Soap Opera Discussion Groups and Forums

ATWT Discussion Group

Topic: Another view on the Elliot Sptizer story (regarding government wire tapping)


Topic Posted by: maggimae
Date Posted: Sun Mar 16 17:09:35 2008
Additional Comments: This morning on the CBS Sunday morning show, Ben Stine who is a commedian/economist/conservative, addressed the issue of the New York governor and the prostitutes. According to him, how Spitzer got caught is that the FBI was monitoring his bank account. When they saw he was withdrawing large sums of money, they began wire tapping him. The excuse they gave was that he might have been bribing someone. (I'd like to interject that Spitzer is a democrat.) Stine's view is that this poses a danger, because as he sees it, the government is overturning an election. What does everyone think? 



Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsJava ChatRegistration
Posted by: Janie
Date posted: Sun Mar 16 19:01:34 2008
Message:
This is a hard question for me, mm.  I think I need to think about it some more.  I suppose you could say that the wiretapping caused the resignation which in some way makes the government (FBI) responsible for overturning an election but I still believe that certain persons are held to a higher standard and ES is the only one and truly the only one responsible for his behavior and the effects it has had on politics, the country and his family which is all bad.  True, others in his position have behaved just as badly or worse but that doesn't excuse him.  It's just unfortunate for him that he is the only one who has gotten caught.  As for wire tapping, I have mixed feelings about it.  On the one hand, if you have nothing to hide, why should it bother you?  On the other hand, people deserve to have their privacy.  On a personal note (forgive me, flight of ideas, here) when my computer crashed a while back, I was told by the technician that I should destroy my old hard drive by hammering it.  Well, there was nothing on it that anyone could hurt me with but I also felt that it was no one else's business to get their hands on the information it held so for me I guess it goes both ways. ???

Replies: (list all replies)

  • I read something that was interesting. With Clinton, he broke his vows because Monica was *just* an intern. Spitzer broke the law because his chickie was a prostitute. Still what they are saying is that it was the hypocrisy that did Spitzer in. He had prosecuted prostitution rings and now was a customer. Maybe the government caught him, but sooner or later something was going to come out into the open, with or without the government's help. Maybe the government just speeded it along
  • Where Clinton went wrong was lying under oath. That's what he was impeached for./mm
  • The difference is that Monica was a freebie and the prostitutes are engaging in illegal acts,right along with the customers.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Tosca
    Date posted: Sun Mar 16 17:25:19 2008
    Message:

    The question is, is the FBI an "equal opportunity wire tapper"?  Do they tap all sorts of government people because of corruption?  Certainly corruption isn't party affiliated. Both parties have their share of bribes, cheaters and unsavory characters.

    IMO, the goverment didn't overturn an election.  Spitzer stepped down.  He could have been like Clinton, fought it, and survived the office. It was Spitzer's decision to leave the office. 

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • He still may be prosecuted
  • As I understand the law on wiretapping, you have to get an order from a judge and in order to do that, you have to give the judge some justification. The justification for wire tapping Spitzer was that there were unusually large withdrawals from his bank account. My question is, how did the FBI know this? Does it monitor every person's bank account? This is what concerns me./mm
  • Barb, I think the Mann act talks about transporting someone across state lines. Spitzer didn't actually take the prostitute. She met him in DC. I know this is a fine point, and they may still prosecute him for that. However, it is against the law in most states to pay a prostitute for services. This law is not, however, often enforced. The men usually get off. My thinking is that Sptizer has made a deal with the government in exchange for resigning. I doubt he will ever spend a day in jail. It is true that he is a hypocrite (sp?) and probably not a very nice man. I, but IMO that's another issue, entirely./mm
  • The story I read was the IRS picked up on the bank withdrawals that were in unusually large amounts. They reported it to the U.S. Attorney General's office, who in turn, turned it over to the FBI . As long as none of us are making odd 80K withdrawals from our bank that the IRS picks up on, I guess we're safe
  • Yep, Tosca, that's what I heard. But does this mean that everyone's bank account is monitored? And I think the $80,000 was the total over a number of years that Sptizer spent, so the individual withdrawals would probably have been in the range of $5,000 (unless he was running a tab, LOL.) My question is, do they monitor everyone's bank account and if not, how do they decide who to watch?/mm
  • Maybe banks have to report transactions over a certain $$$. i know it is illegal to take a certain amount of money out of the country. I mean, if you or I withdraw $80K, we usually get a cashier's check or something and have it transferred to a mortgage company, a car dealership, whatever. I would think that walking around with that kinda dough would be dangerous and just plain stupid. Guess I'll never know, tho. LOL

    Respond to this message


    Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsJava ChatRegistration

    Soap Opera Discussion Groups and Forums