There's something wrong with the Spitzer investigation

Let me say up front that I despise Eliot Spitzer's hypocrisy the same way that I despise that of the myriad republicans caught in their torrid sex scandals. I would also like to add that the behavior of republicans at this point outshines Spitzer's own hypocrisy by several degrees. The pearl clutchers at National Review Online are aghast at the sheer numbers of democratic governors who have been caught in these sex scandals, pretending that they are piling up like cordwood behind the barn. Of course they are referring to Spitzer and to New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, whose scandal is now approaching four years old, for a grand total of two. They fail to mention David Vitter. Or Larry Craig. Or Mark Foley. Or even the DC Madame. They've failed to call for the resignation of Vitter. But I digress.

There is something that doesn't add up about this investigation. Look up at my title bar. You are at a blog called "I was just wondering" because I have more questions than I have answers and this is definately one of those times. If you have any answers, by all means post them in comments.

Let's start with this statement:

"Gov. Eliot Spitzer's role in a prostitution scandal grew out of a public corruption inquiry triggered by his movement of large amounts of cash from several bank accounts to one that operated by a call-girl ring, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Spitzer was the initial target of the investigation and was tracked using court-ordered wiretaps that appear to have recorded him arranging for a prostitute to meet him at a Washington hotel in mid-February, the official said.

But that doesn't jibe with these reports:

"When discussing how the payments would be arranged, Client 9 told Lewis: "Yup, same as in the past, no question about it" —- suggesting Client 9 had done this before.

And how did the Governor pay in the past, 'same as before'? Cash.

Here's the report:

"On February 11, 2008, at approximately 10:53 p.m., Temeka Rachelle Lewis, a/k/a the defendant, sent a text message to Cecil Suwal, a/k/a the defendant. ... In the text message, Lewis wrote: 'Pls let me know if (Client-9's) 'package' (believed to be a reference to a deposit of money sent by mail) arrives 2mrw. Appt wd b on Wed." (Call 3728C). Suwal sent a text message back to Lewis, stating: 'K.'"

The following day, Lewis called a prostitute whom Emperors Club marketed as "Kristen." The women then discussed the time Kristen would take the train from New York to Washington. Lewis confirmed Client-9 would be paying for everything — train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, minibar or room service, travel time, and hotel. Lewis also wasn't sure if the man's deposit had arrived because Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring. In a subsequent text message that night, Lewis wrote to Kristen: "If D.C. appt. happens u will need 2 leaveNYC at 4:45pm. Is that possible?"

Kristen wrote back: "Yes."

Certainly I must be off-base. I mean, the federal government would never wire-tap its enemies. At least not without probable cause.