Posted on 07/29/2002 7:23:19 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
In his last gasp for freedom, James Traficant looked at jurors in his corruption case and promised that he could take what they doled out.
"If you find me guilty, you come out and just say it," Traficant roared. "I'll accept it like a man."
Federal prosecutors say Traficant has accepted nothing about the jury's verdict in April and has failed to show any remorse. Instead, they say in pleadings filed Friday, he has accused investigators, attorneys and a judge of corruptly conspiring to bring him down.
Because of those actions, and for tarnishing the image of Congress, Traficant now deserves the harshest sentence possible, they say.
Tomorrow, U.S. District Judge Lesley Wells will decide Traficant's prison term, one that attorneys have argued over for weeks. The former 18-year member of Congress faces 87 months in prison after being convicted of 10 felony charges, according to federal guidelines.
But Wells has the discretion to add to or subtract from that.
The judge is expected to listen to some character witnesses who will describe Traficant's 22 years of public service to the Mahoning Valley, including four years as sheriff before he was elected to the U.S. House. Sentencing hearings typically last less than an hour, but the testimony and legal arguments slated for this one could stretch it out over a full day or more, some court officials predict.
Prosecutors say Traficant deserves a much greater sentence than the 87 months because his crimes were so egregious: He shook down contractors who did hundreds of thousands of dollars of free work at his farm and boat in exchange for political favors. They also say his outlandish behavior after the verdict warrants a steep sentence.
Traficant's attorney says his client deserves a much lighter term in prison because of his "lifelong dedication and exceptional public service."
Traficant has denied wrongdoing. With bluster and profanity, he tried - and failed - to bully his House colleagues out of voting last week to toss him from office.
Traficant told them that he was railroaded during his federal jury trial in Cleveland. Legal experts say Traficant's ouster from the House, as well as two jurors expressing second thoughts about his conviction, are not likely to play into Wells' sentencing.
At the end of the 10-week trial, on April 11, a jury convicted him of 10 corruption charges, including tampering with witnesses, bribery and racketeering. Traficant said many witnesses whom prosecutors called at his trial were felons who testified against him to get light sentences.
Traficant wants Wells to allow him to remain free on bond until an appeals court decides his case. But prosecutors in Cleveland say Traficant must first show that he has a chance of winning an appeal, and they believe he has none. They want Traficant to go immediately to prison.
Federal authorities said the impact of his misdeeds go far beyond his district.
"The fact that a member of Congress, one of the highest positions in our government, has been convicted of these crimes of dishonesty will cause some loss of public confidence in these institutions at the very time citizens must depend on them to ensure our domestic security," prosecutors wrote in court documents.
They stopped short of saying how much more time in prison Traficant should spend, but they asked for a substantial increase to "fully reflect the nature of the crime and extent of its harm on the community."
Prosecutors also contend that Traficant is a risk to run. During his trial, he told Wells: "I do caution the court, that if you poison this jury one more time, you'll have to send a marshal for me because I am not coming back to your courtroom. You can put that on the record."
Traficant represented himself at trial, even though he is not an attorney. For his sentencing, he has an attorney, Richard Hackerd, who said the former congressman is no threat to vanish.
Hackerd also said Traficant deserves the minimum sentence because of his service to the Youngstown area. He cited Traficant's four-year term as sheriff, when Traficant refused to foreclose on the homes of laid-off steelworkers. Traficant was found in contempt of court, and he was sent to jail for failing to remove the families from their homes.
"This demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice his personal liberty for the community," Hackerd said in documents. He plans to call witnesses tomorrow and present affidavits from constituents whom the former congressman helped.
"His office was aggressive in constituent services, and Mr. Traficant pursued legislation action diligently," Hackerd wrote.
Prosecutors say Traficant did not serve his community, but stole from it. They said he took more than $200,000 in kickbacks from his employees, forced his staff to clean stalls at his horse farm and encouraged witnesses to lie for him. And if a constituent needed help, they said, Traficant wanted to know what the citizen could do for him first.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
jcaniglia@plaind.com, 216-999-4128
Then why not publish the report exonerating Judge Wells' husband. I do know ANOTHER lawyer has made the same sort of allegations against Charles Clark (hubby of Judge Wells) prior to Traficant's allegations. If it is indeed shown that Clark had business dealings with one or more of the prosecution team, then this case MUST be overturned on appeal.
I think you try too hard to make your case. From what Ive read Hulshof didnt say that the lack of evidence proved his guilt, he merely said you had to depend on testimony from those offering up the bribes because Trafficant wasnt going to be dumb enough to accept certified checks for payment. From his recent behavior during the trial and subsequent, Im not so sure. Trafficant may be that dumb!
Oh, PJ-Comix, can't you see? THERE'S NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST HULSHOF EITHER!!! HE MUST HAVE BEEN IN ON IT!!! DID HE REALLY THINK HE'D GET AWAY WITH IT?!?!?!
So did Demjanjuk work for the Germans? Probably, but not as some dedicated Nazi. What is little understood is that many folks in Occupied Europe were employed by the Germans as either slave or paid laborers. Thousands of Frenchmen were hired by the Germans to build the Atlantic Wall. Does this mean they were Nazi collaborators? Certainly some were but most were just out to make a living and survive the war. I think Demjanjuk fell into this latter category. (BTW, former French Socialist Prime Minister, Mitterand, was a very willing collaborator in the Vichy Government for the Germans). I am pretty good at detecting who enthusiastic collaborators were and who were just shmoes trying to survive the War and, to me, Demjanjuk was in the latter category. Many neo-Nazi sites take up the cause of Demjanjuk but this came about because of the STUPIDITY of the Justice Department trying to frame him as Ivan the Terrible, when the fact is he was just a low level worker whose "crimes" amounted to much less that the former Prime Minister of France (Mitterand), who worked for the Germans at a much higher level.
