My guess is that Spitzer’s cash movements caught somebody’s eye during routine examinations, but from there on in it was too good to pass up.

One thing the Times reporting glossed over too quickly is what caused the IRS, as opposed to state regulators or the FBI, to be reviewing Spitzer’s current financial transactions, as opposed to, say, those related to prior-year tax returns. Do banks report, do the feds monitor, all transactions of the independently wealthy? Wealthy Democrats? All governors? Wealthy Democratic governors in Hillary’s home state? Or, does TIA permit all of the above?

How big or frequent were they? Spitzer is reportedly a multi-millionaire. He must routinely have a large number of relatively substantial financial transactions. What was suspicious enough to attract a federal investigation? Was it simply that Spitzer did some of the things he’s accused of and found them so much fun that he did a lot of them, at thousands per hour?

Finally, the prosecution’s kitchen sink approach (the archaic and prudish Mann Act is the go to statute for political prosecutions) resembles more the attitude of “Let’s get Capone on something, maybe not paying his taxes, that’s a federal beef,” than mere thoroughly doing a non-partisan prosecutor’s job.

Almost regardless of the underlying facts, this pattern of prosecution – and the immediate, detailed and widespread “news” coverage of it – closely resembles the pattern worked out in Alabama in connection with the GOP’s dirty and relentless attack on former governor Don Siegelman.

*g*