| 0 |
Subject: Oops Sorry Senator Stevens
Posted by: Boxman
- [3821468] Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:29
Justice Department Files Motion to Drop Case Against Former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens
Justice Department Files Motion to Drop Case Against Former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens
The U.S. Justice Department has asked the federal court to dismiss its case against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted of seven felony counts of corruption in the fall.
Attorney General Eric Holder decided to abandon the case due to prosecutorial misconduct -- one Justice Department source called the stunning turnaround a "black eye" on the department and the FBI.
Stevens was convicted last year of lying on a Senate disclosure form in order to hide $250,000 in gifts he received from an oil company executive and friends.
Only after the conviction did allegations of FBI misconduct come to light. The judge in the case has repeatedly delayed sentencing Stevens, and at one point he held prosecutors in contempt. Justice Department officials later replaced the trial team.
Stevens sought to dismiss the case, and Wednesday's action in effect supports his request. A hearing has been set for April 7.
In a written statement released Wednesday morning, Stevens suggested he would have fared better in his losing November election had it not been for the "unfair" case against him.
"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come," Stevens said. "It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognized as unfair. It was my great honor to serve the state of Alaska in the United States Senate for 40 years."
Holder said he would not seek a new trial.
"After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial," Holder said in a statement released shortly after the motion was filed Wednesday.
Holder reportedly decided Tuesday to dismiss the original indictment rather than proceed to more hearings that might embarrass the department.
"Given what has happened in this case, it's not surprising" that charges against Stevens are being dropped, a source close to the case told FOX News.
Stevens' attorneys claimed the government "disregarded the Constitution" by going through with the prosecution but praised both Holder, the new prosecutorial team and Judge Emmett G. Sullivan for demonstrating integrity in the case.
"The misconduct of government prosecutors, and one or more FBI agents, was stunning. Not only did the government fail to disclose evidence of innocence, but instead intentionally hid that evidence and created false evidence that they provided to the defense," said attorneys Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. and Robert M. Cary.
"Had Judge Sullivan accepted the word of government prosecutors as is done often in our courts, the extraordinary misconduct would never have been uncovered, and the trial verdict might have survived appellate review. Judge Sullivan prevented such a tragic outcome. ...
Attorney General Eric Holder, too, should be commended. He is a pillar of integrity
in the legal community, and his actions today prove it," they said.
The motion says the Department of Justice only "recently" discovered that Bill Allen -- the prosecution's star witness and an oil executive whose former company, Veco Corp., paid for some of the improvements to Stevens' home in Alaska -- was interviewed on April 15, 2008, but the defense never knew about it.
The motion states that "no memorandum of interview or agent notes" were written after the interview and that a response from Allen regarding a note dated Oct. 6, 2002, was inconsistent with his testimony during trial.
Thus, the motion says, "this information could have been used by the defendant [during trial] to cross-examine Bill Allen and in arguments to the jury."
In the motion, the Justice Department says: "Given the facts of this particular case, the government believes that granting a new trial is in the interest of justice," but, "the government has further determined that, based on the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice, it will not seek a new trial."
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was happy with the news, but troubled by the implication.
"I was pleased with the news that the Justice Department will drop all charges against Senator Ted Stevens, but I am deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man's career and then say 'never mind.' There is nothing that will ever compensate for the loss of his reputation or leadership to the State of Alaska," she said.
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, who beat Stevens in the November election, released a statement saying the end to prosecution is "reasonable."
"I always said I didn't think Senator Stevens should serve time in jail and hopefully this decision ensures that is the case. It's time for Senator Stevens, his family and Alaskans to move on and put this behind us," the former Anchorage mayor said.
In addition to Stevens' age -- he's 85 -- and the fact that he is no longer in the Senate, sources told National Public Radio that Holder wants to send a strong message to prosecutors that misconduct will not be tolerated.
Holder said in his statement that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility will review the prosecution of Stevens' case, but no conclusions should be drawn.
"This does not mean or imply that any determination has been made about the conduct of those attorneys who handled the investigation and trial of this case," Holder said. |
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:31
|
MITH posted this already
I'm not exactly clear on why Stevens would be owed an apology. He broke the law, and the only reason he's free is because of a series of mistakes by the prosecution lawyers.
|
| 2 | Boxman
ID: 3821468
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:33
|
Can you get him his Senate seat back?
|
| 3 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:34
|
A thread was already started.
I believe every time you start a new thread, an old one is tossed off into the memory hole. Whie they are retreivable, it requires an email to Guru so that he can restore it, which presumably sends another thread down the memory hole.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:36
|
Why? He broke the law and was voted out by his own constituents as a result. Just because the lawyers bungled the case doesn't mean we should act as though Stevens should have everything the way it was before he broke the law.
Just making that clear.
|
| 5 | Boxman
ID: 3821468
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:37
|
Can a mod move these posts to that thread since it has dibbs? I didn't see the thread when I posted this.
|
| 6 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:43
|
No, mods can't easily relocate posts. I'll just delete the other one.
|
| 7 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:45
|
Malkin Eunich Ed Morrissey:I wrote earlier about the allegations of misconduct. The most recent involved allegations of a sexual affair between an FBI agent and a witness that didn’t get disclosed to the defense. The most serious charged prosecutors with deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence, including lying to the judge. Those allegations came from an FBI whistleblower, not the defense, which made the charges much more credible — and very, very damaging to the conviction prosecutors won.
Holder did nothing more than bow to the inevitable. After that came to light, no appeals court would have upheld his conviction. If that misconduct gets established, prosecutors involved will probably get disbarred.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that Stevens had oil-company lobbyists remodeling his house and hid that fact from the Senate. The fact that prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct does not make Stevens clean. It just makes him free.
|
| 8 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:47
|
And I'd like to here from Boxman on why he apparently believes Stevens got a raw deal.
|
| 9 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 17:52
|
Do you think he would have fared better in the recent election if not for these charges?
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:08
|
Not myself. He was under a cloud for about a year beforehand. But that's really not the right question to ask, since it presumes that the case should not have been brought.
The charges were true, valid, and appropriate, since Stevens actually did those things that he was accused of. What happened is that the prosecution screwed up the case.
|
| 11 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:11
|
Of course he would have fared better. You always answer questions with more (often cryptic) questions, leaving the asker to make assumptions about your positions.
I still don't really know why you think he got a raw deal. What's the big secret? Am I out of line for expecting a straight answer?
Are you under the impression that these revelations clear his name?
|
| 12 | Seattle Zen
ID: 2232819
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:32
|
Every day he is in office, I come to respect Eric Holder more and more. What a huge improvement over the ideological (Ashcroft) and the criminal (Gonzalez) clowns we had before.
Another day, another irresponsible, lying FBI agent.
Do you think he would have fared better in the recent election if not for these charges?
Do you understand criminal law? From this thread, I'd say, "no".
The misconduct happened long after the charges were brought. The correct snarky query is: "Would he have fared better without his trial?" Maybe. I was disappointed that his race was as close as it turned out. I know the Republicans in the Senate were quite relieved that he lost because he would have been removed or not sworn in. Even in this day and age, you may not commit the felonies Sen. Stevens committed (conviction or not) and remain in the Senate.
|
| 13 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:41
|
Of course he would have fared better.
Well there we go then. These charges were tossed yet this guy lost an election in due part or whole part because of these charges. This guy also probably dropped serious coin as a result of misconduct by the FBI. We can't go back in time and have him re-run for election, but perhaps a refund of legal fees would be in order.
|
| 14 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:43
|
Sarah Palin on Ted Stevens today:Senator Stevens deserves to be very happy today. What a horrible thing he has endured. The blatant attempts by adversaries to destroy one’s reputation, career and finances are an abuse of our well-guarded process and violate our God-given rights afforded in the Constitution. It is a frightening thing to contemplate what we may be witnessing here — the undermining of the political process through unscrupulous ploys and professional misconduct. Senator Stevens and I had lunch together recently at my home and he reiterated the faith he held for vindication; he never gave up hope. It is unfortunate that, as a result of the questionable proceedings which led to Senator Stevens’ conviction days before the election, Alaskans lost an esteemed statesman on Capitol Hill. His presence is missed. Sarah Palin on Ted Stevens 10/27/08:"The verdict shines a light on the corrupting influence of the big oil service company up there in Alaska that was allowed to control too much of our state," Palin said.
"And that control was part of the culture of corruption that I was elected to fight, and that fight must always move forward regardless of party affiliation or seniority or even past service."
|
| 15 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:49
|
Did she know about the FBI misconduct during the first statement?
|
| 16 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:50
|
"first" meaning first dated, not the first posted in #14.
|
| 17 | Seattle Zen
ID: 2232819
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:55
|
Well there we go then. These charges were tossed yet this guy lost an election in due part or whole part because of these charges. This guy also probably dropped serious coin as a result of misconduct by the FBI. We can't go back in time and have him re-run for election, but perhaps a refund of legal fees would be in order.
