From time to time in the last few weeks, check the TV, about the Ruby case, the name of the former governor of New York, Spitzer, who resigned in 2008, two days after the New York Times through unnamed sources , had revealed his involvement in an FBI investigation on a prostitution ring. The argument, on talk shows, was immediately dismissed on the grounds that the investigation in question revolves around the possibility that Spitzer had used the funds raised for the campaign or other public funds to pay for prostitutes and to make unnecessary trips to only to facilitate their meetings, or had civil servants involved in illegal activities.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember that at the conclusion of the investigation, the prosecutor in Manhattan, Michael J. Garcia, Spitzer announced he would not be indicted because they had not found the evidence to prove that he committed crimes of public interest. In the U.S., the line generally taken by prosecutors for offenses relating to prostitution suggests, with the exception of the involvement of children and the exploitation, not to proceed (in the U.S.
prosecution is not required) and, if question, Spitzer had already admitted his responsibility, deriving their consequences. Immediately after the announcement of Garcia, Spitzer also issued a statement. Perhaps to inveigh against the prosecutor and against the New York Times that, without good reason, they rummaged in their private lives, ruin his political career and family relationships? But no, not at all, here it is: "I recognize the fairness and accuracy of the surveys conducted by the office of the prosecutor, I admit that the behaviors they have shown and I take responsibility.
I resigned as governor because I realized that those behaviors were unworthy of a public figure. I apologize again for what I did. " It may be interesting to recall the objections that were moved to the investigation that involved the governor and their replicas. Were in fact criticized the level of aggressiveness and intensity, and the adoption of particularly intrusive methods (banking investigations, wiretaps, surveillance), all of which are unusual, since the investigation of prostitution, especially in dealings with customers.
He said that if even if prostitution was not considered a priority among those of the U.S. Department of Justice, the means employed by the investigators were justified by other considerations. A former prosecutor, Bradley D. Simon, I declare ': "Although it is rare that such means are used to investigate the activities of a prostitution ring, the presence among the people involved, a much higher level of political forces to change the criteria.
If you find any evidence that could prove that high office is involved in violations of the Penal Code may be reasonable to continue and deepen. " Another former prosecutor, then defense lawyer, Robert D. Luskin said: "If the government (in this case, the Treasury Department that supervises the banking, ed.) Receives (from a bank note) a 'Suspicious Activity Report' to high office, it would be negligent not to elaborate , if only to verify that it is not a case of bribery or extortion.
" The officials concerned claimed that dropping the case without an extra charge of investigations, would run the risk of being accused of wanting to cover up the whole. And, always in defense of their work, stressed that investigators had created situations fake or had tended to Spitzer traps to catch him, no one had spied in the hotel room, no one had tried to obtain DNA testing.
It was not necessary: Spitzer could only blame himself. 
Perhaps it would be a good idea to remember that at the conclusion of the investigation, the prosecutor in Manhattan, Michael J. Garcia, Spitzer announced he would not be indicted because they had not found the evidence to prove that he committed crimes of public interest. In the U.S., the line generally taken by prosecutors for offenses relating to prostitution suggests, with the exception of the involvement of children and the exploitation, not to proceed (in the U.S.
prosecution is not required) and, if question, Spitzer had already admitted his responsibility, deriving their consequences. Immediately after the announcement of Garcia, Spitzer also issued a statement. Perhaps to inveigh against the prosecutor and against the New York Times that, without good reason, they rummaged in their private lives, ruin his political career and family relationships? But no, not at all, here it is: "I recognize the fairness and accuracy of the surveys conducted by the office of the prosecutor, I admit that the behaviors they have shown and I take responsibility.
I resigned as governor because I realized that those behaviors were unworthy of a public figure. I apologize again for what I did. " It may be interesting to recall the objections that were moved to the investigation that involved the governor and their replicas. Were in fact criticized the level of aggressiveness and intensity, and the adoption of particularly intrusive methods (banking investigations, wiretaps, surveillance), all of which are unusual, since the investigation of prostitution, especially in dealings with customers.
He said that if even if prostitution was not considered a priority among those of the U.S. Department of Justice, the means employed by the investigators were justified by other considerations. A former prosecutor, Bradley D. Simon, I declare ': "Although it is rare that such means are used to investigate the activities of a prostitution ring, the presence among the people involved, a much higher level of political forces to change the criteria.
If you find any evidence that could prove that high office is involved in violations of the Penal Code may be reasonable to continue and deepen. " Another former prosecutor, then defense lawyer, Robert D. Luskin said: "If the government (in this case, the Treasury Department that supervises the banking, ed.) Receives (from a bank note) a 'Suspicious Activity Report' to high office, it would be negligent not to elaborate , if only to verify that it is not a case of bribery or extortion.
" The officials concerned claimed that dropping the case without an extra charge of investigations, would run the risk of being accused of wanting to cover up the whole. And, always in defense of their work, stressed that investigators had created situations fake or had tended to Spitzer traps to catch him, no one had spied in the hotel room, no one had tried to obtain DNA testing.
It was not necessary: Spitzer could only blame himself.
- Berlusconi's critics protest near his northern Italy villa (06/02/2011)
- Protest held near Berlusconi's villa in Milan (06/02/2011)
- Protest held near Berlusconi's villa in Milan (06/02/2011)
- Prosecutors request right to try Berlusconi - Irish Times (09/02/2011)
- Berlusconi Protest Held Near Italian Prime Minister's Villa (07/02/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment