Eric Holder upholds the law, drops charges against Ted Stevens

MattusMaximus · 1st April 2009, 10:02 PM

Wow...

Quote:

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to abandon the criminal prosecution that brought an end to the political career of one of Washington’s most powerful figures: former GOP Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

Stevens, 85, was convicted in late October on seven felony charges that he failed to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts from Bill Allen, former CEO of VECO Corp., and others, including renovations to Stevens’ chalet in Girdwood, Alaska.

However, the case was plagued by allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, some of which came from inside the government. Following Stevens’ conviction, an FBI special agent alleged that the lead female agent on the case had an “inappropriate relationship” with Allen, as well as claiming that prosecutors deliberately tried to keep a witness from testifying after concluding that he was unreliable.

The Justice Department, until today, had denied those allegations, and prosecutors vigorously oppose Stevens’ demands for a new trial.

But Holder's decision effectively voids the conviction and ends the two-year legal case against Stevens. ...

Bully for Eric Holder. Despite my political disagreements with and public criticism of former Senator Ted Stevens here, let me be the first to state that I think Stevens got royally screwed

The irony here is that the Republican Bush DOJ was on the case against Stevens, and it's the Democratic Obama DOJ which clears the man. Wow...

ravdin · 1st April 2009, 10:51 PM

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

daredelvis · 2nd April 2009, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

My feelings exactly. My displeasure related to that slime bag Stevens walking on this is eclipsed by my rage at the shenanigans pulled by the prosecution.

eta: Holder did the right thing.
Daredelvis

ponderingturtle · 2nd April 2009, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

If they didn't get to walk how would you get enough people in the legislature to vote on anything.

headscratcher4 · 2nd April 2009, 07:47 AM

It is all part of the Obama administration's nefarious march to facism. "Uphold" the rule of law by holding prosecutors accountable for their misdeeds so that you can better subvert it... Does their evil know no bounds?

fishbob · 2nd April 2009, 08:47 AM

Dammit Dammit Dammit - this means he will be coming home.

You may not know this, but Alaskans do NOT elect our politicians for representation, leadership, or any of the usual reasons - we elect them to clean up our neighborhoods.

Once in office, we depend on them to go away to Juneau, DC, or jail.

Beerina · 2nd April 2009, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

Well, I hate to put on a tinfoil hat, but remember he pulled out that "little black book" defense, IIRC, i.e. if he was going down, he was gonna spill the beans on other politicians.

And, coincidentally, the charges go away.

dudalb · 2nd April 2009, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free.

At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.

Agreed. They botched the prosecution.

GreyICE · 2nd April 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Well, I hate to put on a tinfoil hat, but remember he pulled out that "little black book" defense, IIRC, i.e. if he was going down, he was gonna spill the beans on other politicians.

And, coincidentally, the charges go away.

You know? Honestly? I'd buy it. Tinfoil hat or no tinfoil this decision is sudden, the grounds are spurious, and the thing seems to be flying under the radar. No one's making a fuss.

This really does feel like a little black book.

MattusMaximus · 2nd April 2009, 03:17 PM

Guys, the CT-subforum is two doors down on the right...

GreyICE · 2nd April 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Guys, the CT-subforum is two doors down on the right...

Mattus, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there are corrupt politicians. It's cute that you think it is, but it's just not, whatever your 6th grade civics class might tell you.

It's not a conspiracy theory to think that unethical people in congress might work together to, I dunno, pass bills?

And that they might have pull in, say, the government?

Seriously, it's cute that you live in la la hope land, but the rest of us live on earth.

applecorped · 2nd April 2009, 07:01 PM

People lie!

MattusMaximus · 2nd April 2009, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Mattus, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there are corrupt politicians. It's cute that you think it is, but it's just not, whatever your 6th grade civics class might tell you.

It's not a conspiracy theory to think that unethical people in congress might work together to, I dunno, pass bills?

And that they might have pull in, say, the government?

Seriously, it's cute that you live in la la hope land, but the rest of us live on earth.

You went way beyond merely stating that "there are corrupt politicians." You were specifically implying a conspiracy to clear Stevens of the charges.

Thanks for the lesson in politics, but I'm not nearly as naive as you would like to believe. I just think that you might, I don't know, actually have some evidence before you start spinning some yarn about a behind-the-scenes deal between Ted Stevens and everyone else in the government.

As I said, GreyIce, the CT subforum is calling...

jj · 2nd April 2009, 10:05 PM

You know, one has to wonder why they targeted Stevens during the Bush administration. I have NO idea at all. Now, if in fact these charges were totally bogus, well, something obscene did happen.

I have no idea. Stevens is slime for other reasons, but legal ones.

Allen773 · 2nd April 2009, 10:10 PM

Stevens was unpopular even with his own party.

The important thing is that's he out of office.

GreyICE · 3rd April 2009, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

You went way beyond merely stating that "there are corrupt politicians." You were specifically implying a conspiracy to clear Stevens of the charges.

Thanks for the lesson in politics, but I'm not nearly as naive as you would like to believe. I just think that you might, I don't know, actually have some evidence before you start spinning some yarn about a behind-the-scenes deal between Ted Stevens and everyone else in the government.

As I said, GreyIce, the CT subforum is calling...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...777c3c3dce.jpg

*yawn*

Is there some prize you get for posting stupid pictures? You're certainly working on it.

And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories. I'm simply stating this looks like a crock of bull byproduct.

We have what looks like a decent case, certainly a jury thought so. Then lets see what happens. Whistleblower affidavit is filed, claimng that one key witness that would have undermined the prosecution's entire case was sent home. This affidavit claims that there certainly are people who could attest that Stevens paid for all the things he received - it's just that Stevens really couldn't recall who these people were during the trial where he was found guilty, and none of his lawyers thought to ask if there was, say, someone who could attest that he'd done nothing wrong and could say that he paid for the things (perhaps with some evidence) that there's no record of him, say, paying for.

Oh well, lets throw the trial out.

Call me skeptical. In any other circumstances, you'd probably be posting the same pictures for someone who supports the notion that despite a trial where someone was found guilty, a claim by a person who claims there is hearsay testimony that completely clears the guilty party despite him not uncovering this in a court of law clears him so convincingly and so thoroughly that there is not even a need for a new trial.

Oh crud! I just realized I'm trying to reason with someone who thinks pictures are arguments. Uh oh. Quick, something you'll understand:

Pants on head stupid! Your move (in case you didn't realize, I feel a sudden urge to explain these things because I think they might be unclear to you, the phrase 'your move' is a reference to games where turns are taken sequentially, which can be used as an analogy (something that's similar to something else) for these forums).

quixotecoyote · 3rd April 2009, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories.

[snipped GreyICE then explaining why he thinks there is a conspiracy.

Could you possibly rephrase that, preferably about two or three steps backwards from your current position?

GreyICE · 3rd April 2009, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Could you possibly rephrase that, preferably about two or three steps backwards from your current position?

I have no idea what you just asked. It seemed reasonably clear to me that this is fishy. I mean a fair and balanced approach, if you really think there has been misconduct, is to conduct a retrial, neh? Moreover the bush justice department was noted for many things, but its partisan and sloppy assaults on Republicans is probably not going to be one the history books remember.

What exactly was unclear? I mean except the part where you edited my post to lie.

quixotecoyote · 3rd April 2009, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

What exactly was unclear? I mean except the part where you edited my post to lie.

The bit where you said you weren't claiming a conspiracy and proceeded to say why everything was suspicious and corrupt politicians obviously had a hand in it, and justice was perverted, and secrets were kept, and the evidence was pushed under the table, but gosh no, no conspiracy, that'd be just crazy!

dudalb · 3rd April 2009, 11:59 AM

The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator.
Fat Chance that Will happen.

Cleon · 3rd April 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator.
Fat Chance that Will happen.

Well, part of it is, specifically Palin. Others disagree. I get the distinct impression that the Alaska GOP has some major infighting going on.

headscratcher4 · 3rd April 2009, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator.
Fat Chance that Will happen.

Yawn. It was an extrodinarilly corrupt or innept GOP controlled justice department that borught the charges. If they're mad because Steven's lost the election, let them be mad at Gonzo and George Bush.

Alaskians will have their referendum on Begich in 6 years.

tomwaits · 3rd April 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

I get the distinct impression that the Alaska GOP has some major infighting going on.

That's hardly a secret. During the campaign, Palin seemed to consider it a mark of pride that she was taking on the other "good ol' boy" republicans in her state.

jj · 3rd April 2009, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Allen773

Stevens was unpopular even with his own party.

The important thing is that's he out of office.

Doesn't excuse it being done under false color of law

Unabogie · 3rd April 2009, 12:49 PM

Let's remember here that the underlying facts of the case have not changed, even if the Bush DOJ botched the case.

Stevens still funneled government money to a company whose CEO then turned around and renovated Ted Stevens' house to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And he was easily convicted.

The Bush DOJ withheld evidence from the defense, to be sure, and Stevens rightly walked, but that's not the same thing as exonerating the guy, and we should not conflate the two.

headscratcher4 · 3rd April 2009, 01:19 PM

Bottom line, it was Steven's luck of the draw to be in the midst of a scandal at the point of the election...that is how the chips fall. If justice was mis-served by his prosecution, and I think it was, than the offending prosecutors should be sanctioned. But, let's not forget that the claim here is that the prosecutors botched the case and didn't follow their own rules...there is no claim that a justice department controlled by the opposition party used a prosecution to win a Senate seat. That isn't what happened. Had it happened a year earlier, or had the Buch GOP-run justice department had any integrity, it would have solved the problem before the election. This is not Begich or his friend's doing for political gain...Begich gained by it, but it wasn't his doing, and IMO, taking political advantage of that situation is just fine. If they feel strongly about it, Alaskans can vote him out of office in six years. The seat is not either Begich or Steven's property.

dudalb · 3rd April 2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Yawn. It was an extrodinarilly corrupt or innept GOP controlled justice department that borught the charges. If they're mad because Steven's lost the election, let them be mad at Gonzo and George Bush.

Alaskians will have their referendum on Begich in 6 years.

And then there is the point the even if Stevens broke no law per se, what he did was pretty scummy....and scummy behavior has always been good grounds for losing an election.

MattusMaximus · 3rd April 2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

*yawn*

Is there some prize you get for posting stupid pictures? You're certainly working on it.

And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories. I'm simply stating this looks like a crock of bull byproduct.

... [rant continues]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

The bit where you said you weren't claiming a conspiracy and proceeded to say why everything was suspicious and corrupt politicians obviously had a hand in it, and justice was perverted, and secrets were kept, and the evidence was pushed under the table, but gosh no, no conspiracy, that'd be just crazy!

Yeah, my sentiments exactly. Well said, QC.

Got any evidence of your claims, GreyIce?

MattusMaximus · 3rd April 2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

And then there is the point the even if Stevens broke no law per se, what he did was pretty scummy....and scummy behavior has always been good grounds for losing an election.

Good point, dudalb. I would add that scummy behavior doesn't necessarily qualify one to be thrown into jail. That's an important distinction.

I hated Ted Stevens' politics & his affiliations, and I am quite happy to see that he lost re-election. However, I still maintain that, based upon current evidence, he got screwed by the Department of "Justice" when they so ham-fistedly botched the prosecution of his case. Even people whom I think are slimeballs should get a fair hearing in court.

Hopefully, with Eric Holder at the helm of DOJ, we can get some semblance of sanity back into those parts of our justice system.

boloboffin · 4th April 2009, 12:45 AM

I think Stevens could use his free time to help O.J. look for the real killer.

MattusMaximus · 4th April 2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

I think Stevens could use his free time to help O.J. look for the real killer.

The real question is how does Rod Blagojevich fit into all this?

Roadtoad · 4th April 2009, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c5f01571c1.gif

The real question is how does Rod Blagojevich fit into all this?

Who cares? Blaggy stands a good chance of doing time.

In the meantime, I'm curious to know if Terrible Ted would have been re-elected had he NOT been busted. My suspicion is that he would have been voted out.

gdnp · 4th April 2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c5f01571c1.gif

The real question is how does Rod Blagojevich fit into all this?

The real question is whether we should blame Clinton or Lisa.

1st April 2009, 10:02 PM	#1
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948	Attorney General Holder upholds the law, drops charges against Ted Stevens Wow... Holder abandons Stevens prosecution Quote: Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to abandon the criminal prosecution that brought an end to the political career of one of Washington’s most powerful figures: former GOP Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, 85, was convicted in late October on seven felony charges that he failed to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts from Bill Allen, former CEO of VECO Corp., and others, including renovations to Stevens’ chalet in Girdwood, Alaska. However, the case was plagued by allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, some of which came from inside the government. Following Stevens’ conviction, an FBI special agent alleged that the lead female agent on the case had an “inappropriate relationship” with Allen, as well as claiming that prosecutors deliberately tried to keep a witness from testifying after concluding that he was unreliable. The Justice Department, until today, had denied those allegations, and prosecutors vigorously oppose Stevens’ demands for a new trial. But Holder's decision effectively voids the conviction and ends the two-year legal case against Stevens. ... Bully for Eric Holder. Despite my political disagreements with and public criticism of former Senator Ted Stevens here, let me be the first to state that I think Stevens got royally screwed The irony here is that the Republican Bush DOJ was on the case against Stevens, and it's the Democratic Obama DOJ which clears the man. Wow...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We *** up the air, the water, we **** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?"* -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness Last edited by MattusMaximus; 1st April 2009 at 10:13 PM.

1st April 2009, 10:51 PM	#2
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free. At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail.
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,985	__________________ Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

2nd April 2009, 07:45 AM	#4
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,543	Originally Posted by ravdin I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free. At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail. If they didn't get to walk how would you get enough people in the legislature to vote on anything.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

2nd April 2009, 07:47 AM	#5
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,776	It is all part of the Obama administration's nefarious march to facism. "Uphold" the rule of law by holding prosecutors accountable for their misdeeds so that you can better subvert it... Does their evil know no bounds?
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

2nd April 2009, 08:47 AM	#6
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 7,312	Dammit Dammit Dammit - this means he will be coming home. You may not know this, but Alaskans do NOT elect our politicians for representation, leadership, or any of the usual reasons - we elect them to clean up our neighborhoods. Once in office, we depend on them to go away to Juneau, DC, or jail.
	__________________ "When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder. "It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels I hate bigots.

2nd April 2009, 07:25 AM	#3
daredelvis Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,217	Originally Posted by ravdin I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free. At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail. My feelings exactly. My displeasure related to that slime bag Stevens walking on this is eclipsed by my rage at the shenanigans pulled by the prosecution. eta: Holder did the right thing. Daredelvis

2nd April 2009, 09:37 AM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 31,267	Originally Posted by ravdin I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free. At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail. Well, I hate to put on a tinfoil hat, but remember he pulled out that "little black book" defense, IIRC, i.e. if he was going down, he was gonna spill the beans on other politicians. And, coincidentally, the charges go away.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

2nd April 2009, 10:44 AM	#8
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 55,445	Originally Posted by ravdin I usually assume politicians are guilty until proven innocent. So I think it's a shame that the DOJ botched this case so badly and a slimy crook like Stevens is getting off scot free. At the same time, I'm glad that the rule of law is being upheld once again. I'd rather let a thousand corrupt politicians like Stevens walk than break the law to put them in jail. Agreed. They botched the prosecution.

2nd April 2009, 03:10 PM	#9
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Originally Posted by Beerina Well, I hate to put on a tinfoil hat, but remember he pulled out that "little black book" defense, IIRC, i.e. if he was going down, he was gonna spill the beans on other politicians. And, coincidentally, the charges go away. You know? Honestly? I'd buy it. Tinfoil hat or no tinfoil this decision is sudden, the grounds are spurious, and the thing seems to be flying under the radar. No one's making a fuss. This really does feel like a little black book.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149

2nd April 2009, 03:17 PM	#10
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948	Guys, the CT-subforum is two doors down on the right...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We *** up the air, the water, we **** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?"* -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

2nd April 2009, 03:21 PM	#11
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Guys, the CT-subforum is two doors down on the right... Mattus, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there are corrupt politicians. It's cute that you think it is, but it's just not, whatever your 6th grade civics class might tell you. It's not a conspiracy theory to think that unethical people in congress might work together to, I dunno, pass bills? And that they might have pull in, say, the government? Seriously, it's cute that you live in la la hope land, but the rest of us live on earth.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149

2nd April 2009, 07:01 PM	#12
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145	People lie!
applecorped Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 20,145

2nd April 2009, 10:01 PM	#13
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948	Originally Posted by GreyICE Mattus, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that there are corrupt politicians. It's cute that you think it is, but it's just not, whatever your 6th grade civics class might tell you. It's not a conspiracy theory to think that unethical people in congress might work together to, I dunno, pass bills? And that they might have pull in, say, the government? Seriously, it's cute that you live in la la hope land, but the rest of us live on earth. You went way beyond merely stating that "there are corrupt politicians." You were specifically implying a conspiracy to clear Stevens of the charges. Thanks for the lesson in politics, but I'm not nearly as naive as you would like to believe. I just think that you might, I don't know, actually have some evidence before you start spinning some yarn about a behind-the-scenes deal between Ted Stevens and everyone else in the government. As I said, GreyIce, the CT subforum is calling...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We *** up the air, the water, we **** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?"* -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

2nd April 2009, 10:05 PM	#14
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,382	You know, one has to wonder why they targeted Stevens during the Bush administration. I have NO idea at all. Now, if in fact these charges were totally bogus, well, something obscene did happen. I have no idea. Stevens is slime for other reasons, but legal ones.
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,382

2nd April 2009, 10:10 PM	#15
Allen773 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cali Four Neea Posts: 1,567	Stevens was unpopular even with his own party. The important thing is that's he out of office.

3rd April 2009, 01:37 AM	#16
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus You went way beyond merely stating that "there are corrupt politicians." You were specifically implying a conspiracy to clear Stevens of the charges. Thanks for the lesson in politics, but I'm not nearly as naive as you would like to believe. I just think that you might, I don't know, actually have some evidence before you start spinning some yarn about a behind-the-scenes deal between Ted Stevens and everyone else in the government. As I said, GreyIce, the CT subforum is calling... http://www.internationalskeptics.com...777c3c3dce.jpg yawn Is there some prize you get for posting stupid pictures? You're certainly working on it. And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories. I'm simply stating this looks like a crock of bull byproduct. We have what looks like a decent case, certainly a jury thought so. Then lets see what happens. Whistleblower affidavit is filed, claimng that one key witness that would have undermined the prosecution's entire case was sent home. This affidavit claims that there certainly are people who could attest that Stevens paid for all the things he received - it's just that Stevens really couldn't recall who these people were during the trial where he was found guilty, and none of his lawyers thought to ask if there was, say, someone who could attest that he'd done nothing wrong and could say that he paid for the things (perhaps with some evidence) that there's no record of him, say, paying for. Oh well, lets throw the trial out. Call me skeptical. In any other circumstances, you'd probably be posting the same pictures for someone who supports the notion that despite a trial where someone was found guilty, a claim by a person who claims there is hearsay testimony that completely clears the guilty party despite him not uncovering this in a court of law clears him so convincingly and so thoroughly that there is not even a need for a new trial. Oh crud! I just realized I'm trying to reason with someone who thinks pictures are arguments. Uh oh. Quick, something you'll understand: Pants on head stupid! Your move (in case you didn't realize, I feel a sudden urge to explain these things because I think they might be unclear to you, the phrase 'your move' is a reference to games where turns are taken sequentially, which can be used as an analogy (something that's similar to something else) for these forums).
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Last edited by GreyICE; 3rd April 2009 at 01:46 AM.

3rd April 2009, 01:45 AM	#17
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 10,379	Originally Posted by GreyICE And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories. [snipped GreyICE then explaining why he thinks there is a conspiracy. Could you possibly rephrase that, preferably about two or three steps backwards from your current position?
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

3rd April 2009, 01:48 AM	#18
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Could you possibly rephrase that, preferably about two or three steps backwards from your current position? I have no idea what you just asked. It seemed reasonably clear to me that this is fishy. I mean a fair and balanced approach, if you really think there has been misconduct, is to conduct a retrial, neh? Moreover the bush justice department was noted for many things, but its partisan and sloppy assaults on Republicans is probably not going to be one the history books remember. What exactly was unclear? I mean except the part where you edited my post to lie.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Last edited by GreyICE; 3rd April 2009 at 01:50 AM.

3rd April 2009, 01:53 AM	#19
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 10,379	Originally Posted by GreyICE What exactly was unclear? I mean except the part where you edited my post to lie. The bit where you said you weren't claiming a conspiracy and proceeded to say why everything was suspicious and corrupt politicians obviously had a hand in it, and justice was perverted, and secrets were kept, and the evidence was pushed under the table, but gosh no, no conspiracy, that'd be just crazy!
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

3rd April 2009, 11:59 AM	#20
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 55,445	The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator. Fat Chance that Will happen.

3rd April 2009, 12:02 PM	#21
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 25,586	Originally Posted by dudalb The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator. Fat Chance that Will happen. Well, part of it is, specifically Palin. Others disagree. I get the distinct impression that the Alaska GOP has some major infighting going on.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

3rd April 2009, 12:11 PM	#22
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,776	Originally Posted by dudalb The Alaska GOP is now demanding a new election for Senator. Fat Chance that Will happen. Yawn. It was an extrodinarilly corrupt or innept GOP controlled justice department that borught the charges. If they're mad because Steven's lost the election, let them be mad at Gonzo and George Bush. Alaskians will have their referendum on Begich in 6 years.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

3rd April 2009, 12:18 PM	#23
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by Cleon I get the distinct impression that the Alaska GOP has some major infighting going on. That's hardly a secret. During the campaign, Palin seemed to consider it a mark of pride that she was taking on the other "good ol' boy" republicans in her state.
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,288

3rd April 2009, 12:44 PM	#24
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,382	Originally Posted by Allen773 Stevens was unpopular even with his own party. The important thing is that's he out of office. Doesn't excuse it being done under false color of law
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,382

3rd April 2009, 12:49 PM	#25
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 9,692	Let's remember here that the underlying facts of the case have not changed, even if the Bush DOJ botched the case. Stevens still funneled government money to a company whose CEO then turned around and renovated Ted Stevens' house to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And he was easily convicted. The Bush DOJ withheld evidence from the defense, to be sure, and Stevens rightly walked, but that's not the same thing as exonerating the guy, and we should not conflate the two.

3rd April 2009, 01:19 PM	#26
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 7,776	Bottom line, it was Steven's luck of the draw to be in the midst of a scandal at the point of the election...that is how the chips fall. If justice was mis-served by his prosecution, and I think it was, than the offending prosecutors should be sanctioned. But, let's not forget that the claim here is that the prosecutors botched the case and didn't follow their own rules...there is no claim that a justice department controlled by the opposition party used a prosecution to win a Senate seat. That isn't what happened. Had it happened a year earlier, or had the Buch GOP-run justice department had any integrity, it would have solved the problem before the election. This is not Begich or his friend's doing for political gain...Begich gained by it, but it wasn't his doing, and IMO, taking political advantage of that situation is just fine. If they feel strongly about it, Alaskans can vote him out of office in six years. The seat is not either Begich or Steven's property.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

3rd April 2009, 02:26 PM	#27
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 55,445	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 Yawn. It was an extrodinarilly corrupt or innept GOP controlled justice department that borught the charges. If they're mad because Steven's lost the election, let them be mad at Gonzo and George Bush. Alaskians will have their referendum on Begich in 6 years. And then there is the point the even if Stevens broke no law per se, what he did was pretty scummy....and scummy behavior has always been good grounds for losing an election.

3rd April 2009, 07:20 PM	#28
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948	Originally Posted by GreyICE yawn Is there some prize you get for posting stupid pictures? You're certainly working on it. And I'm certainly not spinning any conspiracy theories. I'm simply stating this looks like a crock of bull byproduct. ... [rant continues] Originally Posted by quixotecoyote The bit where you said you weren't claiming a conspiracy and proceeded to say why everything was suspicious and corrupt politicians obviously had a hand in it, and justice was perverted, and secrets were kept, and the evidence was pushed under the table, but gosh no, no conspiracy, that'd be just crazy! Yeah, my sentiments exactly. Well said, QC. Got any evidence of your claims, GreyIce?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We *** up the air, the water, we **** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?"* -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness Last edited by MattusMaximus; 3rd April 2009 at 07:22 PM.

3rd April 2009, 07:27 PM	#29
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948	Originally Posted by dudalb And then there is the point the even if Stevens broke no law per se, what he did was pretty scummy....and scummy behavior has always been good grounds for losing an election. Good point, dudalb. I would add that scummy behavior doesn't necessarily qualify one to be thrown into jail. That's an important distinction. I hated Ted Stevens' politics & his affiliations, and I am quite happy to see that he lost re-election. However, I still maintain that, based upon current evidence, he got screwed by the Department of "Justice" when they so ham-fistedly botched the prosecution of his case. Even people whom I think are slimeballs should get a fair hearing in court. Hopefully, with Eric Holder at the helm of DOJ, we can get some semblance of sanity back into those parts of our justice system.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We *** up the air, the water, we **** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?"* -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

4th April 2009, 12:45 AM	#30
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	I think Stevens could use his free time to help O.J. look for the real killer.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

4th April 2009, 06:27 PM	#31
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,948	Originally Posted by boloboffin I think Stevens could use his free time to help O.J. look for the real killer. The real question is how does Rod Blagojevich fit into all this?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We *** up the air, the water, we **** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?"* -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

4th April 2009, 07:07 PM	#32
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Citrus Heights, CA Posts: 15,468	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c5f01571c1.gif The real question is how does Rod Blagojevich fit into all this? Who cares? Blaggy stands a good chance of doing time. In the meantime, I'm curious to know if Terrible Ted would have been re-elected had he NOT been busted. My suspicion is that he would have been voted out.

4th April 2009, 07:36 PM	#33
gdnp Guest Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,998	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c5f01571c1.gif The real question is how does Rod Blagojevich fit into all this? The real question is whether we should blame Clinton or Lisa.
gdnp Guest Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,998