Alan Dershowitz Puts This In Perspective

aside (4.00 / 1)

Aside from Dershowitz's apparent insistence that this is not a matter of governance...  he is right to point out that Spitzer was probably targeted with federal resources and that this should be examined before, during and after Spitzer leaves office.

---

by: NYCO @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 21:40:42 PM CDT

I tend to agree with the fact... (0.00 / 0)

that this is not a matter of governance. After all, we aren't talking about his ability to govern and lead. We're talking about his betrayal and apparent hypocrisy of what we thought Eliot Spitzer was.

Let's face it, a lot of us supported this guy when we didn't know he was actually a high-class customer for this ring and possibly another. When he was AG, we backed him and he was doing this then. Of course, it's always worse when it comes to the surface.

But Dershowitz seems to think that this is pretty suspicious considering the amount of money involved. To me, $15,000 is a lot. But in the world of white-collar crimes, $15,000 is nothing.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 21:48:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

which (4.00 / 1)

After all, we aren't talking about his ability to govern and lead. We're talking about his betrayal and apparent hypocrisy of what we thought Eliot Spitzer was.

Which directly impacts his ability to govern and lead.

I think Spitzer is a special case in that regard.  Another politician, you might have had a point... But it is very difficult to separate "what we thought Spitzer was" from "his ability to lead."  He was elected completely on his character qualities.  That's all he ran on.  That's all there was.  Take that away and he is a hollow political figure.  Without that, he is nothing (politically), and a nothing cannot govern.  Ergo, it is about his ability to govern and lead.

And honestly?   Dershowitz, who probably is a rich and comfortable guy, doesn't quite grasp what millions of New Yorkers who are far less comfortable hoped for in Spitzer and in essence, "was" politically.  I don't think Dershowitz really gets it, does not understand who Spitzer was politically and who sent him and why his character and his ability to govern were so intimately linked.  I don't think a lot of non New Yorkers grasp it, either.  This was a relationship between Eliot and the people of New York and it was no secret to anyone what the relationship was based on, he embraced it, he promised us he'd be true to it, and HE WAS NOT, and the relationship is OVER.

The people of New York gambled on character over experience (yes, I'm talking about Suozzi - not that it was much of a race), and WE LOST.  And that's a deep lament for another day when this has died down a bit.

---

by: NYCO @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 22:20:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not the way I have heard it on the financial institution "suspicious" reporting (4.00 / 1)

Again, maybe the rules for credit unions and banks are different, but, I have heard from folks who work at our credit union that cash transactions of as little as a thousand dollars are to be routinely flagged as suspicious and referred to the IRS's folks for analysis.  That is, presumably, to find patterns that might, for instance, indicate buying or selling drugs, or supporting terrorist orgs.

I think that it was the using-cash part that put the transactions under scrutiny-- something that Spitzer, like Dershowitz, might miss because they are used to dealing with other, more typical, forms of monetary transfer.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 21:55:37 PM CDT

The problem here... (0.00 / 0)

was that QAT, which is an actual company that provides computer and IT consulting, was being used as the shield here to make it look like one would be paying for computer services while receiving the company of prostitutes. That is, if you were a customer of Emperor's Club.

So, who knows if Spitzer knew this is how they conducted business. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But regardless, we aren't dealing with one flat $15,000 transfer here. This was hundreds, maybe thousands at a time.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 22:02:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In cash (0.00 / 0)

That is the difference-- the cash medium has a much lower threshhold for suspicious activity than the outright direct transfers.  So, a thousand or so will do it to get the transaction flagged (withdrawl of cash), to be compared with other records by the computer, looking for pattern.

Dude has, unfortunately, a pattern.  Moving money on the sly to pay for very expensive hookers.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 22:06:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

According to NPR's lucid explanation (0.00 / 0)

...all banks have software that sifts through every single transaction looking for suspicious patterns. And every customer has a risk profile that sets the "suspicion" threshold. Among customers with a high risk profile are "PEPs," Politically Exposed Persons -- a pattern of cash transfers could indicate corruption.

These practices have been in effect since shortly after 9/11, and were strengthened in New York State under Attorney General Spitzer.

Of course, what was done with the information once obtained could well be politically motivated. But I think Dershowitz is wrong about how this scrutiny came about.

---

by: greenheron @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:54:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]