SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (241802)3/13/2008 1:30:42 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (6) | Respond to of 793958
 
The Entrapment of Eliot
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
March 13, 2008; Page A19

The federal criminal investigation that has led to Eliot Spitzer's resignation as governor of New York illustrates the great dangers all Americans face from vague and open-ended sex and money-transaction statutes.

Federal law, if read broadly, criminalizes virtually all sexual encounters for which something of value has been given. Federal money-laundering statutes criminalize many entirely legitimate and conventional banking transactions. Congress enacted these laws to give federal prosecutors wide discretion in deciding which "bad guys" to go after.

Generally, wise and intelligent prosecutors use their discretion properly -- to target organized crime, terrorism, financial predation, exploitation of children and the like. But the very existence of these selectively enforced statutes poses grave dangers of abuse. They lie around like loaded guns waiting to be used against the enemies of politically motivated investigators, prosecutors and politicians.

There is no hard evidence that Eliot Spitzer was targeted for investigation, but the story of how he was caught does not ring entirely true to many experienced former prosecutors and current criminal lawyers. The New York Times reported that the revelations began with a routine tax inquiry by revenue agents "conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks." This investigation allegedly found "several unusual movements of cash involving the Governor of New York." But the movement of the amounts of cash required to pay prostitutes, even high-priced prostitutes over a long period of time, does not commonly generate a full-scale investigation.

We are talking about thousands, not millions, of dollars. We are also talking about a man who is a multimillionaire with numerous investments and purchases. The idea that federal investigators would focus on a few transactions to corporations -- that were not themselves under investigation -- raises as many questions as answers.
[Eliot Spitzer]

Even if Mr. Spitzer's derelictions were serendipitously discovered as a result of routine, computerized examination of bank transactions, the dangers inherent in selective use of overbroad criminal statutes remain. Money laundering, structuring and related financial crimes are designed to ferret out organized crime, drug dealing, terrorism and large-scale financial manipulation. They were not enacted to give the federal government the power to inquire into the sexual or financial activities of men who move money in order to hide payments to prostitutes.

Once federal authorities concluded that the "suspicious financial transactions" attributed to Mr. Spitzer did not fit into any of the paradigms for which the statutes were enacted, they should have closed the investigation. It's simply none of the federal government's business that a man may have been moving his own money around in order to keep his wife in the dark about his private sexual peccadilloes.

But the authorities didn't close the investigation. They expanded it, because they had caught a big fish in the wide net they had cast.

In this case, they wiretapped 5,000 phone conversations, intercepted 6,000 emails, used surveillance and undercover tactics that are more appropriate for trapping terrorists than entrapping johns. Unlike terrorism and other predatory crimes, prostitution is legal in many parts of the world and in some parts of the U.S. Even in places like New York, where it is technically illegal, johns are rarely prosecuted. Prostitution rings operate openly, advertising "massage" and "escort" services in the back pages of glossy magazines, local newspapers and television sex channels.

If the federal government really wanted to shut down these operations, they could easily do it without a single wiretap or email intercept. All they would have to do is get an undercover agent to answer the ads, arrange for the "escort" to go from New York to New Jersey and be arrested. But many in law enforcement would much rather reserve these statutes for selective use against predetermined targets.

In this case, if the serendipitous bank audit really led federal agents to Mr. Spitzer, and Mr. Spitzer led them to the Emperor's Club, and federal prosecutors really wanted to get the Club, they could easily have sent an undercover cop to pose as a john, instead of tapping phones and reading emails -- tactics designed to catch and embarrass Mr. Spitzer with his own recorded words, which could be, and were, leaked to the media. As this newspaper has reported: "It isn't clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases . . ."

Lavrenti Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin's KGB, once quipped to his boss, "show me the man and I will find the crime." The Soviet Union was notorious for having accordion-like criminal laws that could be adjusted to fit almost any dissident target. The U.S. is a far cry from the Soviet Union, but our laws are dangerously overbroad.

