Another day, another dubious and fact-sparse accusation from Bruno stenographer New York Post "columnist" Fredric U. Dicker. This morning, Dicker once again quotes unnamed sources "familiar with Bruno's thinking" as saying that Bruno's Senate investigators believe there are "strong indications" that Eliot Spitzer, while still AG, used his "powerful law enforcement connections" to sic the Feds on Bruno. Talk about thin. Let's take a look.
FBI TWIST IN SPITZ PROBE
Gov. Spitzer is being blamed for siccing the FBI on Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno - after earlier accusations that he unleashed the State Police, and tried to unleash the Internal Revenue Service, on him as well.
Sources close to Bruno told The Post that Senate investigators probing the Dirty Tricks Scandal have turned up what one called "strong indications" that Spitzer tapped his powerful law-enforcement connections last year while still attorney general to push the FBI into investigating the Rensselaer County-based Bruno's private consulting business.
"Sure, we think Spitzer was behind it. He's been behind every other attempt to destroy Joe, and it's all tied in," said a source familiar with Bruno's thinking. Bruno, the state's most powerful Republican, hastily called a press conference last December to announce the FBI probe after learning The Post was about to reveal that several Albany-area officials and business leaders had received federal subpoenas.
First, "Gov. Spitzer is being blamed". Blamed by whom? An unnamed source "familiar with Bruno's thinking." Let's face it, such a source is also likely to blame Spitzer for the weather.
Second, "strong indications." These indications are not elaborated upon at all. In fact, they aren't even mentioned again. Dicker's article contains 12 paragraphs. Only the first three deal in any way with the smear he's trying to advance.
Furthermore, if Bruno's boys had anything better than BS they can feed Dicker and the readers of the Post, don't you think we'd know about it in great detail? Do you really think they'd be so coy?
The rest of the article shows, once again, why it was written in the first place. It's 9 paragraphs of rehashing the various scandals and non-scandals of the past 5 months. It's essentially a vehicle for bringing it all up again with the added bonus of introducing a new and highly implausible smear that doesn't seem to be supported by anyone willing to attach their name to it.
It's Dicker. I know. Normally, I would just let it pass, but what inspired this post was that Liz over at Daily Politics included it in her "News of the Day" this morning by saying "The Senate GOP says it has proof..." when, of course, the Senate GOP said no such thing. |
