[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
7 Apr
Democrats Subverted Democracy in Stevens Corruption Fiasco
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm | 13 views
Stats
Common, Mike. He was prosecuted by the Bush administration Justice Department and it was Obama’s Attorney General who asked the judge to dismiss all charges.
Give credit where credit is due.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach
Mike,
First, Welch was appointed to his position by Alberto Gonzalez, in a DOJ known for vetting employees by political affiliation.
Second, it was Senator Stevens, not the prosecution who chose to have the trial before the election.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/480507.html
Third, it was the AG apppointed by President Obama who chose to dismiss the charges against Sen. Stevens.
Usually when “the fix is in” everyone covers their tracks a whole lot better than that. If you “hit” somebody, you don’t leave a gun with your fingerprints on it at the crime scene. And a member of your “crew” doesn’t turn you in.
Finally, and most importantly, you turn a rank allegation into a statement of fact: “Democrats Subverted Democracy”
What is clear from the facts is that a prosecutor, who is a Democrat, committed gross prosecutorial misconduct for which, per an annoucement today, he will be held in contempt of court. His career path is in free fall.
So much for that job he wanted in Massachusetts.
Mike,
Steven’s lost the election. There was no Stolen Senate seat here. He lost simple as that!
Why would Mark Begich even consider something as stupid as a demand from Palin for a re-election? That’s insane. get over it he lost..
BTW Fanken now leads Coleman after todays court count of absentee ballots by 312 votes.
It’s my state too. I would much rather have Fanken than Coleman.
Another republican LOST!! bye bye Coleman
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/minnesota_senate
off topic… The illustration is pretty cool!!!
the scales of justice should be blind to political bullshit. i agree that holder was the bigger man in this case, but the doj prosecuters were way out of line. they never should have pulled the crap they did. they way to get a fare and correct verdict is to play by the rules, and follow the rules. i think stevens is most likelly guilty, i didn’t get invited to the court room so i can’t say for certain, i doubt he did anything more/less wrong than many in politics and that is tragic. poiticians should be held to a higher standard, as should public officials. makes me sick that the “defenders” of our laws are the ones breaking the laws. do i think stevens should get his seat back, not sure on that one, he wanted a fast trial because he thought he would be aquitted. makes one wonder if the evidence that was withheld would have gotten him off.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’m “common” now am I? I thought you doctor types were supposed to be soooo much smarter than the rest of us. What’s a matter? Your teleprompter break?
@Dave Noble: Give me the links which show Welch was a secret Republican plant…. come on… or should I say COMMON?
@Real American Patriot: I bet you still think Bush stole Florida in 2000. Here we have clear evidence of tampering with the democratic process and you are in denial. Why am I not surprised?
@luva the scissors: Holder only got out in front of this thing when he realized what had been going on. Their main task of winning the senate seat was accomplished so now it’s time to pull the wool over our eyes.
Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me Mike!
Clear evidence you have failed to provide.
@Real American Patriot: CRAP, I’m still waiting for your apology for accusing me of “BS” on the first Tedisco thread. Now you come and play the same game again? Sorry, but you don’t have any credibility AT ALL.
Mike,
I didn’t say it was a Republican hit job. But having been appointed by Gonzalez, it’s hard to say Welch was a Democratic plant.
Luva,
Nice even-handed post. If you had said you thought Stevens was innocent or there should be a a new election I would have been fine with that, too. You are spot on about the prosecutors.
Didn’t Governor Palin earlier call for Stevens to resign?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/28/mccain_stevens_should_resign.html
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate, this afternoon also called upon Stevens to resign, arguing that he should not serve in Congress next year even if he wins re-election next week.
“After being found guilty on seven felony counts, I had hoped Senator Stevens would take the opportunity to do the statesman-like thing and erase the cloud that is covering his Senate seat,” Palin said in a statement. “He has not done so. Alaskans are grateful for his decades of public service but the time has come for him to step aside. Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Stevens should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress.”
Talk about selective memory….
I can see the Internet from my House
@mooseburger:
Palin called for Stevens to resign after he was convicted.
That makes perfect sense.
What, exactly, was your point?
NEW ELECTION – ONLY WAY TO RIGHT THE INJUSTICE DONE BY DEMS.
projecting from my personal experience:
we know holder is as corrupt as they come. Marc rich was just an error of judgement! come on!
we know stevens has been around a long time. we also believe (i chose not to say “know”) that he is corrupt as they come.
well respected attorneys from the U.S. Justice Department blow this easy case soooo bad that the judge dismisses it.
the obvious question is: what does stevens have on holder?
did holder tell his people to fall on their sword to protect his fanny? could be……..
the judge asking for an inquiry and not letting the AG do it is unheard of.
this is a story worth watching. there is more to come.
@Real American Patriot:
I see that some 12,000 absentee or mail-in ballots have been thrown out of the count for various reasons. Is Minnesota really that inept or is this just criminal conduct with northern charm? Either way, whether it is Coleman or the embarrassing Franken, Minnesota should be completely ashamed of the way it has conducted this election.
Aye Chihuahua said:
@mooseburger:
Palin called for Stevens to resign after he was convicted.
That makes perfect sense.
What, exactly, was your point?
The point is that Stevens still had appeals and declared that he would indeed apeal the verdict, and she and McCain were just trying to score political points in calling for his resignation right before the election. Now she knows that Senator Begich isn’t going to resign, but is calling for him to step down to score more political points.
If she were a woman of principle, she wouldn’t try to have it both ways. Even if Stevens would prevail in a special election should Begich resign there would still be “the cloud that is covering his Senate seat” since it was Bush appointed prosecutorial misconduct that tainted the trial verdict and not a clear not guilty verdict in his favor.
