« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Justice Department To Drop Stevens Charges
NPR:
The Justice Department will drop all charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, NPR has learned.
It added that Attorney General Eric Holder decided the conviction could not be defended thanks to problems with the prosecution.
The news of the case being dropped has now been confirmed independently by the AP and CNN.
Stevens was convicted last fall of failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from oil-services contractor Bill Allen.
But the case was marred by allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, which have only intensified since the conviction, and have delayed Stevens' sentencing.
The former Alaska GOP senator lost his bid for reelection last year to Democrat Mark Begich.
PERMALINK | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
| TOPICS: Alaska, Bill Allen, Eric Holder, Justice Department, Ted Stevens
| TOPICS: Alaska, Bill Allen, Eric Holder, Justice Department, Ted Stevens
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
Very suspicious, if you ask me. Intentially screwing the pooch so they could create the illusion of actually administering justice while simultaneously letting an obvious criminal off the hook.
Every member of the Bush administration should be standing trial for the myriad crimes of the past eight years.
April 1, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I would find it hard to believe the Bushies in the Justice department were that smart. More likely, they were just incompetent and corrupt enough to screw this one up!
April 1, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a trial attorney with the Department. I didn't work on or anywhere near the Stevens case, but I would be surprised if this were a case that was intentionally thrown. You throw a case, and that's not just your license, that's prison.
Besides, if you were going to throw a case, would you do so in a way that highlighted so many problems that everyone would wonder whether you threw the case?
April 1, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really think you can make that statement sensibly. It sounds rather Pollyannish.
It wouldn't be difficult to throw a case in this manner. It would be almost impossible possible to criminally prove it. Get real. At worst the person gets fired. But if it was a dive, that person walks right into a highly overcompensated gig at Halliburton or whatever.
The idea Steven's buddies wouldn't have the practical experience or gumption to throw one measly corruption case, totally pollyannish.
Stevens has a long history of favors and bringing home the pork to a notoriously corrupt state run by oil and development companies. These companies make the mob look quaint. They've been involved in 3rd world espionage, corruption, and even coups and dictatorships, for decades. These are companies that regularly corrupt entire governments for resource rights.
April 1, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: I can't believe how Josh is wimping out on this. I hope it's just shock and he recalibrates momentarily.
The problem here: where's the disincentive for the next corrupt Senator? None whatsoever.
He got away with it for decades. Yes, he had to go through the inconvenience of a trial, but ultimately he gets off.
Regarding public "shaming," is Josh kidding? Stevens is clearly a cantankerous good old boy. He's not ashamed of what he did. His entire social circle are like minded good old boys, who will be patting him on the back for this.
Moral lesson here:
Downside to corruption: maybe somebody in Alaska frowns at him sometime, and maybe it doesn't amuse him.
Upside to corruption: Decades of trading favors for wealthy and powerful corporate interests, housing renovations and countless material perks, reelection support, and being one of the most powerful men in the world for decades.
To any ethically challenged person, sounds like a great deal and that bad guys win.
April 1, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "DOJ intentionally threw the case" theory is just plain stupid on its face.
If you were a prosecutor and wanted to deliberately lose a case, you would TURN OVER exculpatory evidence to the defense, so the defense could USE the evidence and gain an acquittal.
The DOJ had evidence that undermined its case and hid that evidence from the defense -- and this is supposed to show that the DOJ was trying to lose? Um, no.
April 1, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you can't reasonably assert that.
The evidence wasn't very exculpatory. An allegation was made of a potentially improper relationship. That's not going to undermine the overwhelming evidence against Stevens from multiple sources. It might have raised his chances of not-guilty marginally.
However, refusing to submit evidence even when it's court ordered, and some of the other gross errors made by the prosecution, are certain to ensure a mistrial on technicalities.
The surest way to throw a case is always mistrial. A person can be guilty as hell and still get a mistrial if the prosecution is incompetent enough.
April 1, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"refusing to submit evidence even when it's court ordered, and some of the other gross errors made by the prosecution, are certain to ensure a mistrial on technicalities."
Except they didn't result in a mistrial. They resulted in a conviction. If the prosecutors were deliberately trying to lose, they failed.
And no, I don't buy the theory that the prosecutors were trying to lose by winning in such an error-ridden way that the win would be reversed on appeal. This is akin to arguing that Floyd Landis intentionally lost the Tour de France: his plan was to win, but to win by cheating, so his cheating would later be discovered and his win would be taken away from him -- resulting in a loss, which was his plan all along. Yeah, right.
As I noted on another thread: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
April 1, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, Here!
April 2, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can he be tried again on the same charges?
April 1, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holder has decided not to try him again.
April 1, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The case--particularly the testimony by Allen, a key witness--is so tainted and subject to impeachment all across the board now, that you'd have to seriously question anyone who retried this case. Brendan Sullivan would have a field day with this one.
April 1, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...could not be defended THANKS to problems with the prosecution..." - I'm sure that's what the republicans are saying too.
April 1, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The dang gummint cain't be trusted to get nuthin right!
April 1, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm okay with dropping the charges against Stevens as long as they pursue charges against every single person at Justice who participated in taking a dive to make sure his conviction wouldn't be upheld. The long string of unprofessional mistakes that even a green beginning attorney would not make is more than enough reason to conclude that there's reason to believe the mistakes were intentional.
April 1, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. I think they need an investigation and prosecution of the prosecutors.
Those criminally incompetent Bushies couldn't run a fucking lemonade stand. I wouldn't trust these idiots to wash my car, let alone run the country. Still, it's remarkable even the tatters of America are left after 8 years of incompetent, and evil, nihilism.
Next time you hear a GOP spouting about "meritocracy", try not to spit out your coffee with laughter.
April 1, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would not be so quick to judge that they were intentional. They were significant, but if you were going to throw the case, would you do it like this?
April 1, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this does look like they took a dive. Also, what's up with this judge?
I won't be surprised if down the road the prosecutors involved take cushy jobs at Halliburton or whatever. Everyone involved should be monitored years down the road to see if they happen to wind up in highly over compensated gigs in rt wing leading corporations. What assholes.
April 1, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the consensus. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to pretend to prosecute Stevens and then ensure he could not be convicted. I hope there are laws against this intentional misconduct.
Does anyone know if the prosecutors are still working in government? They are, based on existing and well known facts, incompetent and worthy of dismissal.
April 1, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
April Fools!
Right?
April 1, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please take out the word "stunner" in the headline. The feigned surprise at the Obama administration not pursuing prosecution of Stevens or any other Bushite (a la Rumsfield, Bush, Cheney, Woo etc etc etc) is getting to be as annoying as the feigned outrage of the conservatives over whatever it is they are pretending to be outraged over. Let's just get it out there so the children aren't stunned again: There will be no American prosecution of any political figure associated with the Bush administration. So go about your business or move to Spain where the courts have some balls.
April 1, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought one of the things we elected a new President to do was clean up the malfeasance in the Justice Department. When a case has been handled as badly as this one has been, there is a legitimate question about whether or not the process has been so contaminated that justice can not be served by continuing the trial. That needs to apply to everyone, including corrupt old bastards like Ted Stevens, who, by the way, is 84 and has lost his Senate seat. He is finished. Is it ideal? No. But, that is hardly this administration's fault.
As for Spain, yes one judge has a history of investigating war crimes (which I suppose is the evidence of the "balls" you refer to), but check out how well that country has done in investigating Franco's horrific crimes. The grass isn't always as green as it looks from a distance: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102383364
April 1, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct on Spain (maybe it's just one ball they have over there.) My frustration is the idea that we are surprised by this outcome. A powerful Senator was caught "redhanded" according to Holden and he gets off. This is not surprising and should stun no one.
April 1, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, it's Holder, not Holden. And Stevens was hardly caught "red-handed." William Jefferson? That's getting caught red-handed.
April 1, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
April Fools?
April 1, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got me. I believed it.
April 1, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Stevens - you just won hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and home improvements tax-free from oil lobbyists - where you gonna go? "I'm going to Disneyland!"
April 1, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ack. Is trues...
April 1, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - April 1, 2009 - (Washington, DC) - In the wake of the decision to drop all charges against former Republican Senator Ted Stevens (AK, Crazy), Attorney General Eric Holder announced "Get Out of Jail Free" cards will be distributed to Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,George Bush Jr. and other Republicans.
"Ted Stevens was caught red-handed taking cash and home improvements from oil lobbyists," Holder says. "If we can't convict him, we can't get anybody."
In related news, Holder and Obama canceled plans to receive spine implants to stand up to the former Bush regime.
April 1, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This statement is retarded. I mean that in its most appropriate definition. It is knee-jerk, reflective thinking that is stunted and wholly unassociated with any form of reason. It assumes that because one has an R after their title, they are part of the Bush cabal and thus guilty of something, and the refusal to allow a tainted prosecution to stand equates with lack of spine or sense of justice.
Retarded.
April 1, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and another white establishment player gets special treatment. Let this be a lesson to you, if you're powerful enough and do something wrong, you may one day suffer the appearance of being in the proximity of justice. We'll see if Bill Jefferson gets the same treatment, but I suspect not.
April 1, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jefferson will be movin' on up ... to the Big House.
April 1, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holder did the right thing. Anybody who followed the case knew the case was weak from the start and that the prosecution screwed it up royally. I don't think the prosecutors decided to prosecute and then intentionally botched it - that makes little or no sense since they didn't win brownie points for bringing the prosecution in the first place. As far as investigating the prosecutors - there should be an internal investigation about their competence but screwing up a case is not a criminal offense.
Congrats to the Obama DOJ for not letting partisan politics get in the way of justice
April 1, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding? Just get here from Free Republic or what? What planet were you on?
1) He was a Senator taking heat for corruption in the national media. TPM and other news outlets followed it extensively. And he lost reelection.
2) Yes, it makes perfect sense to prosecute while it's in the news, botch it, then cause charges to be dropped. It's called a "show trial."
3) He was convicted, despite a botched prosecution. Not the usual definition of a "weak case."
April 1, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this a quid for the quo of a dropping of charges in the Siegelman case?
April 1, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This way the investigation of all the Alaska Politicians bribed by Big Oil the fishing industry and others stops.
A weak case where you hear the defendant giving the terms of multiple Quid Pro Quos on a wire tap?
Get real, this is a very stong case, the DOJ just F'ed it up by withholding evidence. They should learn to be careful in violating the rights of the well connected. If this had been anyone ordinary they wouldn't have the resources to learn of the hidden evidence, and the judge would not have questioned the DOJ.
The DOJ benefits by not having its Foulups and evidence hiding brought to light and gets to keep the procedures that allow hiding evidence to continue.
April 1, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink