Alan Dershowitz defends Spitzer
- Thread starter Retired
- Start date
How about his past? Was he doing these unlawful acts while prosecuting other criminals?
I bet he may not go to prison which would be a disgrace to the rule of law.
I bet he may not go to prison which would be a disgrace to the rule of law.
so the states he went in should prosecute him? which states did he cross?
W. would pardon him if he is convicted. Remember, he did it for Libby. Imagine if he is on his way out.
the guy paid to meet here and there, he didn't organize anything therefore the Mann act charge is bollocks... applies to the guys who are running the "Club", not spitzer...
adultery? for a couple of one-offs (pricey but thats his problem) as a paid-for "let some steam off" service with a professional worker? dudes, and i thought sharia was bad...
in any event, thats what your paying your FBI guys for, uncovering that sort of "high crimes"? don't complain about taxes then
))))))))))))
now on what grounds can the FBI spill the beans publicly and violate his privacy rights again?
adultery? for a couple of one-offs (pricey but thats his problem) as a paid-for "let some steam off" service with a professional worker? dudes, and i thought sharia was bad...
in any event, thats what your paying your FBI guys for, uncovering that sort of "high crimes"? don't complain about taxes then
))))))))))))now on what grounds can the FBI spill the beans publicly and violate his privacy rights again?
Apples and oranges. Clinton didn't skate, he got impeached as a result of his affair with Monica. Frank didn't skate: he got investigated by the House. OTOH, Vitter has totally skated. He even got a standing ovation. Must be a Republican thing. Hell, even Craig, who the Republicans didn't want back, has skated.
First off, I think prostitution should be legal, so I'm only stating what "is", not what "should be".
>the guy paid to meet here and there, he
>didn't organize anything therefore the Mann
>act charge is bollocks... applies to the guys
>who are running the "Club", not spitzer...
If he paid for the ticket (as reported), he's on the hook on the Mann act.
>now on what grounds can the FBI spill the
>beans publicly and violate his privacy rights again?
According to the law there is no "privacy right" in the commision of a crime. You can't not know this ????? WTF?
JB
>the guy paid to meet here and there, he
>didn't organize anything therefore the Mann
>act charge is bollocks... applies to the guys
>who are running the "Club", not spitzer...
If he paid for the ticket (as reported), he's on the hook on the Mann act.
>now on what grounds can the FBI spill the
>beans publicly and violate his privacy rights again?
According to the law there is no "privacy right" in the commision of a crime. You can't not know this ????? WTF?
JB
whatever, paying for sthg is not the same as organizing it, whichever way you / your Mann act interpreters may want to twist it... in any event, has it been established by a court of law that a crime has in fact been committed by spitzer yet, ahead of having your taxpayer-financed witless FBI eunuchs violate his privacy rights? and let me throw in another WTF for punctuation :=)))
2C:
>any event, has it been established by a court of law
>that a crime has in fact been committed by spitzer yet,
>ahead of having your taxpayer-financed witless FBI
>eunuchs violate his privacy rights?
There has been no "violation of privacy rights" here by the government. Period.
If "privacy rights" extended until a conviction (as you state above), all trials would have to be held in private and no one would know about it until afterwards.
Don't know how it works where you live, but in this country we hold our trials in public so everyone can see the process.
For the common man, I agree -- what a waste of an investigation/prosecution. In this case however where you have one of the guys who has been responsible for the prosecution of others, he must live by the same rules and die by the same rules.
JB
JB
>any event, has it been established by a court of law
>that a crime has in fact been committed by spitzer yet,
>ahead of having your taxpayer-financed witless FBI
>eunuchs violate his privacy rights?
There has been no "violation of privacy rights" here by the government. Period.
If "privacy rights" extended until a conviction (as you state above), all trials would have to be held in private and no one would know about it until afterwards.
Don't know how it works where you live, but in this country we hold our trials in public so everyone can see the process.
For the common man, I agree -- what a waste of an investigation/prosecution. In this case however where you have one of the guys who has been responsible for the prosecution of others, he must live by the same rules and die by the same rules.
JB
JB