Can someone set me straight on this Ted Stevens thing please

[garybeck]

At the time of the conviction, the justice department was being run by the bush administration. they had a long history of prosecuting democrats when no crime was committed.

Now I keep hearing how "outrageous" the actions of the Stevens prosecutors were, but very little specifics.

I'm confused. Why would the prosecutors from justice department, run by the bush administration, file bogus charges against one of their own, and open up the door for his senate seat to be taken over by a democrat?

this would all make sense if it was a democrat that was being improperly prosecuted under the bush administration's justice department, and I'm sure Rove would have ahd something to do with it. But the fact that it was a Republican is really leaving me scratching my head.

and why are we being kept in the dark about the specifics? What exactly did the prosecutors do? I've heard maybe they didn't share evidence with the defense team. There must be more than that to warrant an internal investigation and claims their actions were "outrageous."

either I'm missing something, or something doesn't smell right.

And to further complicate things I'm also confused why the current justice department would go after righting this wrong before doing so with Siegelman.

[benddem]

1. the charges weren't bogus

he's still guilty...the prosecutors were so set on getting a conviction that they ran roughshod over the conduct of the trial.

[garybeck]

5. why were Bush prosecutors so set on getting a conviction?

I would think Rove would call them up in 5 minutes and tell them to lay off or else.

and if he's still guilty,why wouldn't they have a new trial.

this really smells bad to me.

[T Wolf]

2. #1 - the shrub DoJ purposely trashed their case. #2 - laws do not apply to rethugs.

#3 - the Obama administration is more concerned with gaining support (though they never do) of the rethugs rather than Democrats because Dems "have no other place to go." #4 - the Obama DoJ does not want to anger the pukes, so Siegelman will continue to hang, forever.

[acmavm]

9. You explained it as well as it could ever be explained. It was all

a scam.

And it looks like it worked.

[garybeck]

12. so your belief is

from the beginning they decided to prosecute him and do something wrong during the trial so his prosecution would be wiped out afterwards?

this doesn't make sense either. these people would be jeopardizing their own careers for the sake of an older senator who is due to retire anyway.

if they really wanted to help him, they could have just ignored the evidence and not prosecuted him.

[acmavm]

18. Yep, I do believe that. It's worked out very well. And as far jeopardizing

their careers, it's Alaska. Look at what goes on up there politically. Palin still has an over 60% approval rating. That place is absolutely nuts when it comes to politics. (I'm not saying that out of meanness. I love Alaska, I lived there once upon a time. I'd like to live out my life there, but it is just too damn expensive.)

[acmavm]

19. Not prosecuting would have been too obvious and the rest of

the nation was onto the fact that he was a lying bribe-taking bastard.

[Raskolnik]

13. That just doesn't make sense. The Bush DoJ intentionally mismanaged

the case against Stevens in such a way that would cause Republicans to lose a Senate seat, but would let Stevens go free after the elections?

Huh?

[garybeck]

15. you're right, that doesn't make sense. i'm still stumped.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Just protecting one of their own - they knew Stevens was going down anyways

And they'd rather do it to give him cover than to see a sitting GOP Senator dragged off to jail during a Dem administration.

Now they have their talking points - "Stevens was being persecuted, that's why he didn't win the election" and the ever popular "See? All of these charges have been FALSE"

And in the end, Stevens gets to retire in comfort.

[damntexdem]

4. I can't answer most of your questions but will take a stab at the last.

Consider what the outcry would be were Siegelman first. Instead, the first big case under Holder is a prosecution of a GOP senator by a GOP-led, hyper-partisan Justice Department. After this, there is no guarantee that the Siegelman case will be considered; but if it is, the ground has been shifted. No, the Steven's case would not prevent RW hissy fits if the Siegelman case is investigated, and especially if there are prosecutions of prosecutors and their cronies; but the response to any such hissy fits would be much easier for the Administration.

[DeepBlueC]

6. that's my thought too

But mostly I think it is his insistence on professionalism. Too bad so many people tend to think that this means Stevens is innocent. The prosecutors did what they could to present the strongest case possible, something that happens all the time across the country when prosecutors take it as their job to "win" rather than to present a case. They could have gone with what evidence they had and made proper disclosures and put it before a jury, but they put their thumb on the scales of justice, and won, and then didn't.

[walldude]

7. Stevens was not exonerated, the reversal came because

prosecutors didn't turn over a key piece of evidence to the defense. Had this come out during the trial it would have been a mistrial but since the verdict was already handed down they had to drop the conviction and double jeopardy applies.

