It the ultimate example of hubris, former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska is claiming vindication in the decision of the Justice Department to drop the case against him. In the meantime, the Alaska GOP is calling for Sen. Mark Begich to step down.
Stevens’ statement that he has been vindicated by this action is positively ludicrous. If the decision to drop the case was made to “protect justice,” it was the Justice Department itself not hte system of justice. By dropping the case, the Department may have been motivated primarily to end the judicial scrutiny of its lawyers and any continued sanctions. Stevens clearly did not receive a fair trial and deserves a new trial. He also deserved to be charged and re-tried on the charges.
For many of us, it was astonishing that after years of allegations of corruption and special dealing by the Stevens family, the Bush Administration indicted him on the narrowest and most technical grounds. However, even if you take away all of the evidence tainted by these allegations, Stevens would still have likely been convicted. The trial seemed to turn not on this evidence or even the testimony of people like Allen, but Stevens’ own testimony. The jury simply did not believe him or his wife on the stand. While it is sometimes necessary for “the criminal to go free because the constable blundered,” this is a case where the prosecutors blundered.
State GOP party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, said that the Begich won because “a few thousand Alaskans thought that Senator Stevens was guilty of seven felonies.” Really, a few thousand? Stevens was widely viewed as virtually walking the halls of the Senate with a credit card machine on his belt for the last couple of decades. Ruedrick wants Begich to step down and Gov. Sarah Palin concurs and has called for a special election.
The demand for a special election is perfectly bizarre, of course. However, it shows again that some Alaskans are still perfectly willing to embrace Stevens and his scandalized family.
For the full story, click here.
Maybe a qui tam suit against Stevens for violating the public trust and a judicially forced disgorging of the profits unlawfully obtained would shut these crooks up.
BTW where are Patty C and Buddha? Come on we need you both back in the conversation.
Mespo:
I was just thinking that myself and was going to ask you.
Buddha,
I miss your musings and analysis.
By the way I havent seen CCD for awhile either and FFLEO and Rcampbell only once or twice lately.
Have you guys started another blog?
Stevens’ claim of vindication is indeed misguided, but the demands that Senator Begich step down are sure signs of the gasping desperation of the GOP.
Let me get this straight: Obama’s AG pick is afraid of scrutiny of his new Dept’s conduct during the former administration so he goes beyond even what the defense was seeking (a new trial) and dismisses the case thereby handing the GOP a false talking point about Stevens’ alleged “innocence” and opening the door to Palin’s plea for the elected Senator to step down so that the formerly convicted Senator, who was caught on tape, can run again because the Bush Justice Dept. did not disclose to Stevens’ lawyers that Paul Allen said he gave the Senator less than $100K rather than $250K.
Isn’t a better way of looking at this fiasco not that the “prosecutor blundered” but that Holder has allowed the beltway establishment to breathe easier as he’s demonstrated a willingness to not only make Clinton donors’ convictions disappear but also to take care of Obama’s former colleagues’ convictions, even when they’re from the other side of the aisle? In short, doesn’t Holder’s ability to take care of those pesky convictions that occur when laws are applied to the elites demonstrate his, and by extension Obama’s, lack of convictions to the rule of law? Isn’t this yet another example of some animals being more equal than others rather than a new commitment to Due Process?
If prosecutorial misconduct was as egregious as has been reported, then the decision by Mr. Holder was appropriate. It is to be expected that Mr. Stevens will claim “vindication,” but a declination to prosecute is not equivalent to an acquittal and will not remove the cloud of corruption, regardless of the braying of the Alaska GOP. Sen. Begich was validly elected and the demands that he step down merely reflect a Republican Party in complete disarray. Indeed, had Mr. Stevens felt confident about his re-election prospects, he could have waived speedy trial and postponed the trial until after the election.
What About bob,
Could you be more stupid in your comments? Steven was prosecuted by the Bush DOJ, not Democrats. Do you think Bush was trying to help the Democrats win the Senate? Perhaps you do, given the dumbness of your comments. Three reasons they may have prosecuted Stevens, laid out easy for your simple mind:
1. He pissed of someone in the Bush/Cheney axis badly.
2. He was running behind in the Alaska polls for a long time
and so they wanted him to step down.
3. They purposely did it to give him the possibility of an
appeal and overturn, because it covered up even greater
malfeasance on his part in which they were involved.
In any event the Democrats had nothing to do with it. Minnesota is your absurdity, your guy lost and will be shown to be a crook to boot. As for the Presidential election, the people whose anuses you like to lick stole the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, but couldn’t steal this one because the margin of victory was too high. Please do write more though because you provide us with laughs. I don’t usually like to make fun of the intellectually challenged people, but given your lack of understanding of Democracy and support for war crimes committing traitors, I’ll gladly wipe the floor with you and your un-American, un-patriotic friends.
