Congress investigates Spitzer case

Was former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (who is a married man) right to hire a prostitute (a scandal that led to his resignation)? Of course not. Nobody here ever said he was. But does something like this affect one's ability to govern? No. It was a personal matter, not a public one.

When a politician does something like this, I try to let it slide - unless they built their career on telling everyone else how to live. Spitzer is a Democrat - but the Republicans are usually the ones trying to control everyone's private lives. If you think I'm practicing a double standard, the Republicans have visited it upon themselves by sticking their noses into everyone else's sex lives.

A few question my stance, but the GOP reaps what it sows.

Was it right for the feds to launch a politically motivated probe of Spitzer, which led to his downfall? Absolutely not. And there's no question that the Bush regime abused its powers to catch the governor.

For once, however, Congress is making itself useful by investigating this abuse. The House Financial Services Committee is trying to see if federal agents abused their massively expanded powers that the Patriot Act gave them.

Of course they did. In my opinion, anytime you do anything authorized by the Idiot Act, it's abuse, because the law itself is abuse. The Patriot Act is a rogue law. Null, void, and boomsplackerspluzzy.

Spitzer was caught because, under the Idiot Act, certain bank transfers trigger a "suspicious activity report." That enabled the public spectacle that transpired early this year. The Bush regime doesn't give a fuck about catching terrorists. They only care about ruining the careers of political enemies.

No Patriot Act = no Spitzer case.

All of this highlights how the Patriot Act has nothing to do with halting terrorism and everything to do with government partisans going after foes.

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gvseu7uDYI9vGyMHJCo51IdS-4twD94MAQ180)