According to ABC, the IRS was investigating Spitzer, passed what they found on to the Public Integrity Unit of DOJ, who in turn discovered the Emperors Club link only at the end. So the hookers got caught because Spitzer was being investigated, he was not caught because of the hookers. Indeed, early reports are they plan to charge him with "structuring", basically a crime in which someone makes multiple cash movements of amounts just under the level at which banks are required to report the transactions to the Federal gov't. But since that limit is around $9,000, and since reports are Spitzer was occasionally moving only $5,000 it sounds as if he wasn't even close to triggering the banking law's requirements.

So why were they investigating him?

And while he may be a hypocrite, I want to know first why exactly he was under DOJ/IRS investigation? Lawyer Scott Horten at Harpers Magazine has done a great job documenting abuses by the DOJ over the last 6yrs, which basically center around DOJ not investigating suspected or uncovered crimes, but instead having DOJ investigate persons to see if a crime can be discovered. That's an abuse of the criminal justice system. Was Spitzer being investigated in an effort to find something with which to bring him down, as happened to ex-Gov Don Siegelman in Alabama? Currently, the PIU section of DOJ is being examined by Congress after researchers discovered over the last 6yrs they've launched 7 times as many investigations of Democratic politicians at local and state levels, as they have Republican politicians (dispite a higher conviction rate of Republicans for actual crimes).

Was this a politically motivated investigation which was lucky enough to actually find a crime?

He was moving money between shell corporations and then liquidating accounts, which in political terms hints at bribes. For investigators to ignore that activity and not dig deeper would have been criminal... it turns out they were wrong about the bribes, but there's no reason to believe that if you see thousands moving out the door and taken out in cash, that there aren't thousands more dollars moving the same way. Once the investigators learned it was prostitution (across state lines no less, and keep in mind the hypocrisy here) I feel it would have been wrong to try and cover that up.

Even if it was a politically motivated hit job (that would still require him breaking the law), which it doesn't seem to be, no one did the political take-down better than Spitzer. Everyone, including Cuomo thinks what Spitzer did to Bruno was shameful and a political hatchet job, which also involved planting fake stories in the newspaper. And while many of his now lauded attacks on white collar crime were admirable, there were plenty of times where he used obscure laws that hadn't been used in 50 years to bring people down, times he threw people's private lives into the public sphere to humiliate them, and all sorts of grandstanding to raise his profile. What goes around comes around.

I posted earlier. But if the IRS and Treasury under the former CEO of Goldman Sachs actually put some investigative light on Spitzer (the hated "cop of Wall Street") or if they received tips about his funds from "a bank," as today's Times article implies, that is a far more serious matter than hookers or the temperamental shortcomings of Spitzer. You suggest it is a routine investigation. How many transfers of that size does the IRS "routinely" watch? How often do banks "routinely" report funds transfers of a size they are not required to report? What seems scary to me is that this line of thinking, even if paranoid, may not get very far. The IRS can't be really investigated and its enforcement actions are too "random" to evaluate. I agree that it raises an eyebrow at the very least.

"The vast disparity came not from the more high-profile investigations of state-wide or federal officeholders (the disparity there was 55-44 Democratic), but from the far more numerous investigations of local officials. The study found that 85 percent of the 309 local officials and candidates who faced investigation were Democrats."

<link>

I'm sure you've seen this, zoomie.

Now, what does it mean?? Well, my first instinct is to go to a map like this:

<link>

What does this map mean? It means republicans hold majorities in rural areas, and democrats hold majorities in urban areas(cities).

So, my working theory is that the reason democrats are investigated more is because cities generate more investigations than urban areas.

This makes sense to me, because often rural area governments operate on shoestring budgets. I know for a fact that the budgets for some rural governing bodies are so small that single vehicle purchases (snowplows) make a huge huge differences. There's no money to steal!

In a city, more money is sloshing around, and more lawyers are sloshing around too.

The reason we have two parties is so one checks up on the other! It is another "checks and balances" issue. We also have much larger staffs of career prosecutors and investigators who regularly look for patterns of corruption.

Spitzer knew all this and still thought, apparently, that he didn't have to follow the rules when it comes to cheating on his wife (and children). ...power corrupts.

Thus, just another example of why we have (and need) power distributed across locals/states, branches, parties, etc.

All this argues for smaller government, distributed more closely to the people, using term limits, sunshine laws, etc.

One other suggestion:

Possibly we need "Political Contracts" whereby politicians back their promises with contracts enforceable in civil court.

platform == deliverables

term == delivery schedule

penalties == amount vendor pays upon failure to deliver.

If we could sue our politicians in civil court for breach of contract, then we could "trust" them like we "trust" businessmen... (i.e. not at all) and do business anyway because of the "personal wealth" endorsing the candidate.

Heck, then when a rich politician fails to deliver on campaign promises, the citizens could sue for damages and even occasionally receive a "wind fall" profit out of the politician's failure!

I beg to differ with your assumption:

"moving money between shell corporations and then liquidating accounts"

is something businesses and individuals do all the time for tax purposes. Unless there's some truly incriminating factor about the payments (the amount above a certain level, for instance) then there's no explanation for the IRS targeting that individual. And the idea that the IRS could be used to execute political hit jobs is the real scandal here.

These are all reasonable arguements, but it does not get to the real question on everyone's mind. Who the hell is Client #1. If the Governor of New York is only Client #9, it has to be someone big. Just keep an eye out for any politician keeping a low profile on this one.

If we could only see Bill Clinton's bank statements, the mystery might be solved. Let's get the IRS and FBI on this pronto.

Seriously, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Spitzer used the LAW to destroy his enemies, now he has had the same blade put to him. Like something out of MacBeth, or at least a Wyle E. Coyote cartoon. BEEP, BEEP...........ZZZZooooommmmmm­!!!!!!! I almost imagined he had been involved with the ACME Escort Agency.

Good ridance, Elliot Mess. I know, I know, Colbert called dibs.

You see, it does not matter what kind of legal mumbo jumbo rationalization you throw at this, the jokes are going to write themselves. Spitzer is done. He should do everyone a favor, and slink off as soon as possible. If for no one else, at least do it for your wife and children. Why do politicians always make their wifes stand next to them, while publicly humiliating them.

Why were they investigating Spitzer? Why was Valerie Plame's name leaked to the media after Joe Wilson's op-ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa" appeared in the New York Times? Ironically, less than a month ago Eliot Spitzer's article about the Bush Administration's role in the current financial crisis appeared in the Washington Post. (Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime, Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2008, p. A25) You should read it if you haven't already.

<link>