When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Noble
15 years ago
The prosecutors here screwed up royally. And Senator Stevens sure has a beef. He has been done a terrible disservice.
There are two things to consider:
1) It was Alberto Gonzalez’ Justice Department that prosecuted Stevens.
2) Stevens has not been exonerated. The prosecutorial misconduct involved not providing complete discovery to the defense. That has little to do with the strength of the proofs against Stevens. It is similar to drugs discovered during an illegal search being suppressed as evidence.
Jim Stewart
15 years ago
Obama Administrations (Holder’s Justice Dept. Seeks To Void Stevens’ Conviction) – they give up on Stevens – so the Republicans will go along with Holder’s decision to no longer investigate Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA).
Jim Stewart
P.S. I need a vacation from Obama (the president) and his cast of characters – I looking into a vacation at Gitmo!
@Dave Noble: Ever worked for the Federal Govt Dave? I have. Wanna bet which party the careerists at DOJ support?
ric
15 years ago
What? No Mata yet. Here is something for all who disparaged a fine, honorable man from an Alaskan who never waivered on the OLD BULL’s credibility.
I am sickened by the situation. Alaska and America just experienced a bloodless
coup, although one could conclude that Sen. Stevens was nearly “bled” to death.
I for one can stand tall and proclaim that I never waivered in my support for
the OLD BULL.
It is now necessary for everyone, including those like Eddie (kbyr) who doubted him, to
mount a full assault on those who were actively involved in the coup. Moreover,
the one individual (Boy Begich) who benefited most from this travesty must be
pressured by any and every means available to sit down, shut up and go away as
soon as possible. This is especially true in light of the Boy’s statement
regarding the matter, “the decision by President Obama’s Justice Department to
end the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens is reasonable.”
Reasonable my ass. Boy, you should be ashamed of yourself. The decision is
JUSTICE, to the extent justice is possible at this point in the process.
You Boy, and your party, are blood sucking leaches on what is otherwise a good
and just society. Your only redemption is the fact that too many good people
(including some show hosts and bloggers) failed to reciprocate the honor the “Honorable” Ted
Stevens always demonstrated as he conducted the business of representing us.
Boy Begich, here is a brief statement you should have made: “I have submitted
my resignation to the governor and will run against the Honorable Ted Stevens in
the special election, an election I expect to win on the merits.”
ric
dude08
15 years ago
The ASUA’s who handled this case had to know that their shenanigans would be exposed. They simply aren’t that dumb. It follows, of course, that they had to know Stevens’ convictions would be thrown out.
What is most fascinating is the outrage on the right in this case. A Democratic AG throws out convictions of a senator from the opposing party based on misconduct in his office that pre-dated his assumption of the job. Misconduct that took place while the office was being run by Republicans. And the right is outraged.
It’s a good window, isn’t it?
tfhr
15 years ago
“It was my great honor to serve the State of Alaska in the United States Senate for 40 years”. That’s enough for me – by 28 freaking years – TERM LIMITS NOW!!! That bastard* was in office far too long and it has cost us all too much along the way.
* feel free to substitute any third term (or more) incumbent as the bastard of your choice.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mike,
Ever worked at the DOJ? It’s a big government.
You mean after all that vetting in terms of political affiliation, the Bush administration didn’t get itself the prosecutors it wanted.
But the simple fact is that the lead prosecutor in Sen. Stevens case was William Welch II:
Judge Sullivan repeatedly scolded prosecutors for misconduct in the case while the trial was proceedings. In February, Sullivan held four prosecutors in contempt, including the DOJ Public Integrity Section chief William Welch, for failing to produce documents relating to claims by an FBI agent that the prosecution withheld important information from the defense.
Mr Welch was appointed in 2007 by Alberto Gonzalez to head the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section:
Prosecutor gets top Justice post
Monday, March 12, 2007
By STEPHANIE BARRY sbarry@repub.com
SPRINGFIELD – A former federal prosecutor in Springfield has been appointed the nation’s top corruption watchdog.
William M. Welch II, credited with purging corruption from all levels of government in this city, was appointed chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, according to a Justice Department announcement on Friday.
@tfhr: Is it your suggestion that we criminally prosecute with the threat of imprisonment any elected official that stays beyond an arbitrary time limit?
Term limits are long overdue…problem is, the bastards who suck the government teat for all it’s worth are the ones who have to change the law. It ain’t happenin’. So, WE THE PEOPLE, are going to have to do something radical to get things back to where they should be. All this “progressive” B.S. has led us down the path to hell. I just hope it’s not too late.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mike,
Have you read my post? Are you suggesting the Republicans did a hit job on another Republican? Welch was appointed by Alberto Gonzalez.
Returning to your original post – How did the Democrats steal Stevens’ seat? In addition to the prosecution being brought by a Republican appointee in a DOJ that was very scrupulous about the political affiliation of its appointees, Stevens himself requested the case be resolved prior to the election.
I’m not sure what I can add here, ric. During my Palin investigation fury, I didn’t get much in depth on Stevens. What I did read in passing is that he, like Palin, enjoyed a very high approval rating amongst the Alaskans, and fought tooth and nail for Alaskan interests. They both maintained mutual support during their trials and tribulations, tho I believe they probably had their incidental run ins as well.
I certainly think that, like all Senators, Stevens’ probably has his fair share of “pork” vs viable earmark funds in his history, but what Congressional member hasn’t? Also, his seven counts of convictions for false statements on financial disclosure forms is also something I believe to be common amongst the elected elite. Frankly, there by the grace of karma go they in not walking in Ted’s shoes.
I always think that the damage caused by investigations… especially those that should have been a mistrial during the due process… is beyond unfair. It’s bad enough when you get accused and convicted in the press (ala Duke lacrosse players), but even worse when the system engages in a messy procedure – obtains a guilty verdict from a jury (thereby stamping the brand forevermore) – then reconsiders later. The jury made their decisions without all the facts… most specifically a note of the prosecutors from an interview with the builder on the home renovation that placed the work value at $80K… which put significant doubt on all the charges.
That is something you should keep in mind, Dave Noble, before you so confidently say he was not exonerated. Withholding evidence, being refused a mistrial when one was so plainly warranted… it can only be said that Stevens was a victim of an aggressive prosecution, and a derelict judge who should have thrown this out of his courtroom. His guilt cannot be determined by you – or anyone – because the process was so tainted. This isn’t like William Ayers, who fully admits his guilt. They’ve done damage to Mr. Stevens that can’t be undone, and a jury should never have been allowed to put forth a verdict.
I’m having a hard time assigning political subterfuge to this since, ironically, it was an investigation by the FBI and IRS, and prosecuted by the Public Integrity office which falls under the direct head of the Deputy Asst AG. But ultimately, the buck stops with the AG. Correcting Dave Noble, this spanned three AGs, plus a few interim/temporary types as well. The investigations began 2004 under Ashcroft, continued thru 2006 plus under Gonzales, and trial culminated under Mukasey in Oct 2008. Stevens is finally getting what’s left of justice for botched due process under Holder. Rather puts the world somewhat upside down, when you think of it.
But he sure got shafted by the judicial system inbetween. So the only one I can think of who bears scrutiny here is Judge Emmet Sullivan, and why he didn’t honor Stevens two requests to throw out the charges, but chose to slap the prosecutors on the hands instead. INRE Sullivan, the plot thickens. He’s been an appointee to increasingly higher courts by various admins over the years, including Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton ultimately to the United States District, for the District of Columbia in 1994.
Considering his diverse associations across party lines, the only mud left some might try to sling is to accuse him of being a black liberal with an agenda. That kind of stuff just doesn’t hold water in the real world, despite the commonly accepted notion that the courts are pretty much filled with “living Constitution types” already. Not much one can do about it.
But with this current BS of the Treasury being able to renegotiate private labor contracts? The UAW and public may want Judge Sullivan on any case raised for that issue. He ruled against the DoD personnel rules, saying they failed to ensure even minimal collective bargaining rights for labor-management dispute and protecting their labor rights. In fact, I’ve had to archive this… may have to find some legal eagles to send it to and see how this decision may fit with Obama/Geithner’s renegotiation of salaries and agreements outside of bankruptcy court.
tfhr
15 years ago
Mike’s America,
Don’t jack around with my comment – I did not recommend arresting anyone, did I?
Like Robert Byrd and many others, Ted Stevens used his seniority to raid the trough for his state and while I’m sure that set well with the constituents back home, the practice is not helpful for the country.
I am not in favor of an entrenched political class that is by choice divorced from the reality of the legislation it foists on the country. I believe our representatives should return from Washington, D.C., to live with and within the laws they write. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate since the 1960’s and while the voters in Massachusetts seem to be happy with that, I’m sure you and many of the readers here are often sickened by the sight of that particular member of “America’s Royal Family”. With that said, an incumbency like that enjoyed by the Pillars of Pork, Byrd and Stevens, is hardly any different, though I guess those two don’t bring along any clever “Camelot” BS.
So back at you: Do you think TERM LIMITS are criminal? My guess is that you don’t. We’ve been fine with them for our Presidents after FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, why should we not have the same limits for the members of our other elected branch of the federal government?
@tfhr
Sorry, I just don’t buy into the whole term limit argument. The purpose of term limits is to let one group of people decide who another group of people CAN”T have as a representative in government. If the voters of Mass. really want to have Kennedy as the Senator who represents them in Washington, why should anyone be able to tell them that they can’t have him? If Wyoming voters think that Sen. Enzi is their best choice for representation, why should we have to settle for someone who we think is second best, just because Sen. Enzi has had the job twice already?
We have term limits. They are called elections. If voters aren’t free to vote for ANYONE they want to vote for, including someone who has already served two terms, then the election isn’t free.
@Dave Noble: I’m still waiting for you to share with our readers your credentials as a federal employee. Until then, perhaps you should defer to the expert lest your continuing demonstration of willful ignorance finally reach the tipping point where it is embrarrassing even to a nit wit moonbat like yourself.
@tfhr: Term limits are not the topic here. From your comments I am left unsure how you feel about the fact that this Senator was illegally hounded from office.
THAT my friend, is the point here.
You want to discuss term limits fine. But let’s not confuse the issue teed up for discussion.
uh… am I too late to get in on the term limits issue before the door is closed by the thread nanny? (which is usually me… LOL) I swear Mike, I will draw the line back to the subject at hand… Stevens and his lost term.
I’m on the fence with term limits, leaning more towards favoring them in order to prohibit the entrenched, decades of corruption we live with. On the other hand, Wisdom does make a point that elections become limited, or less “free”, when we don’t have an option of a particular candidate beyond term limits.
But then, Wisdom, I must argue that same could be applied for the POTUS. So I would have to ask you: do you support term limits for the POTUS? And if so, why not support them for Congress? The capability to abuse that position’s power differs little.
We didn’t have term limits until 1951 and the 22nd Amendment. The Framers didn’t build it in since being a career politician wasn’t in vogue then. But they did have strong opinions on such, and considered career politics not much different than being a monarch. As Jefferson said, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.”
The Founders’ moral safeguards to “serve in Washington, then go home” have long since been traded for what is now a lucrative position… replete with power and money. And I doubt anyone – despite their political affiliation – will argue that there is not widespread corruption in Congress. I will add that corruption is most evident in those who have been there for decades.
Which brings me to Stevens and term limits. thfr brings up the problem I have with Congress and no term limits. thfr doesn’t like Stevens because he’s pronounced him corrupt despite lacking in the full evidence. Ric, an Alaskan constituent does support him and is understandably upset at the injustice.
Whether or not thfr is accurate in his averse opines, it cannot be denied that Stevens’ decisions also end up affecting thfr’s life, as well as the rest of the nation.
thfr not only has no say about Stevens’ ability to be a career politician, he can’t even expect an email response from a legislator outside his district. You get get a polite blow off, saying please contact your own dang representative in Congress.
So what protects thfr, or the rest of us, who must live with a state’s election decision to place a someone in power for what can be a lifetime career of corruption? ‘Cause I’m betting a lot of you are with me in hoping that Nevada gives Harry “the war is lost” Reid the boot…. And the only way Pelosi would return home to her grandchildren and empire is by term limits.
So the President and State Governors get 4 year terms and can only serve a maximum of 2 terms whilst Senators have 6 years and Representatives only have 2 year terms but they don’t have any fixed term limits? Is that right? Why the difference in term lengths and term limits?
So wasn’t Stevens not effected by term limits? He was voted out.
luva the scissors
15 years ago
@GaffaUK: he was voted out because he was convicted with a tainted trial. the whole prosecutorial team had to be replaced because of misconduct and then they were still nailed becasue of their conduct. he was robbed becasue it wasn’t done the right way.
Gaffa #16: the rotation in office principle goes back to ancient Athens and Sparta datas… an era where the Founders were well schooled. The Articles of Confederation did have term limits, but left it out of the Constitution. The masses supported the rotation as a matter of principle back then.
As far as the difference between the six years for the Senate, and four for the House, I’m only going on logic here and not historic documentation. So anyone else with specific historic perspective, feel free to jump in . But common sense dictates you didn’t want to empty both chambers, plus the admin branch, simultaneously. So they were staggered.
On the topic, my two cents worth for Mike’sA. I’d say it was a stretch to say term limits comes into the argument at all, INRE Stevens. He was plainly robbed, set up as a corrupt figure which would affect his appeal absolutely. However Alaskans still could have voted him into office post conviction… allowing Palin to pick a replacement if he were ultimately sentenced.
As I was typing #13, I was considering my position against Congressional term limits and how it would be associated with Presidential term limits. And, as I typed it, I knew that it would be Mata who who would challenge me to justify my stand in light of the 22nd amendment.
First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House. As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting her supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, AND majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than power that comes from longtime entrenchment.
The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative OF the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 100), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are direct representatives of the people, I stand by position against term limits on their elections, also.
The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his position as that of The President of the United STATES. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the PEOPLE of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, limiting future Presidents to two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.
The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system. Senator Stevens was tried in a manner that is outlined in the Constitution, and by the laws of our land. It wasn’t perfect, and the prosecutors were obviously incompetent, but in the end, the system worked. The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.
The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. As I pointed out earlier, Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies.
We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.
@GaffaUK: The senate seat in Alaska, and the filibuster check on Obama’s power were both stolen by a politically motivated prosecution that was far and away MORE CORRUPT than anything Stevens was accused of.
Even if Stevens was guilty, which apparently he was not, it’s far worse to subvert democracy.
But this is what happens when one political party places the pursuit of power above all else.
Okay Mike… I’ll bite. Who was the entity that was politically motivated in the Stevens trial? And you have to remember, this originated in 2004 with the investigation by the FBI and IRS. The prosecutors were just doing their appointed job – and badly at that.
So was the FBI or IRS politically motivated? Was the judge politically motivated to ignore the mistrial requests? Or was the prosecutor politically motivated, but too inept to actually make the mud stick? Who’s the bad guy?
~~~
Mr. Wisdom, it’s a very eloquent and philosophica response to my question. Truly the only thing that muddles it up is the inate character of humans when bestowed with power.
I also fail to see why term limits does the voters a miscarriage of justice. This would be like suggesting there *is* no replacement for Pelosi or local rep.
That “closeness” to the people was just as important, if not more, during the Framer’s times. This did not change their ideas that no rotation of power in either Chamber or the Presidency was a bad idea.
What the Framers believed about rotation of office is aptly proven by our corrupt career politicians today. What they never dreamed was that it would be so lucrative a position as to be so coveted by the elite few. They viewed it as a duty and service, not an opportunity. Term limits would return that more simplistic moral perspective.
So I shall agree to disagree with you here. And, in fact after cyber listening to you, I have now leaned even more to the pro-term limits side of the fence.
tfhr
15 years ago
Wisdom,
You’ve probably already read through MataHarley’s comments which leave little else for me to say but I will address this remark of yours:
“If voters aren’t free to vote for ANYONE they want to vote for, including someone who has already served two terms, then the election isn’t free”.
Wisdom, we place all sorts of restrictions from minimum age to citizenship details to residency requirements on our candidates and rightfully so. We cannot simply vote for “ANYONE” we want to vote for and that is the law. I would suggest that if one is of the mind to make a career of politics, they can start at the local level and work their way up as high as the voters want to take them but they certainly should not hold national offices for more than two consecutive terms. If states want to have place term limits on governors, and I believe most if not all do, but let their state legislators run without limit, that is their business. However I do object to people like John Murtha returning to Washington, D.C., year after year, as he has had a detrimental effect on the military in his own special way.
Mike’s America,
When politicians like Frank and Dodd rise to committee chairmanships as they have, it is clearly out of seniority, connections, and in no small part, personal ambitions. These two men are clearly corrupt and absolutely culpable for our current financial mess. Would you argue with me that there are not better, though more junior, candidates to replace them in their current roles? Would it not have been preferable to have had better people in those seats over the last 8 to 10 years? Furthermore, the power of the incumbency is too great with today’s campaign costs and it seems that only the terribly weakened incumbents fall with any regularity.
Stevens might have survived this episode but he was the victim of vicious politics and prosecutorial misconduct. That may not be fair for him and it is completely unfair for Alaskan voters but I think if Stevens had retired from national politics years ago he could have returned to his state and continued to do good things. That does not excuse prosecutorial misconduct but when you swim in the murky waters inside the Beltway for long enough you will get dragged down. Unfortunately Stevens stayed on and made a career of toying with defense appropriations and that is my axe to grind with the Senator.
I think Alaskans would have found a capable replacement for Stevens long ago and he could have even groomed a replacement for them to consider along with other candidates from the state. As a conservative I would have preferred that his seat would have been kept with the Republicans but it was his time to go long before he became embroiled in scandal.
@tfhr Your focus on the word ANYONE is misplaced. Obviously, when I used the word, I meant ANYONE who meets the Constitutional qualifications for the office they are seeking. Since the Constitution clearly addresses what those qualifications are, I didn’t think that I needed to clarify them. If you want to argue with mere semantics, we can whip out the dictionaries, but I think that kind of argument is a waste of time.
I understand that you don’t think anyone should hold a single office in Washington for more than two terms, and you have the ability to make that happen…by voting against them! My contention is that you do not have the right to make that decision for me, or anyone else. Yes, Frank and Dodd are obviously corrupt, at least in their character, but it is a stretch to say that everyone who has the seniority to have earned a committee chair is corrupt also. That isn’t any more realistic than saying that every novice elected official must be a puritan. There are a lot of honest men and women, on both sides of the aisle, and in both houses, that have been there a long time, and there are some dishonest ones that have been there only a few months. The length of service does not decide the character the person, as their character was formed long before any of them sought public office.
Senator Stevens obviously had flaws, but whether or not they were criminal has now been decided by due process. It may not have been a pretty path, but in the end, justice was done. Even if he had been convicted, it was the right of the people of Alaska to re-elect him and send him back to Washington as their representative. That would have been true whether he was running for his second term or his tenth. Since the Senate is authorized to set rules for its own members, they would have had the option of expelling him, but only with a 2/3 vote, a process that is already covered in the Constitution.
Isn’t it funny how that pesky Constitution keeps coming up?
And, since Sen. Stevens is the core of this thread, it is worth noting that the people of Alaska had every right to elect someone else in his place, too. Elections are snapshots in history, and at that precise moment in history the people of Alaska wanted someone else to be their Senator. Even if Sen. Stevens had never been tried, or convicted, or had the conviction been vacated before the election, no one can say for certain that he wouldn’t have lost his seat anyway.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
Quite frankly I don’t know if Stevens is guilty or not. Apparenty there was enough evidence to convince a jury that he was guilty. However, what was missing was potentially exculpatory evidence that was never evaluated by a jury.
I am absolutely confident that he was not exonerated, because he wasn’t as a matter of legal procedure. However, also as a matter of legal procedure he should now be deemed innocent because he was never proven guilty in a fair trial He owns that presumption of innocence and I freely acknowledge it.
As I noted, Sen. Stevens was done a grave injustice. He was denied a fair trial. He was right when he said the cloud over him has been removed.
Mike,
For the sake of a complete dialog, why don’t you answer the critical question both Mata and I have asked you – What was the political motivation for the prosecution of Sen. Stevens? You’ve alleged there was one. What was it?
It is irrelevant whether either Mata or I are federal employees. But for the record, I was technically a federal employee for 20 years as an Air Force officer. But I suspect you mean a civilian federal employee. Again it is irreltevant. It is also irrelevant whether I am a moonbat, a wombat, or Batman. Just answer the question.
Scott Malensek
15 years ago
What was the political motivation for the prosecution of Sen. Stevens? You’ve alleged there was one. What was it?
Just ‘to get a Republican’ seems apparent since the DOJ didn’t use similar tactics on Dems with far greater crimes or suggestion of crimes. I mean, if we’re talking “political motivation” then we’re basically talking partisanship=doing something for/against a party for the benefit of one’s own party’s political aspects.
My personal thought is that incompetence reigns supreme in DC-even over partisanship, and that incompetence probably was the overpowering dynamic here. Partisanship more likely played the part in the secondary and tertiary related fubars as is usually the case imo.
@Scott Malensek: Thanks Scott. I had pretty much tuned out Dave and now I see him hiding behind Mata’s skirts.
But this exchange reminds me…. Whatever happened to the trial of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson?
Stevens was rushed to trial BEFORE the election and the guy who was found with $90,000 in bribes in his freezer is still running around loose?
I don’t suppose the lack of prosecutorial zeal has anything to do with it hunh Dave?
You always have an excuse and rarely have a reason.
Timothy
15 years ago
It was said that the prosecuters were out of control, replaced by the DOJ, and were nearly held in contempt of court.
Sounds like what should of happened to the prosecuters of Compean and Ramos, except they should be investigated for prosecutory misconduct.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Does anyone on this thread know what they are trying to say, why they are saying it, or what they are talking about?
That excludes you Scott. I was going to respond to your post that you make some good points.
I’m not sure this was incompetence in the sense of not knowing how to do your job or being unable to do it. I think it was a deliberate attempt to violate due process of law and fundamental priniciples of justice and hide evidence from the defense counsel.
Timothy,
I don’t know who said the prosecutors were not held in contempt of court. But they are wrong.
I quick Google would have revealed that.
Mike,
I don’t need Mata. I just thought it was interesting that she asked you the same crucial question you are still avoiding – How in the whole wide world was this, as you assert, a Democratic hit job?
And Scott doesn’t get you off the hook. He is suggesting a non-partisan motivation. You explicitly alleged a partisan motivation. Put your cards on the table or fold.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
“A” quick Google. Don’t want to sound like Jar Jar Bings.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
Let’s see – Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasey, Welch. I’m looking for a player in this goat rope that was appointed by a Democrat. Did I miss him? Oh wait I know – the guy who did justice and corrected a gross injustice – Eric Holder. It is irrelevant to focus on any of the first three. The relevant culpability rests with Welch.
That’s my point. So what is your point?
Further, you completely misunderstand the interplay between an investigation and a prosecution. At the close of the investigation, the prosecutor has all the evidence. It is his responsibility to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Welch failed to do that despite repeated orders from the judge, before and after the trial. His actions represent egregious prosecutorial misconduct. I would be fired for doing that.
It’s ridiculous to try and fob it off on the judge. BTW, Judge Emmet J. Sullivan was appointed to his first judgeship by Ronald Reagan. He was appointed to his second judgeship by George Bush. He was appointed to his current judgeship by William Clinton. If you want to try to milk that stone for partisan benefit, please feel free.
I’m not sure what a “reality timeline” is, but I fully understand the realities of prosecution. You display a blatant misunderstanding of those realities.
So where in all this is the Democratic plot that Mike alludes to? Answer – No where.
“Does anyone on this thread know what they are trying to say, why they are saying it, or what they are talking about?’
Flaming the thread with insults doesn’t exactly put you in the Mensa category Dave. Sounds to me like you are talking about yourself.
As I explained REPEATEDLY, the prosecutorial zeal displayed here does appear to be partisan.
Again, I await your credentials as a federal employee so you can prove me wrong. My own experience in Federal Service made it all too clear that while there is a veneer of nonpartisan service it is only a veneer.
You go on and keep squawking Dave. You sound more foolish every time you post.
Dave Noble:Let’s see – Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasey, Welch. I’m looking for a player in this goat rope that was appointed by a Democrat. Did I miss him? Oh wait I know – the guy who did justice and corrected a gross injustice – Eric Holder. It is irrelevant to focus on any of the first three. The relevant culpability rests with Welch.
That’s my point. So what is your point?
~~~
It’s ridiculous to try and fob it off on the judge. BTW, Judge Emmet J. Sullivan was appointed to his first judgeship by Ronald Reagan. He was appointed to his second judgeship by George Bush. He was appointed to his current judgeship by William Clinton. If you want to try to milk that stone for partisan benefit, please feel free.
That said, Sullivan does have a history of liberal decisions. Not unusual, as I also pointed out in my comment #11. However my beef with him is not his liberal bent of interpreting the law. It’s his total disregard for Constitutional due process INRE Stevens.
That means I *do* accuse Sullivan of his dereliction in presiding over a fair trial. It is his sworn task to ensure fair due process, and he wholely ignored that when he refused to grant motions for a mistrial in the face of egregious errors by the prosecutors. He could have stopped the circus, and didn’t.
Therefore, I hold Sullivan completely – and solely – responsible for what happened to Stevens.
Which brings me to the first part. You’re arguing with the choir here. It’s difficult to argue partisan subterfuge by an FBI and IRS investigation that started under the Bush administration.
And no, I do not “totally misunderstand” the role of the prosecutor.. thank you very much. Lawdy, you can be a pompous arse.
The results of that investigation were provided to the Public Intregity prosecutors – who obviously decided on the base of what they saw that Stevens was guilty. Therefore, with a guilty verdict as a goal (the job of all prosecutors, BTW), they decided to conduct their arguments by leaving out anything that may cast doubt on his guilt.
That brings us to the topic. Was their inept zeal for a guilty verdict done for partisan reasons, and are they the ones at fault for the miscarriage of justice. I say no to both.
Again, considering all the AGs and Deputy AGs involved for prosecutorial oversight were Bush appointees, I can’t see it. So on this point, I am forced to agree with Dave Noble (dodging heavenly lightning bolt strike now….). If there’s partisan politics involved, it’s political fratricide. Not impossible, but I think highly unlikely.
The prosecutors’ bad conduct are also not the ultimate culprit. It is the judge’s task to referee justice. Either side may attempt legal shenigans in a courtroom… and in fact this is done daily. But when a judge deliberately allows one side to get away with it, and then lets a jury render a verdict on incomplete evidence, the judge has violated his oath. Stevens was ultimately the victim of a judge who, in my opinion, should be disciplined.
tfhr
15 years ago
Wisdom,
As before, your argument is well thought and rational, particularly with regard to the ethics and integrity of our chosen representatives, but as we seem to keep coming back to the single most important document in my life, The Constitution, I would just tell you that the amendment limiting Presidential longevity has done no harm.
I understand your point about direct representation versus the Electoral College but in the end we are talking about a difference with very little distinction. The impact of entrenched politicians are seldom discovered before the damage is done and I need only to point to the Dodd-Frank effect for an example.
We all depend on The Constitution to keep our government in check. Term limits would only be useful if it were Constitutional and as such applied to each of the states. We’ve seen term limits, in the rare cases where they were adopted in a state and honored by the elected officials, actually hurt the state because of the loss of seniority in key Congressional committee memberships. It would not be an easy matter to enact term limits for many reasons but I do believe that the end result of clearing aside the all powerful incumbents would give an equal voice to the voters who do not have the “luxury” of an entrenched committee chairman with decades of connected throw weight and obligations to the DC cesspool.
thfr and Wisdom, more on the term limits bit. I’m not suggesting, nor arguing, for or against the committee seniority that suffers adversely with no term limits on Congress. In fact, were that the reasoning for putting term limits into place, I too would argue against the implementation.
My argument for term limits is precisely that Congress has awarded themselves more and more power with the position, combined with lucrative financial opportunity. This was never the intent of the Framers, who viewed political service as a temporary volunteer duty, and not a political career to be embarked upon as a way of acquiring wealth and power.
Since you cannot stop Congress from legislating more power to themselves day in and day out, you can only put a check how long they are able to possess that power, thereby minimizing internal corruption. The intents of our Congress today is not same as the intents of the Congress in the Framers’ day.
This same argument is also evident in Wisdom’s belief that corruption was supposed to be held in check by the chambers creating rules to police themselves. Again, when you’ve watched these members acquire more and more power, then depend upon them to punish each other, it’s a prescription doomed to failure since the “good ol’ boy” mentality and corruption itself thwarts that punishment. Instead Congressional investigations – which in itself is a skirt around judicial due process and provides little representation and disclosure for the accused – is used for partisan purposes as opposed to genuine discipline.
From what I can tell, Wisdom, your entire support for no term limits is based upon each being a genuine reflection of their districts… and that placing limits on their reelection denies a district an equal reflection when they are forced to choose another representative instead. To me that places a superior status on a single individual, and assumes that another cannot provide that representation with equal (or better) results.
Considering the millions in price tag for having a shot at an elected office, I suggest that the district representation for voters has already been “limited”, and also fraught with corruption and inside deals. Blago is publicly accused by the media of selling a Senate seat when, of sorts, it’s done every election. The high rollers only back a willing puppet mouthpiece.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Jeez, Mike, I know your smarter than that. Why would Republicans go after a Republican if their motivation was partisan?
Mata,
“The results of that investigation were provided to the Public Intregity prosecutors – who obviously decided on the base of what they saw that Stevens was guilty. Therefore, with a guilty verdict as a goal (the job of all prosecutors, BTW), they decided to conduct their arguments by leaving out anything that may cast doubt on his guilt.”
Wrong. Unequivocally wrong.
A guilty verdict is not the job of a prosecutor. Not By The Way, on the way, or by the wayside. That is a common misconception of non-lawyers. The job of a prosecutor is to “do justice.” If a prosecutor has in his or her possession evidence that is potentially exculpatory of the defendant, it is their ethical and legal duty to provide it to the defense. This is not some legal nicety or technicality. It is a crucial ethical and legal obligation. Failure to do so is not “legal shenanigans,” it is a unethical and illegal. And when an officer of the court, and in this case a federal prosecutor with enormous power, abuses their power, it strikes at the foundations of our system of criminal justice.
Here, in your never-ending effort to sound like an expert on everything, you display your ignorance. There is of course nothing wrong with you’re not having legal expertise and in this case a knowledge of criminal law and more specifically of prosecutorial ethics. The problem is making believe you do and then making a completely erroneous statement with unabashed confidence. Some things are not a matter of opinion. They are either right or they are wrong.
Oh do tell us, Mr. Nobel (misspelling deliberate) Arrogant, how a prosecutor takes a job to “do justice” by prosecuting someone they believe to be innocent from the evidence?
But then, you can’t, can you? For if they look at the evidence before them from an investigation, and determine they’ve pegged an innocent, they don’t bring charges to prosecute, do they? In fact, they don’t even go ahead with charges and trials until they believe they have *enough* evidence to obtain a guilty verdict by those they are charging.
Yet according to you, a prosecutor brings the charges even tho they think the accused is innocent. Oooookay.
So why don’t you give us the benefit of your self-implied court experiences, Mr. Noble? How many innocents have you prosecuted with investigative evidence contrary to their guilt in order to “do justice”? Or perhaps you will explain to us how it “does justice” to prosecute someone when the evidence doesn’t support the charges? Or maybe you will regale us with your experiences as one defending themself against charges by a prosecutor who used evidence that didn’t support their charges, but went ahead anyway in order to “do justice”.
You are truly an arrogant ass with one twisted comprehension of the judicial branch.
Your normally careful prose has degnerated. I am being neither phony nor condescending when I say that you are better than that.
First from the American Bar Association:
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct
3.8 – Special Responsibilities of Prosecutor
Comment [1]:
“ A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.”
I am a state prosecutor, Mata, specifically a Deputy Attorney General for a northeastern state. What I cited to you is fact, both in terms of law and a prosecutor’s ethical duties.
I have no idea why a prosecutor would prosecute someone they believed to be innocent.
I have never done that. I know of no prosecutor who has. You again display a fundamental misunderstanding of what a prosecutor does. Even if I wanted to prosecute someone whom the evidence showed was innocent, which as I reiterate would be an ethical violation on my part, I would be prevented from doing so by the prosecutorial process itself.
There are likely small variations in that process from state to state. And from level to level, that is, whether the prosecution is being conducted at the county level, at the state level where I work, at the federal level, or in the Stevens case at the highest federal level – within the DOJ. But I have no doubt the essential steps are the same. I have to believe that at the DOJ level the vetting of the proofs against the defendant is even more rigorous than it is at my level.
I will descirbe how that vetting process works at my level. When someone is arrested, they are charged by the police, or by our internal detectives, with a complaint. That is the initial charging document. The next step is the responsiblity of the prosecutor. The prosecutor now has to evaluate the evidence by doing such things as reviewing the applicable criminal statute, reading the police reports, talking to the arersting officers, talking to witnesses, reviewing lab reports, and going out to the crime scene. If the prosecutor decides the evidence against the defendant is sufficiently strong and will stand up at trial, he prepares an indictment. If he decides he does not have enough evidence to do that, he dismisses the complaint and the defendant goes free. He is not obligated to continue the prosecution of someone he believes is innocent based on the evidence before him. And I repeat, it would be unethical for him to do so.
When I decide to indict a case, I must prepare a detailed memorandum for my superiors, more experienced prosecutors. In addition to my ethical responsibility, I am motivated not to go forward with a weak case, because my request to indict the case through my memo and the attached paperwork will be reviewed by my superiors. Further, I will have to defend that case at trial. That memo presents the facts of the case and an analysis of the strength of the proofs that will be presented at trial. In my cases, that memo goes through three to four levels of review, depending on the seriousness of the crime. My request to indict can be turned back at any of those levels and I will not be permitted to indict the case. If I get approval, I then must present an indictment to a Grand Jury, which is like a trial or petite jury, only it has approximately twice as many citizen jurors.
An indictment is the second and final level of the charging process. If I have convinced the Grand Jury of the strength of the evidence against the defendant, they will return an indictment. Although it is technically possible to dismiss an indictment, e.g., if the only eyewitness dies, once an indictment is handed down, the prosecution will move forward. The defendant will either waive their right to trial and plead guilty or the case will go trial, where the State’s burden is substantial. The State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the job of the defense to create that reasonable doubt.
Here is where some of the confusion may arise. The defense attorney has no obligation to “do justice.” Rather his ethical duty is to be a “zealous advocate” for his client. Their duty is to win by attacking the State’s case, – to probe, test and critique the State’s proofs in the presence of the jury in an effort to create that reasonable doubt and achieve a non-guilty verdict. They force the State to prove their case.
I present the above to remedy misunderstanding and explain a process that, while it is very imperfect, I am proud to be part of. Innocent people are sometimes convicted and guilty people sometimes go free, but the system itself is designed to “do justice.” That’s why I say that when a prosecutor violates his ethical and legal duties, as William Welch II appears to have done, it is an attack on the foundations of our justice system.
Good deal… the real thing, Dave Noble. But now you have some serious reconciling to do. We have you contradicting yourself. You say most recently:
I have no idea why a prosecutor would prosecute someone they believed to be innocent. I have never done that. I know of no prosecutor who has.
~~~
Even if I wanted to prosecute someone whom the evidence showed was innocent, which as I reiterate would be an ethical violation on my part, I would be prevented from doing so by the prosecutorial process itself.
But then earlier – where you displayed the arrogance of every DA and defense lawyer I know – you criticized my observation that the Stevens prosecutors must have believed Stevens to be guilty based on the evidence before embarking on prosecution (and thereby striving for a guilty verdict). In response to that observation, you said:
A guilty verdict is not the job of a prosecutor. Not By The Way, on the way, or by the wayside. That is a common misconception of non-lawyers. The job of a prosecutor is to “do justice.”
Now, Deputy AG. Do please reconcile this for us. No prosecutor would “prosecute someone they believed to be innocent”.
But then why take on the task of prosecution at all unless they believed the accused to be … and were striving for… a guilty verdict? As you said… to prosecute anyone they believed (via evidence) to be innocent would be an ethical violation.
Obviously, the Stevens prosecutorial team believed Stevens to be guilty. Otherwise they, like those who have refused to prosecute Don Perata, wouldn’t have touched the case with a ten foot pole. (and, as a pre’disclosure, I am *no* fan of anti-gun rights Perata) Sorry… the Nat’l District Attys Ethic Assoc ethics rules aren’t going to come into play here. I’m already familiar with my own ethics assocation, and reality in practice.
Now.. this puts the “do justice” nonsense behind us – even with quotes from qualified you, Dave Noble. And… BTW… thank you for your clarification. All does help me put some of your comments in perspective. But don’t count on my “non-lawyer” status giving you any passes on blind faith. Trust me, I’ve already played games with the good ol’ boy club. You all do not intimidate me. And, in fact, getting any of the bench to recuse themselves because of their admitted bias is part of the defense plan.
Now… you and I agree on one point so far…that being this isn’t a partisan event. This brings me to what is really burning on my mind: Sullivan’s conduct.
By all news accounts … and that doesn’t include all filed briefs, which is what I usually like to have read first… I’ve already determined that twice Sullivan has dismissed motions made stating that the prosecution has withheld evidence from the defense. He is on record with statements every which way from Sunday about how he believes the prosecutors integrity was questionable thru the trial. He was also aware that trying a Senator up for elecction made these stakes even more important.
Yet Sullivan did not declare a mistrial which, in retrospect, proves to be more than warranted. This gives me pause for cause for a couple of reasons. Why now? What did the “whistleblower” have that triggered Mr. Sullivan’s interest to new heights? Was he protecting his own butt after the fact?
I know, without reading the briefs specifically, that Sullivan had to rule on what was presented. However all indications are that Sullivan was well aware of the prosecuting team’s misdeeds, and the withholding of evidence prior to his denial of mistrials… TWICE. And the stakes with an election only added to what should have been a prudent decision.
I still hold him responsible ultimately for misjudgment, failure to live up to his oath, and hope he’s impeached as a result. His indignation comes johnny-come-lately, IMHO. And I can’t help but believe he’s protecting his own butt. How ironic. A black judge, first appointed by Reagan, advanced by Bush 41, and brought to current position by Clinton… being corrected by Holden. Good on Holden. Now, what about Sullivan and discipline (despite his partisan appointee background)?
BTW, Dave… I forgot I wanted you to address exculpatory evidence that was in possession of the prosecutors, but not passed on as per law. Just why do you think they chose to prosecute Stevens when they were in possession of such information? Could it be, perhaps, that they believed other evidence to overwhelm that doubt, and further flame their decision to bring Stevens to trial despite that doubt?
In other words… they believed the guy to be guilty….
It’s funny, because just hours ago I was just discussing our local county attorney with a friend. It seems that during his first 2 years in office he has racked up an outstanding conviction rate of ZERO out of twenty seven prosecutions that made it to trial. We were trying to figure out why a county attorney could have such a bad record, and we both agreed that it was because if he was a good attorney, he would be in private practice making good money instead of on the governments tit in small town America. Is that typical of all prosecutors?
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
There was no inconsistency in my response. I agree that Welch must have thought Stevens was guilty. What I criticized was your assertion that it was the job of a prosecutor to get a guilty verdict. You implied that Welch was just doing his job. That is exactly what was wrong, he didn’t do his job. He failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense; he hid the ball. In a word, he cheated.
I believe he did that because he did believe Stevens was guilty, he forgot that his job is to “do justice,” and he started thinking his job was to win at all costs.
I think you got it right in your second post. They personally believed the inculpatory evidence outweighed the exculpatory evidence and made an unethical decision to hide the exculpatory evidence from the defense to seal the win. They cheated, they rigged the game.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Wisdom,
I’m going to assume that’s a lame joke. You would really think that about public defenders – why aren’t they defense attorneys? I’ve got news for you – they are some of the best attorneys I have ever seen and I practice in a number of large inner-city courts where high-Priced private defense attorneys practice. It has been said that very rich people and very poor people get the best criminal defense. The rich folks get Johnny Cochran and the poor folks get public defenders.
Another thought – what if you want to practice criminal law, but you don’t want to defend criminals, you want to prosecute them. At the county level and above in my state, there are no private prosecutors. In closing, with my age and my experience I could leave the state and make a lot of money as a defense attorney (which BTW is very common career trajectory). But having been on this side, as much as I respect the defense bar and their necessary role in our system of criminal justice, I couldn’t go to the other side.
Sorry about your county attorney.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
No capital P in price. is”a” very common career trajectory.
Oh, Aye Chi, you deserve a footnote.
Aye Chi’s contribution to a detailed discussion of the criminal justice system – a funny picture.
Well Dave Noble, after all that, and straightening out our miscommuniques, I’d say you and I are in consensus. Yes, I believe that the prosecutors went into court believing Stevens was guilty (and thereby striving for a guilty verdict), and most definitely… as you put it… cheated.
I am more interested in the specifics as to why Sullivan twice denied a mistrial in the face of the prosecution’s shenanigans (since I know you so detest that term for their unethical and illegal behavior). Both motions were based on the prosecution withholding evidence. Sullivan was aware of the unethical behavior of the prosecutorial team, but still allowed the trial to go forward.
Considering it’s timing during an election where the public’s interest was at stake, and that these repeated unethical practices were leveled at an encumbent in that election, I firmly believe Sullivan did not behave well in the circumstances. Then again, without being able to read transcripts and briefs to see the specifics of the motions and their supporting evidence, no one can be sure.
And then, why now? It’s not like the FBI agent whistleblower’s info was a surprise to Sullivan. Why did he demand to see all the documentation *after* the trial instead of before a verdict was rendered?
Yes, it was a joke. The story was real, but yes, my conclusion was meant in fun, so don’t get too defensive. You’re going to have to get thicker virtual skin if you are going to comment of FA. 😉 Wait, I thought it was funny, though, not lame….
The prosecutors here screwed up royally. And Senator Stevens sure has a beef. He has been done a terrible disservice.
There are two things to consider:
1) It was Alberto Gonzalez’ Justice Department that prosecuted Stevens.
2) Stevens has not been exonerated. The prosecutorial misconduct involved not providing complete discovery to the defense. That has little to do with the strength of the proofs against Stevens. It is similar to drugs discovered during an illegal search being suppressed as evidence.
Obama Administrations (Holder’s Justice Dept. Seeks To Void Stevens’ Conviction) – they give up on Stevens – so the Republicans will go along with Holder’s decision to no longer investigate Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA).
Jim Stewart
P.S. I need a vacation from Obama (the president) and his cast of characters – I looking into a vacation at Gitmo!
@Dave Noble: Ever worked for the Federal Govt Dave? I have. Wanna bet which party the careerists at DOJ support?
What? No Mata yet. Here is something for all who disparaged a fine, honorable man from an Alaskan who never waivered on the OLD BULL’s credibility.
I am sickened by the situation. Alaska and America just experienced a bloodless
coup, although one could conclude that Sen. Stevens was nearly “bled” to death.
I for one can stand tall and proclaim that I never waivered in my support for
the OLD BULL.
It is now necessary for everyone, including those like Eddie (kbyr) who doubted him, to
mount a full assault on those who were actively involved in the coup. Moreover,
the one individual (Boy Begich) who benefited most from this travesty must be
pressured by any and every means available to sit down, shut up and go away as
soon as possible. This is especially true in light of the Boy’s statement
regarding the matter, “the decision by President Obama’s Justice Department to
end the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens is reasonable.”
Reasonable my ass. Boy, you should be ashamed of yourself. The decision is
JUSTICE, to the extent justice is possible at this point in the process.
You Boy, and your party, are blood sucking leaches on what is otherwise a good
and just society. Your only redemption is the fact that too many good people
(including some show hosts and bloggers) failed to reciprocate the honor the “Honorable” Ted
Stevens always demonstrated as he conducted the business of representing us.
Boy Begich, here is a brief statement you should have made: “I have submitted
my resignation to the governor and will run against the Honorable Ted Stevens in
the special election, an election I expect to win on the merits.”
ric
The ASUA’s who handled this case had to know that their shenanigans would be exposed. They simply aren’t that dumb. It follows, of course, that they had to know Stevens’ convictions would be thrown out.
What is most fascinating is the outrage on the right in this case. A Democratic AG throws out convictions of a senator from the opposing party based on misconduct in his office that pre-dated his assumption of the job. Misconduct that took place while the office was being run by Republicans. And the right is outraged.
It’s a good window, isn’t it?
“It was my great honor to serve the State of Alaska in the United States Senate for 40 years”. That’s enough for me – by 28 freaking years – TERM LIMITS NOW!!! That bastard* was in office far too long and it has cost us all too much along the way.
* feel free to substitute any third term (or more) incumbent as the bastard of your choice.
Mike,
Ever worked at the DOJ? It’s a big government.
You mean after all that vetting in terms of political affiliation, the Bush administration didn’t get itself the prosecutors it wanted.
But the simple fact is that the lead prosecutor in Sen. Stevens case was William Welch II:
Judge Sullivan repeatedly scolded prosecutors for misconduct in the case while the trial was proceedings. In February, Sullivan held four prosecutors in contempt, including the DOJ Public Integrity Section chief William Welch, for failing to produce documents relating to claims by an FBI agent that the prosecution withheld important information from the defense.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20754_Page2.html
Mr Welch was appointed in 2007 by Alberto Gonzalez to head the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section:
Prosecutor gets top Justice post
Monday, March 12, 2007
By STEPHANIE BARRY
sbarry@repub.com
SPRINGFIELD – A former federal prosecutor in Springfield has been appointed the nation’s top corruption watchdog.
William M. Welch II, credited with purging corruption from all levels of government in this city, was appointed chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, according to a Justice Department announcement on Friday.
http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-1/117370176574780.xml&coll=1
@tfhr: Is it your suggestion that we criminally prosecute with the threat of imprisonment any elected official that stays beyond an arbitrary time limit?
@dude08: Read my comment to Dave above.
Term limits are long overdue…problem is, the bastards who suck the government teat for all it’s worth are the ones who have to change the law. It ain’t happenin’. So, WE THE PEOPLE, are going to have to do something radical to get things back to where they should be. All this “progressive” B.S. has led us down the path to hell. I just hope it’s not too late.
Mike,
Have you read my post? Are you suggesting the Republicans did a hit job on another Republican? Welch was appointed by Alberto Gonzalez.
Returning to your original post – How did the Democrats steal Stevens’ seat? In addition to the prosecution being brought by a Republican appointee in a DOJ that was very scrupulous about the political affiliation of its appointees, Stevens himself requested the case be resolved prior to the election.
uh oh… did I hear my name being bandied about on this thread?? LOL
I’m not sure what I can add here, ric. During my Palin investigation fury, I didn’t get much in depth on Stevens. What I did read in passing is that he, like Palin, enjoyed a very high approval rating amongst the Alaskans, and fought tooth and nail for Alaskan interests. They both maintained mutual support during their trials and tribulations, tho I believe they probably had their incidental run ins as well.
I certainly think that, like all Senators, Stevens’ probably has his fair share of “pork” vs viable earmark funds in his history, but what Congressional member hasn’t? Also, his seven counts of convictions for false statements on financial disclosure forms is also something I believe to be common amongst the elected elite. Frankly, there by the grace of karma go they in not walking in Ted’s shoes.
I always think that the damage caused by investigations… especially those that should have been a mistrial during the due process… is beyond unfair. It’s bad enough when you get accused and convicted in the press (ala Duke lacrosse players), but even worse when the system engages in a messy procedure – obtains a guilty verdict from a jury (thereby stamping the brand forevermore) – then reconsiders later. The jury made their decisions without all the facts… most specifically a note of the prosecutors from an interview with the builder on the home renovation that placed the work value at $80K… which put significant doubt on all the charges.
That is something you should keep in mind, Dave Noble, before you so confidently say he was not exonerated. Withholding evidence, being refused a mistrial when one was so plainly warranted… it can only be said that Stevens was a victim of an aggressive prosecution, and a derelict judge who should have thrown this out of his courtroom. His guilt cannot be determined by you – or anyone – because the process was so tainted. This isn’t like William Ayers, who fully admits his guilt. They’ve done damage to Mr. Stevens that can’t be undone, and a jury should never have been allowed to put forth a verdict.
I’m having a hard time assigning political subterfuge to this since, ironically, it was an investigation by the FBI and IRS, and prosecuted by the Public Integrity office which falls under the direct head of the Deputy Asst AG. But ultimately, the buck stops with the AG. Correcting Dave Noble, this spanned three AGs, plus a few interim/temporary types as well. The investigations began 2004 under Ashcroft, continued thru 2006 plus under Gonzales, and trial culminated under Mukasey in Oct 2008. Stevens is finally getting what’s left of justice for botched due process under Holder. Rather puts the world somewhat upside down, when you think of it.
But he sure got shafted by the judicial system inbetween. So the only one I can think of who bears scrutiny here is Judge Emmet Sullivan, and why he didn’t honor Stevens two requests to throw out the charges, but chose to slap the prosecutors on the hands instead. INRE Sullivan, the plot thickens. He’s been an appointee to increasingly higher courts by various admins over the years, including Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton ultimately to the United States District, for the District of Columbia in 1994.
Considering his diverse associations across party lines, the only mud left some might try to sling is to accuse him of being a black liberal with an agenda. That kind of stuff just doesn’t hold water in the real world, despite the commonly accepted notion that the courts are pretty much filled with “living Constitution types” already. Not much one can do about it.
Certainly Sullivan has some controversial decisions that have been a thorn in the side of the Bush admin, including kicking snowmobilers out of Yellowstone, siding with the environmentalists’ case, plus being the judge dogging Cheney.
He also ruled that NASA had to declassify some documents that The Coalition for Freedom of Information says was a crash site for a UFO… LOL! What a hoot.
But with this current BS of the Treasury being able to renegotiate private labor contracts? The UAW and public may want Judge Sullivan on any case raised for that issue. He ruled against the DoD personnel rules, saying they failed to ensure even minimal collective bargaining rights for labor-management dispute and protecting their labor rights. In fact, I’ve had to archive this… may have to find some legal eagles to send it to and see how this decision may fit with Obama/Geithner’s renegotiation of salaries and agreements outside of bankruptcy court.
Mike’s America,
Don’t jack around with my comment – I did not recommend arresting anyone, did I?
Like Robert Byrd and many others, Ted Stevens used his seniority to raid the trough for his state and while I’m sure that set well with the constituents back home, the practice is not helpful for the country.
I am not in favor of an entrenched political class that is by choice divorced from the reality of the legislation it foists on the country. I believe our representatives should return from Washington, D.C., to live with and within the laws they write. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate since the 1960’s and while the voters in Massachusetts seem to be happy with that, I’m sure you and many of the readers here are often sickened by the sight of that particular member of “America’s Royal Family”. With that said, an incumbency like that enjoyed by the Pillars of Pork, Byrd and Stevens, is hardly any different, though I guess those two don’t bring along any clever “Camelot” BS.
So back at you: Do you think TERM LIMITS are criminal? My guess is that you don’t. We’ve been fine with them for our Presidents after FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, why should we not have the same limits for the members of our other elected branch of the federal government?
@tfhr
Sorry, I just don’t buy into the whole term limit argument. The purpose of term limits is to let one group of people decide who another group of people CAN”T have as a representative in government. If the voters of Mass. really want to have Kennedy as the Senator who represents them in Washington, why should anyone be able to tell them that they can’t have him? If Wyoming voters think that Sen. Enzi is their best choice for representation, why should we have to settle for someone who we think is second best, just because Sen. Enzi has had the job twice already?
We have term limits. They are called elections. If voters aren’t free to vote for ANYONE they want to vote for, including someone who has already served two terms, then the election isn’t free.
@Dave Noble: I’m still waiting for you to share with our readers your credentials as a federal employee. Until then, perhaps you should defer to the expert lest your continuing demonstration of willful ignorance finally reach the tipping point where it is embrarrassing even to a nit wit moonbat like yourself.
@tfhr: Term limits are not the topic here. From your comments I am left unsure how you feel about the fact that this Senator was illegally hounded from office.
THAT my friend, is the point here.
You want to discuss term limits fine. But let’s not confuse the issue teed up for discussion.
uh… am I too late to get in on the term limits issue before the door is closed by the thread nanny? (which is usually me… LOL) I swear Mike, I will draw the line back to the subject at hand… Stevens and his lost term.
I’m on the fence with term limits, leaning more towards favoring them in order to prohibit the entrenched, decades of corruption we live with. On the other hand, Wisdom does make a point that elections become limited, or less “free”, when we don’t have an option of a particular candidate beyond term limits.
But then, Wisdom, I must argue that same could be applied for the POTUS. So I would have to ask you: do you support term limits for the POTUS? And if so, why not support them for Congress? The capability to abuse that position’s power differs little.
We didn’t have term limits until 1951 and the 22nd Amendment. The Framers didn’t build it in since being a career politician wasn’t in vogue then. But they did have strong opinions on such, and considered career politics not much different than being a monarch. As Jefferson said, “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.”
The Founders’ moral safeguards to “serve in Washington, then go home” have long since been traded for what is now a lucrative position… replete with power and money. And I doubt anyone – despite their political affiliation – will argue that there is not widespread corruption in Congress. I will add that corruption is most evident in those who have been there for decades.
Which brings me to Stevens and term limits. thfr brings up the problem I have with Congress and no term limits. thfr doesn’t like Stevens because he’s pronounced him corrupt despite lacking in the full evidence. Ric, an Alaskan constituent does support him and is understandably upset at the injustice.
Whether or not thfr is accurate in his averse opines, it cannot be denied that Stevens’ decisions also end up affecting thfr’s life, as well as the rest of the nation.
thfr not only has no say about Stevens’ ability to be a career politician, he can’t even expect an email response from a legislator outside his district. You get get a polite blow off, saying please contact your own dang representative in Congress.
So what protects thfr, or the rest of us, who must live with a state’s election decision to place a someone in power for what can be a lifetime career of corruption? ‘Cause I’m betting a lot of you are with me in hoping that Nevada gives Harry “the war is lost” Reid the boot…. And the only way Pelosi would return home to her grandchildren and empire is by term limits.
So the President and State Governors get 4 year terms and can only serve a maximum of 2 terms whilst Senators have 6 years and Representatives only have 2 year terms but they don’t have any fixed term limits? Is that right? Why the difference in term lengths and term limits?
@GaffaUK: Do you not care that term limits are being effected by prosecutorial misconduct?
That’s the topic here.
@Mike
So wasn’t Stevens not effected by term limits? He was voted out.
@GaffaUK: he was voted out because he was convicted with a tainted trial. the whole prosecutorial team had to be replaced because of misconduct and then they were still nailed becasue of their conduct. he was robbed becasue it wasn’t done the right way.
Gaffa #16: the rotation in office principle goes back to ancient Athens and Sparta datas… an era where the Founders were well schooled. The Articles of Confederation did have term limits, but left it out of the Constitution. The masses supported the rotation as a matter of principle back then.
As far as the difference between the six years for the Senate, and four for the House, I’m only going on logic here and not historic documentation. So anyone else with specific historic perspective, feel free to jump in . But common sense dictates you didn’t want to empty both chambers, plus the admin branch, simultaneously. So they were staggered.
On the topic, my two cents worth for Mike’sA. I’d say it was a stretch to say term limits comes into the argument at all, INRE Stevens. He was plainly robbed, set up as a corrupt figure which would affect his appeal absolutely. However Alaskans still could have voted him into office post conviction… allowing Palin to pick a replacement if he were ultimately sentenced.
As I was typing #13, I was considering my position against Congressional term limits and how it would be associated with Presidential term limits. And, as I typed it, I knew that it would be Mata who who would challenge me to justify my stand in light of the 22nd amendment.
First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House. As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting her supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, AND majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than power that comes from longtime entrenchment.
The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative OF the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 100), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are direct representatives of the people, I stand by position against term limits on their elections, also.
The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his position as that of The President of the United STATES. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the PEOPLE of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, limiting future Presidents to two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.
The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system. Senator Stevens was tried in a manner that is outlined in the Constitution, and by the laws of our land. It wasn’t perfect, and the prosecutors were obviously incompetent, but in the end, the system worked. The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.
The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. As I pointed out earlier, Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies.
We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.
@GaffaUK: The senate seat in Alaska, and the filibuster check on Obama’s power were both stolen by a politically motivated prosecution that was far and away MORE CORRUPT than anything Stevens was accused of.
Even if Stevens was guilty, which apparently he was not, it’s far worse to subvert democracy.
But this is what happens when one political party places the pursuit of power above all else.
Okay Mike… I’ll bite. Who was the entity that was politically motivated in the Stevens trial? And you have to remember, this originated in 2004 with the investigation by the FBI and IRS. The prosecutors were just doing their appointed job – and badly at that.
So was the FBI or IRS politically motivated? Was the judge politically motivated to ignore the mistrial requests? Or was the prosecutor politically motivated, but too inept to actually make the mud stick? Who’s the bad guy?
Mr. Wisdom, it’s a very eloquent and philosophica response to my question. Truly the only thing that muddles it up is the inate character of humans when bestowed with power.
I also fail to see why term limits does the voters a miscarriage of justice. This would be like suggesting there *is* no replacement for Pelosi or local rep.
That “closeness” to the people was just as important, if not more, during the Framer’s times. This did not change their ideas that no rotation of power in either Chamber or the Presidency was a bad idea.
What the Framers believed about rotation of office is aptly proven by our corrupt career politicians today. What they never dreamed was that it would be so lucrative a position as to be so coveted by the elite few. They viewed it as a duty and service, not an opportunity. Term limits would return that more simplistic moral perspective.
So I shall agree to disagree with you here. And, in fact after cyber listening to you, I have now leaned even more to the pro-term limits side of the fence.
Wisdom,
You’ve probably already read through MataHarley’s comments which leave little else for me to say but I will address this remark of yours:
“If voters aren’t free to vote for ANYONE they want to vote for, including someone who has already served two terms, then the election isn’t free”.
Wisdom, we place all sorts of restrictions from minimum age to citizenship details to residency requirements on our candidates and rightfully so. We cannot simply vote for “ANYONE” we want to vote for and that is the law. I would suggest that if one is of the mind to make a career of politics, they can start at the local level and work their way up as high as the voters want to take them but they certainly should not hold national offices for more than two consecutive terms. If states want to have place term limits on governors, and I believe most if not all do, but let their state legislators run without limit, that is their business. However I do object to people like John Murtha returning to Washington, D.C., year after year, as he has had a detrimental effect on the military in his own special way.
Mike’s America,
When politicians like Frank and Dodd rise to committee chairmanships as they have, it is clearly out of seniority, connections, and in no small part, personal ambitions. These two men are clearly corrupt and absolutely culpable for our current financial mess. Would you argue with me that there are not better, though more junior, candidates to replace them in their current roles? Would it not have been preferable to have had better people in those seats over the last 8 to 10 years? Furthermore, the power of the incumbency is too great with today’s campaign costs and it seems that only the terribly weakened incumbents fall with any regularity.
Stevens might have survived this episode but he was the victim of vicious politics and prosecutorial misconduct. That may not be fair for him and it is completely unfair for Alaskan voters but I think if Stevens had retired from national politics years ago he could have returned to his state and continued to do good things. That does not excuse prosecutorial misconduct but when you swim in the murky waters inside the Beltway for long enough you will get dragged down. Unfortunately Stevens stayed on and made a career of toying with defense appropriations and that is my axe to grind with the Senator.
I think Alaskans would have found a capable replacement for Stevens long ago and he could have even groomed a replacement for them to consider along with other candidates from the state. As a conservative I would have preferred that his seat would have been kept with the Republicans but it was his time to go long before he became embroiled in scandal.
@tfhr Your focus on the word ANYONE is misplaced. Obviously, when I used the word, I meant ANYONE who meets the Constitutional qualifications for the office they are seeking. Since the Constitution clearly addresses what those qualifications are, I didn’t think that I needed to clarify them. If you want to argue with mere semantics, we can whip out the dictionaries, but I think that kind of argument is a waste of time.
I understand that you don’t think anyone should hold a single office in Washington for more than two terms, and you have the ability to make that happen…by voting against them! My contention is that you do not have the right to make that decision for me, or anyone else. Yes, Frank and Dodd are obviously corrupt, at least in their character, but it is a stretch to say that everyone who has the seniority to have earned a committee chair is corrupt also. That isn’t any more realistic than saying that every novice elected official must be a puritan. There are a lot of honest men and women, on both sides of the aisle, and in both houses, that have been there a long time, and there are some dishonest ones that have been there only a few months. The length of service does not decide the character the person, as their character was formed long before any of them sought public office.
Senator Stevens obviously had flaws, but whether or not they were criminal has now been decided by due process. It may not have been a pretty path, but in the end, justice was done. Even if he had been convicted, it was the right of the people of Alaska to re-elect him and send him back to Washington as their representative. That would have been true whether he was running for his second term or his tenth. Since the Senate is authorized to set rules for its own members, they would have had the option of expelling him, but only with a 2/3 vote, a process that is already covered in the Constitution.
Isn’t it funny how that pesky Constitution keeps coming up?
And, since Sen. Stevens is the core of this thread, it is worth noting that the people of Alaska had every right to elect someone else in his place, too. Elections are snapshots in history, and at that precise moment in history the people of Alaska wanted someone else to be their Senator. Even if Sen. Stevens had never been tried, or convicted, or had the conviction been vacated before the election, no one can say for certain that he wouldn’t have lost his seat anyway.
Mata,
Quite frankly I don’t know if Stevens is guilty or not. Apparenty there was enough evidence to convince a jury that he was guilty. However, what was missing was potentially exculpatory evidence that was never evaluated by a jury.
I am absolutely confident that he was not exonerated, because he wasn’t as a matter of legal procedure. However, also as a matter of legal procedure he should now be deemed innocent because he was never proven guilty in a fair trial He owns that presumption of innocence and I freely acknowledge it.
As I noted, Sen. Stevens was done a grave injustice. He was denied a fair trial. He was right when he said the cloud over him has been removed.
Mike,
For the sake of a complete dialog, why don’t you answer the critical question both Mata and I have asked you – What was the political motivation for the prosecution of Sen. Stevens? You’ve alleged there was one. What was it?
It is irrelevant whether either Mata or I are federal employees. But for the record, I was technically a federal employee for 20 years as an Air Force officer. But I suspect you mean a civilian federal employee. Again it is irreltevant. It is also irrelevant whether I am a moonbat, a wombat, or Batman. Just answer the question.
Just ‘to get a Republican’ seems apparent since the DOJ didn’t use similar tactics on Dems with far greater crimes or suggestion of crimes. I mean, if we’re talking “political motivation” then we’re basically talking partisanship=doing something for/against a party for the benefit of one’s own party’s political aspects.
My personal thought is that incompetence reigns supreme in DC-even over partisanship, and that incompetence probably was the overpowering dynamic here. Partisanship more likely played the part in the secondary and tertiary related fubars as is usually the case imo.
@Scott Malensek: Thanks Scott. I had pretty much tuned out Dave and now I see him hiding behind Mata’s skirts.
But this exchange reminds me…. Whatever happened to the trial of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson?
Stevens was rushed to trial BEFORE the election and the guy who was found with $90,000 in bribes in his freezer is still running around loose?
I don’t suppose the lack of prosecutorial zeal has anything to do with it hunh Dave?
You always have an excuse and rarely have a reason.
It was said that the prosecuters were out of control, replaced by the DOJ, and were nearly held in contempt of court.
Sounds like what should of happened to the prosecuters of Compean and Ramos, except they should be investigated for prosecutory misconduct.
Does anyone on this thread know what they are trying to say, why they are saying it, or what they are talking about?
That excludes you Scott. I was going to respond to your post that you make some good points.
I’m not sure this was incompetence in the sense of not knowing how to do your job or being unable to do it. I think it was a deliberate attempt to violate due process of law and fundamental priniciples of justice and hide evidence from the defense counsel.
Timothy,
I don’t know who said the prosecutors were not held in contempt of court. But they are wrong.
I quick Google would have revealed that.
Mike,
I don’t need Mata. I just thought it was interesting that she asked you the same crucial question you are still avoiding – How in the whole wide world was this, as you assert, a Democratic hit job?
And Scott doesn’t get you off the hook. He is suggesting a non-partisan motivation. You explicitly alleged a partisan motivation. Put your cards on the table or fold.
“A” quick Google. Don’t want to sound like Jar Jar Bings.
Mata,
Let’s see – Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasey, Welch. I’m looking for a player in this goat rope that was appointed by a Democrat. Did I miss him? Oh wait I know – the guy who did justice and corrected a gross injustice – Eric Holder. It is irrelevant to focus on any of the first three. The relevant culpability rests with Welch.
That’s my point. So what is your point?
Further, you completely misunderstand the interplay between an investigation and a prosecution. At the close of the investigation, the prosecutor has all the evidence. It is his responsibility to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Welch failed to do that despite repeated orders from the judge, before and after the trial. His actions represent egregious prosecutorial misconduct. I would be fired for doing that.
It’s ridiculous to try and fob it off on the judge. BTW, Judge Emmet J. Sullivan was appointed to his first judgeship by Ronald Reagan. He was appointed to his second judgeship by George Bush. He was appointed to his current judgeship by William Clinton. If you want to try to milk that stone for partisan benefit, please feel free.
I’m not sure what a “reality timeline” is, but I fully understand the realities of prosecution. You display a blatant misunderstanding of those realities.
So where in all this is the Democratic plot that Mike alludes to? Answer – No where.
@Dave Noble said:
“Does anyone on this thread know what they are trying to say, why they are saying it, or what they are talking about?’
Flaming the thread with insults doesn’t exactly put you in the Mensa category Dave. Sounds to me like you are talking about yourself.
As I explained REPEATEDLY, the prosecutorial zeal displayed here does appear to be partisan.
Again, I await your credentials as a federal employee so you can prove me wrong. My own experience in Federal Service made it all too clear that while there is a veneer of nonpartisan service it is only a veneer.
You go on and keep squawking Dave. You sound more foolish every time you post.
I’ll start with the last one first, Dave. It was me who pointed out Sullivan’s appointee background in my comment #11. So please don’t attempt to educate me on what I’ve already imparted here for everyone else…. including the dang links.
That said, Sullivan does have a history of liberal decisions. Not unusual, as I also pointed out in my comment #11. However my beef with him is not his liberal bent of interpreting the law. It’s his total disregard for Constitutional due process INRE Stevens.
That means I *do* accuse Sullivan of his dereliction in presiding over a fair trial. It is his sworn task to ensure fair due process, and he wholely ignored that when he refused to grant motions for a mistrial in the face of egregious errors by the prosecutors. He could have stopped the circus, and didn’t.
Therefore, I hold Sullivan completely – and solely – responsible for what happened to Stevens.
Which brings me to the first part. You’re arguing with the choir here. It’s difficult to argue partisan subterfuge by an FBI and IRS investigation that started under the Bush administration.
And no, I do not “totally misunderstand” the role of the prosecutor.. thank you very much. Lawdy, you can be a pompous arse.
The results of that investigation were provided to the Public Intregity prosecutors – who obviously decided on the base of what they saw that Stevens was guilty. Therefore, with a guilty verdict as a goal (the job of all prosecutors, BTW), they decided to conduct their arguments by leaving out anything that may cast doubt on his guilt.
That brings us to the topic. Was their inept zeal for a guilty verdict done for partisan reasons, and are they the ones at fault for the miscarriage of justice. I say no to both.
Again, considering all the AGs and Deputy AGs involved for prosecutorial oversight were Bush appointees, I can’t see it. So on this point, I am forced to agree with Dave Noble (dodging heavenly lightning bolt strike now….). If there’s partisan politics involved, it’s political fratricide. Not impossible, but I think highly unlikely.
The prosecutors’ bad conduct are also not the ultimate culprit. It is the judge’s task to referee justice. Either side may attempt legal shenigans in a courtroom… and in fact this is done daily. But when a judge deliberately allows one side to get away with it, and then lets a jury render a verdict on incomplete evidence, the judge has violated his oath. Stevens was ultimately the victim of a judge who, in my opinion, should be disciplined.
Wisdom,
As before, your argument is well thought and rational, particularly with regard to the ethics and integrity of our chosen representatives, but as we seem to keep coming back to the single most important document in my life, The Constitution, I would just tell you that the amendment limiting Presidential longevity has done no harm.
I understand your point about direct representation versus the Electoral College but in the end we are talking about a difference with very little distinction. The impact of entrenched politicians are seldom discovered before the damage is done and I need only to point to the Dodd-Frank effect for an example.
We all depend on The Constitution to keep our government in check. Term limits would only be useful if it were Constitutional and as such applied to each of the states. We’ve seen term limits, in the rare cases where they were adopted in a state and honored by the elected officials, actually hurt the state because of the loss of seniority in key Congressional committee memberships. It would not be an easy matter to enact term limits for many reasons but I do believe that the end result of clearing aside the all powerful incumbents would give an equal voice to the voters who do not have the “luxury” of an entrenched committee chairman with decades of connected throw weight and obligations to the DC cesspool.
thfr and Wisdom, more on the term limits bit. I’m not suggesting, nor arguing, for or against the committee seniority that suffers adversely with no term limits on Congress. In fact, were that the reasoning for putting term limits into place, I too would argue against the implementation.
My argument for term limits is precisely that Congress has awarded themselves more and more power with the position, combined with lucrative financial opportunity. This was never the intent of the Framers, who viewed political service as a temporary volunteer duty, and not a political career to be embarked upon as a way of acquiring wealth and power.
Since you cannot stop Congress from legislating more power to themselves day in and day out, you can only put a check how long they are able to possess that power, thereby minimizing internal corruption. The intents of our Congress today is not same as the intents of the Congress in the Framers’ day.
This same argument is also evident in Wisdom’s belief that corruption was supposed to be held in check by the chambers creating rules to police themselves. Again, when you’ve watched these members acquire more and more power, then depend upon them to punish each other, it’s a prescription doomed to failure since the “good ol’ boy” mentality and corruption itself thwarts that punishment. Instead Congressional investigations – which in itself is a skirt around judicial due process and provides little representation and disclosure for the accused – is used for partisan purposes as opposed to genuine discipline.
From what I can tell, Wisdom, your entire support for no term limits is based upon each being a genuine reflection of their districts… and that placing limits on their reelection denies a district an equal reflection when they are forced to choose another representative instead. To me that places a superior status on a single individual, and assumes that another cannot provide that representation with equal (or better) results.
Considering the millions in price tag for having a shot at an elected office, I suggest that the district representation for voters has already been “limited”, and also fraught with corruption and inside deals. Blago is publicly accused by the media of selling a Senate seat when, of sorts, it’s done every election. The high rollers only back a willing puppet mouthpiece.
Jeez, Mike, I know your smarter than that. Why would Republicans go after a Republican if their motivation was partisan?
Mata,
“The results of that investigation were provided to the Public Intregity prosecutors – who obviously decided on the base of what they saw that Stevens was guilty. Therefore, with a guilty verdict as a goal (the job of all prosecutors, BTW), they decided to conduct their arguments by leaving out anything that may cast doubt on his guilt.”
Wrong. Unequivocally wrong.
A guilty verdict is not the job of a prosecutor. Not By The Way, on the way, or by the wayside. That is a common misconception of non-lawyers. The job of a prosecutor is to “do justice.” If a prosecutor has in his or her possession evidence that is potentially exculpatory of the defendant, it is their ethical and legal duty to provide it to the defense. This is not some legal nicety or technicality. It is a crucial ethical and legal obligation. Failure to do so is not “legal shenanigans,” it is a unethical and illegal. And when an officer of the court, and in this case a federal prosecutor with enormous power, abuses their power, it strikes at the foundations of our system of criminal justice.
Here, in your never-ending effort to sound like an expert on everything, you display your ignorance. There is of course nothing wrong with you’re not having legal expertise and in this case a knowledge of criminal law and more specifically of prosecutorial ethics. The problem is making believe you do and then making a completely erroneous statement with unabashed confidence. Some things are not a matter of opinion. They are either right or they are wrong.
Oh do tell us, Mr. Nobel (misspelling deliberate) Arrogant, how a prosecutor takes a job to “do justice” by prosecuting someone they believe to be innocent from the evidence?
But then, you can’t, can you? For if they look at the evidence before them from an investigation, and determine they’ve pegged an innocent, they don’t bring charges to prosecute, do they? In fact, they don’t even go ahead with charges and trials until they believe they have *enough* evidence to obtain a guilty verdict by those they are charging.
Yet according to you, a prosecutor brings the charges even tho they think the accused is innocent. Oooookay.
So why don’t you give us the benefit of your self-implied court experiences, Mr. Noble? How many innocents have you prosecuted with investigative evidence contrary to their guilt in order to “do justice”? Or perhaps you will explain to us how it “does justice” to prosecute someone when the evidence doesn’t support the charges? Or maybe you will regale us with your experiences as one defending themself against charges by a prosecutor who used evidence that didn’t support their charges, but went ahead anyway in order to “do justice”.
You are truly an arrogant ass with one twisted comprehension of the judicial branch.
@Dave Noble: Either you are just being an ASS or not paying attention or both.
Once again, I note that you have NO CREDENTIALS serving in the Federal Govt and yet you see fit to ignore the experience of one who does.
Continue to play the fool all you want but you are only fooling yourself.
I’m sure by now our other readers have noticed your narcissistic desire to hijack this thread.
Dave: No room to hide behind Mata’s skirt now is there?
Not to mention, I don’t like people at my back, Mike’sA. LOL
Two words for you before you answer and change feet, Mr. Noble. Don Perata.
Other than that, I’m sure we are all waiting with baited breath for your gems of wisdom. Now ‘scuse me while I go file a nail…
Dave?
Mata,
Your normally careful prose has degnerated. I am being neither phony nor condescending when I say that you are better than that.
First from the American Bar Association:
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct
3.8 – Special Responsibilities of Prosecutor
Comment [1]:
“ A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.”
http://www.ethicsforprosecutors.com/quotes.html
I am a state prosecutor, Mata, specifically a Deputy Attorney General for a northeastern state. What I cited to you is fact, both in terms of law and a prosecutor’s ethical duties.
I have no idea why a prosecutor would prosecute someone they believed to be innocent.
I have never done that. I know of no prosecutor who has. You again display a fundamental misunderstanding of what a prosecutor does. Even if I wanted to prosecute someone whom the evidence showed was innocent, which as I reiterate would be an ethical violation on my part, I would be prevented from doing so by the prosecutorial process itself.
There are likely small variations in that process from state to state. And from level to level, that is, whether the prosecution is being conducted at the county level, at the state level where I work, at the federal level, or in the Stevens case at the highest federal level – within the DOJ. But I have no doubt the essential steps are the same. I have to believe that at the DOJ level the vetting of the proofs against the defendant is even more rigorous than it is at my level.
I will descirbe how that vetting process works at my level. When someone is arrested, they are charged by the police, or by our internal detectives, with a complaint. That is the initial charging document. The next step is the responsiblity of the prosecutor. The prosecutor now has to evaluate the evidence by doing such things as reviewing the applicable criminal statute, reading the police reports, talking to the arersting officers, talking to witnesses, reviewing lab reports, and going out to the crime scene. If the prosecutor decides the evidence against the defendant is sufficiently strong and will stand up at trial, he prepares an indictment. If he decides he does not have enough evidence to do that, he dismisses the complaint and the defendant goes free. He is not obligated to continue the prosecution of someone he believes is innocent based on the evidence before him. And I repeat, it would be unethical for him to do so.
When I decide to indict a case, I must prepare a detailed memorandum for my superiors, more experienced prosecutors. In addition to my ethical responsibility, I am motivated not to go forward with a weak case, because my request to indict the case through my memo and the attached paperwork will be reviewed by my superiors. Further, I will have to defend that case at trial. That memo presents the facts of the case and an analysis of the strength of the proofs that will be presented at trial. In my cases, that memo goes through three to four levels of review, depending on the seriousness of the crime. My request to indict can be turned back at any of those levels and I will not be permitted to indict the case. If I get approval, I then must present an indictment to a Grand Jury, which is like a trial or petite jury, only it has approximately twice as many citizen jurors.
An indictment is the second and final level of the charging process. If I have convinced the Grand Jury of the strength of the evidence against the defendant, they will return an indictment. Although it is technically possible to dismiss an indictment, e.g., if the only eyewitness dies, once an indictment is handed down, the prosecution will move forward. The defendant will either waive their right to trial and plead guilty or the case will go trial, where the State’s burden is substantial. The State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the job of the defense to create that reasonable doubt.
Here is where some of the confusion may arise. The defense attorney has no obligation to “do justice.” Rather his ethical duty is to be a “zealous advocate” for his client. Their duty is to win by attacking the State’s case, – to probe, test and critique the State’s proofs in the presence of the jury in an effort to create that reasonable doubt and achieve a non-guilty verdict. They force the State to prove their case.
I present the above to remedy misunderstanding and explain a process that, while it is very imperfect, I am proud to be part of. Innocent people are sometimes convicted and guilty people sometimes go free, but the system itself is designed to “do justice.” That’s why I say that when a prosecutor violates his ethical and legal duties, as William Welch II appears to have done, it is an attack on the foundations of our justice system.
Good deal… the real thing, Dave Noble. But now you have some serious reconciling to do. We have you contradicting yourself. You say most recently:
But then earlier – where you displayed the arrogance of every DA and defense lawyer I know – you criticized my observation that the Stevens prosecutors must have believed Stevens to be guilty based on the evidence before embarking on prosecution (and thereby striving for a guilty verdict). In response to that observation, you said:
Now, Deputy AG. Do please reconcile this for us. No prosecutor would “prosecute someone they believed to be innocent”.
But then why take on the task of prosecution at all unless they believed the accused to be … and were striving for… a guilty verdict? As you said… to prosecute anyone they believed (via evidence) to be innocent would be an ethical violation.
Obviously, the Stevens prosecutorial team believed Stevens to be guilty. Otherwise they, like those who have refused to prosecute Don Perata, wouldn’t have touched the case with a ten foot pole. (and, as a pre’disclosure, I am *no* fan of anti-gun rights Perata) Sorry… the Nat’l District Attys Ethic Assoc ethics rules aren’t going to come into play here. I’m already familiar with my own ethics assocation, and reality in practice.
Now.. this puts the “do justice” nonsense behind us – even with quotes from qualified you, Dave Noble. And… BTW… thank you for your clarification. All does help me put some of your comments in perspective. But don’t count on my “non-lawyer” status giving you any passes on blind faith. Trust me, I’ve already played games with the good ol’ boy club. You all do not intimidate me. And, in fact, getting any of the bench to recuse themselves because of their admitted bias is part of the defense plan.
Now… you and I agree on one point so far…that being this isn’t a partisan event. This brings me to what is really burning on my mind: Sullivan’s conduct.
By all news accounts … and that doesn’t include all filed briefs, which is what I usually like to have read first… I’ve already determined that twice Sullivan has dismissed motions made stating that the prosecution has withheld evidence from the defense. He is on record with statements every which way from Sunday about how he believes the prosecutors integrity was questionable thru the trial. He was also aware that trying a Senator up for elecction made these stakes even more important.
Yet Sullivan did not declare a mistrial which, in retrospect, proves to be more than warranted. This gives me pause for cause for a couple of reasons. Why now? What did the “whistleblower” have that triggered Mr. Sullivan’s interest to new heights? Was he protecting his own butt after the fact?
I know, without reading the briefs specifically, that Sullivan had to rule on what was presented. However all indications are that Sullivan was well aware of the prosecuting team’s misdeeds, and the withholding of evidence prior to his denial of mistrials… TWICE. And the stakes with an election only added to what should have been a prudent decision.
I still hold him responsible ultimately for misjudgment, failure to live up to his oath, and hope he’s impeached as a result. His indignation comes johnny-come-lately, IMHO. And I can’t help but believe he’s protecting his own butt. How ironic. A black judge, first appointed by Reagan, advanced by Bush 41, and brought to current position by Clinton… being corrected by Holden. Good on Holden. Now, what about Sullivan and discipline (despite his partisan appointee background)?
BTW, Dave… I forgot I wanted you to address exculpatory evidence that was in possession of the prosecutors, but not passed on as per law. Just why do you think they chose to prosecute Stevens when they were in possession of such information? Could it be, perhaps, that they believed other evidence to overwhelm that doubt, and further flame their decision to bring Stevens to trial despite that doubt?
In other words… they believed the guy to be guilty….
It’s funny, because just hours ago I was just discussing our local county attorney with a friend. It seems that during his first 2 years in office he has racked up an outstanding conviction rate of ZERO out of twenty seven prosecutions that made it to trial. We were trying to figure out why a county attorney could have such a bad record, and we both agreed that it was because if he was a good attorney, he would be in private practice making good money instead of on the governments tit in small town America. Is that typical of all prosecutors?
Mata,
There was no inconsistency in my response. I agree that Welch must have thought Stevens was guilty. What I criticized was your assertion that it was the job of a prosecutor to get a guilty verdict. You implied that Welch was just doing his job. That is exactly what was wrong, he didn’t do his job. He failed to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense; he hid the ball. In a word, he cheated.
I believe he did that because he did believe Stevens was guilty, he forgot that his job is to “do justice,” and he started thinking his job was to win at all costs.
I think you got it right in your second post. They personally believed the inculpatory evidence outweighed the exculpatory evidence and made an unethical decision to hide the exculpatory evidence from the defense to seal the win. They cheated, they rigged the game.
Wisdom,
I’m going to assume that’s a lame joke. You would really think that about public defenders – why aren’t they defense attorneys? I’ve got news for you – they are some of the best attorneys I have ever seen and I practice in a number of large inner-city courts where high-Priced private defense attorneys practice. It has been said that very rich people and very poor people get the best criminal defense. The rich folks get Johnny Cochran and the poor folks get public defenders.
Another thought – what if you want to practice criminal law, but you don’t want to defend criminals, you want to prosecute them. At the county level and above in my state, there are no private prosecutors. In closing, with my age and my experience I could leave the state and make a lot of money as a defense attorney (which BTW is very common career trajectory). But having been on this side, as much as I respect the defense bar and their necessary role in our system of criminal justice, I couldn’t go to the other side.
Sorry about your county attorney.
No capital P in price. is”a” very common career trajectory.
Oh, Aye Chi, you deserve a footnote.
Aye Chi’s contribution to a detailed discussion of the criminal justice system – a funny picture.
Well Dave Noble, after all that, and straightening out our miscommuniques, I’d say you and I are in consensus. Yes, I believe that the prosecutors went into court believing Stevens was guilty (and thereby striving for a guilty verdict), and most definitely… as you put it… cheated.
I am more interested in the specifics as to why Sullivan twice denied a mistrial in the face of the prosecution’s shenanigans (since I know you so detest that term for their unethical and illegal behavior). Both motions were based on the prosecution withholding evidence. Sullivan was aware of the unethical behavior of the prosecutorial team, but still allowed the trial to go forward.
Considering it’s timing during an election where the public’s interest was at stake, and that these repeated unethical practices were leveled at an encumbent in that election, I firmly believe Sullivan did not behave well in the circumstances. Then again, without being able to read transcripts and briefs to see the specifics of the motions and their supporting evidence, no one can be sure.
And then, why now? It’s not like the FBI agent whistleblower’s info was a surprise to Sullivan. Why did he demand to see all the documentation *after* the trial instead of before a verdict was rendered?
News today is that some court records and transcripts are to be released, and the Alaskan Republican Party – with Palin echoing agreement – are calling for Begich to resign and a special election to be held.
@Dave
Yes, it was a joke. The story was real, but yes, my conclusion was meant in fun, so don’t get too defensive. You’re going to have to get thicker virtual skin if you are going to comment of FA. 😉 Wait, I thought it was funny, though, not lame….