[Dave S]

This dopey statement will HAUNT Hulshof until the end of his political career (hopefully soon). So he believes that the of lack of evidence means that the accused was just too clever to get caught?

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!

[PJ-Comix]

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.

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.