Comments on: Political Prosecution of Elliot Spitzer

By: ThisCanadian

ThisCanadian — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:26:09 +0000

There is no WE in corruption…

How dumb do you have to be to believe that corruption or ‘getting in on the action’ will benefit YOU?

Obviously, North America has come to the conclusion that *cheating* is only for Winners….

By: ThisCanadian

ThisCanadian — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:39:40 +0000

thoughts on “Holding the Bully’s Coat” …

Linda McQuaid’s discussion on the SPP …

By: CK

CK — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:02:54 +0000

And how does one tell if the sources are illegal? He smurfed. The transactions looked like smurfings and were followed up as if they were illegal smurfings.
The law assumes that structuring transactions this way is evidence of illegal behaviour.
Structuring transactions so as not to trip the $10,000 mandatory single transaction reporting requirement is illegal. It does not matter whether the source of the funds was illegal. Your bank will rat you out to the feds, the irs, any anyone else they might be secretly required to.
So)
1) He moved monies from his accounts in multiple transaction in quantities below the manadatory single amount for reporting.
2) into a shell company account
3) asked his bank to remove his name from the transfers.
It qualifies.
The specific term “smurfing” did indeed come from the multiple little blue columbian money launderers. The law against Structuring ( smurfing ) went a bit farther in defining what would qualify as a smurf. Smurfing, it’s not just for Columbians anymore.

By: Larry Johnson

Larry Johnson — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:23:01 +0000

Ck,
You are wrong. Smurfing involves moving proceeds from illegal sources into bank accounts. The term was coined because Colombian drug lords employed folks who were tasked everyday to deposit money from drug proceeds into bank accounts in order to repatriate the money to Colombia.

Nothing that Spitzer did qualifies as Smurfing. You do not know what you are talking about.

By: BlueBerry Pick'n

BlueBerry Pick'n — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:08:59 +0000

La rage
The Thieves of Virtue: legislating morality undermines representative government.

…if enough laws legislate morality, no representative gov’t official is beyond the reach of legal intimidation…

think about it.

is it a crime because its a crime…? or because its VICE crimes make it easier for Power to keep their feet on your Human Rights-seeking neck?

… how exactly does *a vice crime* impact one’s ability to do their job? the fact a vice is a policed & monitored *activity*… not the activity… thus, you create a society where *nobody is perfect enough to do their job on THE ELECTORATE’s behalf*… & for whom does that works out?

isn’t government about putting a representative in place to potentially level the playing field so we have a *shot* at justice in a culture where Money & Power have no interest in our free participation?

its about our COMPLIANCE & SUBMISSION.

“Serf-fulfilling” @ Montebello: Police accused of using provocateurs at Security & Prosperity Partnership Summit

Are we naturally mean? thoughts on Howard Zinn’s “The Myth of the Killer Instinct“

Join the Revolution: get laid

~~~
Spread Love…

BlueBerry Pick’n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
“We, two, form a Multitude” ~ Ovid.
~~~
“Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced”

By: ThisCanadian

ThisCanadian — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:05:20 +0000

The Thieves of Virtue: legislating morality undermines representative government….

Legislating Authority, removes power from those who are elected to protect our freedoms.

Thoughts on how a sex prostitution political scandal undermines effective representative governement.

INCLUDES: Whoopie Goldberg discussing Spitzer
Noam Chomsky…

By: CK

CK — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:29:55 +0000

They still have there jobs because they did not prosecute and jail any prosties. They still have their jobs because they only vote to criminalize consensual sex between people of the same sex.
The fraud in the white house will have served fully his two terms, he will start another war sometime before election day under the belief that Amurcans will not elect a black or a woman when the country is in a real war.

By: Make Them Accountable / Media

Make Them Accountable / Media — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:45:43 +0000

[...] Sex Sting: A Few More Questions (by Scott Horton at No Comment, Harper’s Magazine, thanks to No Quarter) Note that [the Eliot Spitzer] prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity [...]

By: Cee Hussein

Cee Hussein — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:05:38 +0000

Mimi,

I told you when the story broke that I suspected something more was going on.

Who decided to target him?

By: yttik

yttik — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:05:20 +0000

Maybe he is a liar and a fraud. But we’ve got someone in the white house who lied about WMD and has caused the deaths of thousands of troops and close to a million Iraqis. So where are the calls for him to resign? Where are the threats of impeachment? Where are the criminal charges?

And speaking of simply lying about sex, why do Vitter and Craig still have their jobs?