@Dave Noble: thats the way i see it, i think evidence was held back for a reason and that reason was for a dem to gain the seat. was stevens guilty, most likelly, but he should have gotten a fare trial. justice is only as good as those who are seeking it, and it was no good here. i usually don’t like your posts dave, no shock there i am sure, but i do have a mind of my own and this is how i see this situation. i wonder what pelosi was gotten, or dodd, or any number of other politicians. they should all be held to a higher standard as i said before. i am an ordinary ciizen and as such i am not expected to know certain things, like they don’t speak austrian in austria, i am a hairdresser and i know this. i am not supposed to understand the law per se, but i am supposed to obey the law, correct? well, really, why in the hell should i when the rejects who are “running” the country (into the ground) don’t follow the law? they don’t pay taxes, they don’t deal with the illegal domestic help properly, let me tell you, if i had help they would be treated like gold. anyway, i am expected to follow the law, and i do for the most part, i do still talk on my cell while driving but i think that is a nannie law so they can kiss my butt, wait, maybe i should just have that attitude about all laws…nah, i was raised better than that.
Stevens lost, agreed and obvious. Begich won.
I would have rather not seen either one of them in Washington D.C., but we Alaskans have to have someone.
So, the real issue is not Stevens or Begich. The real issue is Political Manipulated/Motivated Prosecutions by the Department of Justice.
We have a court appointed/investigation into the Prosecution Team to see if there was Criminal handling of the case. We know how Federal investigations go, and how they drag out, get lost in translation, swept under the carpet, and then an occassional fall guy. Instead Gov. Palin order the Attorney General in Alaska to open a state investigation into the Department of Justice, the Prosecution Team, and the Political Players. The State of Alaska would be able to control their own investigation. The basis and grounds would be a violation of the citizens of Alaska’s civil rights that were violated.
The state investigation would most likely have a differant outcome then the Fed investigation. And the state can prosecute too. We do not know how far up the food chain this goes.
And go further, the Republican National could open an investigation. The citizens of Alaska could class action, and open an investigation.
Remember we had the Department of Justice leaking information against Alaskan Rep Don Young regarding an investigation, before the election too. They kept leaking info to the media, over and over. Don Young barely won, and as soon as he won, the Department of Justice went silent. The political hit job they were doing was over, and did not succeed.
And look at Gov. Blagovich, opposite party OBVIOUSLY, but yet the Department of Justice knew about his negotiations, wire taps, calls and meetings back in July of 2008. But the DOJ sat on the case so that they would not harm the election because of Obama’s ties to Blagovich, which translates to ‘don’t harm Obama’s chances’.
Dave, Gonzales appointing a D does not mean the D is not a hitter for the party; Gonzales has no cred in the smarts dept. Note we have Mende in NJ and Dodd in CN who frankly make Stevens look like a monk, and Gonzales was too stupid to nail them. Holder himself is, pardon the pun, ethically euthanized to crooked Ds.
Sorry… I’m still going to have to agree with Dave Noble here that I don’t believe this to be partisan, but desperation by inept, overagressive prosecutors who were convinced of Steven’s guilt.
But pray tell, why does no one wonder why Judge Sullivan decided to reject two motions for mistrial, and instead let it continue “reluctantly”? Especially in the face of constant attempts by the prosecution to delay, or not turn over evidence? A series of his quotes thruout the trial, and never ending discipline seem to belie his statement there was no “basis” for a mistrial.
Also, why is no one asking why Sullivan is keeping a rigor mortis grip on this investigation?
This travesty of justice could have, and should have been nipped in the bud by the bench. considering that it was a sitting Congressman, in the middle of an upcoming election, the public interest was at stake. My question? Could Sullivan be doing a CYA move by refusing to release his jurisdiction and seizing control of the “investigating”, and thereby passing off any responsibility from his own actions?
@MataHarley:
You’re wrong. Welch is a partisan Democrat who had ambitions to higher office that depended on pleasing Senator Ted Kennedy.
@Dave Noble: I realize you have absolutely NO experience working in the federal bureaucracy and are apparently unwilling to listen to someone who does, but let me make this point:
It’s wrong to say Gonzales “appointed” Welch to head the Public Integrity Section at DOJ. He approved Welch’s promotion. Big difference which I am sure is lost on you.
And I don’t know why I even bother to put links in my stories since you and apparently Mata did not bother to read this one:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/former_federal_prosecutor_in_s.html
In future I will just state my conclusions without any back up at all as it appears that my efforts to thoroughly research these posts is wasted time.
Mike, I’m not saying Welch wasn’t partisan personally. However you can’t obtain guilty verdicts based on partisanship. There must be evidence that supports the prosecutors’ case. Obviously these prosecutors were convinced Stevens was guilty and stopped at nothing to lead the jury to that same conclusion.
It is the task of the bench to control all the legal proceedings, and rule on the discovery issues… of which was the bone of contention thruout the trial. If there is a partisan player in this that allowed injustice to be done, it was Sullivan, IMHO. I have no idea why you just ignore his role in this. As I said, he could have nipped it in the bud… but didn’t.
@MataHarley: They obtained a guilty verdict by cheating throughout the prosecution.
I’m saying their motivation was partisan.
Answer me this: Has William “Cold Cash” Jefferson gone to trial yet?
I have no trouble grasping you are insisting the prosecutors’ motivation was partisan, Mike’sA…. I do read headlines, ya know. LOL I just happen to disagree. c’est la vie
And my opinion has nothing to do with Cold Cash and other Congressional types (of both parties) who are corrupt. On a “case by case” bit, you see.