Make of it what you will, looks to me like the whole thing was planned from the start.

[justinaforjustice]

8. Prosecutors' Misconduct Compelled Dismissal

Senator Stevens accepted "gifts" from an Alaskan oil company owned. He was charged and convicted by the Bush Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, of failing to report gifts of $250,000 on his required Senate disclosure forms. On taking the witness stand in his own defense, Stevens admitted to failing to report the gifts but disputed, I believe, the total sum.

It was odd that Bush's lackeys in the DOJ decided to prosecute Stevens, as he is a Republican. But, what is even odder, is that the prosecution team repeatedly violated their statutory duty to turn over certain pieces of evidence to Steven's defense counsel. This was discovered by the defense and revealed to the Judge, who reprimanded the DOJ counsel and suppressed some of their proposed evidence. The Judge was further angered when he learned that the prosecution had sent a witness who was in D.C. under subpoena by the defense back to Alaska without informing either the Court or the defense.

It might appear to those suspicious of the notoriously corrupt Bush DOJ, that the prosecution violated the law in order to provide Stevens with a ground for appeal. But it is extremely odd that they would attempt to aid Stevens in this manner as they were putting their own law licenses, to say nothing of possible contempt charges, at risk. If they wanted to help Stevens there were a lot of other ways they could have done so without endangering themselves. So, it is at least plausible that the prosecution were looking to win a case against a sitting Senator, and gain the attendant publicity, rather than help him.

Due to their malfeasance, when the new attorney general took office, he replaced the Bush prosecution team. The new lawyers on the case discovered that the old team had suppressed a really significant statement by the chief witness against Stevens, a statement which threw his trial testimony in doubt. As a result of all the prosecutors' misconduct in the case, Holder moved to dismiss charges against Stevens, which is precisely what he should have done given the facts.

It is sad from the perspective of the taxpayers and voters that the charges against Stevens were dismissed, as he admitted to the crime, but it would be sadder for prosecutors to get away with the suppression of exculpatory evidence against any defendant whose conviction was so flawed.

[T Wolf]

10. One weakness in your argument is that Bushista admin assholes never worried about

consequences.

It would never occur to them that they could possibly suffer any consequences for doing what they were supposed to - that is, purposely throw the case so that Stevens would get off.

Did anyone during the previous eight years pay any cost for mis-behavior - whether actually criminal or "moral bankruptcy" or anything in between?

[justinaforjustice]

11. Prosecuting Before Experienced Trial Judge, Not a Bush Official.

If the prosecution team were being judged by a Bush appointed administrator in the DOJ, you would be correct. They could confidently expect to get away with anything. But here they were operating under the eye of an experienced and independent federal trial judge, with aggressive defense counsel on the other side, which should have put them in fear of exposure.

As a former criminal defense counsel, I attribute the prosecutors' misconduct in this case to greed for a sensational conviction, not
conspiracy to get Stevens off. Of course, until the special prosecutor appointed by Judge Sullivan carries out his job of prosecuting the criminal contempt against the attorneys involved, my opinion is just that, an opinion.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. There's a good analysis in today's Anchorage Daily News

http://www.adn.com/ted-stevens/story/752245.html

We're all as confused as you are -- and, of course, the Republicans here are acting like this completely exonerates St. Ted for any wrongdoing, so much so that our state house passed a resolution demanding an apology from the Justice Department. http://community.adn.com/adn/node/140325

[Winterblues]

16. An apology is in order but I hope Stevens is dumb enough to sue.

It would bring it all out again and he is indeed guilty of failing to report correctly on his financial papers gifts he received. He is heard on tape saying if caught he could go to prison.. He knew he was being corrupt and he deserves more than he will receive..that is for sure.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. Besides which

it's not all that easy to sue the federal government. I tried suing HUD in 1991 for selling me a house with a very defective roof that they covered up just enough to make it look okay when I bought it. The house started leaking like a sieve within two months and clearly required an entire new roof, not just a repair job. A FOIA request revealed that they knew the roof was bad, but they passed on all the inspections anyway. I got a lawyer, I sued, but I was told that according to the "Federal Tort Claims Act" you cannot sue the government for fraud or misrepresentation. Period.

And I really don't think an apology is warranted because he has taken advantage of his position as a senator to enrich himself many times over. I'm just sick that all these Republicans now want to act like he's completely exonerated, like he's never done anything wrong in his life.

It's a shame that the prosecution botched this so badly. Something seems really off about the whole thing, in my opinion.