home
U.S. Attorney Says No Deal With Spitzer...Yet | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes, someone's silly (none / 0) (#2)
by Beldar on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST
We are a silly society when partisanship blinds us to basic facts. Consensual sex didn't trigger this investigation.  A financial crime related to money-laundering did.

[ Parent ]
I think you mean (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
a financial transaction, not a financial crime. It has not been established a crime was committed.

[ Parent ]
Look in a mirror (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM EST
As far as I can see the structuring was to pay for the sex without being discovered.

What other money laundering did Spitzer actually do?

All things considered, is this the best use of tax payer money?

This is a case of I don't want to know if he is paying for high priced hookers and I don't want federal dollars spent in prosecuting him or any other politician (GOP or Democrat for this offense. Especially when they have resigned.

Do you want to put him in jail for paying for high priced hookers?

Do you want him to make restitution for paying for high priced hookers? How would that be accomplished?

Do you want him doing community service for paying for high priced hookers?

What pound of flesh would satisfy you?

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

There was no "structuring" (none / 0) (#6)
by scribe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
in the sense of the statute or the regs.

The only arguable violation of a criminal statute here, was of the Mann Act.

[ Parent ]

that's going too far (none / 0) (#7)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST
 That he would have a strong defense is not close to the same thing as saying the government could not build a case strong enough both to establish probable cause and to withstand a motion JOA.

[ Parent ]
I have only seen press speculation (none / 0) (#13)
by scribe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:37:14 PM EST
and the court documents available on-line.  Those do not indicate any structuring - if there was a sexual encounter, the price therefor would have been, given "Kristen's" alleged rates, less than should have triggered a structuring inquiry.

[ Parent ]
this isn't difficult (none / 0) (#16)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
  Structuring essentially means arranging a series of transactions to evade reporting requirements which are triggered when a transaction is 10K or greater. Several sources have reported the Feds have evidence he did  engage in a series of transactions, each a transfer to the front for the pimps,  the aggregate of which is greater than 10K.

  That could be the basis for the structuring charge. His lack of intent would be a defense and likely a very good one, but in this world you don't have a divine right to have no charges brought just because you say you lacked intent.

[ Parent ]

Eliot Spitzer.... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
thinks, or has thought in the past, that prostitution prosecutions are a great way to spend taxpayer money.  His chickens have come home.

As for me, I've always thought it was a tremendous waste of money, and an unnecessary infringement on the liberty of prostitutes and johns.

[ Parent ]

U.S. Attorney Says No Deal With Spitzer...Yet | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft