Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Actually, I wish I saw more good-natured, even if sharp-elbowed humor, around here. I’m all for it. In the future I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

As far as my virtual hide, it’s yards thick. I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t.


Actually, I’ve enjoyed your perspective. It has actually been pretty educational. I hope you stick around and keep us on our toes.

@Wisdom: UGH!

Just remember. If you feed a moonbat you have to clean up after it!

@Mike: If we didn’t have anyone to argue with, this site wouldn’t be any fun, now would it? Without the likes of Larry, Gaffa, and Dave, we’d just be preaching to the choir, and I’d rather put the gloves on and throw a few punches.

@Wisdom: That’s all well and good. But just remember, if you feed them, they WILL make a mess. And we do have a leash law and a pooper scooper policy here.

Dave Noble… not necessarily attempting to revive an old thread, but I’ve been meaning to pass this on to you FYI.

In my comment #34, I said:

The results of that investigation were provided to the Public Intregity prosecutors – who obviously decided on the base of what they saw that Stevens was guilty. Therefore, with a guilty verdict as a goal (the job of all prosecutors, BTW), they decided to conduct their arguments by leaving out anything that may cast doubt on his guilt.

You took issue with this is in your comment #37 where you said:

Wrong. Unequivocally wrong.

A guilty verdict is not the job of a prosecutor. Not By The Way, on the way, or by the wayside. That is a common misconception of non-lawyers. The job of a prosecutor is to “do justice.” If a prosecutor has in his or her possession evidence that is potentially exculpatory of the defendant, it is their ethical and legal duty to provide it to the defense. This is not some legal nicety or technicality. It is a crucial ethical and legal obligation. Failure to do so is not “legal shenanigans,” it is a unethical and illegal. And when an officer of the court, and in this case a federal prosecutor with enormous power, abuses their power, it strikes at the foundations of our system of criminal justice.

Here, in your never-ending effort to sound like an expert on everything, you display your ignorance. There is of course nothing wrong with you’re not having legal expertise and in this case a knowledge of criminal law and more specifically of prosecutorial ethics. The problem is making believe you do and then making a completely erroneous statement with unabashed confidence. Some things are not a matter of opinion. They are either right or they are wrong.

Now I understand that, as a prosecutor yourself, your protest was based on the ethics where my statement was based on recent historic behavior.

Thus, I want to pass along this article to you. That being Eric Holder laying down “the law” for 11 new US Attorneys being sworn in. Apparently, Mr. Holder is viewing DOJ prosecutors of the very same act I did… going for a guilty verdict as opposed to “doing justice”. Thought you might find this of interest.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday warned federal prosecutors of increased scrutiny in the wake of mistakes in the corruption case against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Holder told assistant U.S. attorneys for the District of Columbia that they must respond to negative perceptions of federal prosecutors by doing “the right thing.”

“Your job as assistant U.S. attorneys is not to convict people,” Holder said. “Your job is not to win cases. Your job is to do justice. Your job is in every case, every decision that you make, to do the right thing. Anybody who asks you to do something other than that is to be ignored. Any policy that is at tension with that is to be questioned and brought to my attention. And I mean that.”


Steve Bunnell, a former prosecutor who taught a class at the Justice Department focusing on prosecutorial discretion, said Holder’s message is a core value for federal attorneys. But he said it’s an aspiration that’s not always achieved in every case.

“It’s a kind of heat of battle, loss of perspective concern,” said Bunnell, now a white-collar criminal attorney. “In most cases I don’t think it’s intentional bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. They think they are doing God’s work in that moment.”

Considering that you and I essentially agree on the non-partisan but unethical and illegal behavior of the prosecutors in the Stevens case, I thought it was rather bizarre that you called me out on ethics of the profession as opposed to actual practice in the profession. If the prosecutors came to the conclusion the accused was guilty based on the evidence they had, they were going for a guilty vote as what they saw as their job. Otherwise, why bring the charges and try an accused in court.

But apparently, Holder views the problem of prosecutors viewing their jobs as obtaining a guilty vote the same way I do. And you are correct in that he is attempting to return them to the original ethics.