

jsid-1205443522-589408  TOM at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:25:22 +0000

Prosecutorial abuse is one of the most heinous crimes in our free country.

This guy has been Uber-Nifong for 10 years and I hope they Nifong his ass.

It is important that he feels the tip and the shaft of the spear that he wielded so viciously.

Humiliation is not enough.

jsid-1205450946-589410  Markadelphia at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:29:06 +0000

Tom, Randy et al, just out of curiosity...how do you guys feel about Alberto Gonzalez?

jsid-1205452673-589412  Mastiff at Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:57:53 +0000

Gonzalez, so far as I can tell, is a non-entity. He did what he was told to do. If he is actually corrupt, then give him the treatment just like any other corrupt public figure.

Spitzer, on the other hand, extorted donations to his favorite "charities" from large corporations, under threat of destroying them utterly with trumped-up charges like he hit AIG's boss, Hank Greenberg, with.

Given that I work, in some vague fashion, for AIG, I take that one a mite personally.

jsid-1205466237-589419  Randy at Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:43:57 +0000

Gonzalez has not been aggressive enough in telling the ACLU et al to go fly a kite with regard to Gitmo and the illegal combatants held there. That they have no rights under the US Constitution and under International law we are within our rights to summarily execute any of them at any time we wish.

Or in explaining to those handicapped by J-School degrees that if, in fact, the detainees there are legal combatants, and POW's, then bringing them to the US to stand trial in criminal courts is, in fact a war crime under international law.

He is major disappointment after Ashcroft, someone who actually acted like his party won the election instead of apologizing for it. Particularly his recognition of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

In short, he's a typical careerist political weenie, but I've seen no indication of him being corrupt or of abusing his power for pesonal political gain.

Mark, you might (and probably will) argue that his actions particularly WRT the Patriot Act are abuses of power, but I don't think there's any indication it was for PERSONAL gain.

OBTW I'm not very comfortable with some of Guilliani's tactics when he was a DA, and if he was caught in a scenario like this,particularly the illegal acts (wether you think they should be illegal, they currently are) and the hypocrisy, I'd be just as happy to throw his butt into the stir as well.

And while I was gravely dissapointed in Duke Cunnigham given his past service to this country, I have no problem with him being prosecuted either.

jsid-1205511415-589432  Markadelphia at Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:16:55 +0000

I don't know enough about Spitzer to form a real opinion. He's a douche bag? Fine by me. He's a douche bag. Again, I don't really care. It works to my advantage that he is gone anyway...one less superdelegate for Hillary.

jsid-1205558453-589450  Rob at Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:20:53 +0000

SARs leads to discovering money laundering which leads almost always to organized crime - nuff said on that.

Watch out for Louisiana! The just "hired" a young gun republican gov. He has already shoved through tough new anti-corruption legislation. He is on his way to cleaning things up.

How did this devolve to a discussion about Gonzalez? Is Mark going off about the firing of the 9 Klintonian holdover attorneys? Puullleeeeze! Old and incorrect news.

To stay on point (or drag it back there), as I understand it Spitzer stupidly arranged for a large transfer to the "club", then called the bank to have his name removed from the transfer. That will set off alarm bells in the dullest of minds.

And yes, Mark, I am wearing my AFDB from zapato productions (Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie - it prevents mind control beams from the government and alien abductions. If only I could use it to solve the illegal alien problem...).

jsid-1205590231-589455  Randy at Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:10:31 +0000

"How did this devolve to a discussion about Gonzalez?"

He's trying the old moral equivalent nonsese with a twist of misdirection.

Since Spitzer is a Dihm, then he really didn't commit any crime and any way the Stupid Party hacks are worse, but we're not demanding that they be prosecuted.

Especially since sex was involved, and we all know that anything technically a crime, such as money laundering, conspiracy and perjury aren't really crimes if sex is involved. Especially if there's a (D) after the guys name.

jsid-1205712853-589494  Markadelphia at Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:14:13 +0000

Actually, I brought up Gonzalez because I think he is just as corrupt as Spitzer . I was curious to see if what was good for the goose was good for the gander.

jsid-1205783565-589535  Randy at Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:52:45 +0000

Well, I hope I made clear that IF Gonzales is corrupt, I have no problem with making him do the perp walk. So what (other than disagreeing with his policies and politics) is it that makes you think he's corrupt Mark?

jsid-1205787231-589540  Russell at Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:53:51 +0000

Duh, clearly since he is Republican, he's evil!

Reference : http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/03/quote-of-day_04.html

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>