was alaska stevens vindicated for his crime. what is the story on this

[seabeyond]

i was told tonight that he had written a letter telling the builders to charge him for everything and that the prosecutors had the letter and held it. and that it proves he did not commit the crime.

i dont believe this. but i dont know the story. i haven't been paying much attention on du lately so i missed it.

i dont want spin. just an honest assessment

thanks

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Apparently,

that letter is real and the prosecutors sat on it, hid it, never turned it over.

Their whole case would have collapsed if that letter had been made public.

Why Stevens didn't have a copy to give his attorneys is beyond me.

But, that's probably the biggest part of why Holder decided to pull the plug.

It's called "prosecutorial misconduct," and there is no greater offense if you're a prosecutor....................

[seabeyond]

4. right

i agree. so it really happened. at least when i was told, i said i would have to check it out. so wont be painful to acknowledge it.

asshole prosecutors.... i hate dishonest

[global1]

15. That's What I Don't Get In This - If Steven's Had A Copy Of This Letter......

and knew he was innocent - why didn't he make that public? Something is just not computing here. If Steven's knew that this letter existed - why wasn't he yelling at the top of his lungs to get that letter out in the open?

[seabeyond]

18. this is what i said when i was being told about it. n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

19. My guess is that

it's a handwritten note, done on his own, so as not to involve his office or staff in any way.

And, if that's the case, who keeps copies of their handwritten notes?

The irony of that scenario, of course, is that Ted did the right thing, even showing good manners and careful, ethical behavior, but because he didn't have an assistant write it and file it, he got screwed.

I don't know. I hope we'll learn all the filthy details. I suspect we will, the word "transparent" being quite popular these days ......

[Bandit]

33. He is not innocent. He was not charged with accepting bribes or corruption

He was charged with filing false reports on his Senate financial filings. That is what he was charged with and found guilty of.

[Bandit]

32. Stevens said at the trial his wife handled everything on the house.

He is heard on a tape recording saying he knows if he gets caugght he could go to jail. He is guilty and the jury found that to be the case in no uncertain terms.Besides the case was about his Senate financial filings. He filed a flase report. In fact he filed seven false reports. The case was not about5 bribery7 or corruption it was about filing false reports, which he did.

[rurallib]

2. I do not know about that but it sounds like the Bushco Justice dept

was so fucking inept they took out one of their own and did it so badly they had to let him go after they cost him his (safe) seat.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. It's even funnier -

Stevens was so sure he'd been set up by someone - god knows who in THAT Justice Department - that he demanded, and got, a speedy trial.

I think he thought he'd beat the rap, emerge victorious, and sail to an easy victory.

And he probably would have if those dickwad lawyers from Fuckface's DOJ hadn't turned out to be cheating scum.

I love it. They lost it all, and we won.

Now Palin is calling for a new election. Fuck her, too...................

[rurallib]

8. No doubt Palin will call for a new election for Siegelman also?

ETA - what is it with the GOOP and their desire to have a new election if they don't win the first one?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. For a bunch of losers,

they're really bad losers...............

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. Kinda like OJ's murder trial.

Guilty as sin, but the government fucked their own case.

(Except the Bush Crime Family/Mukrazy probably did it on purpose. In LA it was merely incompetence.)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. Another thing in OJ's murder case,

and that was that the venue should have been changed, because the jury did a magnificent job of not doing their jobs. They were never going to convict OJ. If the trial had taken place a bit further north, the verdict most likely would have been different.

Also, Ito was a total incompetent. The defense rode roughshod over him, and he let them.

Did you ever notice the bad ends to which so many of the defense team came to?

Cochran died of brain cancer.

Kardashian died of pancreatic cancer.

Bailey was disbarred and did some jail time.

Shapiro's son died of a drug overdose.

Not a good record, hmmmm?

[GoesTo11]

7. I heard there are calls for Begich to resign now.

What do you think?

[MiniMe]

10. Why should he? Begich didn't do anything wrong, and he won the election

Why punish Begich because BushCo and Mukasey f&cked up the prosecution.

[seabeyond]

14. i think begich has nothing to do with this stevens election.

shit happens, can cause a win/lose in election. way it goes. but certainly has nothing to do with who was elected in alaska nov 2008

[GoesTo11]

26. Some leading minds disagree with you

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/apr/02/alaska-republicans-call-begich-step-down-seek-new-/

[L. Coyote]

11. TPM stays on top of this story here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/ted_stevens/

and an FBI agent was "staying on top of a witness" in an "improper relationship" sort of way.

