View Full Version : Eric Holder, Explain yourself
rb336
April-02-09, 07:00 AM
Dropping charges on Ted Stevens when the evidence is so solid?
Is there an age limit on prosecution now?
oldredfordette
April-02-09, 07:52 AM
A good commentary by one of Detroit's most missed journalists.
http://www.ticklethewire.com/2009/04/01/justice-failed-to-deliver-justice-in-the-sen-stevens-trial/
Lowell
April-02-09, 08:25 AM
Hey OJ got off too. Where is the outcry from the 'law and order' right whining about 'going soft on crime'?
I'm no fan of former Sen. Stevens and would bet that he is guilty of what he is charged with. But he does deserve a fair trial and prosecutorial malfeasance is a plague on our justice system. This kind of thing happens all the time at the bottom rungs of our justice system and it now gives Holder leverage to ~hopefully~ address that.
oladub
April-02-09, 09:27 AM
From the orf article, it sounded like the prosecution was stumbling all over itself trying to be inept. It could be that prosecuting a senator brings on the risk of reprisal; that Senator Stevens knows a lot of secrets about his colleagues and could, in turn, bring some of them down. Congress has become a bit too clubby.
vetalalumni
April-02-09, 11:05 AM
From the orf article, it sounded like the prosecution was stumbling all over itself trying to be inept.
This would be illegally conspiratorial. Sad if true.
oladub
April-02-09, 11:37 AM
vetalalumni, It seems unreasonable to believe that such a high profile case could be so thoroughly bungled by the Bush Justice Department's attorneys. There are all sorts of possible explanations. It's possible that the Bush Justice Department stabled some really inept lawyers that are brought out for cases they didn't really want to prosecute. We will soon see if the Obama Justice Department will prosecute this case with more vigor or also leave itself open to criticisms of cronyism.
Johnlodge
April-02-09, 11:44 AM
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b164/digger48/vlcsnap-136181.jpg
ccbatson
April-02-09, 08:34 PM
Evidence was not nearly strong enough.
rb336
April-03-09, 09:24 AM
let's see -- the head of that oil company testifies -- and evidence supports the testimony -- that he did bribe Stevens. QED
ccbatson
April-03-09, 09:46 PM
Was the bribe taken? That is where proof must lie.
otter
April-03-09, 11:01 PM
My, Bats, you are one for short posts.
The case was challenged, and the Justice Department conceded, on essentially procedural grounds. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that Stevens is guilty, guilty, guilty, but the JD prosecuted so badly that they killed their case despite the evidence. Good for the JD for at least recognizing misconduct. I wish they'd do it more often.
O.
jiminnm
April-03-09, 11:11 PM
Withholding potentially exculpatory evidence is prosecutorial misconduct. That is light years beyond procedural grounds. Such conduct may have also precluded that evidence from being used in a subsequent trial.
I don't know if Stevens was guilty or not, and neither do any of you who say he's guilty (although the actual charge was an ethics violation for failure to disclose the "gifts"). The prosecution handled the case badly from the start, being reprimanded a by the judge several times during the trial and being held in comtempt at one point. I fully expect some heavy punishment for them.
ccbatson
April-04-09, 10:20 PM
Innocent until PROVEN guilty, remember?
jiminnm
April-07-09, 02:00 PM
Looks like some more problems for the prosecutors.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/stevens
Gistok
April-07-09, 02:55 PM
Innocent until PROVEN guilty, remember?
After 8 years under the bungling Bush Justice Department, it does become hard to remember....
Just how many of those Guantanamo detainees were PROVEN guilty?? I forgot...
ccbatson
April-07-09, 03:30 PM
Gitmo is not for American citizens and the rights that go along with that.....oops, I forgot, liberals in our goverment conferred these rights on them, didn't they?
rb336
April-07-09, 03:31 PM
No, Bats, our constitution did, as did international law
ccbatson
April-07-09, 03:40 PM
No, our constitution does not apply to non citizens, and international law (the Geneva convention) is a separate set of rules that has never indicated that Our constitutional rights should be applied to non citizens.
Rb, I am surprised at you, this is way below your usual standard.
rb336
April-07-09, 03:48 PM
No, our constitution does not apply to non citizens, and international law (the Geneva convention) is a separate set of rules that has never indicated that Our constitutional rights should be applied to non citizens.