David,
Good conspiracy theoretics, bad logic and conclusions. C-
Buddha,
come back, come back, wherever you are
I am still here. I also noticed the lack of postings by Buddha, Patty C, and CCD. Sometimes the comments are spot on and therefore no compelling reason to post what has already been eloquently stated.
I would also like to see more comments by attorneys Vince Treacy and David.
Also come back Patty C. and CCD. Though I must say I’m going north for a week for Passover with my children and I won’t be around either for a bit. Perhaps the press of work or other responsibilities is what has kept them away?
FFLEO, Bron, Etc.
I remember Buddha mentioning that his life was pretty frantic right now a week or two ago. Patty disappears on a fairly regular basis, I have a feeling she has a much fuller social calender than the at least myself.
MikeS:
I never did like Norm Coleman, personally I am glad Sen Franken was able to “steal” the election from Norm. And it sure did sound to me that Uncle Ted was a crook. Hopefully for the next election in 2010 we can get some real honest to god conservatives in office and not these pissant, penny ante types. And I hope that Palin is not anointed as head of the Republican Party, I will be absent for that vote.
All you “conservatives” out there if you vote for Palin you are f….ing your party into oblivion. Find a real conservative to take the reins and forget about Palin the Populist. Once her real views are known you wont get a real conservative to vote for her. She looks good and does well with crowds but look at her stand on issues other than abortion and gun control. Basically she is SOB (same ole Bush (no pun intended)).
I echo the call for more people speaking again or anew on this blog. CEJ made an excellent factual find to counter misinformation which A Patriot Acting picked up on. These are really important issues, and more voices are welcome. Also, more silliness is a lot of fun as JT does write some, make that many, hilarious posts!
Buddha had mentioned some personal issues he was dealing with a few days ago and I suspect that may be occupying his time. Patty C is more of an enigma. Hopefully she’ll rejoin our cast soon and bring her own brand of analysis to these topics. I am going to The Homestead for a few day myself, but when I return I need Patty C’s vegetable soup recipe. Her sabbatical has to end by next Wednesday at the latest, since I can’t find her previous posting. Seriously, both are sorely missed, but hopefully are following our proceedings from afar.
Very hot topic on the East Coast at this very minute:
Officials: Multiple Fatalities At NY Center… At Least Six Wounded… As Many As 41 Hostage Taken Hostage
Only a Republican would consider actually counting all the votes as stealing an election.
In Minnesota, judges at all levels and judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled AGAINST Coleman’s campaign. I saw a statistic earlier this week that some 191,000 pages of filings have been reviewed and ruled upon by several judges and panels.
How tortured is the logic that would suggest Sen Stevens was done in by the Democrats and that a verdict of his peers constitutes the Democrats stealing an election?
And President Obama won his in a 53%-46% squeaker that went to the courts for final results??
What a loser!
Only a Republican would consider actually counting all the votes as stealing an election.
In Minnesota, judges at all levels and judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled AGAINST Coleman’s campaign. I saw a statistic earlier this week that some 191,000 pages of filings have been reviewed and ruled upon by several judges and panels.
How tortured is the logic that would suggest Sen Stevens was done in by the Democrats and that a verdict of his peers constitutes the Democrats stealing an election?
And President Obama won his in a 53%-46% squeaker that went to the courts for final results??
What a whining loser!
rcampbell,
Reality, does not describe current Republican, hypocrisy does.
Mike-
Can you elaborate on where you think I used bad logic or drew the wrong conclusions? If you look at the Stevens case academically, asking whether the govt should be able to convict when the prosecutor blunders this badly, the answer is clearly no. But defense attorneys, confronting issues similar to this one, usually can’t get past “harmless error.” For example, I lost an appeal last month in which the prosecutor, upset that the defendant wouldn’t plead to conspiracy, sent the defense attorney an email before the trial stating “I really don[’]t give a shit re trying to settle this case and… now want to convict him of everything I can so he gets the most time he can get as he has been f–ing me around big time…and that… is about the only thing that could ever make this personal.”
The man will now likely die in prison because the trial court held that he not only needed to show vindictiveness such as this, but also needed to demonstrate that these threats were carried out to his detriment. The appellate court affirmed without even a comment.
So as we celebrate Holder supposedly nobly standing up for Due Process when a Senator is involved, I laugh, knowing that this is a better demonstration of Holder ignoring the Equal Protection Clause and attempting to reframe it as upholding the Constitution when he’s actually ignoring it. Do you think he would have even agreed to a new trial if the defendant were a poor bricklayer from Lincoln, like my client?
Not a chance. His supposed shock at these tactics (which didn’t appear in his statement) is a little like the Captain in Casablanca who was “shocked that gambling was going on in here.”
When it comes to applying the rule of law, we don’t look to telecoms, torturers or Senators. We instead “round up the usual suspects.”
David:
“The man will now likely die in prison because the trial court held that he not only needed to show vindictiveness such as this, but also needed to demonstrate that these threats were carried out to his detriment. The appellate court affirmed without even a comment.”
Regarding your appeal, how heavily did prosecutorial discretion factor into the calculus of the decision?
“So as we celebrate Holder supposedly nobly standing up for Due Process when a Senator is involved, I laugh, knowing that this is a better demonstration of Holder ignoring the Equal Protection Clause and attempting to reframe it as upholding the Constitution when he’s actually ignoring it. Do you think he would have even agreed to a new trial if the defendant were a poor bricklayer from Lincoln, like my client?”
I honestly don’t see how the EP clause applies here; i.e. with the absence of a protected class and the presence of prosecutorial discretion.
David,
My point re: your logic comes down to looking for the simplest explanation possible. We know the Bush DOJ is corrupt.
Holder does also, but he is faced with many holdovers that are
hard to fire. Withholding of evidence for discovery, as you well know, does taint a trial and the defenses ability to make their case. Steven case was egregious, even if the man is detestable. This allowed Holder to make a point to DOJ that he will not tolerate sidestepping the law to win prosecutions and doing it with a highly visible case. To impute other motives to him begs the question and the facts as we know them.
I’m as cynical about prosecutions as you must be as an attorney. The example you offered annoys me primarily because the prosecutor makes the defendants natural self protection and his refusal to plead to conspiracy, into a personal affront. That person is unfit to be a prosecutor and understands the concept of the law less than I do and I’m not a lawyer. That the appeal was denied was a pity because it means the prosecutor will get no blowback for his hubris macho. I’ve no doubt we’re both aware that this is a common occurrence in our legal system and one of its’ flaws.
Bob- Prosecutorial discretion didn’t factor in much except that the court focused on the fact that the prosecutor did not exercise it to increase the charges after making the vindictive comments. I argued, unsuccessfully, that this wasn’t the only way it could have been carried out.
You’re right too that Holder was validly using pros discretion in dismissing against Stevens. My point isn’t that I could have prevailed on an EP argument in court but that we should be suspicious when a member of the ultimate “protected class-” a Senator heavily funded by the oil industry and who was accused of lying about receiving its gifts- has his conviction dismissed. Perhaps I was wrong to presume that this was a “head fake” by Holder as it may indeed be the first step toward reforming the atrocities of the Bush Justice Dept. I’m just suspicious about Holder’s supposed noble motives given his position to continue to invoke state secrets in the Al Haramain case, the only one that could uncover the extent of warrantless wiretapping. The test of Holder’s commitment to a new way will be whether he dismisses under similar facts when the press isn’t watching and I’ll believe that when I see it.
Mike- I hope you’re not really as cynical as I wouldn’t wish that on anyone! Just kidding. You may be right that Holder is “mak[ing] a point to DOJ that he will not tolerate sidestepping the law to win prosecutions.” My fear is that “by doing it with a highly visible case” he may be inadvertently sending a message that some animals are more equal that others on the animal farm. The test will be whethe his message trickles down to prevent these tactics in non-visible case. Time will tell I guess. I try not to be cynical, not always succeeding, but to remain skeptical, aware of I.F. Stone’s warning that “all governments lie” and Lord Acton’s that “absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”
Holder’s decision to release information regarding torture- which is supposedly unleashing “holy hell”- is cause for optimism, or at least against cynicism, which I can definitely use.
Cheers!
David,
Did you get a chance to watch Bill Moyer’s Journal last night? The William Black interview on the economic fraud perpetrated by our govt. against our citizens was very indicative of your point that “some animals are more equal than others”. Memebers of our own govt. and their allies in the financial industry have brought down this economy yet nothing happens to them. No one is fired, in fact, they are promoted, given their bonuses, and we even have another GS BFF being added to the administration. This cannot be looked at as accidental. Black points to real fraud and the cover up of that fraud, neither of which is being investigated by the DOJ. There is a pattern of patronage to the connected, of the connected and by the connected at the highest levels of our govt. I would say what happened with Ted Stevens fits right in.
David,
We probably have similar dubious outlooks on the ability of
corruption to trump the law. Your quoting Animal Farm, I.F.Stone and Lord Acton certainly reflect much of my thoughts on our present political/legal problems. As an old codger who has been at this for many years I try to subsume my cynicism and replace it with hopeful idealism. This is mainly because I think a positive outlook may somewhat increase my lifespan and because of hope for progeny who I want to see have good lives. I must admit though that in the deep recesses of my consciousness cynicism is lurking, based on life/career experiences. I’m sure you and the other lawyers on this site, including JT himself, have to fight a similar battle based on your work experiences.
David:
“Prosecutorial discretion didn’t factor in much except that the court focused on the fact that the prosecutor did not exercise it to increase the charges after making the vindictive comments. I argued, unsuccessfully, that this wasn’t the only way it could have been carried out.”
From what skeletal info I’ve been able to glean, it appears that you and your client were stuck with a poor scenario from the beginning. If the prosecutor was insistent on a plea to conspiracy, and then lost his cool when your client wouldn’t accept, it sounds more like the prosecutor had the goods to make the case but would rather be out golfing instead. In such a case, it’s not the prosecutor’s vindictiveness that brought about the lengthy sentence but the client’s refusal to accept his situation and realize his limited options.
Recall also how easy it is for a prosecutor to gaff a defendant into a charge of conspiracy. Take John W. Dean for example. Attorney Dean, though not a criminal lawyer, did EVERYTHING he could to avoid being wrapped up in the Watergate scandal yet he was still charged with criminal conspiracy. He may never have served a day in jail, i.e. placed under house arrest while he cooperated, but the charge stuck nonetheless.
Accordingly, if your client, or the client that the trial lawyer handed to you, refused to play ball while failing to adhere to the Clint Eastwood maxim: “A man’s got to know his limitations” then it’s not your fault that he shot himself in the foot.
“You’re right too that Holder was validly using pros discretion in dismissing against Stevens. My point isn’t that I could have prevailed on an EP argument in court but that we should be suspicious when a member of the ultimate “protected class-” a Senator heavily funded by the oil industry and who was accused of lying about receiving its gifts- has his conviction dismissed.”
I agree, but that’s more of an abuse of prosecutorial discretion rather than an EP argument. And if that be the case, you look first to the document to which the prosecutor owes his very existence. I’m guessing your case was a state level case, and therefore I’d look to the state constitution and pick out each and every clause that the prosecutor contradicted while stating “how is it that the prosecutor is empowered to contradict the very document to which it owes its existence?”
Also recall just how anemic the EP clause really is. Remember Bush v. Gore? Did you know that one of the foremost experts on EP law, Erwin Chereminsky, wrote a law review article stating that EP was never the issue; that the entire case hinged on Justiciability? It was a separation of powers/Justiciability case; never capable of reaching the first prong of any issue relating to the EP clause. But I digress.
Finally, while I agree in sentiment on your labeling of a functionally ‘ultimate protected class,’ the truth is that label is legally irrelevant. And the way I always remember that is a story my contracts professor told us about the lawyer who was turned down for an apartment simply because he was a lawyer and the landlord didn’t want a litigator residing on his premises. Could the lawyer sue? Nope; he’s not a protected class.
Seems the only way to take down the Goliath ‘ultimate protected class’ is by showing a conspiracy to use said influence to corrupt the judicial system and perhaps commit fraud on the court as well.
Whew. And that’s all I got to say about that.
SIYOM,
Bob
P.S. When you get real frustrated, i.e. like having your appellate victory OVER TURNED by your opposition re-appealing the issue in the lower court (eh hem… cough, gag) you may want to have your preliminary statement read:
“MANKIND HAS NOT EVOLVED AN INCH FROM THE SLIME THAT SPAWNED HIM!”
Jill, Great minds must think alike as the Moyers/Black is playing in the background right now as I taped it earlier. I see why The Shock Doctrine was called the “master narrative of our time.”
Mike, I just heard I.F. Stone say “to make some impact is such a pleasure” as I watched the Moyers interview of Black. His son then described “decades of loneliness” that came before his success, so I guess the saying about “taking the bitter with the better” must be true. Thanks.
Bob, I came into this case late in the game as I was appointed after he lost his 2255 motion, but your instincts are all correct. It’s too bad he didn’t take the deal, but I fear that he . You’re right, it’s too bad he didn’t take the offer as he’d likely be getting out pretty soon. Thanks for the tips.
It would appear the judge isn’t quite done with Stevens.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/65538.html
Buddha,
The judiciary seems to be our last line of defense in upholding the rule of law. This is good news.