[seabeyond]

16. thanks for this. i will have to spend some time reading. i am hearing

many are seeing a technicality, so i am not getting what this is about.

thanks

[LynnTheDem]

12. Off on a technicality.

As the law calls for.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. You think the Rules of Discovery

are "technicalities"?

Hell, no, my friend. This is a gross breach of the law and a remarkable thickness where professional responsibility is concerned.

[LynnTheDem]

27. I mean he did not get off coz he was determined "innocent"; he got off on

what is known as a "technicality".

A breech of proper law.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. There's no such verdict as "innocent."

It's "breach," not "breech," and, believe me a breach of the basic Rules of Criminal Procedure are not a "technicality." They are the whole structure of any criminal case.

Civilians use the term "technicalities," I think, to refer to the RCP, which they don't understand.

Do you mean a "breech of proper law" is a "technicality"?

No, it's a crime. There's substantive law, which is the law that is broken, and then there is procedural law, which determines jurisdiction, venue, stuff like that, and mandates the behavior of both parties in and out of the courtroom, during discovery and during the trial.

But, the term "technicality" is meaningless. All it means is that the person using it doesn't know what s/he's talking about...........

[depakid]

13. I have idea why anyone would think that

Stevens was corrupt to the core and there was plenty of additional evidence to support his conviction in the event that his appeal had been successful.

Dropping the case doesn't send a very good signal for all of the others out there who think (rightly so?) that the Obama administration is not going to pursue acountability- either in politics or white coller crime.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. On the contrary,

the message being sent out by the Obama administration and Holder at the DOJ is that illegal and/or unethical behavior will not be tolerated - and that goes for both sides. It's a terrific show of demanding accountability and announcing to the world that cheaters will be punished.

I don't understand the first paragraph you wrote - I think you maybe left out a word or two..............

[depakid]

23. What's not to understand?

There's ample evidence to convict the guy at a retrial. Holder simply dropped the ball- which along with other actions (and omissions) on the Justice Departments part is leading me to believe that we're not going to see much accountability for the fraudulent banksters, traders and Bush administration officials who willfully flaunted the law.

Maybe he'll prove me wrong- but at this point, there's nothing substantive to lead me (or anyone else) to believe that will be the case.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

24. Huh?

Are you part of the prosecution team? Or maybe the defense? (Although we'll maybe never know what other probative evidence was withheld by the prosecutors....)

So, how do you know what evidence they have?

The answer is: you don't.

You're talking out your ass, with absolutely nothing to say. Holder did the right thing, and if you find fault with someone doing the right thing, well, that's too bad.

Really, quit making up stuff inside your head. You're going to get yourself in trouble, instead of just looking like an ass on an anonymous message board...........................

[depakid]

25. There was already a trial and much of the evidence has been adduced!

I followed the trial, did you?

and no- Holder did a chickenshit thing that sends a VERY poor message with respect to accountability and the rule of law (which from all appearnces thus far, the adminstration hasn't much interest in).

[jwirr]

17. He was not vindicated. The trial was not done properly so the DOJ

threw it out. Due to his age (85) they decided not to retry him. Depending on what the evidence the bush administration withheld was he may or may not have been guilty.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

22. Bingo.

You summed it up perfectly, I think.

His worst punishment - besides his legal fees - is having lost his Senate seat.

[slackmaster]

28. Not vindicated by any stretch of the imagination

He's a crook. The prosecution fucked up.

[SoCalDem]

29. "Please bill me for everything, so I can pay you the full price I owe you"

signed,

(wink-wink-nudge-nudge)
Ted..


Bill:

Tip-top Grill- $10.00
wrap-around porch- $100.00
one-of-a-kind sculpture- $20.00

[Blue_In_AK]

31. No, he is NOT vindicated.

And if Ted weren't so old, I would encourage the Justice Department to look into all his other shady deals over the years. There is no double jeopardy on the things he was never charged for. But, as I said, he's old and they probably don't want to waste the resources.

Please read Shannyn Moore's excellent piece here for some background. "The LIEonization of Ted Stevens" http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/the-lieonization-of-ted-stevens/

[uppityperson]

34. Not vindicated at all. Just let go due to sloppiness.

No proof at all.