DoJ Seeks to Reverse Ted Stevens Convictions
In a story that is apparently not an April Fool’s joke, the Washington Post reveals that the Justice Department has filed paperwork seeking to reverse the conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens:
The Justice Department filed court papers this morning asking a federal judge to toss out the conviction of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on corruption charges.
The move comes as a federal judge was preparing to conduct hearings to probe allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by the team that tried one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. Stevens, 85, was convicted in October on seven counts of making false statements on financial disclosure forms to hide about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his Alaska home. Stevens’s attorneys have urged U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to drop the case and prevent prosecutors from seeking to retry the former senator, who lost a reelection bid about a week after his guilty verdict.
Stevens was convicted just before the election, and lost by fewer than 4000 votes.
There’s an old phrase: “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” More relevant here is this question: Where do we go to get our election back?
Where do we go to get the prosecutors tried for obstruction of justice?
nk (b0c40d) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:13 amMeanwhile, Murtha, Rangel and Dodd, to name only a few, go about their business as usual.
Chris (a24890) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:20 amLOL… what reputation does he have to get back?
This mirrors Bill Ayers’s ‘innocence.’ Albeit, Ayers killed cops, while Ted is just a petty crook, but they are both guilty.
It’s true that Ted had a much better chance of getting away with it had he been a democrat.
But Eric Holder is actually doing the right thing, and the reasons he gives make a lot of sense. A good day for an Obama pick… which is basically a first AFAIK.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:37 amIf the DOJ thinks the prosecution was mishandled and should not have resulted in a conviction, are the prosecutors involved being punished in any way?
aphrael (12fba5) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:40 amLikely no judge will ever believe anything they say ever again. Maybe they can learn to sell cars.
nk (b0c40d) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:48 amNK: I imagine many judges wouldn’t even know that they were the people involved, especially if they moved outside of Alaska.
I’m not sure what the proper punishment for this is … but if it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to have been an attempt to use the power of the office of the US Attorney to change an election result, jail time is a good first step.
aphrael (12fba5) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:50 amPatterico
I could be wrong (SSSH SCOTT! DALEYROCKS!) but I thought they had investigated Stevens and his consulting company for 20 years.
What was brought to light that Veco billed Stevens and steven paid in full an invoice marked renovations for 150,000 dollars
Stevens did NOT disclose it as he thought it was a bill for market rate
In fact it was 6 or so years later that an Prosecutor had the renovations appraised at 250,000
So there was an attempted bribe of 100,000?
It was real real weak and exculpatory evidence is just that – it clears the client of any wrong doing
Again I could be wrong but that I thought was the base of the charges after finding nothing after 20 years
EricPWJohnson (b25747) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:55 amaphrael, of course, that is not likely to be provable.
Ronnie Earle was unable to prove a case against Tom Delay, but he outlasted him in office. This is just a game to these assholes.
We will see this tactic employed more and more. Sarah Palin is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt because she faces a new lawsuit practically every single day, over things like the brand logo appearing on her jacket being an illegal endorsement.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:58 am2014.
buddy (9f4421) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:58 amJuan,
If Stevens’s convictions are reversed, the reversal will not be based on a technicality of the sort that prevented Ayers from being held accountable for his actions.
Exclusionary rules do not aid the search for truth. Rules about disclosure of exculpatory evidence do.
It’s fine with me if you have formed an opinion on Stevens’s guilt, apart from the flawed legal proceedings against him. There:s the court of law and the court of public opinion.
But the man had the right to a defense that included all exculpatory evidence — and it appears he didn’t get it.
My guess is Holder is rolling over to minimize the embarrassment. But if the accusations of withholding exculpatory evidence are true — and it appears that they are — then embarrassment (and other consequences) should be maximized, not minimized.
Patterico (e97e65) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:58 am“Where do I go to get my reputation back?” More relevant here is this question: Where do we go to get our election back?”
Are you folks who excoriated “Uncle Ted” on his Bridge to Nowhere and other pork habits really sure you want to open this door? What if the federal prosecutor in question was merely reacting to conservatives who didn’t really want Ted Stevens around anymore?
Do federal prosecutors, like Supreme Court judges, read public opinion too?
Brad S (9f6740) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:01 amThe judge should jail the prosecutors for contempt. About six months would do — they’ll have to find new careers and it sends a hell of a message.
I wonder if the prosecutor’s intent included biasing the election, in which case there could be civil rights charges. There might even be a federal judge who would void the election (stranger things have come out of federal courts).
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:01 amPatterico, you’re right that there’s a lot of difference between the cases, and it’s intemperate to compare Ted Stevens, a war vet, with a murderer like Bill Ayers.
But in the general sense, neither case was proven in court because of prosecutorial misconduct (in my view).
If you’re right, and there is some evidence out there that exonerates Ted Stevens, then I am badly wrong about this. But I am confident that he abused his office for personal gain.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:08 amSeize farms and sell them to others – Hmm. Seize banks and sell them to others?
davod (bce08f) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:24 amHmm. This may make an interesting case for a Hyde Amendment motion.
Ken (c97a0c) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:31 amAre you folks who excoriated “Uncle Ted” on his Bridge to Nowhere and other pork habits really sure you want to open this door?
THREADJACK ALERT. THIS IS NOT A TEST.
Brad has firmly established his bona fides here as as exemplary demonstration of the Obamatards’ campaign of disinformation.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:39 amJuan: granted that that is not likely to be provable.
So what sort of punishment is possible if the prosecutors involved can’t reasonably be prosecuted?
I mean … I’m a liberal. I would never have voted for Sen. Stevens, and I think he’s a corrupt politician who deserves to have been ousted by the voters. But the prosecutorial power of the executive branch should never be used for the purpose of influencing election results, and I think we have to take a hard line against it lest it be used as a precedent for future activities of this type.
The prosecutors deserve a reasonable process in which they’re allowed to defend themselves and try to show that that isn’t what they were doing; but if it is what they were doing, they should be fired, and possibly disbarred.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:41 amaphrael,
Note that the prosecutors in this case were DC based, not Alaska.
I forget exactly what part of DoJ, something like Office of Public Integrity or some such.
Soronel Haetir (a3f11b) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:01 amI’m as conservative as the next guy, but Ted shouldn’t have ever run for re-election.
Right now, if he had won, we’d be excoriating him for taking earmarks.
It was a “hold your nose” election. Hated losing the seat to the Dems, but was mad as hell at the guy running (see also Specter, Hatch, any Senator from Maine)
Hawkins (3d318d) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:08 amAs a conservative as is well established by my comments here and on my blog, I am delighted that Steven’s lost his election bid. I wish he had lost it in the primary and a conservative won the election, but I’ll take ousting someone with his record any day over continuing the same ol’ same ol’.
Stevens had to go, now we need a concerted effort to get rid of folk just like him. Can you say Dodd, Corzine and the rest?
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:12 amSorry about the wall-o-text and absurd “word pictures.”
Aphrael, you may be right that Sen Stevens was corrupt, I do not know. But the likelihood of it is heightened due to his longevity in US Congress. I do not have first-hand knowledge of anything, being a little more than 100 miles away from his home (Ohio is a little more than 100 miles away from Alaska, no?), but only media-filtered information.
Based on the history of media and the history of liberal politicians, I am inclined to believe the legal issues Stevens faced was indeed a witch-hunt and political character assassination attempt. And it was successful, even if the conviction is reversed and the prosecutors involved take a huge hit. The damage has already been done.
To set up a fantastical political scene so as to provide “word pictures,” consider a US with 2 political parties, the Jupiter First party and the Mars First party. (Both ideas are equally ridiculous.) If the Jupiter First party holds 48 seats in the Senate, the Mars First party can never do everything it wants, due to Senate rules. So the Mars First party uses “yocals” to file charges in local and state courts, claiming the Jupiter First senator is criminally corrupt.
So, we have a trial. The Mars First state prosecutor makes big splashes, carries on, does all sorts of things to attack the Jupiter First US Senator. None of the Mars First federals say or do anything to stop or slow down the Mars First state prosecutor. Nor do they suggest any wrong-doing by the Mars First prosecutor.
The media, wholly Mars First, spreads the news about the accusations throughout the country but does little to suggest the Jupiter First senator may indeed have enough evidence to prove his innocence. And the Mars First prosecutor withholds evidence from the defense attorney that would likely cause the Jupiter First defendant to be exonerated.
After conviction of the Jupiter First senator, the Mars First candidate wins election. Then the Mars First President’s AG says the Mars First state prosecutor may well have violated ethics in withholding evidence that would have exonerated the Jupiter First senator/defendant.
So, what happens? The Mars First party gains more power in the senate by violating the law and a Mars First “statey” gets sacrificed in the process. And the Jupiter First senator’s reputation has been criminally destroyed.
