To: exodus
Court cases are overturned all the time because of minor technicalities. In this case, there were flagrant abuses of justice in order to obtain conviction. This is a case screaming out to be OVERTURNED. I just hope that Traficant uses a good attorney (i.e. not himself) in the appeals process.
p.s. And why not ONE IOTA of physical evidence in this case? It seems to have consisted entirely of dubious testimony by witnesses who were trying to get their own sentences lightened.
# 23 by PJ-Comix
There is no way that Traficant would be able to afford a lawyer as good as Traficant is himself. I watched the House hearings, and Traficant did a good job. Richard Detore spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers. There is no evidence that Detore did wrong, and lots of evidence that Detore actually tried to fight corruption. Detore is still persecuted, and will probably be imprisoned to “prove” that his charges of government corruption are false. Professional lawyers didn’t help Detore.
In the court case, the corrupt judge wouldn’t allow the majority of Traficant’s evidence, but did allow the government’s hearsay. The judge and prosecutor conspired to bring in a guilty verdict. The judge even told Traficant that he could bring up evidence not allowed in her court during his appeal, a plain message that Traficant would be guilty no matter what he did in her court.
In the House Ethics Committee, I watched as the Chairman and members ridiculed Traficant’s testimony.
I watched as Traficant was badgered by Chairman Hefley while presenting audio tapes that the Committee had asked for.
Traficant was asked to describe the relevancy of each tape, and did so. The Chairman then said, “explain the relevancy of the tapes.” Traficant did so, again. And the Chairman asked, “please explain the relevancy of these tapes.” Traficant went over it again. Remember, Traficant had a limited amount of time to present his case. Without opposition, and thus with the approval of the members of the Committee, the Chairman forced Traficant to spend about 15 minutes explaining why he was presenting tapes that the Committee had asked him to present.
When Traficant pointed out that he had been unable to find a certain tape, the council for the Committee said, “We have that tape.” Traficant said, “You do? I couldn’t find it, so you didn’t get it from me. Where did you get it? ”
Traficant was told, “We got nine tapes from the Justice Department, and that tape was among them.” Traficant said, “If you already had the tapes, why did you tell me to give you the tapes? ”
There was no answer from the Committee.
Traficant then asked, “Did you ask the Justice Department for those tapes, or did the Justice Department take it upon themselves to send the tapes to you?
Chairman Hefley said, “What difference does it make how we got the tapes?”
Traficant said, “It is relevant because the Justice Department is not supposed to be a party to this Congressional hearing. If they sent information without your request, that would be evidence that the Justice Department is out to get Jim Traficant.”
Traficant demanded, “I want to see all documents passed between this Committee and the Justice Department.”
Chairman Hefley said, “The documents passed between this Committee and the Justice Department are none of your business.
If it was not so serious, this sounds like a movie. The media needs to get its a$$ off the fence and really investigate this one. I think if they look really hard, we are going to get something on the scale of Watergate.
Maybe not the President, but senior, long serving congressman will bite the dust, JT just has to stay alive.
JT for President.
I certainly would pay you for them.