TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Beltway Establishment's Misplaced Orgy Of Stevens Sympathy

We told you yesterday about Chris Matthews' flub on the Ted Stevens news -- telling viewers that the decision by Justice to drop the charges, thanks to prosecutorial misconduct, means that "the charges should never have been brought."

But it looks like Matthews was just the tip of the iceberg. Since yesterday morning, the self-appointed guardians of the Beltway discourse, in Congress and the press, have been lining up to express their sympathy for Stevens and lament the way the case has unfairly "besmirched" his sterling reputation.

Please.

Before we give you chapter and verse on this self-serving crap, let's consider what yesterday's news does and doesn't mean.

As we noted yesterday, the Justice Department made clear that it was dropping the case because of prosecutorial missteps -- specifically, the failure to hand over to defense lawyers a key piece of evidence suggesting that Bill Allen, the main witness for the prosecution, had contradicted himself. This new revelation came on the heels of other instances of misconduct, including one episode in which Judge Emmet Sullivan held government lawyers in contempt for failing to promptly produce documents that he had requested.

Let's concede that, had defense lawyers had access, for instance, to the evidence about Allen, they could have more effectively challenged his credibility, and perhaps avoided a conviction (though that's from from clear.)

But even leaving criminal wrongdoing aside, no one disputes that Stevens accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of home renovations and gifts (remember that massage chair?) from a supporter who had a slew of business interests that Stevens was in a position to affect as a powerful federal lawmaker and appropriator. That's what we call "corrupt".

As Melanie Sloan of Citiziens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington put it, according to The Hill's paraphrase: "Holder's decision in no way should be viewed as a vindication of Stevens but rather as an indictment of the Justice Department's inability to do one of its most important jobs."

So bear that in mind as you read these expressions of sympathy from aggrieved Washington power players rallying around one of their own:


George Stephanopoulos of ABC News (via Twitter): "Whatever your politics, hard not to feel for Ted Stevens."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): "This incredible man, he served his country well, he was a power player ... he took care of Alaska."

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT): "We're delighted that it's been demonstrated that Ted was telling us the truth all along. (Ed: Needless to say, nothing of the sort was demonstrated.) Obviously, we're a little disappointed that this didn't come out before the election....I think he can get his reputation back. I don't know where he goes to get his legal fees back."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): "Here's a guy who gave 60 years of service to this country, and he was screwed [by federal prosecutors] ... How does he get his reputation back?"

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): "That's why we have the presumption of innocence ... I never called for him to step down or resign or anything like that. I think those who did might regret it now."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): "[I am] deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man's career and then say, 'Never mind.'"

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI): "I didn't tell him this, but, you know, he's really suffered ... I don't want to use the word 'angry,' but I'm just disappointed that prosecutors were involved in that type of misbehavior ... Lawyers' fees are not cheap. He'll have to work the rest of his life."

And let's also note the roles of the Washington Post, Politico, and The Hill for compiling those quotes and allowing them to stand largely unchallenged, painting an overall portrait of Stevens as an innocent, unfairly victimized by an overzealous government.

Here's a final thought. An experienced defense lawyer emails to point out that prosecutorial misconduct of the kind revealed in the Stevens case, and worse, happens extremely frequently, and prosecutors generally expect to get away with it. Justice's decision here may have been the right one, but it would be nice if these guys would show as tender a concern for the fate of poor defendants unfairly convicted despite such misconduct, as they do for their fellow member of the club.


30 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

to quote the ted of old..."NO!"

Holder did the right thing..the prosecution was fucked but Ted was guilty. Lazy journalists who don't do their (i.e. Twiity) homework just reveal they aren't journalists at all!

user-pic

I'm not willing to say Holder did the right thing, based on what I know. What about Seligman, for instance, why is he still hung out to dry?

Either there's a lot more problem at DOJ on the Stevens case beneath the surface or it's some kind of political move. The Appeals Court should have been allowed to rule and call for a new trial if the Court judged the misconduct to be sufficient, or allow some or all of the convictions to stand.

What really bugs me are prosecutions which affect the political process. Blagojevich is another one. I see an indictment is finally promised for this week. Absent that, Fitzgerald use "trial by press conference" to abuse the system.

And I have to wonder if the Stevens misconduct was not partly planned, little things which probably would not get a prosecutor fired but which weaken the case on review. What Holder does about this should be telling - Change or just More Of The Same In DC.

user-pic

Is there enough evidence that a conviction in a new trial is likely? If so then they should pursue it. If not, Holder needs to give an explanation for why the case should never have been brought to court in the first place.

I find it absolutely bizarre that the Obama administration isn't pursuing prosecution (or in this case upholding the conviction) of Republican politicians. If democrats don't hold people accountable then things will be that much worse when the pendulum swings back. People who engaged in torture, fabricating evidence for war and extreme abuses of executive privilege should absolutely be investigated, prosecuted and punished. If they aren't then we don't have justice.

And for christ's sake, kick Lieberman out of the damn caucus. (Sorry, it just bugs me how much the slimy douche bag has gotten away with.)

user-pic

The idea that DOJ lawyers might have sabotaged their case deliberately certainly sounds credible but wouldn't it have been easier not to charge him in the first place.

Also, all that sympathy about the verdict coming just before the election is a little misplaced, imho, since it was Stevens who pushed for the early trial date.

