« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Hearing Scheduled For Witness Who Claims He Lied in Stevens Case
Last week we told you about a letter sent to the judge in the Ted Stevens trial, from a witness claiming that he lied on the stand when he said he had no immunity deal with prosecutors.
Now, reports the Washington Post, the judge, Emmet Sullivan, has scheduled a hearing for Monday to consider a request from Stevens' lawyers to question the witness, David Anderson, a welder who worked on Stevens' home.
Anderson also alleged in his letter that prosecutors allowed him to look at documents he wasn't supposed to see.
Based on Anderson's claims, defense lawyers last week filed documents accusing prosecutors of "suborning perjury and making intentionally false statements." The Justice Department has denied the allegations.
Stevens was convicted last month of making false statements on his Senate disclosure forms, hiding $250,000 in gifts from Bill Allen, the owner of an oil-services contracting company -- and Anderson's uncle. Shortly afterwards, he narrowly lost his Senate reelection bid.
And speaking of Uncle Ted, at last the wait is over. We've updated our "Ted Stevens' Road To Ruin" timeline, so you can now see in glorious technicolor just how the curmudgeonly lawmaker got to this point. Check it out...













Just one more example of the DOJ's complete lack of competence and/or protection of a Republican lawmaker.
Please follow this story so we all can discover what the penalty is for perjury in this "new order".
.
November 26, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
M'Kay...so the Mukasey/Gonzalez "Justice" Department can't even get one thing right?
My guess, the re-trial will be in 2012.
Guess who will be running Justice.
Everything BushCo touched turned to shit.
November 26, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one potential benefit of Stevens being awarded a new trial.
Bush will be under a lot less pressure to give him a pardon.
No matter what happens, we should all just remain thankful that he's finally out of the Senate.
November 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
At a certain point in the campaign I understood why the Obama campaign did not use Stevens to rightfully smear Palin and the entire Republican Party. To do so would alienate a lot of Repubs that needed to be 'allowed' to vote Democratic.
This was a good strategy. Obviously, because it worked!
But the election is over - is not NOW the time to scream from the rooftops that the Republican Party is as corrupt as Sin itself?!
J
http://LMV.hu/redjade
November 27, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink