Who Dropped the Dime on Eliot Spitzer?

In Re: Client #9

The Whole Thing Was A Set-Up!

Whatever you may think of Eliot Spitzer, it appears this whole investigation and prosecution was a 'set-up' from the very start -- meaning that Mr. Spitzer's enemies were looking to get him on anything they could.

(And they may or may not have had good cause depending upon what one thinks of the Democrat Governor's general performance since his swearing-in.)

The escort service bust and the telephone taps leading up to it were merely the vehicles by which Mr. Spitzer's political enemies got him.

(No doubt Mr. Spitzer gave his enemies the shovels with which to bury him by frequenting an escort service, but don't be misled into thinking that Spitzer just happened to get caught up in the bust of a prostitution ring. Spitzer was always the original target. The particular escort service he was using -- and whose principals ultimately got indicted -- merely got caught up in the cross-hairs of those in pursuit of this Governor.)

I say all this because if you carefully read the actual criminal complaint (all 55 mind-numbing pages of it), it emerges that the sections dealing with 'Client 9' (Spitzer) reveal far more lurid details than any of the sections dealing with any of the other 'clients'.

To me this says that the writers of the complaint wanted as much as possible to draw particular attention to the specific actions and words of that unnamed ninth client.

The real intent, of course, in all this became crystal clear when conveniently it was repeatedly publicized throughout the day's media frenzy just exactly which number client Mr. Spitzer happened to be.

It all seemed just too pat and staged.

Also, in a separate ABC News story by Brian Ross, he writes:
"The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI's Public Corruption Squad.'We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it,' said one Justice Department official."

"(T)he thing with Spitzer" were his large cash withdrawals.

These are what led investigators to look into what Spitzer was doing with that cash, and ultimately to the activities at the escort service.

In addition, the complaint quotes 'Client 9' as expressing a need to visit an ATM cash machine to withdraw more money, this in order to pay his escort and her agency not just the requested balance due for the lady's services, but a substantial additional sum -- so that there would be a credit balance next time client Spitzer desired to engage the firm. (He'd used the agency in the past.)

This is the obvious indication, therefore, that Spitzer was using his local ATM to withdraw cash (thus sparing having to deal with the inquiring eyes -- and questioning thoughts -- of a bank teller).

(This escort agency's firm policy was to get a large deposit up-front -- at times 55% of the $1000 - $5000 per hour rates. This sum was requested to be deposited to a seemingly non-descript business account in cash, money order, wire transfer or American Express card -- no Mastercard or Visa welcomed here, thank you! In the case of Client 9, it appears the deposit was received via mail because, according to the complaint, "Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring" [Para.74].)

Sounds to me that at Spitzer's bank, the ATM supervisor (or head teller) may have noticed large cash withdrawals from the machines from certain accounts and decided to check out just to whom exactly those account(s) were listed -- not an unusual practice in this age when federal and bank officials are worried about terror groups sending large amounts of cash overseas to other terrorists.

So anyway, once it was determined by the bank that it was actually the Governor of New York who was withdrawing large sums of cash from his account(s), then the next obvious question is: Why?

Meaning: Why does a family man need $3,000 - $6,000 in walking-around money when he's likely got plenty of credit cards in addition to a state-provided limousine, chauffeur, and trooper contingent?

(Even Warren Buffett is known to carry only about 300 to 400 bucks in his wallet at any one time.)

Who is to say then that whomever it was (the ATM teller, the head teller, the bank manager, the bank president, the bank prez's Wall Street squash partner) with access to this tantalizing and invaluable tidbit of information -- that the arrogant, seemingly straight-arrow and invincible, mean-ass former prosecutor Governor of New York was periodically making large cash withdrawals for unknown purposes -- didn't direct this morsel to the table of the Governor's hungriest and most determined enemies?

From that point on the menu was set, and the goose cooked. <<<