There is no undoing the personal, state, federal damage done. There is no undoing the damage done to 300 million private citizens by the corrupt gerrymandering election process the Mars First party used.
By all means, throw the corrupt Mars First prosecutors in prison and throw away the key. But Humpty Dumpty (the election process and constitutional government) has already fallen off the wall.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:24 amOh the other charge was that Ted Stevens swapped a 1964 Mustang convertable and 5,000 cash for a 44K land rover
Well, the market value of a decent 1964 Mustang convertible (less than 1,000 made) is between 22K and 33K
And the land rover was used
trhis was two counts of not reporting a gift
EricPWJohnson (329c37) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:28 amHow does Ted Stevens get his reputation back?
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:37 amHe doesn’t, just as Ray Donovan never recovered his.
However, does he have a cause of action against individuals within the DoJ for violating his Civil Rights?
It appears that AG Holder is hoping to sweep this under-the-rug to spare his troops further embarrassment;
but, will Stevens go along?
Why should he? What more does he have to lose?
The federal justice department is a very dangerous thing. I felt this when they destroyed Arthur Anderson over Enron, when they prosecuted Scooter Libby for a non-crime, even when they tried to do a public lynching of Blagojevicz (guilty as he probably is) before any indictment (still none). And now this. No matter what side of the political fence you are on, you cannot condone these tactics which essentially use the power of the federal government to go after individuals for political reasons. This also goes for state attorney generals like that creep from Connecticut and the former and current ones from New York.
bio mom (a1e126) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:54 amJohn Hitchcock : Just one little problem with your example. Stevens was a Republican, the Deprtment of Justice was, theoretically, under Republican control and both the Preident and Attorney General were Republicans.
However, the permanent “undergovernment” is almost totally Democratic and, generally, ignores Republican administrations and political appointees.
On BBCTV, “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” were a barrel of laughs but their actual civil service counterparts in our government are not a joking matter.
The prosecutors in the Stevens case will not be punished. Stevens is lucky. That RINO, Fitzgerald, “did the dirty” to Scooter Libby and Bush was too much the compromiser to fight for his people.
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:07 amJohn Hitchcock (9:21 am), I am just as concerned about the flip-side to your scenario. Imagine a situation where a prosecutor believes that he has enough evidence to bring charges against a sitting politician (for purposes of demonstration let’s give the politician a fictional name such as “Chris Dodd”) on some corruption charge. Let’s say, though, that Dodd (let’s make him a Senator for purposes of illustration) is up for reelection in the next cycle. Now, based upon the Stevens fiasco, will the prosecutor and his/her supervisors be reluctant to file charges knowing that it could impact the coming election? Does this mean that, lacking an open-and-shut case, a Senator can only be indicted when they are off-cycle for elections? How would this affect a House member who is up for election every two years? Thanks to this debacle, it may be easier for politicians to avoid being brought to justice.
JVW (bff0a4) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:09 amYou mean get the general election back or the Stevens election back?
I’m not a lawyer but it seems Holder did the right thing, no?
Patricia (94c68d) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:22 amYes. “Where do we go to get our election back?”…
…
craig d henry (6ed3f8) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:28 amPoor Ted Stevens. A lifelong career of public service flushed down the toilet by prosecutorial misconduct. Hell yeah if I was him I sue everybody. He lost the election by less than 4,000 votes, I think he can prove damages.
I’m all for law and order and all, but lately I’ve seen too many cases of overly aggressive prosecutors going after people for what for centuries has been common practice in the world of politics. You’ve no doubt heard the term “hardened Criminal” well I believe that there is also such a thing as a “hardened prosecutor” and I’m a former prosecutor!
I am a Republican from Illinois and I believe that
BLAGO IS NOT GUILTY!!!!
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:56 amJust goes to show you how badly politicized the Bushies made the DoJ. Not.
More like they didn’t do enough. Where’s the prosecution of Murtha?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:59 amHow can he be guilty of anything if we don’t have an indictment to judge him against?
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:00 amUsing 50s lingo, where words weren’t co-opted, I think Blago is as queer as a three-dollar-bill.
With the sound-bites from released wire-tap tapes, it appears to me Blago was deeply involved in influence-peddling.
Thing is, with the bought-and-paid-for liberal MSM busily hanging Blago, there is a strong appearance of nuke-level overwhelming evidence against the liberal-owned Blago.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:02 amAre you folks who excoriated “Uncle Ted” on his Bridge to Nowhere and other pork habits really sure you want to open this door? What if the federal prosecutor in question was merely reacting to conservatives who didn’t really want Ted Stevens around anymore?
Do federal prosecutors, like Supreme Court judges, read public opinion too?
This comment illustrates how utterly moronic the left has become. They cannot even grasp the distinction between political disagreement (even harsh disagreement) and criminality.
It is perfectly legitimate for conservatives to excoriate Sen. Stevens for being a free-spender with the taxpayers money. Whether that criticism sticks is decided in the election booth.
If federal prosecutors jumped from that to a charge of criminal corruption, then they have abused the criminal process and themselves should be prosecuted or sanctioned.
Those who criticised the Senator on a political level have nothing to apologize for.
So, yes, we can “open this door.”
Tal Benschar (44ef84) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:25 amI’m sorry. I’d like to get riled up about this, but all I feel is Schadenfreude. If the entire lot of them — defendant, his counsel, prosecutors, the judge who should have called a mistrial on the second of a gazillion incidents of prosecutorial misconduct — got carried off by aliens today, it would be, um, well, a good thing.
Aron (bb7957) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:22 pmWhat I see little recognition of is the fact that these rules about prosecutions and elections only apply to Republicans. James Michael Curley was re-elected alderman in Boston while in prison. Later in his career, he served as mayor while in prison. Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted of corruption as a federal judge. Then he was elected to the House and sits there today. Barney Frank’s gay lover was running a ring of male prostitutes from Frank’s residence in Boston. Gerry Studds was re-elected multiple times after having been censured by the House for an affair with a male page.
What did they have in common ? All Democrats.
Republicans are attacked for behavior that is considered routine for Democrats.
Mike K (8df289) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:34 pmAre you folks who excoriated “Uncle Ted” on his Bridge to Nowhere and other pork habits really sure you want to open this door?
The whole stimulus package is a thousand bridges to nowhere, but hey, at least it creates jobs. Stevens’ idea was just ahead of its time.
Vatar (ad6db4) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:43 pmApparently the Democrats got two goes at the same ruse. Delay was forced out the same way. Lie cheat and steal, it’s what Democrats do. If not from you, they will get it from your children.
bill-tb (26027c) — 4/1/2009 @ 1:52 pmI won’t be surprised if Barry Bonds is the next prominent beneficiary of Holder looking over a federal prosecution and saying, “You know–I’m pullling the plug on this one.”
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 4/1/2009 @ 2:48 pm(re Gerry Studds)
Voters seem to have a double standard where it comes to congresscritters’ fooling around with young staffers. It seems that for DEMOCRATIC politicians, the bottom of the page does not mean the end of the line.
Mitch (890cbf) — 4/1/2009 @ 3:44 pmMitch (3:44 pm), the other contemporary joke that was going around at the time was this: Did you hear that Gerry Studds doesn’t use bookmarks? He just bends over the pages.
Mike K. (1:34 pm) you are absolutely correct. In retrospect, it was a minor miracle that Dan Rostenkowski lost his reelection bid in 1994. Had it not been a huge year for the GOP, he probably would have won and won handily, despite being on his way to prison.
JVW (bff0a4) — 4/1/2009 @ 3:49 pm#24 Amen.
Jimminy'cricket (637168) — 4/1/2009 @ 7:26 pmNo need for a new election. To insist on a new election is to conflate criminal innocence with a far higher standard, being worthy to serve as a U.S. Senator. Funny, funny, ha, ha, wink, wink, hohoho….all the senators are crooks, right? Even if true, it ought not be.
It is one thing to not have a felony conviction on one’s record; quite another to have the standing to ask for one’s fellow citizens’ votes for a high office.
I am well satisfied that Stevens abused the trust necessary to his office and should have been ousted. Even if this exculpatory evidence had been properly made available, I am confident he would have been convicted. Fair is fair – the way it played out, he deserved a vacation of the criminal convictions. Yet there is no concomitant imperative, in my view, to attempt to restore him the Senate seat. He did more than enough to merit his popular expulsion.
Ed from SFV (61ceee) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:17 pmI am going to hazard a guess that SFV ain’t in Pennsylvania.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:20 pmEd moves around. Maybe for a reason.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:24 pm“I am well satisfied that Stevens abused the trust necessary to his office and should have been ousted.”
I am confident Ed feels the same way about Jack Murtha.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/1/2009 @ 8:29 pmAnyone who doesn’t smell a rat in the prosecution of Ted Stevens needs to make an appointment with an ear, nose and throat specialist tomorrow.
The case against Ted Stevens, in an election year where the Democrats were trying to gain a veto proof majority, was brought very, very quickly. Yet, how many years has it been since William (Dollar Bill) Jefferson stuck a cool $90K in his freezer for leaner times? Where is that case?
It didn’t matter about Jefferson. He lost his election and wasn’t going to be able to give Democrats a veto proof majority. But Stevens was a major stumbling block. The Democrats were on thin ice and the risk of not accomplishing their goals were high. The Democrats needed him gone.
And I am amazed that no reporter can do a simple campaign donation search and report that William Welch II and Brenda Morris, both lead prosecutors in the Stevens trial, were Obama contributors. Funny how a person in a small town in Central Texas can learn that but our watch dog media can’t.
Holder knows this. He knows that Welch and Morris were giving one for the team so he wants it to quietly be swept under the rug. Maybe it will go away.
Was Stevens a pork king? Hell, yes. So what? John Murtha has no chance of being removed from the throne in that court. Was Stevens quilty of one unethical act or another? Probably, but who the hell ensconced in the Beltway isn’t?
Democrats wanted, no, needed Steven’s seat. So they went after him with rocket speed. Aided and abetted by sympatheic U.S. attorneys who were willing to do anything to get their boy elected to the highest office in the land.
I didn’t like Stevens when he was in office. I sure the hell didn’t like him thinking that my tax dollars went into his personal piggy bank to spend in Alaska anyway he wanted. But he got a raw deal and no matter what justice you think he may deserve for past sins, he damn sure got more than he bargained for.
So while you are railing against Stevens, remember, you could be next.
retire05 (52db14) — 4/1/2009 @ 9:22 pmA few points of educated clarification.
First, the prosecutors who tried the case were with the Public Integrity Section of DOJ, and were based in Washington. The FBI agents who first opened the investigation were with the Alaska Field Office, and were later joined by FBI agents out of Washington.
I don’t know the DOJ prosecutors, but I know people who do know them, and everyone is quite surprised by the allegations made by the judge about the withholding of “exculpatory” evidence.
But, there seems to be a pretty clear transparency to what Holder has done here, and the message he is sending loud and clear.
First, Holder is pulling the plug on any effort to defend the failure to produce the information as “harmless” error — and that is the standard. Judge Sullivan would have to find that not only should the evidence have been produced, but that the failure to produce that evidence impacted the fairness of the proceeding. Part of that judgment is an evaluation of the strength of evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, and then considering the significance of the non-disclosed information against the trial record.
By pulling the plug now, Holder forecloses the ability of the prosecutors to defend the fairness of the trial even when the non-disclosed information is considered.
Don’t lose sight of the fact that Stevens has some very POWERFUL Democrat friends in the US Senate, beginning with the No. 2 Senator in terms of longevity, and the current Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. The historical relationship between Inouye and Stevens, being from the 49th and 50th states, and being two of the longest serving members of the Senate, is quite unique. Inouye testified on Stevens behalf in his trial. I’m quite certain it gladdens Inouye’s heart that DOJ is not going to defend Stevens’ conviction, or put him through another trial even if the results of the first trial were thrown out by the judge.
So, there was a significant political upside for the Obama WH in dismissing the case against Stevens.
There was also a significant upside to Holder laying down a marker to the Department as a whole, making it clear that he’s in charge now.
WLS Shipwrecked (f6941a) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:12 pmComment by WLS Shipwrecked — 4/1/2009 @ 10:12 pm
AD - RtR/OS (5021d1) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:26 pmDo you think that Welch and Morris have any problems over their political contributions in relation to this case? What are the DoJ guidelines on these matters?
WLS has a point. As long as it turns out nice for Baracky then it was all worth it I think. I’m glad it’s clear that Holder is in charge of his department cause I had my worry face on.
happyfeet (20bcab) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:39 pmhappyfeet, the sheer administration of day to day events, aside from partisan differences, is extremely important. Holder did need to find some way to show his power. And I’ll be honest, I did have my worry face on. Obama’s administration could take some lessons here.
Now, I honestly think Stevens did some serious wrongs, but I don’t know that I’ll ever see that question answered to my satisfaction. The aura of ‘exculpatory evidence’ is hanging over this case, but in my gut I think it’s bullshit.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/1/2009 @ 10:52 pmFolks, if you care, I am not the Ed from PA. I had posted here for years as simply “Ed.” Then, when that other Ed started posting, I decided to clarify that I am not he.
If it were up to me, Jack Murtha would be in Gitmo as a guest of the finest military ever known to man. There, he could read the Quran and befriend his Muslim brothers as they commiserated as to how horrible their captors are.
Anyway, if y’all have specific objections to my assertions, please address them, and not who I may, or may not, be. I strive to do the same with y’all.
Ed from SFV (61ceee) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:11 pmThis Ed is most certainly not EfP.
JD (6f1fb5) — 4/1/2009 @ 11:16 pmWLS
Actually, it was the democrats who launched this investigation of Stevens – all the way back to 1998 and in 1993
this has been going on a long long long time
Just look at Delay still on the hook untried for ever, not dropping the charges – just denying the man a right to clear his name
Sure its a State matter vs a Doj matter but its the SAME Party that initiated it.
EricPWJohnson (329c37) — 4/2/2009 @ 12:29 amEricPW — DOJ prosecutors make the call re indictments. Given the target, the AG himself would have made the call — Michael Mukasey.
The speed with which the Stevens case went from indictment to trial was HIGHLY unusual, but that was dictated by the defense, not the prosecution. It was Stevens who, for political necessity, wanted the trial to happen before the election. It was his only hope of winning.
A defendant has a Speedy Trial Right to go to trial within 70 days of the indictment. It almost never happens, as the statute has several provisions that allow for delay. But the defendant has to agree in almost every case. Stevens’ lawyers refused to agree to any continuances beyond 70 calendar days, so his case went to trial at the earliest possible date. That is why he was convicted before the trial — the prosecutors had nothing to do with that.
WLS Shipwrecked (f6941a) — 4/2/2009 @ 3:12 am#51 Ed from SFV:
Like I said, I’m pretty sure SFV ain’t in Pennsylvania.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 4/2/2009 @ 6:09 amWLS
Sorry if I was not clear, I don’t think that there was an effort throw the election, I do think there was an effort to investigate Stevens and it was on going for decades passed from adminitration to administration.
I’ll bet people don’t realize that Robert Byrd is still under investigation and has been for years – channeling money to charities for campaign contributions – same for his protege Allan Monohan.
These investigations go on forever and rarely if ever lead to even an indictment
I mean if we audited the big dig based upon cost then the bridge to no where was not paint for the big digs 2 mile tunnel that was 4 billion over budget.
EricPWJohnson (329c37) — 4/2/2009 @ 8:16 amIt seems the feds railroaded a guilty man.
Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/2/2009 @ 8:37 amEricPW — I agree with your point that these political corruption cases can drag on for years. And Stevens had been suspected for a long time.
WLS Shipwrecked (f6941a) — 4/2/2009 @ 9:55 amI’m glad the DOJ was brushed back for unethical prosecutory behavior, even if it lets Ted Stevens off the hook. Dude was probably guilty, but the DOJ deserved to lose. George Bush’s appointees couldn’t have destroyed the place more thoroughly with 100 tons of dynamite.
Did they go after Democrats for political purposes on Karl Rove’s orders? You betcha – Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, Bob Menendez, But that was only one of multiple problems. The underlying problem beneath that was that they willfully disregarded the ethics, procedures and civil protections afforded to defendants in this country on a more or less universal basis. And it wasn’t just Democrats who were damaged – especially after the Gonzales scandals forced them to take a more bipartisan tack. But making nodding efforts to nail a few Republicans as well as Democrats didn’t change their inherent Modus Operandi, which is that they were dishonest scalpers.
Three days ago, the Democratic governor of Puerto Rico, who was indicted right before an election and lost it to a Republican, was cleared of all charges on appeal. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An%C3%ADbal_Acevedo_Vil%C3%A1
One million Puerto Ricans living in Florida can vote while they live there.
glasnost (4ed100) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:04 amSomeone who provides a wiki for full proof of anything is automatically discounted…
At least, I automatically discount that person, based on their proven bias/agenda.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:14 amThe only wiki I like is WikiWiki Express.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:19 amWLS – Care to address the scurilous allegations made by glasnost?
JD (8918e5) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:34 amThe prosecutorial team that hounded Stevens were contributors to Obama – sure sounds like dirty GOP tricks to me.