You really don't know what's going on at all, but that's never stopped you from posting before.
|
| 18 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:55
|
These charges were tossed yet this guy lost an election in due part or whole part because of these charges.
You do understand what happened, right? The charges were tossed because of misconduct on the part of the prosecutors. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a very strong case (they did) only that the state failed to effectively prosecute him.
Boxman I've read a bit on this today and you are the only person I've seen outside of Alaska defending Ted Stevens. As Morrissey notes in the quote I pasted into #7: none of this changes the fact that Stevens had oil-company lobbyists remodeling his house and hid that fact from the Senate. The fact that prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct does not make Stevens clean. It just makes him free.
It's completely bizarre to me that, in light of that knowledge, someone would stick by Stevens. Is there some element to this story that I'm missing? It's not like its much of a partisan issue, I could post quotes a dozen rightist bloggers and columnists offering basically the same sentimenst as Morrissey and it was the Bush Administration's Justice Dept who brought the charges against him.
Is it possible that your position here is a tad kneejerk?
|
| 19 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 19:16
|
I didn't say Stevens was innocent. I said that in light of this case being tossed that had it not happened in the first place the election results would be different. And it was tossed because the FBI doesn't know what they're doing. Their corruption cost a guy tens of thousands in legal fees and perhaps a Senate seat.
Or their corruption cost the public justice. Either way, election results were altered by a miscarriage of justice and that is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable.
|
| 20 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 19:18
|
Post 15: Did she know about the FBI misconduct during the first statement?
Just so I know I understand you here, you're saying that since it turned out that what Stevens received from Allen and failed to report might (depending on which assessment from Allen you choose to believe) have only been something like 1/3 of that $250,000.00, that he was actually not a part of the "corrupting influence of the big oil service company up there in Alaska that was allowed to control too much of [the] state" and therefore not part of "the culture of corruption that [Palin] was elected to fight... regardless of party affiliation or seniority or even past service"?
|
| 21 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 19:21
|
I said that in light of this case being tossed that had it not happened in the first place...
That phrasing doesn't make any sense. there is absolutely no reason to assume (much less believe) that the wrongdoing should have in any way pre-empted charges being brought in the first place.
|
| 22 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 19:32
|
I will alter 15 depending on your intent in 14.
Are you trying to paint Palin in a negative light with that compare/contrast or just show the change over time?
I'm fighting an uphill battle defending Palin for ANYTHING on this forum so I'll limit it to this post only.
Reason for asking is because if you're trying to slam her you should realize that FBI corruption was the reason why this case was tossed. Who knows what other corruption was going on. I can understand where she's coming from.
Again, I'm not presuming to know Stevens' guilt or innocence. What I AM saying is that the FBI corruption paints that case with a shadow where Stevens at the minimum deserves his legal fees back and at the maximum a trip in Christopher Lloyds Dalorian back a couple years to run for re-election.
Had the FBI corruption occurred earlier in the case those charges would've been tossed earlier and the election results different. That's all I'm saying.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 19:57
|
Is there, in fact, "FBI corruption?"
Stevens was guilty. That's really about all there is to it.
|
| 24 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 20:05
|
Are you trying to paint Palin in a negative light with that compare/contrast or just show the change over time?
There's no brush in my hand. Any objective reading of those two statements will determine they are quite contradictory.
I'm fighting an uphill battle defending Palin for ANYTHING on this forum
My approach is that I'll defend her (or anyone else) when I believe the situation warrants it and otherwise recognize a duck when it waddles and quacks.
Had the FBI corruption occurred earlier in the case those charges would've been tossed earlier and the election results different.
I'm pretty sure you have your facts mixed up. What "FBI corruption" do you believe occurred?
As far as I can tell - including from the story you pasted - the significant infraction came at the hands of the prosecutors. They were the ones who failed to share evidence with the defense (that's not the FBI's responsibility).
From your article:Attorney General Eric Holder decided to abandon the case due to prosecutorial misconduct
"After careful review, certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial,"
|
| 25 | Seattle Zen
ID: 2232819
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 20:13
|
The prosecutorial misconduct was failing to mention that a FBI agent was fuçking a witness. I'd say the FBI agent is quite responsible.
But anyone who thinks that Stevens would be allowed to serve his term even if he won is ridiculously uninformed.
|
| 26 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 20:35
|
SZ:
The prosecutorial misconduct was failing to mention that a FBI agent was fuçking a witness. I'd say the FBI agent is quite responsible.
That's only part of the misconduct and it came out a month before the verdict.
NYT: Judge Sullivan displayed his annoyance with the prosecutors’ conduct almost four weeks before Mr. Stevens was convicted. On Oct. 2, the judge almost declared a mistrial after discovering that prosecutors had not told the defense team about an F.B.I. interview with the prosecution’s chief witness.
“How does the court have confidence that the public integrity section has public integrity?” Judge Sullivan asked that day. The prosecutorial conduct that delayed the sentence and that Holder refers to in the quotes I pasted into #24 are a seperate issue:In the new filing on Wednesday, which was first reported by National Public Radio, the government said that it had recently discovered previously undisclosed notes made by prosecutors of an interview with Mr. Allen on April 15, 2008. In the interview, Mr. Allen was asked about a note he received from Senator Stevens on Oct. 6, 2002, discussing the situation of former Senator Robert G. Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who abruptly quit his 2002 re-election race amid accusations of ethical misconduct, including allegations that he failed to disclose gifts.
The Justice Department said the notes from the interview showed that Mr. Allen made different statements about that exchange than he had during his testimony at the trial. Mr. Stevens’s lawyers should have had those notes to help them cross-examine Mr. Allen, the department said on Wednesday.
|
| 27 | Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 20:59
|
As far as the election is concerned, Stevens lost the election because of absentee ballots (he was ahead on election day votes, by about 3000 votes or so). That is why it seems unlikely, to me, that the election would have gone to Stevens, as many of those absentee ballots were sent in quite early.
|
| 28 | Seattle Zen
ID: 2232819
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 21:15
|
Re: 26
Those incidences of misconduct were certainly the DOJ's.
|
| 29 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 08:45
|
PD
he was ahead on election day votes, by about 3000 votes or so). That is why it seems unlikely, to me, that the election would have gone to Stevens, as many of those absentee ballots were sent in quite early
I'm still not quite sure what Boxman's position is but presumably if Stevens hadn't ever been charged (if Box does in fact mean to say that he shouldn't have been) or if the charges were dropped earlier (as Box seemed to mistakenly believe that the FBI misconduct hadn't been discovered until after the conviction) then it's reasonable to assume that more people would have voted for him, both via absentee ballot and at the polls.
But obviously, the point is moot, since both arguments require the support of what should now be clear misconceptions.
Presumptively, I think if Boxman had focused his argument a bit more he might have settled on the notion that the prosecutor's (not the FBI's) infractions (which clearly were grounds for having the charges dropped) all occurred well before the conviction. And since the charges were dropped upon the DOJ's discovery of those infractions (thus nullifying the conviction) the conviction, which clearly impacted the election to some extent, should not have occurred in the first place. And had the conviction not occurred, the election might have turned out differently.
The problem (aside from any legal ones) with this position is that none of prosecutor's (or the FBI's, for the record) misconduct changes the fact that Ted Stevens is still a crook. The best thing you can say about him is that he might be less of a crook than we thought. And while it's true that that fact might not be recognized by the law, it wasn't the law who voted him out of office. He was voted out because enough people decided that he was a crook. And despite the dropped charges and conviction, that fact is still true. It's as if to say that it's wrong for the voters to have learned the truth about Ted Stevens and act on it at the polls.
Put into a different perspective, as someone who is generally liberal on crime/punishment issues, I don't have a problem with the DOJ dropping the charges against Stevens, despite the fact that we all just watched a guilty man go free. But it's quite strange to see conservatives argue that not only should this guilty man be free, but that this guilty man's good standing with the public was wrongly taken from him.
It's like saying it's wrong for people to have been so down on OJ Simpson the past 15 years.
|
| 30 | Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 10:47
|
Presumptively, I think if Boxman had focused his argument a bit more he might have settled on the notion that the prosecutor's (not the FBI's) infractions (which clearly were grounds for having the charges dropped) all occurred well before the conviction. And since the charges were dropped upon the DOJ's discovery of those infractions (thus nullifying the conviction) the conviction, which clearly impacted the election to some extent, should not have occurred in the first place. And had the conviction not occurred, the election might have turned out differently.
You obviously said it better than I could have.
|
| 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 10:55
|
My point was that many of those voters (and the ones who made the difference), had already cast their ballots before the conviction.
We don't know that the outcome of revealing the prosecution's mistakes in a timely manner would have changed the conviction (since Stevens was, in fact, guilty, the most this would have done was give him a new trial at which he would have been found guilty). But we do know that people had already decided to give Stevens the boot before the conviction made the trial mistakes unreversible.
The presumption that people would have voted differently on election day flies in the face of two facts:
-revealing the mistakes of the prosecution at the time would have merely extended the trial, not ended it;
-those who voted after the conviction went for Stevens anyway, by a substantial 3000 votes.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|