1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainFrom what it sounds like, there is evidence of the guy basically admitting to taking gifts inappropriately. He got shafted in the legal process, but at the same time I'm not too upset that he's out of office.
Ted Stevens lost re-election to the senate. He cannot get his position back even though his conviction was thrown out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/08stevens.html
I don't know a lot about Stevens, so I ask you all. Did he get a raw deal?
Originally posted by Metal BrainNot really. The prosecution screwed up in the handling of the evidence and so the case got thrown out rightfully.
Ted Stevens lost re-election to the senate. He cannot get his position back even though his conviction was thrown out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/08stevens.html
I don't know a lot about Stevens, so I ask you all. Did he get a raw deal?
That doesn't mean that there wasn't any case against him or there wouldn't have been if the prosecution had handled the evidence properly.
1 edit
Stevens should have been properly prosecuted. But it is well he is no longer in office. He wasn't the most corrupt Senator, personally. But he was in thrall to parochial oil interest, the vassal of who knows how many others, and the most cantankerous and disagreeable old sots around this town. Raw deal? He got off easy thanks to poor lawyering. Here's an insight into the guy: he took to opportunity while on camera during the Clinton impeachment hearings, whether or not he intended the gesture, to pick his nose on national TV. Always wondered if that was Alaskan for biting one's thumb ...
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo...He got a good deal!! This man sucked many millions of dollars for unnecessary projects in Alaska, and when confronted with this, he cried like a little girl.
Ted Stevens lost re-election to the senate. He cannot get his position back even though his conviction was thrown out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/08stevens.html
I don't know a lot about Stevens, so I ask you all. Did he get a raw deal?
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThey withheld evidence more than once. If the case was so strong why didn't the prosecution let the evidence stand on it's own? Seems to me that this was no mistake. Looks like overzealous prosecution to me.
Not really. The prosecution screwed up in the handling of the evidence and so the case got thrown out rightfully.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't any case against him or there wouldn't have been if the prosecution had handled the evidence properly.
I even read that one of the witnesses changed his story after having an affair with one of the prosecuting attorneys. This is a strange case.
I wonder if the prosecuting attorneys will get jail time for this. They have it coming.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe prosecution should have let the evidence stand on its own and didn't. It may not have been a mistake to withhold evidence and whether it was simply a mistake or not, that's why the case deserved to be thrown out.
They withheld evidence more than once. If the case was so strong why didn't the prosecution let the evidence stand on it's own? Seems to me that this was no mistake. Looks like overzealous prosecution to me.
I even read that one of the witnesses changed his story after having an affair with one of the prosecuting attorneys. This is a strange case.
I wonder if the prosecuting attorneys will get jail time for this. They have it coming.
Whether the evidence was legitimate an its own is a different question.