AD - RtR/OS (e0c6d9) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:50 am…also, as has been noted earlier on this thread,
AD - RtR/OS (e0c6d9) — 4/2/2009 @ 11:55 amthe investigation into Stevens goes back to 1993, when the DoJ was under the sterling guidance of that wonderful protector of the civil rights of women and children: Janet Reno!
AD – That does not fit in Teh Narrative.
I am sitting in an airport, forced to watch CNN. Good Allah, Rick Sanchez seems to be trying to out-douchenozzle Olbergasm and MadCow.
JD (8918e5) — 4/2/2009 @ 12:18 pmJust think what CNN’s rating would be without all of those airport feeds?
AD - RtR/OS (e0c6d9) — 4/2/2009 @ 12:24 pmJD — I generally resist the temptation to find a rational way to respond to irrational commentators.
Shipwreckedcrew (7f73f0) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:04 pmWLS – understood. I am not able to show such restraint, especially when someone so blatantly lies.
JD (8918e5) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:16 pmYour nicknames are so funny. Maybe you should make T-shirts or something!
frank (a83d56) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:23 pmThat’s the third time in as many days that Glasshead’s used wiki as a source. Fine job there, Poindexter.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:28 pmWow, what a stirring
parade of ad hominemrebuttal. Oh! I used a wiki! Sneer! Chortle! You know, the wiki cites other sources. You know who else uses it? The whole f*cking world. Better excuses for putting fingers in ears, please; start by bothering to try and figure out exactly what facts you think were fabricated out of thin air.I mean, this particular thread deserves a DoubleThink gold medal – suddenly the obvious conclusions of the last 50 comments that the DOJ political prosecution system was deeply screwed up becomes “lies” when someone uses the name “George Bush” in reference to the guy who appointed the agency heads… it’s f*cking pathetic.
But I know that Shipwrecked isn’t going to respond substantively, because he expended enormous intellectual effort in defending Gonzales’ thuggery and hackery – the same kind that screwed up Stevens’ trial. This isn’t exactly a vindicating moment for his lengthy defenses of their competency. Best to wash it down the memory hole.
I’ll link the full list of election-centric prosections of Democrats thrown out by appeals courts, acquitted, or investigations abandoned in the last five years one of these days, when someone creates it or I find it. Looking forward to more stirring rebuttals along the lines of “moonbat”.
glasnost (4ed100) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:36 pmglasnost
ahahaahhahahhahhhaahh
yeah you do that zzzzzzzzzz….
EricPWJohnson (253396) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:44 pmglasnost, if you don’t understand why we are ridiculing your use of wikipedia, then you really are as clueless as you appear. Given the instances where partisans edited wikipedia to read as they advocated, and then cited it, you just look like a clown.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:46 pmGlasshead’s beclowning is complete – yet like the proverbial Bobo Doll, he just hits the floor in a headlong dash, then jumps right up again.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:49 pmI’ll link the full list of election-centric prosections of Democrats thrown out by appeals courts, acquitted, or investigations abandoned in the last five years one of these days, when someone creates it or I find it
Sure you will, sweetheart.
Dmac (49b16c) — 4/2/2009 @ 1:50 pmLet’s go back and take a look at some of the little pearls of wisdom, otherwise known as steaming piles of goat shite, that glasnost has dumped, in this thread alone.
Strong start. Kudos. Sadly, it just goes downhill from here.
Less than 3 sentences into your rant, and you have already displayed end-stage BDS, and mad a broad brush swipe at the entire DOJ, ironically, not even knowing about the political leanings of the people you were ranting about. But wait, there is more …
Voila. Beautiful. From end-stage BDS to Rovian conspiracy theories in but one sentence. Don’t stop now, you are on a roll.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Rather than the actions of individuals, glasnost tars all of the honorable officials as well, as we all know those evil Bushies willfully disregarded the ethics, procedures and civil protections afforded to defendants in this country on a more or less universal basis. Universal. Not just in this case. Universally. Well, except for like the thousands of cases where nothing improper was done, but let’s not let something like facts get in the way of a good puke.
It does not specify, but this was as predictable as walleye being fried in Minnesota.
So, when the DOJ went after a Republican, that was but a smoke screen for their inherent dishonesty. Inherent dishonesty. Actually, just a quibble here, but if the DOJ universally under Bush was inherently dishonest, does that not show that it had nothing to do with Bush, since an inherent characteristic like that would not be subject to the whims of the office holder. But, I digress.
