Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
It's also come out in all this that the NSA has explicitly instructed law-enforcement to come up with a "reasonable explanation" for how they get their information – when it is provided by the NSA.
Maybe Spitzer made an enemy high enough up to command the NSA to go digging for dirt on him.
Which of these do you think is more likely:
1 - banks do not use software to detect suspicious activity
2 - banks use such software, but it would not have detected Spitzer
3 - banks use such software, and it would have detected Spitzer
I tend to believe 3 is correct, however, you may convince me that after Spitzer's name came up in a Suspicious Activity Report, he was targeted for additional scrutiny for partisan reasons because he was a Democratic politician and the Attorney General at the time was a Republican hack.