Anyway, the Demjanjuk case proves that the Justice Department does have a history of FRAMING people and ironically one of the few who stood up for Demjanjuk was Traficant. Most likely the worst that Traficant is guilty of is having some of his staffers, while visiting him on the farm, help out in a friendly way with pitching hay or some other minor activity that the Feds converted into some major crime.
It sure sounded that way to me. As to depending on testimony, they sure used a lot of witnesses who were simultaneously trying to get their sentences reduced in other cases. But with all this "corrupt activity" by Traficant, why not ONE piece of wiretap voice evidence or any other PHYSICAL evidence. Weak case and it if shown that Judge Wells' husband had business dealings with one or more of the prosecution team, then the case MUST be overturned.
HeHeee! Is that the burned envelopes they produced as "evidence"?
Dang! I hate it when fingerprints are burned off.
I have notes but don't want to look it up. Mr.Detore paid his lawyers $450,000 and then the one that told him in Feb. 2001, that the "administration wants him out", quit him, without telling him. he said they kept asking him (Detore) if he knew what Traficant had said about Janet Reno. He didn't know what they were talking about.
Did you hear that?
To: PJ-Comix
“…The gentleman from Ohio has referenced the lack of evidence and the quality of evidence. Is there anybody in this Chamber who believes that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant ) could be captured incriminating himself on tape?
Should we, in this case or any other case, reward a wrongdoer because he has the wherewithal to avoid being captured in the act? Shall a clever criminal who has enriched himself at taxpayer expense be further enriched because he almost avoided detection?”…
# 52 by toenail
Let’s re-word that, shall we, toenail?
“Should we let a criminal go, just because we have no evidence that he’s guilty?”
Congressman Kenny Hulshof thinks that we shouldn’t. Congressman Kenny Hulshof believes that if we know a man is guilty, we should convict him. Evidence isn’t important, what’s important is that we know he’s guilty.
Congressman Hulshof asked that question before the full House, thereby giving his opinion that there was no real evidence against Traficant.
Congressman Hulshof also said that members shouldn't let the fact that there was no evidence influence their vote.
That doesn’t sound like a “conservative” Congressman to me.
By your logic, the government-ordered murder of the Branch Davidians was okay, because the government was declared (by the government) to be innocent of wrongdoing.Yes, anyone with half a brain knows the government didn’t order any such thing. The Branch Davidians lit the fire so they go out in their blaze of glory, kind of like Islamic terrorists would in a similar situation.
- exodus
Boy, that’s a relief, Dave S.
I don’t have to worry about that anymore.
Tell me, was the government equally blameless of the Ruby Ridge murders? Was the FBI innocent of doctoring the evidence against the four Boston men falsely convicted of murder, and then imprisoned for 30 years? Were the Chinese donations to our government just an innocent little misunderstanding? Was Bill Clinton vilified just because he had an affair? Is organizing citizens to spy upon their neighbors just an extension of the American dream?
Sorry, I don’t buy your excuses, Dave S. The government massacre of the Davidians was planned well in advance. They even lied and said that the Davidians were selling drugs, in order to justify bringing in the military.
Arresting David Koresh was not the purpose of the raid. Illegal weapons were not the purpose of the raid. Child abuse was not the reason for the raid, and neither were drugs.
The purpose of the raid on the Davidians was the BAFT needed or wanted more funding. It was called "Operation Showtime" and they called out the TV News to be sure that the attack would be televised. It was a publicity stunt, and a publicity stunt must be dramatic to work it's magic.
Telling David Koresh "You're under arrest" just wouldn't be dramatic enough if Koresh responded with "Okay, I'm ready to go."
Our government went to Waco intending to commit murder. Murder is what they did.
I won’t forget that, and I don’t forgive them.
To: PJ-Comix
IMHO Trafficant, much like Clinton and Condit, may have had some good points (which I doubt) but like them he had a self control problem that led him to this place.
It explains his defense of Condit and his NO vote on impeachment of Clinton. The man fails to see the TRUTH as he is busily searching for excuses.
# 4 by OldFriend
Excuses? I heard Traficant giving very convincing evidence.
Well, I can see why you don’t need evidence, OldFriend. You’re a mind reader.
What “self-control” problem? There was no evidence of wrong-doing. Traficant is innocent.
Ron Paul said that he saw strong evidence of government violations in the evidence he went over. Still, Ron Paul refused to vote “no.” Ron Paul voted “present.” I guess Paul isn’t as brave as I thought he was. Ron Paul didn’t have the courage to go against the bi-partisan leadership.
Tell me, Swami. Why did Condit vote against removal? Isn’t it funny that the only member with nothing to lose cast the only “no” vote?
There is no doubt in my mind that the justice system failed in this caseI disagree.
- OldFriend
That’s exactly what happened, Travis McGee.
Once again, our government has made a public statement.
That statement is, ‘If you try to fight us, we will destroy you.”
Oh, pleazze! Give me a break! Does a sow need to be taught how to eat slop? Does Congress need a Traficant to tarnish it? I don't think so. Unbelivable hypocrites. How do they manage to sleep at night?
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.