Comments on: Corruptocrat skates, but he’s still guilty as hell

By: A "Moderate" Voice [Dan Collins]

A "Moderate" Voice [Dan Collins] — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:29:40 +0000

[...] Republicans recognize that. As Allah Pundit at Hot Air notes, Like the boss says, Stevens was a pork-guzzling corruptocrat even if his corruption didn’t rise to the level of a criminal offense. Aren’t we better off rid [...]

By: thirteen28

thirteen28 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:30:46 +0000

BTW, Redstate has a great post about this topic. Money quote:

The second thing is that I have to note that Achance, again, was right. Republicans, in a bid to appear as white as the driven snow, have been tricked, again and again, into committing fratricide. For all that Obama can give the world lessons in throwing people under the bus once they become inconvenient, Republicans are hardly slouches. All it takes is an accusation, a news headline and the entire concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is thrown out the window in a rush to condemn and disassociate (as if the MSM would ever forget to attach the big scarlet ‘R’).

By: thirteen28

thirteen28 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:27:38 +0000

I can’t totally agree with you on this one Michelle. The fact that Stevens was a total pork guzzler was not the question here, and regardless, he deserved a fair trial. When the prosecution goes so far as to intentionally withhold exculpatory evidence, to the point that they go through great lengths to redact exculpatory text from documents submitted to the court, then a fair trial and true justice are no longer possible. Furthermore, the evidence is tainted to the point that it’s impossible to say with anything approaching certainty that Stevens was guilty.

Furthermore, the prosecutors didn’t merely “screw up this case”, they committed an egregious abuse of power, not much different than what Mike Nifong tried to do. Throw in all the prosecution’s strategically timed leaks, the fact that the trial was held before a DC jury (as if a Republican could ever get a fair trial in DC – remember Libby?), and you have a total travesty of justice.

Given the rash of cheating prosecutors we’ve seen lately, I don’t think this is something to dismiss so lightly, regardless of how much of an earmark addict that Stevens was.

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Palin to Begich: Resign and face Stevens again in a new election

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:40:29 +0000

[...] he was prosecuted by Bush’s DOJ, not a Democrat’s. Like the boss says, Stevens was a pork-guzzling corruptocrat even if his corruption didn’t rise to the level of a criminal offense. Aren’t we better [...]

By: theloneranger

theloneranger — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:35:29 +0000

Yes. We are still waiting for the William Jefferson trial, now aren’t we? Someone want to tell me about this “Justice” Dept. again?

By: cabrerski

cabrerski — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:05:34 +0000

precedent…precedent…I will write it 500 times tonight…sorry, Mrs. Sutton.

By: cabrerski

cabrerski — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:02:20 +0000

We have just witnessed the future of any member of Congress who goes on trial for corruption. Having established a presedent, now every Congress critter that gets tried will have an incompetent prosecutor. The prosecutor will feel shame for 2 minutes, then go on with his life with no other consequence whatsoever.

Within the Beltway, they take care of their own. Just watch if and when the William Jefferson trial ever takes place.

By: frontierguy

frontierguy — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:19:11 +0000

Nifong works in Alaska now?

By: sandydog

sandydog — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:36:44 +0000

lgm’s asides aside, there is an awful emphasis in the court system on winning as opposed to seeking truth. Both sides lie, cheat, obfuscate and obstruct. The defense gets to do that–it’s encouraged by the rules of court, rightly or wrongly (mostly wrongly). The prosecution, on the other hand, is supposed to be seeking TRUTH, not a conviction at all costs.
Yes, those at Gitmo are guilty. Tom Delay is innocent. Obama is really Cthulhu. Any other questions?

By: Jet Jaguar

Jet Jaguar — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:51:48 +0000

On April 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm, lgm said:

sandydog said (#23):

The title of this piece speaks volumes. . . I am surprised that you, Ms. Michelle, would write it.

Disappointed maybe, but not surprised. Conservatives can tell who is innocent or guilty without trials. The people in Gitmo are all guilty. Tom Delay is innocent.

Wow, lgm, you must be a closet Republican, being such a shill for a Republican Senator. You don’t care about the truth. You just want to argue. You are right about Conservatives not needing trials to determine guilt, for example, it’s obvious that you are guilty of idiocy, you idiot.

By: The Irascible Chef » Made me laugh!

The Irascible Chef » Made me laugh! — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:35:35 +0000

[...] tip to Michelle M. Schweggie said: Sorry! Very O/T but sneakyville put back [...]

By: lgm

lgm — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:02:48 +0000

sandydog said (#23):

The title of this piece speaks volumes. . . I am surprised that you, Ms. Michelle, would write it.

Disappointed maybe, but not surprised. Conservatives can tell who is innocent or guilty without trials. The people in Gitmo are all guilty. Tom Delay is innocent.

By: sandydog

sandydog — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:55:09 +0000

The title of this piece speaks volumes. . . I am surprised that you, Ms. Michelle, would write it.
Were you privy to all of the facts at the trial? Did you sit in the jury box throughout? Were you present at the prosecutors’ meetings? Were you fully apprised of the defenses’ case? Do you know everything that the judge now knows?
Your statement is grossly unfair–an emotional and unreasoned piece of bigotry unworthy of you.
The Government, with all of its power, denied Mr. Stevens elementary justice. They stacked the deck of jsutice cards illegally–and patently unnecessarily, had they possessed an ironclad case to begin with. Clearly, their case could not stand on its merits, so they grotesquely propped it up with lies, half-truths, and innuendo.

Some justice. Mr. Beria would be proud.

By: Phredd

Phredd — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:47:55 +0000

The solution is simple: 1) if an appeals court determines the withheld evidence material, hold a retrial; and 2) the prosecutors who withheld the evidence should face disciplinary action, perhaps suspension.

By: For Democrats, the Rules Are Just Different « Teh Resistance Blog

For Democrats, the Rules Are Just Different « Teh Resistance Blog — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:40:15 +0000

[...] For Democrats, the Rules Are Just Different Jump to Comments So, what happens when you’re a Republican Senator and you get caught making false statements about gifts you accepted from constituents? Well, if you’re Duke Cunningham, you go to prison. If you’re Ted Stevens, you lose your Senate seat. And once that has been accomplished, the case against you is dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. [...]