He was not cleared of the charges on appeal. 15 of 19 original counts were dismissed prior to trial, and he was acquitted by a jury in 4 hours on the remaining counts. Acquittal does not equal innocence, as OJ Simpson well knows. Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own links.
You use it as a source, which shows that the depth of your knowledge extends to google searches and looking in wiki. The whole world is not as aggressively dishonest to you, and they take umbrage for being lumped in with you.
Did you know that the wildabeast could totally take out a rhino, and that they are all fluent in Dutch?
See your universal quote and inherent dishonesty quote above, just for starters. Not that it matters. You are just servicing Teh Narrative.
RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!
JD (21b45f) — 4/2/2009 @ 2:19 pmLet’s go back and take a look at some of the little pearls of wisdom, otherwise known as steaming piles of goat doodoo, that glasnost has dumped, in this thread alone.
Strong start. Kudos. Sadly, it just goes downhill from here.
.
Less than 3 sentences into your rant, and you have already displayed end-stage BDS, and mad a broad brush swipe at the entire DOJ, ironically, not even knowing about the political leanings of the people you were ranting about. But wait, there is more …
Voila. Beautiful. From end-stage BDS to Rovian conspiracy theories in but one sentence. Don’t stop now, you are on a roll.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Rather than the actions of individuals, glasnost tars all of the honorable officials as well, as we all know those evil Bushies willfully disregarded the ethics, procedures and civil protections afforded to defendants in this country on a more or less universal basis. Universal. Not just in this case. Universally. Well, except for like the thousands of cases where nothing improper was done, but let’s not let something like facts get in the way of a good puke.
It does not specify, but this was as predictable as walleye being fried in Minnesota.
So, when the DOJ went after a Republican, that was but a smoke screen for their inherent dishonesty. Inherent dishonesty. Actually, just a quibble here, but if the DOJ universally under Bush was inherently dishonest, does that not show that it had nothing to do with Bush, since an inherent characteristic like that would not be subject to the whims of the office holder. But, I digress.
He was not cleared of the charges on appeal. 15 of 19 original counts were dismissed prior to trial, and he was acquitted by a jury in 4 hours on the remaining counts. Acquittal does not equal innocence, as OJ Simpson well knows. Sometimes I wonder if you even read your own links.
You use it as a source, which shows that the depth of your knowledge extends to google searches and looking in wiki. The whole world is not as aggressively dishonest to you, and they take umbrage for being lumped in with you.
Did you know that the wildabeast could totally take out a rhino, and that they are all fluent in Dutch?
See your universal quote and inherent dishonesty quote above, just for starters. Not that it matters. You are just servicing Teh Narrative.
RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!
JD (21b45f) — 4/2/2009 @ 2:28 pmOops – Sorry about the deucey.
JD (21b45f) — 4/2/2009 @ 2:29 pmWhat say you, glasnost? What say you?
As kind of a tangent, I enjoyed that petulent little temper tantrum in #70. How dare you question its sources?! How dare you question its asspulls?! How dare you? Have you no honor?
It also trotted out that familiar, yet always dishonest, Leftist meme where they get to assert anything that they want, and it is up to someone else to prove them wrong, as opposed to them supporting thier asspull to begin with.
JD (21b45f) — 4/2/2009 @ 2:56 pmWhere do you go to get your election back?
bill-tb (26027c) — 4/2/2009 @ 3:57 pmI see Senor Asspull crawled back underneath its rock.
JD (b9ec92) — 4/2/2009 @ 7:49 pmglasnost – Siegelman lost his appeal you douchenozzle. You read too much Larry Horton who makes up conspiracies for a living. You sound like the buttmunch too.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/2/2009 @ 8:04 pmScott Horton, sorry.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/2/2009 @ 8:05 pmThe judge has appointed a a special prosecutor to investigate charges of criminal contempt against the prosecutors. Wow!
nk (f3fac6) — 4/7/2009 @ 10:11 amNow, we’ll finally learn the truth of the insidious politicization of the DoJ under Bush!
AD - RtR/OS (8d1dbc) — 4/7/2009 @ 10:23 amWonder how this will set with the House Judiciary Cmte?
Didn’t they have something scheduled along these lines?
AD – weren’t these prosecutors Barcky supporters?
JD (1653ac) — 4/7/2009 @ 10:34 amThat is what was reported here by another commenter.
AD - RtR/OS (8d1dbc) — 4/7/2009 @ 12:10 pmGood, non-political, career, civil-servants!