Posted on 04/01/2009 2:50:19 PM PDT by euram
And boy - saraH was right out there supporting Ted every day, telling folks what a honorable guy he is, etc.
OH, wait.
She was one of the first to throw Ted under the bus....
[quote]Not only did these prosecutors seek and issue indictments just a few short months before Election Day, not only did they engage in the strategic leaking of what amounted to no more than innuendo and outright libel/slander against the Senator to friendly reporters, not only did they hold the trial before a DC jury (which may not be their doing) as the Presidential campaign got into high gear, they also “forgot” to share documents with the defense, prevented exculpatory witness testimony from being heard in open court, and when it came to the documents they did share with the defense they actually redacted exculpatory passages from witness transcripts.
To give you all an example of what somehow never made it to Stevens’ defense team; after the renovation work done on his house, Stevens wrote to Bill Allen, CEO of VECO and the prosecution’s star witness, asking him to talk to Stevens’ neighbor (who had overseen the renovation on Stevens’ behalf) about the bill or invoice for the work for Stevens to pay back. As Stevens wrote; “You owe me a bill … Remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing, compliance with the ethics rules entirely different.”
Now according to Bill Allen sitting in the witness box, Bob Persons (the neighbor) told him when he went to talk to him about the bill; “Don’t worry about getting a bill, Ted’s just covering his ass.”
Which sounds condemning until you find out that Bill Allen had told prosecutors some months earlier (when his memory should have been a bit fresher) that he could not recall ever meeting Bob Persons about providing a bill to Ted Stevens. Add in the fact that it’s not in dispute that Stevens paid every bill that was presented to him - over $180,000 out of his own pocket. This and more potentially exculpatory information were in the interview notes that the prosecution somehow “forgot” to provide to the defense.
So it is no surprise that the trial judge found the prosecution team in contempt in February for their continued failure to provide these documents unredacted, undoctored, to the defense for the sentencing phase. The DOJ had to assign another DOJ lawyer to review their case files and send the documents to the defense. These would be including those documents relating to complaints by the FBI agent in charge of the investigation about prosecutors covering up evidence unhelpful to their case and trying to prevent a witness from testifying because his/her testimony would have harmed their case.
Ted Stevens may have been a pork-addicted fiend. He may have made a mockery of fiscal restraint as a principle of Republican politics, and he has rightly been pilloried for it over the years. But it’s obvious he was no crook if prosecutors had to go to such dishonest lengths to get him convicted - and by a DC jury during a Presidential campaign with partisan passions running high.
Now, maybe I’m going dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory here, but looking at everything, the timing of the indictment and trial (finishing about a week to election day), the leaks, the trial venue (almost guaranteed to return a conviction), the deliberate withholding/doctoring of evidence by the prosecution, the fact that the lead prosecutor is a registered Democrat with ambitions of being appointed the US Attorney for Boston … and I’m starting to think this was more of a political operation than anything to do with justice.
That’s one.
The second thing is that I have to note that Achance, again, was right. Republicans, in a bid to appear as white as the driven snow, have been tricked, again and again, into committing fratricide. For all that Obama can give the world lessons in throwing people under the bus once they become inconvenient, Republicans are hardly slouches. All it takes is an accusation, a news headline and the entire concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is thrown out the window in a rush to condemn and disassociate (as if the MSM would ever forget to attach the big scarlet ‘R’).
Nothing p*ssed me off more than seeing Democrats and their pet talking heads condemning Republicans for attempting to change their Caucus rules to enable Tom DeLay (another victim of prosecutorial misconduct - whatever happened to his trial anyway?) stay on as Leader while he fought his indictment by a clearly dishonest and partisan Ronnie Earle. And there were Republicans who got on TV and print to echo them -e.g. Chris Shays. This while Democrats have no such rule in place for their leadership.
Simply put; we need to start defending our own. I’m not saying we should emulate the Democrats who had no problem with criminals like William Jefferson and Chris Dodd serving in their midst, but the fact that someone is on our side means we should give him/her the benefit of the doubt, extend them the courtesy of believing them innocent until proven guilty.
We condemned Stevens from the moment he was indicted, we believed the leaks, we joined the Democrats in labelling him corrupt - a quid pro quo player.
And we were wrong. He was one of our own. He deserved better.[/quote]
http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_knight/2009/04/01/fratricide-and-ted-stevens/
Biy—it is so easy to get republicans to abandon their own on the field of battle!!
Randy “Duke” Cunningham, was guilty, Maxine Waters is guilty, Landrieu is corrupt, William J. Jefferson is guilty, John Conyers is guilty, Charlie Rangle is guilty, Dodd is corrupt, Blagojevich is guilty, Murtha is corrupt, (I could go on...)
Throw the scum out and STOP support them.
Perhaps. You still made unfair comments about one Senator wqho is innocent—Stevens. Maybe instead of skipping off and peddling this red herring you might admit error.
Stevens is guilty.
