Eric Holder, Explain yourself

[rb336]

Dropping charges on Ted Stevens when the evidence is so solid?

Is there an age limit on prosecution now?

[oldredfordette]

A good commentary by one of Detroit's most missed journalists.

http://www.ticklethewire.com/2009/04...stevens-trial/

[Lowell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[ccbatson]

Evidence was not nearly strong enough.

[rb336]

let's see -- the head of that oil company testifies -- and evidence supports the testimony -- that he did bribe Stevens. QED

[ccbatson]

Was the bribe taken? That is where proof must lie.

[otter]

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]

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]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty, remember?

[jiminnm]

Looks like some more problems for the prosecutors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/stevens

[Gistok]

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]

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]

No, Bats, our constitution did, as did international law

[ccbatson]

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]

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]

Not referring to laws, rather to rights.

The laws are for protection of US citizens [[from each other, and visiting non citizens).

[d.mcc]

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]

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]

Taking ununiformed militants trying to kill our soldiers into custody is not kidnapping.

[d.mcc]

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]

IF....meanwhile, back on planet Earth....