« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Alaska Lawmakers Want Government To Apologize To Stevens
The Ted Stevens pity party continues.
The Associated Press reports:
Alaska lawmakers want the U.S. government to apologize to former Sen. Ted Stevens, whose corruption conviction was dismissed this week by a federal judge....
The Alaska House passed a resolution Wednesday calling for the apology to Stevens.
Gov. Sarah Palin, and the state GOP, have both called for a special election to give Stevens the chance to win back his Senate seat, which he lost after being convicted last fall of failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts on his Senate disclosure form.
The charges were dropped earlier this week, and the prosecutors on the case are currently being investigated for misconduct.
All we can say is, we must have missed all those resolutions that were passed by statehouses calling for apologies to people who were, say, exonerated by DNA testing after spending years of their lives in prison.
Josh
Zachary
so glad I don't live in AK. What a crazy place for politics and these folks are nuts!
April 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just who exactly is supposed to apologize to him. He can go ask Bush and Cheney, I suppose.
April 9, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He could go ask, but that's a long line & he's not buying green bananas these days.
April 13, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I would like Stevens to apologize to alaskans for being so unethical that he would allow contractors to rebuild his house and not pay them for it. And it is a huge cop-out to say "Well I paid every bill they sent me". If I was having work done on my house to the tune of $250,000 and I did not get a bill, I'd be calling to find out why. But that's just me. "Ethical Republican" is an oxymoron in my humble opinion.
April 9, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need a little education as to the differences between
innocent as a babe
found not-guilty
finding of factual innocence
dropped charges
exonerated after conviction
-- that's probably too much them to comprehend.
This situation is very similar to the Ayers situation which was bandied about all too much last year.
April 9, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does Ted Stevens explain all those blank lines on his Senate disclosure forms?
April 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it OK if we start calling him OJ Stevens, now?
I would like the Justice Department to issue him an apology that is exactly "We're sorry we screwed up your prosecution to where you got off, we shouldn't have, and you shouldn't have.", and no more than exactly that.
April 9, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it. That would be an apology to America at large, too.
April 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment!
April 11, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Good call. He probably won't be around long enough to get OJ's fate though unfortunately.
April 13, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Ted:
I'm sorry that under the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Department of Justice was even more corrupt than you are.
Sincerely,
Eric Holder
April 9, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to agree with the northern wingnuts, but I think an apology from AG Holder on behalf of the USDOJ would be appropriate. It doesn't matter whether Stevens is innocent or guilty. Either way, he's entitled to due process and to confront his accusers. There's a reason the disclosure rules that the prosecution violated are in place; without full disclosure an accused can fully cross examine the witnesses against him which fundamentally undermines our system of criminal justice.
I suspect the Alaskan legislators are hypocrites, and I also suspect that Stevens is truly corrupt. But that doesn't misconduct less dangerous by one iota.
Steven's rights were violated. He deserves an apology. After that Holder can reopen every case in which any member of this team was involved and find out who else had their rights violated.
April 9, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should read: "can not fully cross examine...."
April 9, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what kind of apology, given the size of the problem (the alleged misconduct)? Didn't Stevens already get an apology, when Holder decided to drop the case at the Appeals Court, and gave his reasons?
April 9, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My recollection from the news accounts that I read is that the DOJ apologized to the court, but not to Stevens himself. I think an apology to Stevens personally would be appropriate.
April 9, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of apology, given that it's very likely that he's in fact guilty as originally charged?
When someone gets off on a technicality, is an apology really warranted? Or is it that Stevens looms large in your heart as a former Senator or for other reasons?
April 9, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cheered as much as the next Democrat when Stevens was convicted. The fact that I suspect he's guilty makes no difference to me. The prosecution violated his rights so it's appropriate for DOJ to apologize. Appropriate wording would be something like: "On behalf of the Department, I sincerely regret that the prosecution team assigned to this case violated your right to due process and to confront your accusers."
I reject the premise that any violation of a criminal defendant's constitutional rights is merely technical. The violation in this case was certainly not minor, technical or harmless. The prosecution withheld evidence that the defense could have used to impeach testimony central to the case.
And, yes, I do think it would be appropriate for DOJ to apologize every time its prosecutors violate the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant.
April 9, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The withheld evidence was material, but as far as I know, it was MINOR (not sufficient to overturn the whole verdict). Except for Steven's age, it's quite plausible Holder would not have folded the investigation. And you don't have to take that literally...
April 9, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In October 2002, Ted Stevens sent Bill Allen a note asking Allen to send him a bill for the goods and services that were the basis of the charges against Stevens. (This is known as the "Torricelli" note.) The note also said that Stevens had asked on of his friends, Bob Persons, to talk to Allen. At trial, Allen testified that Persons had told him not to send a bill because Stevens was just covering himself.
The prosecution withheld notes from their April 15, 2008 interview of Allen. The notes state that, in the interview, Allen said he did not recall talking to Persons about giving Stevens a bill.
That's not minor. The prosecution withheld evidence that directly impeached key testimony in the trial.
April 9, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's your opinion. Take it up with your law school class.
April 9, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is my opinion. Apparently, it is also the opinion of Judge Sullivan. And Attorney General Holder. I think that's pretty good company.
(I haven't kept in touch with my law school class in the decade since graduation, but I suppose I could poll the other attorneys at work.)
April 9, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's your opinion. Sullivan has called for an inquiry to decide how major or minor the total picture of obstruction is. I already dealt with Holder in a previous reply.
I wondered if you taught law school, your replies struck me as pedantic defenses.
April 10, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that its the opinion of Judge Sullivan and AG Holder as well, but I think we've already both made our opinions clear.
April 10, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Stevens should get an apology from the people WHO WERE RUNNING THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT CASE AT THAT TIME AND THEY SHOULD BE FIRED/LOSE THEIR PENSIONS, ETC. But unless they are still current (and if they are they should be fired) then there isn't anyone in the current Justice Department that owes them an apology.
April 9, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like people to chime in. How many people think that if Stevens' case had been played on the straight and narrow that Stevens would have gotten off? Because I think that's a snowball's chance in hell. I think that Bush's justice department screwed this up deliberately, so that Stevens would get to walk.
April 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't know what would have happened. Criminal proceedings that are marred by prosecutorial misconduct rising to a level which deprives the accused of their constitutional rights should be given no weight whatsoever. INMHO, there are no "mere technical" violations of the Constitution in a criminal proceeding. Constitutional protections are there for a reason that preserves the truth finding function of the proceeding. Violations of those protections render the result of the proceeding worthless.
In this case, the evidence withheld impugned the credibility of testimony central to the question of Steven's guilt. We simply have no idea how the jury would have decided if Stevens had been able to use that evidence to impeach the testimony.
April 9, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't notice Seigelman getting to walk do you? And they flat-out ginned up evidence against him.
April 9, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold your breath please until it comes....It's in the mail..
April 9, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is great! But I want to make sure that everyone remembers that he hasn't been exonorated of anything. but yeah, anything to keep this crook in the news is good,and him crying for an apology when he could have been retried and probably convicted; now that is gold!
April 9, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prosecutorial misconduct does not innocent make!
April 10, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senator wants a seperate apology from Gov. Palin for tying her name to his to further discredit him. It's like he & Levi can't get a fair shake. That darn Gotcha media.
April 13, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink