Ted Stevens case...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

I'm not sure what we got going on here.

Do we have a Senator being vindicated after and improper and phony investigation?

Or, do we have the system looking after it's own by letting Stevens off the hook after he's served his purpose? Point being that any and all Senators can look forward to being pardoned, in effect, no matter what they've done, at the end of the day, thus protecting the integrity of the institution.

I've yet to hear a peep about whether or not he is guilty; only that the prosecutors withheld evidence.

Hmm...

[ImnoMensa]

You arent the only one wondering what's going on.

The liberals seem to be making a big deal about this happening on Bush's watch, but the Chief prosecutor they are investigating ,Brenda Morris, is definitely an Obama voter.

[SamSpade]

I don't get it myself, really.

As far as I can tell, it revolves around work done on one of his homes, and he was convicted. But it appears that the prosecutors and the FBI withheld evidence and did whatever they could to thwart the testimony of witnesses and entrance of evidence that would have exonerated him. The story I've read is horrendous.

They're throwing out the conviction, and probably rightly so. As near as I can tell, he was convicted of lying - which, if he was telling the truth, means he wasn't guilty - and of effectively taking a bribe in the form of house renovations.

As I mentioned, I don't quite get it, because the "bribe" seems to hinge on whose money was spent and how much the home was worth and how much the labor was worth. Stevens did pay for renovations, but the story was they did a lot more than he paid for. As near as I can tell, this is baloney, and the persons who could corroborate that were either prevented from saying so, or lying.

Maybe someone who understands it better can explain it.

[huntr1]

The dems wanted his seat. They got it. They no longer care about him.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I'm not sure what we got going on here.

Do we have a Senator being vindicated after and improper and phony investigation?

Or, do we have the system looking after it's own by letting Stevens off the hook after he's served his purpose? Point being that any and all Senators can look forward to being pardoned, in effect, no matter what they've done, at the end of the day, thus protecting the integrity of the institution.

I've yet to hear a peep about whether or not he is guilty; only that the prosecutors withheld evidence.

Hmm...

He may or may not have been the recipient of some normal (but wrong) political hand-greasing. However, the prosecutors failed to follow the rule of law in prosecuting him (repeatedly, perhaps criminally). So, they've let him off the hook to go after the worser criminals (the prosecutors).

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I
As I mentioned, I don't quite get it, because the "bribe" seems to hinge on whose money was spent and how much the home was worth and how much the labor was worth. Stevens did pay for renovations, but the story was they did a lot more than he paid for. As near as I can tell, this is baloney, and the persons who could corroborate that were either prevented from saying so, or lying.

Maybe someone who understands it better can explain it.

And that's part of why I think the 'system' is making this go away. How many elected members of congress have gotten the same thing on any number of levels, products, services, etc?

ALL of them.

[vraiblonde]

Why did Ted Stevens get convicted of this, yet half the Obama administration cheated on their taxes, and nothing happened to them?

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

And that's part of why I think the 'system' is making this go away. How many elected members of congress have gotten the same thing on any number of levels, products, services, etc?

ALL of them.

From what I read, though, he only got more than he paid for depending on whose evidence you look at and whose testimony you get to hear. Others were on hand to testify that the home value was less and the labor was correctly priced and no one but Stevens spent their own money - in which case, he'd be exonerated.

It's probably true that others in Congress got favors they didn't pay for or deserve. Stevens didn't exactly have a spotty record over his tenure. His own party wanted him to resign. Compare this to William Jefferson, who never did face the music, and was almost re-elected - TWICE. (The original cash in the freezer came in 2005. He barely lost a runoff election in 2008). No calls for his removal.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

From what I read, though, he only got more than he paid for depending on whose evidence you look at and whose testimony you get to hear. Others were on hand to testify that the home value was less and the labor was correctly priced and no one but Stevens spent their own money - in which case, he'd be exonerated.

It's probably true that others in Congress got favors they didn't pay for or deserve. Stevens didn't exactly have a spotty record over his tenure. His own party wanted him to resign. Compare this to William Jefferson, who never did face the music, and was almost re-elected - TWICE. (The original cash in the freezer came in 2005. He barely lost a runoff election in 2008). No calls for his removal.

There's certainly a bias, however, Stevens got whacked under a GOP potus.