Spitzer's fall brings concerns
Despite my giddiness in watching Elliot Spitzer's fall, I'm concerned in how he was brought down. I hadn't heard about how they caught him until reading Bob Barr's blog at the AJC:
As the Spitzer story has unfolded, it appears that because he transferred his own monies in his own bank accounts for his own purposes, but in a manner that raised suspicions of bank employees and might have run afoul of the complex web of reporting requirements that now overlay and enwrap all banks and financial transactions, his personal money transfers were reported to the IRS, and his phone conversations then surreptitiously monitored by government agents.But remember, the government doesn't monitor calls of anyone but terrorists, individuals suspected of terrorism or calls originating overseas, so there is no reason for any American to oppose wiretapping, right?One day you’re simply transferring some funds from one account to another, or wiring some money to someone overseas; the next day, you’re being investigated and your calls monitored.
Also, McQ at QandO writes that Spitzer's call girl has been granted immunity.
Comments
I'm sure you're right Jason. The fact that he was part of a criminal investigation when this was uncovered probably had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Tyler | March 17, 2008 10:59 AM
The reason the criminal investigation was initiated was because of his banking transactions, "The criminal investigation into Spitzer began when North Fork Bank notified the Treasury Department's financial crimes network about suspicious activity in one of the governor's personal accounts, another source familiar with the case said."
Posted by: Jason | March 17, 2008 11:38 AM
I was referring to the initial investigation of the Call girl service by the Feds when Spitzer was identified as being Client #9. Isn't that how he was initially discovered?
Posted by: Tyler | March 29, 2008 06:20 AM