Rb, I am surprised at you, this is way below your usual standard.
Bats, just as all the rest of our laws apply to non-citizens, so do the laws of the constitution. The ONLY rights specifically excluded to non-citizens are the rights to vote and hold elective office. Further, international treaties provide rights to non-citizens, and, as we are signatories to those treaties, our constitution elevates them above state AND federal statutes
ccbatson
April-07-09, 03:51 PM
Not referring to laws, rather to rights.
The laws are for protection of US citizens (from each other, and visiting non citizens).
d.mcc
April-07-09, 05:06 PM
Gitmo is not for American citizens and the rights that go along with that.....oops, I forgot, liberals in our goverment conferred these rights on them, didn't they?
So then technically we have abducted citizens of sovereign nations and placed them in American custody for what purpose???
d.mcc
April-07-09, 05:07 PM
Not referring to laws, rather to rights.
The laws are for protection of US citizens (from each other, and visiting non citizens).
I would make the case that a kidnapped foreign national is "visiting"
ccbatson
April-08-09, 12:06 AM
Taking ununiformed militants trying to kill our soldiers into custody is not kidnapping.
d.mcc
April-08-09, 12:43 AM
Taking ununiformed militants trying to kill our soldiers into custody is not kidnapping.
It is if you have never proven a link to their militant groups, especially if you took them out of homes with no evidence supporting your claims...
ccbatson
April-08-09, 11:43 PM
IF....meanwhile, back on planet Earth....
Detroitej72
April-08-09, 11:52 PM
At least we can see that the Obama Justice Department is not in the business of playing silly party games, as evident by this move.
Wish we could have said the same for the previous administration's JD.
d.mcc
April-09-09, 01:36 AM
IF....meanwhile, back on planet Earth....
I'm sorry...was that supposed to be some thought out retort? Or are you just trying to boost your post count with meaningless drivel because you have no actual thought or rebuttal to what people are saying???
ccbatson
April-09-09, 10:07 PM
"If" they were innocents taken out of their home...an absurd premise...hence the comment that implies the alien nature of the allegation.
rb336
April-13-09, 09:34 AM
"If" they were innocents taken out of their home...an absurd premise...hence the comment that implies the alien nature of the allegation.
actually not an absurd premise at all -- pentagon documents state that as a fact
ccbatson
April-26-09, 08:56 PM
No such documents have been produced.
vetalalumni
June-06-09, 01:10 AM
... the Department’s mission is to do justice, not just win cases ...
Related update --> http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/06/justice-dept-admits-errors-wants-exalaska-lawmakers-freed.html
ccbatson
June-06-09, 08:34 PM
Is that an admission of error from the left?
vetalalumni
June-07-09, 04:34 AM
Is that an admission of error from the left?
Thankfully, thinking people do not simply take your word for it regarding what anything means. Quite evident what you seek. A few will believe your drums of fear, and that is about all you've got.
rb336
June-08-09, 07:43 AM
No such documents have been produced.
yes, they have
ccbatson
July-26-09, 08:08 PM
Hilarious Rb...."yes they do"....and....waiting...waiting...a link? no....waiting, waiting...a clip? No, nothing?
ccbatson
July-26-09, 09:57 PM
Only the Shadow knows.
Nope,
"Roxanne, turn on the Red Light"
ccbatson
August-02-09, 06:31 PM
Back on topic...those that foist politically motivated false charges for media and political ends know that they do not need to pursue them after they have accomplished their goals.
Detroitej72
August-02-09, 09:32 PM
Back on topic...those that foist politically motivated false charges for media and political ends know that they do not need to pursue them after they have accomplished their goals.
That's exactly what Bush did in the months leading up to the 2004 election. Remember how the terror alert level was raised about every other day and Cheney even went on to say that if Kerry were elected president, we would be attacked again.
Typical fear mongering by the right to scare people into voting for them. Bush & co. should be ashamed of themselves for stooping so low, but we all know how those arrogant elitests think- they will never acknowledge or show any shame.
ccbatson
August-03-09, 03:31 PM
Who did GWB bring up on charges, or investigate unfairly?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.