Both Democrats and Republicans have targeted political adversaries over the years. The weapons of choice are almost always elastic criminal laws. And few laws are more elastic, and susceptible to abuse, than federal laws on money laundering and sex crimes. For the sake of all Americans, these laws should be narrowed and limited to predatory crimes with real victims.

Mr. Dershowitz teaches law at Harvard University and is the author of "Finding Jefferson" (Wiley, 2007).

online.wsj.com



To: KLP who wrote (241802)3/13/2008 2:24:35 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793958
 
'THAT WOULD NEVER BE ME'
WIFE SCOFFED AT HILL STANDING BY CHEATIN' BILL
By JENNIFER FERMINO

March 13, 2008 -- A decade ago, as she watched then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton humiliated by her intern-loving hubby, Silda Wall Spitzer made clear her intentions if Eliot ever cheated.

"That would never be me. I'd be gone," Silda told friends, a pal told The Post.

But Silda, for the second time in a week, donned a tailored designer skirt suit and appeared to be standing by her hooker-loving hubby yesterday, even as the fairy tale has soured behind closed doors.

MORE COVERAGE

* PEYSER: Becoming His Doormat Was Her Sin, Her Crime And Her Failing

* Shameful End As Spitz Quits

* The Gal Who Laid Gov Low

VOTE: Should Silda stand by Spitzer?

* PHOTOS: Spitzer's Rise And Fall

Describing their relationship as "icy," a source said they now sleep in separate bedrooms.

Silda Spitzer, alone and clutching a handkerchief, left the palatial high-rise yesterday at around 3 p.m.

The news of her spouse's philandering with a coterie of high-priced girls in multistate trysts has not been easy to handle for the Southern Baptist, said another friend. "She's taking this very hard," said the source.

One comfort for Spitzer is the volumes of e-mails she's been getting from pals. She has responded warmly to many of the well-wishers.

Friends are speculating that Silda and the soon-to-be-ex-governor will ride out the legal problems as a team. Then, said the source, she'll deal with their marital woes.

As painful as the public humiliation has been for Silda, it was the mother of three who urged her husband not to resign in a rush.

"She didn't want him to be hasty. [She said], 'Take time and think about what you're doing before you make the decision,' " Trilby Wall, Silda Spitzer's mother, told The Post.

"[Silda wanted to] let everything sink in."

Wall, who lives in North Carolina, said that Spitzer was ready to throw in the towel on his job as governor much earlier.

"He probably would have earlier [if it wasn't for her]," she said.

As for her feelings on the scandal that has taken down her son-in-law, the polite Southern lady said only, "We love our family in good times and in bad."

That seems to be the motto of many a political wife.

In 1992, Hillary Clinton appeared on "60 Minutes" to defend her presidential-candidate husband, who was being hounded by rumors of infidelity.

Sitting next to Bill Clinton, Hillary said, "You know, I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him, and I respect him."

In the years since, hordes of high- profile women let down by their straying spouses have followed Clinton's lead.

Wendy Vitter, the wife of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, thought for sure she'd dump her two-timing spouse.

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," she told reporters in 2000, referring to the woman who chopped off her husband's penis.

Seven years later, Vitter stood by her guy for the cameras when he was identified as a client of "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

And Suzanne Craig, wife of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, lent her support to her embattled hubby after he copped a guilty plea to soliciting a male undercover cop for sex in an airport bathroom.

Debbie Walsh, the director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said that the wives are often used as props to soften their husband's transgressions.

"It is supposed to make him look like not such a bad guy. Like, 'Geez, look, his wife was standing next to him,' " Walsh told the San Francisco Chronicle.

But she thinks it backfired with Silda Spitzer.

"In this case, she looked so pained that, to me, he looked less sympathetic," Walsh said.

Even the most long-suffering wives sometimes say enough is enough.

Six years after the infamous "60 Minutes" interview, Bill Clinton again had to address his infidelity on the public stage, this time with a 19-year-old intern named Monica Lewinsky.

And this time, his wife was nowhere to be seen.

Silda, a one-time corporate lawyer who chucked her career to be a full-time mom, has ended up walking a mile in Clinton's shoes and treading very similar territory.

jennifer.fermino@nypost.com