Feds drop case against former Sen. Stevens

[Hugo Chavez]

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department said Wednesday it would drop corruption charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens because prosecutors withheld evidence from the senator's defense team during his trial.
 
The reversal is an embarrassment for the department, which won a conviction against the Alaska Republican in October and is now asking to overturn it.
 
The week after his conviction, Stevens lost his Senate seat in the November election. The patriarch of Alaska politics since before statehood, Stevens, 85, was also the longest serving Republican senator.
 
He has been awaiting sentencing.
 
Stevens was convicted of seven felony counts of lying on Senate financial disclosure forms to conceal hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and home renovations from a wealthy oil contractor.
 
The trial was beset by government missteps, which continued even after the guilty verdict was read. The trial judge grew so infuriated he took the unusual step of holding the Justice Department in contempt.
 
In court filings, the Justice Department admitted it never turned over notes from an interview with the oil contractor, who estimated the value of the renovation work as far less than he testified at trial.
 

cont... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/stevens_justice

[Dos Equis]

Is this an April Fool's joke?  Will screw up my Democrat Misdeeds thread.   

[Hugo Chavez]

have no idea what you're talking about but I don't think it's an april fools.

[Dos Equis]

Never mind.  He's a Republican. . . .  Shows you how much I know about Alaska.   

[Dos Equis]

what?  You didn't pick this stuff up with Palin bringing Alaska into the light?

ring a bell?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=247836.0
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=243115.msg3416868#msg3416868

I just forgot.  Wasn't a very important item on my radar. 

[Hedgehog]

Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter.
The big issue is that crooked politicians aren't held accountable - they get some special kind of treatment.

[2ND COMING]

wow

all i got to say

[LurkerNoMore]

wow

all i got to say

Yeah.  Me too.  Let's look at the facts.

Stevens = Republican.

OK, so a Republican-led Justice Department prosecuted Ted Stevens, winning a conviction in time for him to be so smeared that he lost his bid for re-election, but bungling it so badly that the newly-Democratic-led Justice Department feels obliged to drop the case.

So they really didn’t need Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh and the blank budget to self-implode. The process was already well underway a year ago.

Right about now is where I would have to say that it makes no sense... but going by the latest GOP actions it fits right in with their Party Of No M.O. it seems.

[tonymctones]

Yeah.  Me too.  Let's look at the facts.

Stevens = Republican.

OK, so a Republican-led Justice Department prosecuted Ted Stevens, winning a conviction in time for him to be so smeared that he lost his bid for re-election, but bungling it so badly that the newly-Democratic-led Justice Department feels obliged to drop the case.

So they really didn’t need Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh and the blank budget to self-implode. The process was already well underway a year ago.

Right about now is where I would have to say that it makes no sense... but going by the latest GOP actions it fits right in with their Party Of No M.O. it seems.

LOL youre a jack ass i hope that helps 

[LurkerNoMore]

LOL youre a jack ass i hope that helps 

Your opinion does not change the facts.  As much as you may wish.

[240 is Back]

lol... i saw steele claiming his first victory last night...


because a repub NY district that was 21% ahead for the repub candidate...

is tied, but leaning toward republican as the only thing remaining are the ansentee ballots.

He was claiming a shoestring victory in a district his party led by 21 points, two months ago.  laugh.

[tonymctones]

Your opinion does not change the facts.  As much as you may wish.

LOL semantics, you should join 240 and others with their neocon CT's

[LurkerNoMore]

LOL semantics, you should join 240 and others with their neocon CT's

Are you denying any part of my post there?

[tonymctones]

Are you denying any part of my post there?

your implying that it was set up to let him go right? facts are one thing opinions are another.

[Decker]

This guy is the same asshole who cried that he'd resign from Congress if the funding was cut for the bridge to nowhere.

He should rot in jail just for that.

[LurkerNoMore]

your implying that it was set up to let him go right? facts are one thing opinions are another.

Is there evidence of this?

Facts are solid, opinions aren't.  I posted FACTS.  You said it was semantics.

Stevens is a Republican.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?
The Justice Dept that convicted him of his charges was Republican lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?
The Justice Dept that over ruled that and threw it out is Democratic lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes on no?

I am implying nothing.  I am pointing out the Repubes convicted one of their one wrongly.

[tonymctones]

Is there evidence of this?

Facts are solid, opinions aren't.  I posted FACTS.  You said it was semantics.

Stevens is a Republican.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?
The Justice Dept that convicted him of his charges was Republican lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?
The Justice Dept that over ruled that and threw it out is Democratic lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes on no?

I am implying nothing.  I am pointing out the Repubes convicted one of their one wrongly.

actually from what i make of it he wsa convicted but due to other shit is being let go they didnt convict him wrongly he deserved to be convicted didnt he? LOL youre implying shit numb nut dont try and play that game im just saying bs.

[Dos Equis]

Is there evidence of this?

Facts are solid, opinions aren't.  I posted FACTS.  You said it was semantics.

Stevens is a Republican.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?
The Justice Dept that convicted him of his charges was Republican lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?
The Justice Dept that over ruled that and threw it out is Democratic lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes on no?

I am implying nothing.  I am pointing out the Repubes convicted one of their one wrongly.

Your facts are wrong. 

The Justice Department didn't convict Stevens.  A jury did.

[LurkerNoMore]

Your facts are wrong. 

The Justice Department didn't convict Stevens.  A jury did.

Who brought the charges about?  Who lead the push?  Who was the prosecutor?

Semantics - haha Tony - aside. 

You can thank the Dems for setting this injustice straight.

[Dos Equis]

Who brought the charges about?  Who lead the push?  Who was the prosecutor?

Semantics - haha Tony - aside. 

You can thank the Dems for setting this injustice straight.

Stevens was prosecuted by the federal government.  The trial was presided over by a judge.  Stevens was convicted by a jury:

Jury finds Sen. Ted Stevens guilty on all counts

by Jill Burke
Monday, October 27, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted on all seven counts in his federal corruption trial Monday, forever staining the political career of the longest-serving Republican senator in history.

The jury of eight women and four men agreed with U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors' accusations that Stevens knowingly made false statements on Senate disclosure forms and schemed to conceal hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts he received regarding the renovation of his Girdwood home.

. . . .

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=9224711
 
You said this:

The Justice Dept that convicted him of his charges was Republican lead.  Is this a fact?  Yes or no?

In response to your question, no it's not a fact.