Eric Holder upholds the law, drops charges against Ted Stevens

[MattusMaximus]

Attorney General Holder upholds the law, drops charges against Ted Stevens

Wow...

Holder abandons Stevens prosecution

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to abandon the criminal prosecution that brought an end to the political career of one of Washington’s most powerful figures: former GOP Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Stevens, 85, was convicted in late October on seven felony charges that he failed to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts from Bill Allen, former CEO of VECO Corp., and others, including renovations to Stevens’ chalet in Girdwood, Alaska.

However, the case was plagued by allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, some of which came from inside the government. Following Stevens’ conviction, an FBI special agent alleged that the lead female agent on the case had an “inappropriate relationship” with Allen, as well as claiming that prosecutors deliberately tried to keep a witness from testifying after concluding that he was unreliable.

The Justice Department, until today, had denied those allegations, and prosecutors vigorously oppose Stevens’ demands for a new trial.

But Holder's decision effectively voids the conviction and ends the two-year legal case against Stevens. ...

Bully for Eric Holder. Despite my political disagreements with and public criticism of former Senator Ted Stevens here, let me be the first to state that I think Stevens got royally screwed

The irony here is that the Republican Bush DOJ was on the case against Stevens, and it's the Democratic Obama DOJ which clears the man. Wow...

 

[ravdin]

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

 

[daredelvis]

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

My feelings exactly. My displeasure related to that slime bag Stevens walking on this is eclipsed by my rage at the shenanigans pulled by the prosecution.


eta: Holder did the right thing.
Daredelvis

 

[ponderingturtle]

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

If they didn't get to walk how would you get enough people in the legislature to vote on anything.

 

[headscratcher4]

It is all part of the Obama administration's nefarious march to facism. "Uphold" the rule of law by holding prosecutors accountable for their misdeeds so that you can better subvert it... Does their evil know no bounds?

 

[fishbob]

Dammit Dammit Dammit - this means he will be coming home.

You may not know this, but Alaskans do NOT elect our politicians for representation, leadership, or any of the usual reasons - we elect them to clean up our neighborhoods.

Once in office, we depend on them to go away to Juneau, DC, or jail.

 

[Beerina]

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

Well, I hate to put on a tinfoil hat, but remember he pulled out that "little black book" defense, IIRC, i.e. if he was going down, he was gonna spill the beans on other politicians.

And, coincidentally, the charges go away.

 

[dudalb]

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

Agreed. They botched the prosecution.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, I hate to put on a tinfoil hat, but remember he pulled out that "little black book" defense, IIRC, i.e. if he was going down, he was gonna spill the beans on other politicians.

And, coincidentally, the charges go away.

You know? Honestly? I'd buy it. Tinfoil hat or no tinfoil this decision is sudden, the grounds are spurious, and the thing seems to be flying under the radar. No one's making a fuss.

This really does feel like a little black book.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Guys, the CT-subforum is two doors down on the right...

 

[GreyICE]

Guys, the CT-subforum is two doors down on the right...

Mattus, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there are corrupt politicians. It's cute that you think it is, but it's just not, whatever your 6th grade civics class might tell you.

It's not a conspiracy theory to think that unethical people in congress might work together to, I dunno, pass bills?

And that they might have pull in, say, the government?

Seriously, it's cute that you live in la la hope land, but the rest of us live on earth.

 

[applecorped]

People lie!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Mattus, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there are corrupt politicians. It's cute that you think it is, but it's just not, whatever your 6th grade civics class might tell you.

It's not a conspiracy theory to think that unethical people in congress might work together to, I dunno, pass bills?

And that they might have pull in, say, the government?

Seriously, it's cute that you live in la la hope land, but the rest of us live on earth.

You went way beyond merely stating that "there are corrupt politicians." You were specifically implying a conspiracy to clear Stevens of the charges.

Thanks for the lesson in politics, but I'm not nearly as naive as you would like to believe. I just think that you might, I don't know, actually have some evidence before you start spinning some yarn about a behind-the-scenes deal between Ted Stevens and everyone else in the government.

As I said, GreyIce, the CT subforum is calling...

 

[jj]

You know, one has to wonder why they targeted Stevens during the Bush administration. I have NO idea at all. Now, if in fact these charges were totally bogus, well, something obscene did happen.

I have no idea. Stevens is slime for other reasons, but legal ones.

 

[Allen773]

Stevens was unpopular even with his own party.

The important thing is that's he out of office.

 

[GreyICE]

You went way beyond merely stating that "there are corrupt politicians." You were specifically implying a conspiracy to clear Stevens of the charges.

Thanks for the lesson in politics, but I'm not nearly as naive as you would like to believe. I just think that you might, I don't know, actually have some evidence before you start spinning some yarn about a behind-the-scenes deal between Ted Stevens and everyone else in the government.

As I said, GreyIce, the CT subforum is calling...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_774747b777c3c3dce.jpg[/qimg]

*yawn*

Is there some prize you get for posting stupid pictures? You're certainly working on it.

And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories. I'm simply stating this looks like a crock of bull byproduct.

We have what looks like a decent case, certainly a jury thought so. Then lets see what happens. Whistleblower affidavit is filed, claimng that one key witness that would have undermined the prosecution's entire case was sent home. This affidavit claims that there certainly are people who could attest that Stevens paid for all the things he received - it's just that Stevens really couldn't recall who these people were during the trial where he was found guilty, and none of his lawyers thought to ask if there was, say, someone who could attest that he'd done nothing wrong and could say that he paid for the things (perhaps with some evidence) that there's no record of him, say, paying for.

Oh well, lets throw the trial out.

Call me skeptical. In any other circumstances, you'd probably be posting the same pictures for someone who supports the notion that despite a trial where someone was found guilty, a claim by a person who claims there is hearsay testimony that completely clears the guilty party despite him not uncovering this in a court of law clears him so convincingly and so thoroughly that there is not even a need for a new trial.

Oh crud! I just realized I'm trying to reason with someone who thinks pictures are arguments. Uh oh. Quick, something you'll understand:

Pants on head stupid! Your move (in case you didn't realize, I feel a sudden urge to explain these things because I think they might be unclear to you, the phrase 'your move' is a reference to games where turns are taken sequentially, which can be used as an analogy (something that's similar to something else) for these forums).

 

[quixotecoyote]

And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories.

[snipped GreyICE then explaining why he thinks there is a conspiracy.

Could you possibly rephrase that, preferably about two or three steps backwards from your current position?

 

[GreyICE]

Could you possibly rephrase that, preferably about two or three steps backwards from your current position?

I have no idea what you just asked. It seemed reasonably clear to me that this is fishy. I mean a fair and balanced approach, if you really think there has been misconduct, is to conduct a retrial, neh? Moreover the bush justice department was noted for many things, but its partisan and sloppy assaults on Republicans is probably not going to be one the history books remember.

What exactly was unclear? I mean except the part where you edited my post to lie.

 

[quixotecoyote]

What exactly was unclear? I mean except the part where you edited my post to lie.

The bit where you said you weren't claiming a conspiracy and proceeded to say why everything was suspicious and corrupt politicians obviously had a hand in it, and justice was perverted, and secrets were kept, and the evidence was pushed under the table, but gosh no, no conspiracy, that'd be just crazy!

 

[dudalb]

The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator.
Fat Chance that Will happen.