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
Dave Noble
15 years ago
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.
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.
Real American Patriot
15 years ago
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
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.
@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.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
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.
mooseburger
15 years ago
Didn’t Governor Palin earlier call for Stevens to resign?
“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.”
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.
mooseburger
15 years ago
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.
luva the scissors
15 years ago
@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.
Alaskan1000
15 years ago
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’.
EdGi
15 years ago
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?
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:
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.
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.
luva the scissors
15 years ago
@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/
ruaqtpi2
15 years ago
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
ChrisK
15 years ago
@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.
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.
makes one wonder if the evidence that was withheld would have gotten him off.
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.
“The notes of the April 15 interview indicate that Bill Allen said, among other things, in substance and in part, that he (Bill Allen) did not recall talking to Bob Persons regarding giving a bill to the defendant,” the Justice Department said in its motion to dismiss the case. “This statement by Allen during the April 15 interview was inconsistent with Allen’s recollection at trial where he described a conversation with Persons about the Torricelli note.”
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.
The note behind the proposed dismissal A handwritten note was the key document associated with dismissal of charges against Ted Stevens. In his note, Stevens asked Bill Allen for a bill for Veco’s services on his house, and said that a mutual friend, Bob Persons, would be in touch with him about it. “Torricelli” is a reference to New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, who got into trouble that year for accepting gifts from a contributor. Bill Allen testified that he indeed hear from Persons. But Persons said Stevens didn’t really want a bill and was only “covering his ass” in sending the note, Allen said. But the notes of two Justice Department lawyers from an interview with Allen in April 2008 show that Allen didn’t remember talking with Persons after getting the note. The prosecutors didn’t turn over the notes of the interview with Allen despite an order from the trial judge to do so. The text of the Stevens note isn’t very legible. Here’s what he wrote:
Dear Bill — When I think of the many ways in which you make my life easier and more enjoyable, I lose count! Thanks for all the work on the Chalet. You owe me a bill — remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing — compliance with these ethics rules [is] entirely different. I asked Bob P to talk to you about this so don’t get P.O’d at him — it just has to be done right. Hope to see you soon. My best Ted —
@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.
Let’s just stress this from Stevens’ note as we still have some Dems who insiste he was guilty no matter what:
Dear Bill — When I think of the many ways in which you make my life easier and more enjoyable, I lose count! Thanks for all the work on the Chalet. You owe me a bill — remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing — compliance with these ethics rules [is] entirely different. I asked Bob P to talk to you about this so don’t get P.O’d at him — it just has to be done right. Hope to see you soon. My best Ted —
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!
ChrisK
15 years ago
To suggest that somehow Gonzales is responsible because he didn’t supervise Welch is ASININE.
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.
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.
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:
He added that he thought Begich should step down “so Alaskans may have the chance to vote for a senator without the improper influence of the corrupt Department of Justice.
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.
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?
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.
mooseburger
15 years ago
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.
“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.
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.
mooseburger
15 years ago
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?
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.
mooseburger
15 years ago
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.
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.
liberaldude
15 years ago
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.
It was the new team, led by Paul O’Brien, chief of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section, that last week discovered the April 15 meeting with Allen, the Justice Department said.
The Justice Department immediately turned over the notes of the April 15 meeting to the defense, it said.
Holder said that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility “will conduct a thorough review of the prosecution of this matter.”
“This does not mean or imply that any determination has been made about the conduct of those attorneys who handled the investigation and trial of this case,” he said. “The Department of Justice must always ensure that any case in which it is involved is handled fairly and consistent with its commitment to justice. Under oftentimes trying conditions, the attorneys who serve in this department live up to those principles on a daily basis. I am proud of them and of the work they do for the American people.”
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:
“Judge Sullivan gave the defense the ability to press for evidence of misconduct,” the statement said. “When he did so, more and more evidence came to light, including the most recent revelation about false testimony. Had Judge Sullivan accepted the word of government prosecutors as is done often in our courts, the extraordinary misconduct would never have been uncovered, and the trial verdict might have survived appellate review. Judge Sullivan prevented such a tragic outcome.”
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.
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:
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:
He added that he thought Begich should step down “so Alaskans may have the chance to vote for a senator without the improper influence of the corrupt Department of Justice.
I’m assuming that you concur with this characterization of the Bush/Gonzales DOJ, or you wouldn’t have used it as evidence.
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.
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.