It is amazing to see on one hand the lemming-like interpretation by the Washington media exonerating Sen. Stevens and their bafflement on the other hand about their death throes. They can't figure out that (thanks to outlets like TPM)more and more people realize they're getting snowed and they're not taking it anymore.

user-pic

Charging him may have been a political necessity, and those who preferred charges were likely not those who sabotaged the case.

user-pic

The Republicans are pushing the "he was innocent" angle, but in fact, he wasn't innocent of the charges, he didn't report the income on his Senate forms, what, 8 times?

Did he report it to the IRS?

user-pic

On the other hand, maybe Holder is setting the stage for prosecution of some in the Bush gang.

user-pic

Or maybe rescuing Don Siegelman?

user-pic

If that happens, I'll buy you a beer.

user-pic

It just shows how brain dead the entire D.C. estblishment is. Aren't these the EXACT SAME PEOPLE, who were talking about how guilty Williams Ayers is, despite the fact the charges brought against him were also dismissed because of misconduct by the government? Oh wait, I forgot, everyone in the D.C. Metro area suffered a sudden case of amnesia on January 20, 2009.

user-pic

I don't think that Ayers is a good comparison for Stevens. Stevens always has denied guilt. Ayers, in his memoirs, has admitted, although somewhat coyly, that he participated in decisions to plant bombs

user-pic

Excellent review and commentary.

user-pic

Good commentary. Stevens was corrupt. But in hearing the evidence at trial, I always thought the evidence was very weak because of what is needed for a criminal conviction. Corrupt but not criminal is, I believe, the proper judgment on Stevens

user-pic

Quash this insider sympathy orgy by tossing the Don Siegelman prosecution, as well as Stevens'.

We're all waiting, AG Holder, for you to start cleaning up DoJ for real.

user-pic

Obama and the villagers think it's OK when the victim of prosecutorial misconduct is a Democrat, though.

user-pic

I don't see how not prosecuting again by default means innocent. Holder specifically cited the crook Steven's age as a factor in the decision not to. The repulsives really think they can bamboozle us with their bull shyt logic, with the help of the barbecue media.

user-pic

This is exactly what I was afraid of. Dropping the charges because they used third rate lawyers that tainted the whole process suddenly translates into Ted Stevens being an innocent man that was wrongly prosecuted. They are already calling for the senator who took his seat to resign. Then they'll ask Palin to put him back in the senate. Perhaps he can get a third story for his house...

user-pic

Am I missing something here? To accuse the DOJ, at that time, of misconduct is to ignore the fact that the end result was what was sought all along. Stevens walks. During the trial I wondered if the DOJ was intentionally trying to 'f' up to get this case thrown.

user-pic

Me, too.

user-pic

This is the first sign that Holder might just put the justice back in Justice. For too long it has been the persecution wing of the GOP. All of the management put in place by Gonzales and the other Bush maggots must be rooted out and sent packing.

user-pic

Holder did the right thing. This clears the way for him to fire the top two people in the Public Integrity section of DOJ, says Nina Totenberg of NPR. Who are they? They are the inquisitors who went after Siegelman, Cyril Wecht, and so many others. As for the beltway love for Stevens, why is OJ Simpson "still guilty" but Stevens is not? In both cases it was a poor prosecution that led eventually to their name being "cleared."

user-pic

I hope you're right and that comes to pass. If there are problematic high level managers, letting Stevens off the hook to this extent might be worth getting them out of there. But I'd still like to see movement on Seilegman (or however his name is spelled).

I won't hold my breath.

user-pic

Agree Sponson. The prosecution was amateurish, everyone knows Stevens was guilty, he's out of office which is the biggest benefit to all this. Now Holder needs to clear out as many corrupt prosecutors as he can to nail the crooks still in power.

user-pic

I saw this coming. Holder is a tool. At a minimum, his statement should have said something about how he still believes that Stevens was guilty, but that the misconduct made it impossible to prosecute.

Or course, it could be that Holder is actually a bad person and wanted it to play out like this. Incompetent or evil? Probably doesn't matter.

user-pic

"He'll have to work the rest of his life."

Yes, Sen. Inouye, he'll have to work the rest of his life peddling his influence to members of Congress like you.

user-pic

Honor among thieves?

user-pic

Haven't these people ever watched Law & Order?

"Dammit, detective, because you didn't get a warrant, a guilty man is going to walk."

"Dammit, because you didn't Mirandize the suspect..."

"Dammit, because you didn't ..."

Etc. The idea that Stevens is "innocent" is laughable and everybody knows it.

user-pic

Why should we expect the media to understand why the DOJ had to dump this case?
I mean do they get any analysis right these days, other than what Michelle is wearing.

user-pic

Everyone else has pretty much expressed what I was going to say, but let me add to the outpouring. The fact that he got off on a technicality doesn't mean he was innocent. It's like when Oliver North got off on a technicality although he was up to his eyebrows in completely illegal activity, and then lied out his rectal orifice about it.

It wasn't the DOJ that ruined his reputation. It was his own behavior. No where in the decision by Mr. Holder is there even a suggestion that Mr. Stevens hadn't done what he was convicted of doing.

And Mr. Stephanopoulos, I have no problem at all not feeling sorry for the creep. He should be happy that he escaped punishment for his misdeeds.

user-pic

And OJ is innocent, and a really swell guy, because Mark Furman is an arrogant racist.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address