Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080313...rg/atipec6w5i0o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080313...rg/atipec6w5i0o I wonder why "customers of call girls are rarely pursued by federal authorities." Of course the answer is obvious but why go there. It's not wise to make enemies of banking and insurance firms in New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I wonder why "customers of call girls are rarely pursued by federal authorities." Of course the answer is obvious but why go there. It's not wise to make enemies of banking and insurance firms in New York. He was pursued because he was making suspicious money transfers and they thought he was involved in something worse. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I wonder why "customers of call girls are rarely pursued by federal authorities." Of course the answer is obvious but why go there. It's not wise to make enemies of banking and insurance firms in New York. The answer is because the states go after them. It's not a federal crime, except when they cross state lines. In this case, they did, but it's so low of a federal crime the prosecutors would likely be embarrassed to try to convict him on those charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The answer is because the states go after them. It's not a federal crime, except when they cross state lines. In this case, they did, but it's so low of a federal crime the prosecutors would likely be embarrassed to try to convict him on those charges. No, it's all Karl Rove's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 It is funny what is coming out about this Dupre woman. She sez she had a rough childhood and then it turns out she lived in an exclusive neighborhood in a 1.7 million dollar house in Jersey. Now that her identity is known I really find it hard to believe that she was worth five grand an hour, maybe she's not my type but geez come on. For once though I think the woman will get off scot free and make a mint on this (her dreadful R&B tune has recieved millions of hits) while the John will have to pay the fiddler. Since it seems appearent they will go forward with charges against Spitzer they will have to grant her some kind of immunity to testify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 He was pursued because he was making suspicious money transfers and they thought he was involved in something worse. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble. You misunderstand me. I'm not into conspiracies. But if you think his crusades against the banking and insurance firms didn't make SERIOUS enemies, well sorry to burst your "whatever the opposite of conspiracy is" bubble." Want to make a bet NONE of ANY thing he did ever makes it to a court? He's ruined for good in politics. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 The answer is because the states go after them. It's not a federal crime, except when they cross state lines. In this case, they did, but it's so low of a federal crime the prosecutors would likely be embarrassed to try to convict him on those charges. Never the less, it is one of the charges being considered. Along with money laundering. Neither of which has a snowball's chance of even going to court to begin with. He will NEVER be charged with anything in connection to the prostituion ring or money laundering. NOT EVER. A first year law student can see to that. He's out of office and his career is OVER. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Never the less, it is one of the charges being considered. Along with money laundering. Neither of which has a snowball's chance of even going to court to begin with. He will NEVER be charged with anything in connection to the prostituion ring or money laundering. NOT EVER. A first year law student can see to that. He's out of office and his career is OVER. Case closed. Court -- meaning a trial? No, of course not. But he'll have to go to court to plead out if he wants this to go away. Obviously he won't go to jail, but the Feds aren't going to drop the case simply because he quit his job. Strong likelihood that he'll get some type of probation and be disbarred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Court -- meaning a trial? No, of course not. But he'll have to go to court to plead out if he wants this to go away. Obviously he won't go to jail, but the Feds aren't going to drop the case simply because he quit his job. Strong likelihood that he'll get some type of probation and be disbarred. The Feds don't have a case. That's my point. Transporting a prostitute over state lines? Nope. They'd have to prove she didn't go willingly. Did he know about the money laundering? That's a HUGE stretch and then there's the question of having to prosecute clients 1-8 for the same thing. The money transfers? They weren't illegal amounts that had to be reported to the IRS they were just close enough to raise flags by the bank. I can see him being disbarred or at least have his license to practice revoked for hiring a prostitute but that just may open a can of worms for LOTS of people. He resigned. His career in politics is over. He won't practice law for the foreseable future. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts