“… the Internet is not something
that you just dump something on.
It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.”
I hasten to point out the BS involved in the proud declarations on the intertubes that former Senator Ted Stevens (BatShitCrazy, AK) has been “completely exonerated.” The New York Daily News brays:
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens vindicated as feds drop case
BY Kenneth R. Bazinet and James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 4:00 AMWASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder dropped a corruption case against ex-Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens on Wednesday, saying prosecutors blew it by failing to share evidence.
Stevens, 85, was convicted last Oct. 27 of failing to disclose thousands of dollars in home improvements that were paid for by Alaskan energy firm Veco. A week later, he was defeated for reelection to the Senate seat he had held since 1968.
“After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial,” Holder said in a statement….
“The trial was politically motivated and we’ve had a chance to see the justice system at its worst,” Keith Tryck, who testified for Stevens, told the Daily News. “It was a setup.” [...] [emphasis added]
This is sheerest hogwash.
TED STEVENS: I’m not going to let these guys get us in a position where they can charge us with something just because we didn’t do what they think we should do. They’ve got to go out make the case that we did something that is against the law. I don’t think we have violated the law.“
BILL ALLEN: I don’t think we have either, Ted. But … that lawyer has grilled me and grilled me on what they think they can do. He talks to them, I don’t.“
STEVENS: That’s, that’s the way it should be. But as a practical matter, the question is, what can they convince the jury, uh grand jury, to charge us with? That’s the problem. But when I was a district attorney, I handled grand juries, lots of them. They’re funny people, but they also are people from within the community. And your reputation and everything else comes into play, as far as grand juries are concerned … We ought to just cool it. I told Ben the same thing: just cool it, you know, go about our business and smile and have a happy face … Do the things you used to do and just keep going. If it’s a violation of the elections law, that’s a corporate violation. This thing, it shouldn’t, it shouldn’t get to your mind, old buddy.“
ALLEN: Well it has been, I’ll tell you.“
STEVENS: … You’ve got to get a mental attitude that these guys can’t really hurt us. You know, they’re not going shoot us. It’s not Iraq. What the hell? The worst that can be done, the worst that can happen to us is we round up a bunch of legal fees and might lose and we might have to pay a fine, might have to serve a little time in jail. I hope to Christ it never gets to that … So I’m going to go right through my life and keep doing what I think is right…. [more]
Guns really don’t get much more smokier than that chilluns.
The technical term is that Stevens got off on a technicality. The technicality? Prosecutorial misconduct:
In jurisprudence, prosecutorial misconduct is a procedural defense; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which may have broken the law, because the prosecution acted in an “inappropriate” or “unfair” manner. Such arguments may involve allegations that the prosecution withheld evidence or knowingly permitted false testimony. This is similar to selective prosecution.
Some examples and remedies
In late 1993, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that John Demjanjuk had been a victim of prosecutorial misconduct during a 1986 trial in which federal prosecutors withheld evidence. Demjanjuk’s sentence was overturned, but he lost when his case was retried.
In the 1995 murder trial of O.J. Simpson, the defense argued that Los Angeles Police Department detective Mark Fuhrman had planted “evidence” at the crime scene. Although Fuhrman denied the allegations, Simpson was found “not guilty”. In USA Today (August 24, 1995), Francis Fukuyama stated, “[Such defenses lead to] a distrust of government and the belief that public authorities are in a vast conspiracy to violate the rights of individuals.” [...]
And yes, I agree that Stevens’ case was that famous poisoned fruit of the poisoned tree* and all, but, unless you’re a lawyer or a Republican — in which case facts are a matter of supreme indifference to you — Stevens was guilty as hell of accepting bribes, and knew perfectly well what he was doing and what the probable worst case scenario would be.
[* OK, it's not, except metaphorically, but I'm not a lawyer ... thank goodness!]
Now, his prediction has come true.
But “exonerated”? “Vindicated”? “Cleared”?
I don’t think so.
Courage.
================
UPDATE 6:00 AM PDT:
The prosecutorial misconduct was merely a Bush Administration ploy to make themselves appear as though they were vigorously prosecuting malfeasance while providing Stevens with a way to get off the hook.
I don’t know, Phil. Your suggestion assumes competence from the Bushies, and eight years of experience suggests that’s not an easy thing to assume.
I think that the King Midas Theory applies just as well — substituting shite for gold, of course.
Occam’s Razor and all that.
the justice system is partially fault in the Steven’s case, but then it would seem that the public’s short attention span might also be at fault in this and similar scenarios