But “Cold Cash” has been indicted and going thru court battles over time about documents taken in an FBI raid until, Mar of last year, the Supreme’s let stand a lower court’s decision he could go thru them and remove what he considered “privileged”. This has delayed his trial.
Last I knew, a U.S. District Court judge out of VA had a hearing schedule in Jan of this year to determine the future of the case. So he’s been indicted, but the trial has been delayed by judicial decisions, responding to his motions INRE his immunity, and the FBI raid. In other words, ain’t no fat lady singing yet…. and evidently *those* judges decided to protect what they saw as his due process rights. So who’s partisan there? The prosecutors trying to bring Cold Case to trial? Or the judges, appellate panels and SCOTUS? Or is it partisan at all, but ruling on a point of law?
But on that, it might be noted he lost his election in 2008, and prior to that even Pelosi (altho johnny-come-lately) was asking for his resignation… which he refused to do. THey voted to strip him of his committee membership.
@MataHarley: the judge is doing a cya, it seems pretty obvious from my point of view. justice should be blind and should go with the law. laws are for all people, not just a few. some times i wish i was a fly on the wall to see what kind of things really go on behind closed doors. the whole thing seems so seedy and really ghetto, we, as americans like to assume we have the most fare and just legal system in the world and this just makes it a laughingstock.
The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/
Mata,
I haven’t been following the case as closely as you and the others, but I think the judge reluctantly allowed the case to continue because he realzed the totality of the evidence pointed undeniably toward a particular verdict.
Then, when he could reasonably assert prosecutorial misconduct, he did so to cover his buttocks (or “byoo-tox”, as an old friend of mine from Texas would say.)
As for Palin’s comment that “the time has come for him to step aside. Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Stevens should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress,” this is one of the reasons I don’t like Palin. She doesn’t score sincerity points with me when she makes such ridiculous remarks. If Stevens had been elected, even in the face of scandal, that would tell me that the scandal didn’t hurt the “chce” that the people made; why then should he have had to step down to give the people a “real choice?”
Something just smacks of political expediency with Palin. She seems to be too much of an opportunist – too interested in scoring political “points.” I felt the same way when, as a vice-presidential candidate, she made her first speech at the Republican National Convention. Even though her digs at Obama and liberals were fine, there was something about her delivery that didn’t seem genuine, but rather very calculated.
Jeff V
Mike:
Let us avoid semantics and settle on “Gonzales–AG in a Republican administration–was responsible for Welch achieving his position and, more importantly, supervised him.”
Mr. Noble’s key point still stands: This happened within the Bush DOJ. Gonzales was responsible for the actions of this office. Please address that.
@luva the scissors:
What was withheld was contents of a Bill Allen interview that contradicted testimony given by Bill Allen, in court. Basically, Stevens asked to be billed and the contractor screwed up, the prosecutors knew it and withheld the evidence that would have discredited the contractors testimony.
This includes the content of the handwritten note Sen. Stevens gave Bill Allen and further describes how Allen’s testimony differed from the April 15 Allen interview mentioned in above paragraph.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/743906.html
My post is in spam, please and thanks.
BTW, I too believe the judge is in CYA mode.
@ChrisK: No, Mr. Dave Noble’s point does NOT stand.
To say Gonzales appointed and supervised Welch is the equivalent of suggesting Karl Rove appointed and supervised the head of the Democrat National Committee.
I’d love to hear about YOUR experience working in a federal agency Chris K, but I can tell you that the Administrator at EPA did not personally appoint or directly supervise any of the Division Chiefs I worked with.
To suggest that somehow Gonzales is responsible because he didn’t supervise Welch is ASININE. If you bothered to read my post fully you would note and no doubt recall that ANY political interference by the Republicans at DOJ was demonized by the Dems.
If you have anything to suggest that Gonzales approved of the course Welch and his cadre of fellow Dems took in this prosecution then please post a link to it.
I’m getting tired of you folks trying to derail this post without offering anything more substantive or authoritative to back up your conclusions other than your own biased opinions.
In other words, put up or shut up!
@Missy: Thanks for that update.
Let’s just stress this from Stevens’ note as we still have some Dems who insiste he was guilty no matter what:
Only a crooked DEMOCRAT prosecutor could deny such a note the place it deserves in evidence.
Typical. And just look at all the usual suspects on here willing to blame it all on Gonzales!
Really? Your position is that the Attorney General had no role in supervising a DOJ prosecution of a sitting U.S. senator? Is that your final answer? The fact that he had no control over such precedent-setting activities suggests that Gonzales was even more inept than it originally appeared.
You’re saying that Left-wing complaints effectively prohibited Gonzales from doing his job. Again, Gonzales must have been one big pussy of an AG. How was such a powerless ninny not asked to step down by Bush?
If you’d bother to read your own post, you’ll note that, in one of the articles you use as support for your ideas, we get this quote:
I’m assuming that you concur with this characterization of the Bush/Gonzales DOJ, or you wouldn’t have used it as evidence.
If the DOJ under Bush was “corrupt,” doesn’t the guy who was running the department bear any responsibility for that corruption?
@ChrisK said: ” You’re saying that Left-wing complaints effectively prohibited Gonzales from doing his job. “
“Left wing complaints?” What planet do you live on. Do you not recall the full scale firestorm which erupted when Bush fired 8 U.S. Attorneys?
After that scorched earth disaster you are suggesting that Gonzales should have interfered in the corruption trial of a U.S. Senator from his own party?
I’m stunned you would even suggest such a thing.
Bush and Gonzales were prevented from cleaning out the corruption at DOJ by Democrats. Just as Democrats protected their anti-constitutional agents at CIA and State.
I’m amazed that so many on the left said Bush was Hitler and the minute he proved he was not they insist it would have been better if he had been.
Make up your mind!
And again, you haven’t shown me the slightest proof that Gonzales approved of the course Welch took.
Not one shred of evidence and yet you persist in repeating an absurd left wing talking point.
Put up or shut up!
@ChrisK:
tsk, tsk, poor Alberto:
Attorney General Gonzales Resigns
August 27, 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/thelaw/politics/Story?id=3421219&page=1
Judge Emmet Sullivan sets a tentative trial date of September 24, 2008.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/480507.html
Quite the long arm of the law, I’d say. Gonzales reaches across country all the way from…….his house in Texas?
ChrisK #32, the Public Integrity Section is headed by a Deputy Assistant AG, who answers to the Assistant AG, who answers to the AG. You will find an organization chart of the Public Integrity section at their website.
Welch supervised the Stevens investigation but did not participate in the trial. It was led by Brenda Morris and her team.
Using “the buck stops here” mentality… as so many did to blame Bush for every flaw and misstep in every federal department… the AG does bear ultimate responsibility. But in truth, none of the three permanent AGs (Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey) – or the several acting AGs – were involved in the day to day decision making during the Stevens investigation and trial (a span of 2004-2008). I believe that is Mike’s point.
I would, however, be somewhat curious to know just which Deputy Assistant AG was directly supervising Welch, Morris and the Public Integrity Section’s case on Stevens.
This still doesn’t change my opinion because having the partisan desire to affect an election’s outcome doesn’t fly when you walk into a court of law. You either have evidence of guilt to proceed and obtain a conviction, or you don’t. While I’m quite sure both Welch and most especially Morris are partisan Dems, all is still checked by weight of evidence at the courtroom doors. And it still remains the task of the bench to insure the legal proceedings are followed, discovery is provided, and that the accused has a fair trial.
Ok Mike,
Let me understand what your saying in your post.
Gonzales appoints Welch to the DOJ, (or somehow Welch ends up at DOJ while Gonzales is Atty Gen)
To assume that Gonzales would supervise Welch is assinine.
Welch is a Democrat.
“ANY political interference by the Republicans at DOJ was demonized by the Dems” so if the Dems didn’t bring up an issue, there was either no problems going on or the Dems were happy about it or were causing it
Since Welch is a Dem, and misconduct has happened in Sen Stevens trial, Republican hands are clean, and Dems are once again corrupt and stealing a Senate seat.
I have good topic for your for another great post like this one:
Republican proposes to slash missile defense and Pentagon spending
Secretary Gates is a Republican
He made this proposal
Even though a Democrat is Commander in Chief, why would you expect him to be held any more accountable for what Sec Gates does than you would a Republican Atty Gen over what guys like Welsh are doing. If I take your well informed logic and insert it into this situation: To assume that Obama would supervise Gates is assinine.
Your making an argument based on no accountability for what happens in your Dept. when you are in charge of it if the misconduct originated with someone from another political party. “To assume that Gonzales would supervise Welch is assinine.”
I have never served in high levels of Govt Mike like you have, but if I were to apply this logic to Sec Gates and Obama, I would have to say that Obama is pretty smart to have some Republicans in his cabinet, smarter than I had originally thought……And I bet he is pleased that folks in the know will step up and defend him and keep him isolated from any troubles based on party affiliation alone.
@MataHarley:
See the evidence Missy linked above: @Missy:
Could they still have gotten a conviction if that evidence were not suppressed? I doubt it.
@mooseburger: You’re playing games and I don’t take your comment seriously.
@Missy:
Point easily deflected in this way:
“Really? Your position is that the Attorney General had no role in supervising a DOJ prosecution of a sitting U.S. senator? Is that your final answer? The fact that he had no control over such precedent-setting activities suggests that [Mukasey] was even more inept than it originally appeared.”
You’re still left with the same problem, however: a Republican-appointed AG who apparently did not supervise the DOJ prosecution of a sitting U.S. senator.
@Mike:
Please explain how Mooseburger’s question is “playing games.” You are asserting that nobody in the power structure of the DOJ had any responsibility for malfeasance except the malfeasors themselves. (I’m guessing that “malfeasors” is not a word, but I’m throwing it out there anyway.) If that is not your point, please explain the precise level of functionary at Justice which, in your mind, would bear responsibility for what transpired.
ChrisK, I’m not Mike, but I did give you the answer to your question, please explain the precise level of functionary at Justice which, in your mind, would bear responsibility for what transpired.
That would be the Deputy Assistant AG that oversees the Public Integrity Section, as I pointed out with the link to the chart. That entity would be the most closely involved and informed DOJ official. The AG cannot possibly be involved with a single case in the Criminal Division and PIS division with what’s on his supervisory plate. You can see the organizational chart for the AG here. To suggest that he would is akin to you… a factory worker in a chain of textile plants… is supervised directly by the textile CEO.
Mike’sA#37: I am not aware of all the evidence presented and specifics of what they delayed or ultimately did not turn over. The court transcripts are not available to the public, and only now are some documents being unsealed. I have no idea if Stevens would have still received a guilty vote from the jury… with or without the missing evidence. And unless you are all twelve jurors, sitting in the courtroom and locked up for deliberations, neither do you.
You continually miss my point that yes… the prosecutors believed Stevens to be guilty and engaged in proceedings that are illegal. They are not the first overzealous prosecutors to appear in court, nor will they be the last. But the bench is the stopgap measure against injustice in the legal proceedings. So my question in return to you is, had the judge ruled a warranted mistrial instead of denying the motions, would we even be talking about this now?
@ChrisK: Is there something I posted above that you simply do not understand?
Blaming this mess on Bush/Gonzales or Mukasey is silly. Unless you have some proof that Gonzales or Mukasey directed Welch/Morris to suppress evidence than you need to can it.
Face it… In all probability YOU ARE WRONG!
And again, I can only fall back on my own experience in Federal service to understand why and how it happened.
I’d love to hear how your federal service provides a different perspective but so far that revelation hasn’t been anymore forthcoming than the federal experience of Dave Noble.
Mike’s America Said:
“I’m getting tired of you folks trying to derail this post without offering anything more substantive or authoritative to back up your conclusions other than your own biased opinions.”
“@mooseburger: You’re playing games and I don’t take your comment seriously.”
Mike, I have taken your posting seriously, and attempted to use your arguments as a way to understand what your posting is about. At least point out where I am wrong or off track here, and why your contention about the DOJ and the Steven trial can’t be applied elsewhere.
The title of this posting:
Democrats Subverted Democracy in Stevens Corruption Fiasco
Implies that no Republicans had any responsibility in this Subversion. Tell me Mike, just who was the Captain of that ship at the DOJ when this subversion occurred?
If the “Captain of the Ship” at the DOJ is not accountable because of this partisan Democratic subversion, then why would my analogy about Obama and Gates be any different?
@MataHarley said: ” the prosecutors believed Stevens to be guilty “
Of course they did. The prosecutors are DEMOCRATS.
This prosecution makes the Nifon persecution of Duke LaCrosse players look tame by comparison. The balance of power in the Senate was not at risk.
I cannot answer your last question. I am not an attorney and I don’t play one on TV and nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
My perspective is that of a former federal employee and one who also has top level political experience.
@mooseburger: And yet you haven’t offered anything more substantive or authoritative than your clearly biased opinion to back up what you say.
Funny how you folks want to hold conservatives to a higher standard of veracity than you are willing to follow yourselves.
Mike, the prosecutors did not believe Stevens was guilty because they were Democrats. They believed that the evidence they saw was weighed in favor of guilty over not guilty. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have proceeded with the case.
As I said, being a “democrat” isn’t an argument that works in court as evidence. That said, even the Steven’s attorneys admitted that perhaps Brenda Morris had not seen the previous interviews with Allen since she was only assigned to the case two weeks before the trial began.
Ultimately, we don’t know Stevens guilt or innocence. Only that he was robbed of a fair trial by a judge who decided to ignore the illegal shenigans of the prosecutors. And that is only enhanced in import by what you said in your comment #43 The balance of power in the Senate was not at risk. With this public interest at stake, it was all the more reason for Sullivan to pull the plug on the trial.
Mike said;
“@mooseburger: And yet you haven’t offered anything more substantive or authoritative than your clearly biased opinion to back up what you say.
Funny how you folks want to hold conservatives to a higher standard of veracity than you are willing to follow yourselves.”
Mike, clearly, I was using your own words as my “substantive or authoritative” source, and drawing conclusions based on your posting.
If that is not a credible enough source for you, then I don’t know how to respond to that.
Perhaps when you are struggling with the issues and merits of your posting, the best next strategy is to attack folks who are trying to understand and engage in a discussion about that posting.
@ MataHarley,
I wish that you had not answered, as it relieves Mike’s America of the burden of responding substantively to the questions. His answers to this point all boil down to, “I know more than you do, so shut up.” I have not fed at the Federal trough the way Mike’s America apparently has, but even someone as woefully ignorant as I am aware of the idea that power and responsibility in bureaucratic hierarchies gather near the top of the pyramid. Otherwise, what’s the point of having a top to the pyramid?
In lieu of engaging with Mike’s America, I’ll address your points.
First, it would seem to the casual observer that the Federal prosecution of a sitting U.S. Senator would be a big enough deal that the Attorney General would keep himself in the loop. Apparently not, though, if what you say is correct.
Second, if your thesis of “too many layers of intervening bureaucracy + too much on the plate = don’t have to take responsibility for it,” then I was hoping you’d share the bureaucratic level at which President Obama cannot be held responsible for things that go on during his Administration. Certainly the man has a lot on his plate. There is, presumably, a level three or four rungs down the ladder from him at which people in his Administration can perform misdeeds and he will bear no taint from them. Please share the specifics on this.
Lest we forget, it was George Bush’s Justice Dept. that botched the Stevens prosecution
by John Aravosis (DC) on 4/08/2009 07:55:00 AM
It was odd enough that Bush’s Justice Department was going after Stevens, but that they’d apparently break the rules at the same time, in order to go after a fellow Republican, begs a lot of questions.
A furious federal judge on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of ordering that the prosecutors who bungled the case of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska be investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the charges against Mr. Stevens, which was expected given the way the case has disintegrated since the conviction in October. But the judge went well beyond that step, declaring that what the prosecutors did was the worst “mishandling or misconduct that I’ve seen in my 25 years.”
Judge Sullivan spoke disdainfully of the prosecutors’ repeated assertions that any mistakes during the trial were inadvertent and made in good faith. He said he had witnessed “shocking and serious” violations of the principle that prosecutors are obligated to turn over all relevant material to the defense.
ChrisK, if you were just repeating a question to Mike that you feel you already knew, then you aren’t engaging in helpful debate, but merely baiting. As you can see, Mike and I have differing opinions, but have kept it down to a dull roar in our differences.
