But It Is About The Sex
March 27, 2008
When Bill Clinton got caught with his pants down, the precedent was established for a brilliant defense...”It’s just about sex”.
Little did it matter that a President lied under oath and tampered with witnesses. Little did it matter that a President was cleaning himself off in the Oval Office bathroom while a young bimbo, with no security clearance of substance, could have been reading “who knows what” on the Presidential desk...it was about sex and that negated any associated felonies.
Well, better duck because the same line of crap is starting to come from the Spitzer apologists at the New York Times.
For the record, other than the personal nausea that the thought of it produces, I could care less whom Elliot Spitzer had sex with...even if he didn’t take “off his calf-length black socks during the sex act.” That’s something between Spitzer, his family, God and Ralph Lauren.
For that matter, who could blame Bill Clinton considering what his alternative was (still is?).
Although it says something about the character of an individual who feels the need to have a wife and unlimited extra-marital sexual escapades, that’s something between the little perv , Sigmund Freud and the collective wisdom of the American electorate.
But, if in the perpetration of breaking God’s law, the perv violates the State’s law, then he must answer to both God and the State.
And that’s the rub.
In a recent article, U.S. Defends Tough Tactics on Spitzer, the Times questions the government’s “tough” investigation of Spitzer because it was only about “prostitution”.
As the Times framed it, “The scale and intensity of the investigation of Mr. Spitzer...seemed on its face to be a departure for the Justice Department, which...almost never investigates people who pay prostitutes for sex.”
And then, the Times creates the “witch-hunt” inference by stating that, “At the Justice Department in Washington, senior political appointees have said they had little involvement in the case...Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge in New York, was not told about the case until shortly before March 5....”
What the hell is the Times talking about?
The Justice Department got involved in this case because it is a case about financial improprieties that also turned into a prostitution case. When the Justice Department realized that as part of its investigation into Spitzer’s bank’s SARs (suspicious activity reports) it had also tripped onto an international prostitution ring should it have just turned its back, walked away and said “Oh dear me...I’m sorry...It’s just about sex”?
Should the Justice Department have just taken a pass on a sitting governor of NY, with top level security clearances, who was reported for trying to remove his name from financial accounts; structuring financial transactions; transacting cash business with an international money laundering and tax evasion criminal ring and sharing “pillow talk” with a bimbo who not only was also breaking the law but who also had no security clearance?
I would damn well hope that some “senior political appointees” (like the Attorney General) were consulted about the criminal activity of NY’s self-destructive Governor before the fact.
Can you imagine the fallout if some low level bureaucrat (like Janet Reno) botched an investigation of this magnitude? After all, we are talking about Elliot Spitzer and prostitutes (something important) not meaningless things like Randy Weaver’s wife and son.
This is not a case about spitting on the sidewalk. It is a possible violation of U. S. Code Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 53, Subchapter II, § 5324. Violation of this code can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
Still think it’s a Spitzer witch-hunt?
Last month, Richard T. Race, the former Pentagon Inspector General's chief investigator of procurement fraud and official misconduct pleaded guilty to violating this code. Mr. Race received $20,000 from selling a car and deposited $9,000 in cash on a Wednesday, $9,000 the next day and $2,000 the following day in the same credit union. The teller filed a SAR because was Race suspected of trying to circumvent the Title 31 reporting requirement. He is now facing a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in federal prison.
And just as importantly, Spitzer had a top level security clearance and was knowingly and intentionally breaking the law in consort with a criminal enterprise. As the former pit bull Attorney General of NY, there is no doubt about the use of the terms “knowingly and intentionally”.
As Attorney General, Spitzer prosecuted much weaker cases for the very same offences. In fact, if this was a case about Spitzer prosecuting John Doe for the very same offences, rest assured that John Doe would gladly pay to rebuild the World Trade Center just to be able to jump off the top of it after Spitzer, using the power of his office, was done with him.
And, as a friend of mine has pointed out, “If this were Spitzer prosecuting John Doe for the exact same offences, how many press releases would Spitzer have had to announce this ‘major case’ and how many above-the-fold headlines would that idiot (Spitzer) have gotten in the NYT for showing us all what a hard-ass prosecutor he was?”
In the face of Spitzer violating many laws to facilitate his need for sex, the Times insists on turning this into a $20 street corner trick...which it isn’t.
When the Times drags out their expert, former Brooklyn federal prosecutor Bradley D. Simon, to make the point that, “...it was unusual for the (Justice) department to bring criminal charges in a prostitution case in which there was no allegation of the exploitation of children, human trafficking or some far more serious crime”, the Times seemingly forgets about Spitzer’s violations of Title 31 and his facilitation of a criminal enterprise. Not to mention that the prostitution ring was operating internationally, paying no taxes and laundering its cash.
Rest assured, it is about the sex. Because the sex made it about: transporting women over state lines for sex; violating Title 31; compromising a security clearance and facilitating an international organized crime ring.
Or do these laws only apply to the little people like former government bureaucrat Richard T. Race?
Maybe we should ask Mr. Spitzer for an honest opinion on this.
RightPage