Ted Stevens Guilty
Tweet
Amen.
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of seven corruption charges Monday in a trial that tainted the 40-year Senate career of Alaska’s political patriarch.
The verdict, coming just days before Election Day, adds further uncertainty to a closely watched Senate race. Democrats hope to seize the once reliably Republican seat as part of their bid for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
26 Responses to “Ted Stevens Guilty”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
This will not make me very popular but even though Ted committed a crime (Many never even mentioned) he should walk.
The prosecution with held evidence that should be a crime. Punishable by prison sentence.
I understand the principle of throwing out evidence that is obtained illegally or is the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. But when in my more conservative moods I don’t see the justice in allowing one crime to excuse another.
Person A is guilty of a crime. We know this for a fact because Officer B obtained evidence proving it beyond any doubt. But Officer B obtained the evidence illegally, or Prosecutor B withheld something.
The current system tries to prevent B from doing this by making it a pointless effort. Get the evidence by illegal means and the criminal walks. But what if the criminal didn’t get off? What if, instead, we try to prevent B from using illegal means by making it a very serious crime for which B would get tried?
Then A gets tried for their crime. And so does B.
Granted, the penalty for getting evidence illegally would have to be substantial or it wouldn’t be a sufficient incentive to dissuade Officers/Prosecutors from illegal acts. Given the violation of public trust and undermining of the system involved, it should be.
One down and 99 to go.
“One down and 99 to go.”
I’m thinking Chuck Hagel gets a pass
Sean D. Martin
Have you ever had the full weight of the U.S. government aimed right at you?
The deck is stacked against the accused from the start.
Don’t believe it? Talk to anyone in the procuters office. Ask them what criteria do you use in pressuring a case? I can bet that 9 times out of ten you will hear “A case we can win” some where in there. Guilt or innocence will almost never be mentioned.
Law enforcement and the judicial offices of this government lie cheat and steal, not for truth. But for punishment. Guilt or innocence have very little to do with what happens these days.
The best case scenario for McCain here is one lost day on the election cycle.
Worst case scenario is linking McCain to Stevens, or simply linking McCain to the further damaged Republican brand sinking him even more.
Not a great political year for Alaska.
Good riddance. Palin did a pretty good job cleaning up the corruption in the Alaskan GOP, but she didn’t get ‘em all.
Normally, I’d agree with Grumpy on prosecutorial misconduct, but considering that 1) that is the only reason Bill Ayers didn’t go to jail (in his own words, “guilty as hell, free as a bird!”) and B) my instinct is when members of Congress are involved, they’re guilty until proven innocent.
In this case, considering his age and probable medical conditions, I’d agree with no prison time, but as a plea bargain — resignation, no running for office ever again, fine, and probation.
Stevens is gone. Again, good riddance.
When the hell does William Jefferson go on trial, anyway?
J.
Grumpymann –
At this point, I’d settle to just have him removed as my Senator.
Grupmyman: Have you ever had the full weight of the U.S. government aimed right at you?
I take the 5th.
Ask them what criteria do you use in pressuring a case? I can bet that 9 times out of ten you will hear “A case we can win” some where in there. Guilt or innocence will almost never be mentioned.
That’s somewhat oversimplified (To be fair, so was my original proposal.) since the cases they can win skew toward those where they actually have decent evidence that the accused is guilty.
Worst case scenario is linking McCain to Stevens,
Isn’t it easier to link Stevens to Palin? Get more traction out of the news cycle that way.
Question: Does his name stay on the ballot? Is it conceivable that Alaskans will re-elect him while he’s doing time?
Duros Hussein 62
Yes, there’s a good chance he could still be re-elected. Never underestimate the number of intelligent people that stay home, and the dimwitted that vote.
Ted Stevens has brought home the bacon for 40 years, and many Alaskans will look past anything he does to hold on to that.
Gonna be tough for him to make roll-call, I guess.
I say we let the guy rot in jail.
No exceptions.
Me: “Worst case scenario is linking McCain to Stevens,”
Duros: “Isn’t it easier to link Stevens to Palin? Get more traction out of the news cycle that way.”
Linking him to Palin would be linking him to McCain.
Duros: “Question: Does his name stay on the ballot? Is it conceivable that Alaskans will re-elect him while he’s doing time?”
He has to stay on the ballot. And yes it is conceivable, but unlikely.
Linking him to Palin would be linking him to McCain.
Well, that’s what I mean. Associations, etc.
On a side note, it turned out to be a bad day to spread a lie about Obama’s alleged socialism. Even on Fox News this should take precedent.
Tying Stevens to Palin might be tricky. She backed his unsuccessful challenger in the Republican primary this year… unfortunately, the guy lost.
J.
Palin did a pretty good job cleaning up the corruption in the Alaskan GOP, but she didn’t get ‘em all.
Obviously, since she is still the governor.
Jay Tea wrote:
“…Tying Stevens to Palin might be tricky. She backed his unsuccessful challenger in the Republican primary this year…”
That’s pretty inside baseball Jay Tea, I doubt if many of our voters realize that. We’re talking about an electorate of whom 12% believe Obama is a Muslim.
The verdict is more proof that Barack Obama will stop at nothing!!
“Tying Stevens to Palin might be tricky.”
… Are you fucking kidding?
She worked for his 527.
That’s a pretty strong connection.
Here’s how it’ll go down…
1) Get Steven’s re-elected.
The Godless Socialist hoards have been slain. The world is once again safe for Democracy and Wars without End! America is saved.
2) He goes to jail and resigns OR is kicked out by the Senate.
3) By Alaskan LAW a replacement ELECTION has to be called.
4) Palin runs and wins.
5) Palin WOWS Washington till 2012.
6) Palin runs for PRESIDENT IN 2012.
7) Palin WINS!
9) Me and millions of other Americas flee to Canada. Ah…fresh air at last!
I gotta get me another scotch – 18 year old single malt, please. AH – now I feel better.
Sean D. Martin
At one time in my life I worked with law enforcement.
And it is not an oversimplification it is fact that they only bring cases up that the can win.
Guilt or innocence is has nothing to do with it.
They see the world very simplistically (Us vs them) anyone that is accused of a crime is usually guilty. Why not play games with the system to “Get a win”?
“Here’s how it’ll go down…”
I don’t think #1 will happen, but #6 is nearly guaranteed at this point. She honestly thinks she is fit to be president.
Grumpyman: At one time in my life I worked with law enforcement.
And it is not an oversimplification it is fact that they only bring cases up that the can win.
Guilt or innocence is has nothing to do with it.
They see the world very simplistically (Us vs them)
I feel extremely sorry for the folks in your area who had to deal with officers and/or prosecutors who apparently cared little for the principles they supposedly upheld. They were not well served.
I, too, have worked with law enforcement at various times. My experience was significantly different than yours. While pragmatism played a role in decisions it was, with very few notable exceptions, not allowed to overrule a sense of justice. I have seen cases tried that were “unwinnable” because the attempt had to be made. I have seen plea bargains err on the side of compassion because the felon or circumstances didn’t deserve the full penalty that could have been levied at them. And I have rarely seen any situation that was simplistic or treated as such.