Posted on 04/07/2009 9:02:13 AM PDT by VRWCTexan
WASHINGTON – A judge has dismissed charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens because of prosecutorial misconduct and has ordered a criminal contempt investigation of the prosecutors.
"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said in the opening moments of a hearing.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You probably don’t indict a sitting US Senator with the approval of the AG, unless of course you’re a special prosecutor. I’m not familiar with how PIS works, but let’s stipulate it works just the way you describe.
There’s a HUGE difference between the approval of pursuing an indictment and the prosecutors engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. Also, there’s no allegation that Gonzales (or anyone else for that matter in the Bush Administration) knew of the misconduct before, during or after the trial. It seems to me that you (and most of the MSM) is trying to give these prosecutors the benefit of the doubt that this wasn’t politically motivated because the prosecution occurred during Bush’s and Gonzalez’ tenure.
I believe nothing could be further from the truth. It is plausible, perhaps even likely, that these prosecutors acted unethically and even criminally precisely because if their political leanings, despite who their bosses may or may not have been.
If the Bush administration Justice Department had only prosecuted Senator Stevens, I might be able to give you the benefit of the doubt but what about Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney, Arizona Republican Congressman Rick Renzi, Jack Abramoff and Lewis “Scooter” Libby?
Can you name a top Democrat that they prosecuted under Ashcroft, Gonzales or Mukasey? Its the Attorney General’s responsiblity to make those calls.
Excellent!
Perhaps you should look at a lengthier resume of Judge Emmett Sullivan.
He is not your enemy and has a long record of upholding the law in the name of truth and justice, not partisanship.
Well, the Waco and Gonzales cases are completely different from what's going on here. Waco and Gonzales were both green-lit from the White House; Of that, there is no question. The FBI didn't decide to assault the compound on their own, nor did ICE (INS at the time) decide to raid a house a kidnap a small child on their own. They were following orders. No one can claim that these prosecutors were following orders to act in an unethical or illegal manner. They did that all on their own.
As for who the DOJ prosecuted or did not prosecute during the Bush tenure, I'm not an expert. But I'd say that we're in some agreement here. Bush and his three AG's certainly weren't bashful about prosecuting Republicans. In fact, besides the Alabama Insurance case (I belive the guys name is Don Siegelman, but am not positive), I don't think that there were any high-profile cases that were brought against Dems or big Dem supporters. The William Jefferson case still hasn't made it to an indictment, let alone a trial.
But, some are claiming that this Stephens case can't be politically motivated because it happened under Bush's watch. With this, I disagree. I think that these prosecutors (career or otherwise) were looking to score political points during a contentious election year.
The whistleblower didn't file his complaint until December, while the court was dealing with post trial motions -- and the prosecutors tried to withhold that from Stevens, too.
When Bush was elected he left them all in place and only when he dismissed the 8 late in his second term was there a stink raised by the left.
US Attorneys are replaced by incoming administrations and that is nothing unusual. For a little discussion and background the following is offered:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html
The ends justify the means... Yada... Yada... Yada...
Was Janet Reno responsible for Waco and for Elian Gonzales or were they the fault of politically motivated underlings?
Well, the Waco and Gonzales cases are completely different from what’s going on here. Waco and Gonzales were both green-lit from the White House; Of that, there is no question. The FBI didn’t decide to assault the compound on their own, nor did ICE (INS at the time) decide to raid a house a kidnap a small child on their own. They were following orders. No one can claim that these prosecutors were following orders to act in an unethical or illegal manner. They did that all on their own.
As for who the DOJ prosecuted or did not prosecute during the Bush tenure, I’m not an expert. But I’d say that we’re in some agreement here. Bush and his three AG’s certainly weren’t bashful about prosecuting Republicans. In fact, besides the Alabama Insurance case (I belive the guys name is Don Siegelman, but am not positive), I don’t think that there were any high-profile cases that were brought against Dems or big Dem supporters. The William Jefferson case still hasn’t made it to an indictment, let alone a trial.
But, some are claiming that this Stephens case can’t be politically motivated because it happened under Bush’s watch. With this, I disagree. I think that these prosecutors (career or otherwise) were looking to score political points during a contentious election year.
The Judge in the Stevens case is a Clinton appointee to his current position on the US District Court bench.
Perhaps you should look at a lengthier resume of Judge Emmett Sullivan.
He is not your enemy and has a long record of upholding the law in the name of truth and justice, not partisanship.
It is now coming to light that the FBI agent, involved in both the Stevens case and the prosecution of those legislators you list, carried on an "inappropriate relationship" with the star prosecution witness, Bill Allen. Allen is the one who gave statements to the FBI (exculpatory evidence that was withheld from Stevens) and testified completely differently on the witness stand. I am wondering how many of these other prosecutions are tainted and may be appealed as a result.
Wow. If these people ever practice law anywhere again, something is seriously broken with our system. The conspired, at great length before, during and after the fact to deprive a man of his constitutional rights and freedom. There's got to be some jail time here for these prosecutors.
I'm not saying Stevens wasn't guilty of anything. In fact, I'm pretty sure he was. But the prosecution can't put it's thumb on the scale and expect faith in the system to endure.
I think maybe I have a better grasp on the operation of the DOJ than you seem to think you do.
Sorry, didn’t mean to single you out. I just wanted to make the point that Sullivan is a good guy, not a partisan and that Clinton’s appointment does not make him such (as he was appointed by both pubbies and dems). On another thread, someone suggested that Emmett Sullivan was the bad guy in this affair and was just out to get “Bush’s DOJ.”
I continue to be amazed at all the folks who claim Clinton fired all the USAs and that Bush did not. Hence, a bit more disclosure can never hurt.
I’m pretty sure that Stevens only guilt was having a friendship with a scumbag like Bill Allen.
If you read some of the court filings and trial transcripts, you will place your jaw in an open-wide position for quite some time.
I want to see the prosecutors, fired, prosecuted, jailed, and disbarred. And the same goes for the FBI agent.
I happened to see Katie Couric interviewing Holder earlier this evening. Not something I would normally see, I’m not sure how it happened.
Anyway, I must say, she was pressing him reasonably hard, and he was stonewalling, standing up for the integrity of the JD, etc.
Holder is a POS but "the previous administration's Justice Deartment" does indeed look corrupt. Because it was.
Thank You
You’re welcome.
The whistleblower FBI agent, Chad Joy, made his discontent known on many occasions. You can read his complaint here:
You can also read the judges order which lays out the history of the complaint and the dilly-dallying/obfuscation attempts by the prosecutors to either withhold the complaint entirely or to keep it shielded under seal from public view:
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/01/15/08/docket0261.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
Wow, we need this judge to review Fitzfong’s prosecutorial misconduct throughout Plamegate!!!!!!!!!!
Too bad the system doesn’t work that way -— there would have to be an actual case relating to Plamegate brought before this judge, with enough relevant issues stemming from the grossly biased and incompetent “investigation” (so called) carried out in Plamegate. oh well.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.