Since you have now decided to re’aim in my direction, I’ll respond about how I feel on the “too many layers of intervening bureaucracy”.
I did not hold Bush responsible for that reason when civil servants and bureaucrats in FEMA, or the state and local officials, behaved inadequately in Katrina. I did not hold Bush or the Pentagon officials responsible for unethical practices of individual soldiers in Abu Ghraib. I will continue that same assessment with Obama. There is only so much an official at the top of the food chain can do, and it sure doesn’t include micromanaging the lower levels under direct control of other subordinates.
That said, I’m quite sure that those who were, and still are, so willing to blame Bush for everything are also going to give Obama a pass for the same. So do I expect to see many conservatives doing a tit for tat on this “buck stops here” on Obama? You bet I do. And it’s well deserved. Perhaps not so much anyone actually believes it, but because the progressive left established passing that blame as the norm under Bush. If they wish to play the game that way, then that same blame needs to be applied to Obama in the same circumstances.
However, as I said, on a realistic level, micromanaging from the top is just plain impossible.
@ChrisK:
So, looks like Holder, after he has the information in hand(unlike Mukasey), isn’t ready to publicly discount the work this team of prosecutors did. This information was brought to light……last week, Mukasey didn’t have it(see Mata’s comment #40), Holder does.
Whew! They almost got away with it, without last weeks discovery, the verdict might have survived appellate review:
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/743906.html
@MataHarley:
Not the situation at all. I don’t pretend to be Socrates, but I’m a firm believer in asking questions and getting my opponent to state his or her case plainly so that I might build my case on a similarly solid foundation. In a debate, there should be no room for someone to say, “But that’s not what I wrote at all!” Each logical point should be clearly established, out in the open, before moving on to the next point.
I’m still hoping that Mike’s America will respond to this:
I’d still like to know whether Mike’s America consider’s the Bush DoJ to have been “corrupt.” His answer to that leads to other questions which further the debate.
Perhaps I erred in assuming that he welcomed debate.
Lots of bad reasoning on both sides here.
First of all, the throwing of the election required only the prosecution, not the prosecutorial misconduct. So the misconduct is not evidence of Democratic election tampering.
Second, the fact that the prosecutor was appointed by the Bush admin (Gonzales) does not mean that the Democrat was not motivated by politics to pursue the investigation. They hired him thinking he’d be a sound prosecutor; clearly they were wrong. They also hired him thinking he’d be non-partisan; perhaps they were wrong about that, too.
It’s possible that Welch and his office were coordinated with some wider Democratic witch hunt against Republicans, but let’s face it: Stephens is one of the porkiest porkers in the Senate, and most likely deserved prosecution. The investigation must have been going on for years, and probably began long before Welch was appointed US Attorney.
I think the real take from this is that US Attorneys tend to think they’re a law unto themselves, and Democrats tend to think they’re the universal source of morals, so a Democrat as US Attorney is a very dangerous, unmanageable beast indeed. These two basically ignored the law and assumed they had every right to railroad a defendant. We’ve seen similar behavior from Democratic AGs and Governors (think Eliot Spitzer) and from the Obama administration.
Short version: Democrats can’t be trusted to obey the law. They think they’re above it.
ChrisK wrote: “First, it would seem to the casual observer that the Federal prosecution of a sitting U.S. Senator would be a big enough deal that the Attorney General would keep himself in the loop.”
I doubt that “in the loop” would extend to his reviewing depositions from individual witnesses regarding the misconduct of FBI agents, unless that had been brought up by the judge. I would imagine the supervisor stays in the loop by asking for the bullet points regarding what’s at issue, and asking what help, if any, the prosecutors need. So if the Attorney General actually did know the details of the prosecutorial misconduct ahead of time, it would mean he was guilty of micromanaging at an intensely low level, and probably incompetent.
It really looks to me as though this Welsh character was a bad egg.
@ChrisK: You still haven’t given me ONE verifiable, substantive, authoritative source to back up your point of view. Instead, you simply gainsay what I have put forward and repeat that mantra over and over and over.
You denigrate my federal service and are apparently without any comparable expertise in this area so I don’t see how an honest debate is possible.
You’ve attempted to drag the conversation here away from the topic of the post with another of the transparent distractions so favored by those on the left when they don’t want anyone to seriously consider the issues that are originally presented.
Again, if you can offer me something to consider that isn’t based on your opinion I’m all ears. But until then, you are just repeating yourself, wasting my time and attempting to distract other readers from the topic at hand.
The topic of the post is that somebody screwed up at DoJ and that Ted Stevens got the shaft because of it.
Your position is that the only people who should be held accountable are the people at the very lowest level–those directly involved in what happened. Because they’re Democrats. And that nobody else at any level should be held accountable for it. Because those people would not be Democrats.
What “facts” did you use to back up that opinion? Can you direct me to a source?
Your experience in the government, whatever it was, apparently tells you that it is “asinine” to expect that supervisors would bear any responsibility for the function of their departments. I find it difficult to believe that such is the case. Can you provide ONE verifiable, substantive, authoritative source to back up the idea that supervisors in the government don’t supervise?
My position is that, whoever the functionaries are who screwed the pooch on this one, that this was a Department of Justice under a Republican president. Here’s my source on that one. Of course, the source is the Department of Justice web site, so, by your reckoning, it cannot be trusted, right? Aren’t you the one who bolstered your posting with a quote saying that the DoJ was “corrupted?” (To be fair, though, the quote was specifically referring to the DoJ under Bush.)
Were you the Attorney General at some point in the past? I don’t see “Mike’s America” anywhere on the list of former Attorneys General, but maybe you went by a different name then. Are you, possibly, Michael Mukasey himself? That would explain why you’re so intent on insulating Mukasey from responsibility.
Did you, in fact, work for the Department of Justice at all? If so, was it in a supervisory capacity? If yes, when was this? Hundreds of thousands of people can say that they have, at one point or another, worked for the Federal government. A mailman works for the Federal government. That doesn’t mean that he has any particular expertise in the inner workings of the top levels of the DoJ, or even of the Post Office Department. Were you an employee at the top three or four rungs of one of the Federal departments? Heck, we can even stretch it to the top four or five rungs, just to give you a fighting chance. If you want your experience to be authoritative, then you must provide enough detail that I accept you as an authority. Otherwise, how on earth can I take you as seriously as you seem to want to be taken?
Listen, Mike’s America. I worked in food service for a long time, but that was over twenty years ago. My experience as a baker in a local restaurant two decades in the past doesn’t mean that I have any idea about how to run a five-star restaurant in Manhattan.
@ChrisK: So now I’m being lectured on government by a food service employee… Great! I guess my work in government at every level from the Court House to the White House was a complete waste of time. I should have worked the drive-in window at McDonald’s if I expected my arguments to have any credibility.
Again, you present NOTHING to validate your point of view other than your point of view.
Hardly what I would call substantive or authoritative.
Your goal is to steer blame away from the criminals who perpetrated this abuse of power and effected the balance of power in the U.S. Senate onto Bush Administration political appointees who had they interfered in the case would have been tarred and feathered by Democrats in the Senate.
It isn’t that you DON”T get the fundamental issue here, I am sure you do. You simply want to distract anyone else who might be on the fence from drawing a reasonable conclusion with the timeworn liberal tactic of throwing so much mud against the wall that some of it will stick.
You’re playing a game here and it stopped being amusing hours ago.
To recap:
Did you, in fact, work for the Department of Justice at all? If so, was it in a supervisory capacity? If yes, when was this? Hundreds of thousands of people can say that they have, at one point or another, worked for the Federal government. A mailman works for the Federal government. That doesn’t mean that he has any particular expertise in the inner workings of the top levels of the DoJ, or even of the Post Office Department. Were you an employee at the top three or four rungs of one of the Federal departments? Heck, we can even stretch it to the top four or five rungs, just to give you a fighting chance. If you want your experience to be authoritative, then you must provide enough detail that I accept you as an authority. Otherwise, how on earth can I take you as seriously as you seem to want to be taken?
My point of view has three parts:
1. This all happened at the Bush Department of Justice.
2. People responsible for screwups should bear that responsibility.
3. “People responsible” includes the people who actually committed the misdeeds, as well as the supervisors who allowed the misdeeds to take place on their watch.
Number one is not open to discussion. It is a fact.
Number two seems like common sense, and it’s something most people would agree with. If you feel that people who are responsible for screwups should not bear the responsibility for their screwups, then you need to explain why that is.
Number three also seems like common sense. If you disagree, the onus is on you to explain why. The responsibility may not go all the way up to Bush or even Mukasey, but your contention that supervisors bear no responsibility for what goes on in the departments they supervise flies in the face of what I’m guessing most people feel.
A construction foreman can face consequences if the construction crew screws up the building project.
A school principal can face consequences if teachers don’t raise test scores fast enough.
A CEO can face consequences if the thousands of people working below him don’t make enough profits to please the Board of Directors.
A president can face consequences if the thousands of people working below him don’t please the electorate.
You’re saying that government bureaucrats are immune to consequences from awful misdeeds of the people they supervise. Please give authoritative proof that such is the case. Otherwise, this is just your point of view, and a foolish one, at that. Nobody except you, it would seem, believes that government employees are immune to consequences from poor job performance.
You interned at the white house (wasn’t monica an intern?). You got at job at the EPA, did you have qualifications and an education for that role? Were you were a political appointee? And since 1996 when you went off the government dole, have you earned a dime in the private sector?
Yep, I guess that qualifies you to go off an any tangent you want with self rightiousness and ingnigation.
@ChrisK: Simply repeating your opinion over and over and over and over hardly qualifies as a substantive, authoritative source.
Again, you offer NOTHING.
You’re wasting everyone’s time here.
@Mastiff: I’ll stack my White House experience up against your stint at the Burger King any day.
ChrisK/Mastiff… do not misrepresent yourself as different individuals here, or you will find yourself in the spam filter. Such game playing is unacceptable at FA.
@MataHarley: Thanks for spotting that. I just assumed Mastiff was a worthless phony and didn’t bother to check. Now I know for sure.
Pretty typical of a lib to invent a sock puppet to back them up.
[Repetitive non-substantive comment removed by post moderator].
[Repetitive non-substantive comment removed by post moderator].
[Repetitive non-substantive comment removed by post moderator].
Sorry guys but game over. Continuing to repeat yourselves over and over and over and over without offering the slightest back up for your opinion isn’t going to fly.
Further comments by ChrisK and Mooseburger on this thread will be deleted.
Mike:
Censorship?
And actually I was waiting to hear you responses….but?
Ron
@Ron: Censorship? Not really. When you consider that the two above had simply repeated themselves over and over and over and over. You can read what they have to say above in all it’s skimpy detail.
They made their points. Their points were wrong and despite repeated opportunities to back them up they simply repeated them.
That’s not a debate and it’s not a discussion. What they were doing is attempting to throw so much mud up that the point of my post would be obscured.