It appears Stevens is innocent and the DOJ is admitting that. They are no going to charge him again. Stevens should sue. If he can and does, Stevens will win.
That statement is libelous. - What happens if Jim has to release your ISP data?
Yawnnnnnnnn....Stevens was convicted in a court of law. That will now be overturned using the same vehicle that freed the scum Bill Ayers. Different level of crimes to be sure, but both are guilty.
Since the testimony was in essence purchased, and since in libel there are only two possible defenses: prove it was true, or prove that you either didn’t say it, or that you clarified it as opinion when you did, it could be more than a yawn.
Of what? I think you just like flapping your gums.
Both Stevens and Bill Ayers are welcome to come after me if they want.
“I’m no fan of former Sen. Stevens, but I think it’s clear that he did not get a fair trial and that he lost his election as a result. More details on the prosecutors’ misconduct are available in the Anchorage Daily News.
As noted in The Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary today:
[block quote]Justice’s behavior was so bizarre that it makes one wonder why the hastily-assembled case charging Senator Stevens only with lying on disclosure forms was brought so close to a pivotal election. As the Journal editorial page reported earlier this year, Mr. Welch, the prosecutor in the Stevens case, is a career Justice lawyer. He was appointed to his post by Alice Fisher, who had headed up a broader Justice probe of corruption in Alaska but who had left by the time the Stevens indictment was brought. In a profile last week in his hometown newspaper, the Springfield, Mass., Republican, Mr. Welch was described as a registered Democrat vying for a promotion to U.S. Attorney in Boston. The day this story appeared, he was found in contempt” by Judge Sullivan.
And read these excerpts from a transcript of a press conference by Stevens’s lawyer Brendan Sullivan where he reacted to the decision. Mr. Sullivan is absolutely right.[/block quote]
As many of you know, I never comment about matters in litigation. Today is an exception. . . The jury verdict here was obtained unlawfully. The government violated the Constitution of the United States, federal criminal rules, and applicable case law in order to obtain this unlawful verdict. The misconduct of the prosecutors was stunning to me. Many prosecutors were involved and least one FBI agent. Not only did the government fail to provide evidence to the defense that the law required them to provide, but they created false testimony that they gave us and they actually presented false testimony in the courtroom. . .
The prosecutors in the case were removed, as you know, some were held in contempt and that brought in a new team of prosecutors. If I were to be asked, are there other heroes, it would be those new prosecutors. They were led by Paul O’Brien. They pursued evidence and when they found evidence of misconduct, they gave it to us, as recently as last week. And when we received that evidence, normally defense counsel are overjoyed at the opportunity that their hunches and leads are proven true, that in fact the government acted wrongly, but there was no joy at Williams and Connolly when we were getting that evidence. In fact we were sickened by it. Because it clearly told a story of government corruption, that they were hell bent on convicting a United States Senator.
To us, while this is a joyful day and we’re happy that Senator Stevens can resume a normal life without the burdens that he’s carried over these last years, at age 85, it’s a very sad story, too. Because it’s a warning to everyone in this country that any citizen can be convicted if the prosecutor ignores the Constitution of the United States.
Read that last sentence again:
[I]t’s a warning to everyone in this country that any citizen can be convicted if the prosecutor ignores the Constitution of the United States. “
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2009/04/the_stevens_case.php
OH, wait.
She was one of the first to throw Ted under the bus...
LMAO-she sure was. I was wondering which Palin nut was going to be dumb enough to post this statement without knowing how she treated Ted after he was indicted.
Yeah, I knew that she had called for him to resign, but it took her awhile to do so, and my guess is that it was McCain doing the talking. She was his running mate, and he made the decisions.
You are correct. One of the campaign’s senior advisors happens to be a friend of mine. This was one of several issues on which the 2 candidates disagreed vehemently; in the end, guess who gets to call the shots?
What’s with your strange habit of minor s and capital H in Sarah?
Withholding exculpatory evidence is not ‘bungling the case.’ Frankly, Stevens should be able to get all his costs to defend against the prosecution from the DOJ, plus punitive damages. The attorneys who withheld the evidence should be disbarred.
That is not to say that I don’t think Stevens was in the Senate way too long, and should have stepped aside before any of this was brought up. Too many Congressmen and Senators get too comfortable in those positions and stay way too long. They should all help younger people groom for the positions over time, and step aside gracefully. Usually, tho, they focus only on their own tenure and reelection.
“You are correct.”
Thanks for verifying that. During the campaign I noticed that Palin was asked for her reaction several times before she made a statement. I also noticed that she said good things about Stevens during her state of the state address in January which drew a lot of applause from the legislature. Despite the fact Stevens had been in DC too long, and was part of the problem, he was still popular in AK and was defeated by just a handful of votes.
For a while, I think FReepers and others were using "-quiddick" instead of "-gate", in honor of Sen. Kennedy... perhaps we should revive the practice?
Can you read? Or just not understand what you read? The jury (and especially you!) didnt get to hear all the evidence! Thats the whole point of this entire issue. Sheeesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.