Do we have any actual facts here?

[redbird]

This lead reads like parody:

Federal investigators have developed information that the prostitute whom Eliot Spitzer is said to have met in Washington last month has some relationship witha man who the authorities contend is an associate of organized crime, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

In other words, people who they won't identify even by category say that other people say that Spitzer spent time with someone who knows someone who knows people with criminal ties. Furthermore, Bloomberg once rode a subway with someone who knows someone who may have been arrested. [Consider the number of people in the average rush-hour subway car, if you doubt that statement.]

Spitzer has already resigned from his elected office, and may well be indicted soon. What on Earth are they trying to accomplish, other than demonstrate that it's difficult to write clear sentences when the content is so muddy?

Comments

[klingonlandlady.livejournal.com]

they have "developed" information? That sounds a trifle too... active. One step away from "federal investigators have concocted some new evidence..."

[redbird]

Either that or they mean "we took this film to the one-hour photo place, and it had a picture of these two people together [in the crowd at a parade]."

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

My (admittedly vague) impression is that: (A) It's muddy because what they're doing, mostly, is slinging mud, and (B) the whole thing is a case study in what'll happen to government officials who make charges of malfeasance against Big Businesses.

It also seems to be an interesting example of governmental Information Technology -- apparently there's simple software that can detect & flag an expenditure of a few thousand dollars, even by someone who's Very Wealthy, if it's paid to some questionable supplier. I almost hope this will continue to work even when some other Political Party takes over the Administration.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Deja vu. John Profumo got into trouble back in 1963 not so much because he was dallying with a woman of the (at best) twilight, but because she was also dallying with a Russian naval attache. Thoughts about what military secrets he might be telling her and she might be telling the other guy danced through prosecutors' heads.

[dr-jen.livejournal.com]

My brain is squelching just trying to read it, and I don't think I'm really all that tired. Sounds hideously convoluted.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

According to the WashPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031100380.html), the FBI looked at Spitzer originally because he was trying to avoid the $10K reporting rules. Organized crime is much better at that.

[redbird]

That's part of what had people here shaking our heads and saying "Eliot, what were you thinking?" The man was attorney general, and made his name going after Wall Street crooks. He knows about those rules, and how law enforcement uses them. If he wanted to pay for sex, he could have done it a lot more sensibly or inconspicuously--pay cash, and don't arrange for the women to cross state lines.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Apparently he caught the IOKIYAR bug, without noticing the emphasis on the last letter.