But the facts stand. Activist Democrats working with Dept. of Justice cover and protection by Senate Democrats worked to subvert justice and the balance of power in the Senate.
ChrisK/Mastiff…. you wanted to know what I was talking about on your dual personality here? Comment #57 as ChrisK, and comment #59 posted 20 minutes later, the same Mike’sA comment were both from the identical IP address. You are either the same individual, or two in a mind meld, sharing the same computer.
Playing the multiple personality game to portray bolstered support for arguments is something we have little tolerance for here at FA. And we’ve busted many for doing this in the past.
I believe that there is third sock in that drawer as well.
That one appeared prior to ChrisK.
@MataHarley:
http://www.nuip.net/
As it says on the site,
Is this a valid concern? You tell me:
Case closed, Nancy Drew!!
Yo Chris… Nancy Drew here. All computers have a unique static or dynamic IP that assigned to their particular computer by your ISP. The only way several can use the same is via a router for a local network.
NUIP is one of the services to the professional poster who likes to hide his/her identity by hiding behind a central and singular IP address (i.e. NUIP).
Are you now telling us that you subscribe to a masking service that is also used by Mastiff?
No. I’m not saying anything about Mastiff. I’m speaking only about myself.
I don’t “subscribe” to anything.
I do go to NUIP and type in the url I want to visit.
(My caution, I might note, seems to be warranted.)
All I really wanted, by the end of this whole affair, was for Mike’s America to tell me what his qualifications were. As I pointed out, I can’t take him seriously as an “expert” if he doesn’t detail the source of this supposed expertise–and he definitely expects me to accept him as an expert.
The reason I asked the question repeatedly was because he repeatedly refused to answer.
@ChrisK:
Uh Chris, Frank Hardy checking in with a couple of questions.
Are you really trying to convince us that your post @ 10:04pm was completely unrelated and separate from Mastiff’s post of 10:05pm, and that Mastiff is a completely unrelated and separate person posting by some bizarre coincidence from the same IP address that is still currently assigned to you?
Is that what you’re trying to convince us of in your endearingly clumsy way?
Really?
Yeah.
Ever hear of Occam’s Razor?
Aye Chihuahua: I’m not a sock in anybody’s drawer, LoL, although apparently I’ve been banished from this conversation.
Mike: You argued like Hell with ChrisK, but never did respond to a simple question I put to you. Then you lumped both, (or all three?) of us together. A pretty slick tactic to avoid defending your silly post. You will probably delete this too.
I used your own words and inferred logic to pose my questions and form a conclusion, Mike. Granted, it was an extreem analogy, but it was a valid point to consider.
If my question to you is from your own posting as a source, where would I pray tell, find some acceptable proof you desire? Not trying to play games, if you believe in your position, then defend it. I haven’t been disrespectful to you in any way. I have disagreed with the premise of you post, and called it silly. maybe I don’t understand the rules here. Maybe me and Mike would get along great as long as I jump in and bash the President every word I write, like you do Mike.
Somebody needs to be the Devil’s Advocate at times Mike, If you can’t handle that, with all your experience and all, delete me all you like. It says more about you than it does about me. And Hell, someday, I just might agree with you on some issue.
@mooseburger:
I don’t think that I said anything about you being a sock, but thanks for clearing that up for us.
Then I shall take you at your word, ChrisK. As I said, we like to have some sense of open communication here (not necessary real names, but at least a singular personality). We do not play well with a schizophrenic tag team. Your similar mind meld post make me wonder if you got dumped into the spam filter, and took on another identity to get thru. When I found you weren’t labeled spam, that’s why I raised the caution flag to you.
Interesting you feel you must “hide”… what *do* you say elsewhere?? And BTW, IPs don’t give out your home address and name of first born… just a region.
@Aye Chihuahua:
How fast do you think I can type, anyway? Razor that Occam, my friend.
@MataHarley:
Fair enough, though “mind meld” seems to be going a little far. I’m not the only person disagreeing with Mike’s America in this thread.
As to what I say elsewhere…only the Shadow knows.
@ChrisK:
With the innovations of copy/paste and multiple browser windows you would be amazed by what you can accomplish.
@mooseburger: Moosepaste, are you just going to keep boring us to death with the same drivel? It’s old and tired. Move on pal.
As for Chris K’s latest evasion, note that he never answered Aye’s direct questions.
P.S. Has anyone else noticed that we stopped talking about the substantive and documented charges in this post a long time ago????
Seems the moonbat tactic works!
Testing.
Testing.
In the spirit of Easter I’m prepared to cut Chris K some slack and offer forgiveness. I do so not to curry favor with him or mealy-mouthed moderates who just want us all to get along but out of curiosity.
With that in mind I offer Chris K an amnesty if he was in fact using sock puppets if he will only admit to doing so.
But I also wish to ask: Who are you Chris K? What founding principles do you have, if any? WHO did you vote for in 2008?
I’d like to believe my offer of amnesty will be greeted with honest answers and I invite his/her reply.
@ Mike’s America #82
re: Aye Chihuahua #74
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
@ Mike’s America #82
re: Mike’s America #82
I’m ChrisK. I’m a Lefty. I haven’t voted in many years.
@ChrisK said: ” I haven’t voted in many years.”
So there is a bright side here.
Mike’s America:
It is ironic that you should expect me to answer direct questions about my background after having repeatedly refused to answer my direct questions about your background.
@ChrisK: How much more of my background do you need? Social Security number and birthdate? Bank records, school transcripts, vaccinations?
My bio is posted and once you reach that level of disclosure come and talk to me about what else you want to know.
I was just being curious and wondered if you might have some expertise or other interests you may wish to share.