Ted Stevens Walks

Hmmmm
Holder’s willing to react to prosecuter misconduct in a corruption trial, but wholesale DOJ misconduct in NSA cases: not so much.
.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenwald/greenwald30.html

KT-I take it the response you were waiting for from Treasury is so voluminous you are still wading through it.

Just a question,
.
Does anyone think that the prosecutors (them being Bush hires and knowing the politicization of the branch at the time) might have screwed this up intentionally, giving the defense and any decent judge a good justification for releasing a Republican in good standing?
.
I’ve just wondered how ANYONE could be that incompetent while trying to do their job on this.

afguy: i think this was done primarily by the career folks in the public integrity section, who don’t have a reputation for being the sharpest knives in the drawer.

and, yes, gunny, i’m still waiting…

Karen,
.
How long have these “dull blades” been there? Are they the equivalent of the “loyal” Regency College scholars who have entertained and served us for the past eight years?
.
Or just someone decent but in ‘way over their heads?

Brenda Morris (along with William Welch II) was the lead prosecutor in the case against then-Senator Ted Stevens. In October, 2008, the federal judge overseeing the trial took Ms. Morris to task for committing blatant prosecutorial misconduct twice in the Stevens case. That rebuke was not enough.
.
Ms. Morris and her boss lied to a federal judge again!
.
The Public Integrity Section has taken plenty of lumps from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan over the course of the case of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted of corruption charges in October. By the looks of these court pleadings filed Thursday, it can expect a few more.
.
In an attached letter dated Jan. 30, the section’s director, William Welch II, told the judge he “deeply regrets the drain on the court’s resources and loss of credibility in the court’s eyes.”
.
More here. Will anyone investigate Ms. Morris or Mr. Welch? If not, why not? How many more times are they going to lie to the court before facing discipline?
.
People often wonder how Mike Nifong could indict three innocent young men. Yet look at Morris and Welch. Neither will face any punishment for their unethical conduct. So who can blame people like Mike Nifong from seeing exactly how much they can get away with?
.
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2009/02/brenda-morris-along-with-william-welch-ii-is-at-it-again.html

Will this mean conservatives praising Holder as a “fair and balanced” AG who disregards politics in favor of competency and the right thing to do? Um…no.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Thanks, gunny.
.
I think the part about repeatedly lying answers the question for me.
.
At least the “decent” part . . .

I would fall all over myself praising Holder for this–first there’s this: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDE3NWJhNTkxYzJmMmJkOTQ5ZWU3Y2U1ZTFlZDMxOTc=
.

Second, this is an easy call for them. Stevens is gone, the victim of the Bush Justice Dept. (although I don’t feel sorry for Stevens, as the evidence was pretty damning). Plus, all these guys are in the club.

Is Holder going after bigger fish? Like Jack Murtha (D) Pennsylvania?????
.
Oh wait a minute, corruption in DC is no different than the corruption in Chicago, why else would they not want to touch an ex-Senator from Alaska.
.
I suppose we will see a story on this too, right Karen Tumulty?

spob!
.
The end must be near! I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said above.
.
Thanks for the comments.

Actually, though, it’s more like justice itself could be described as a “victim of the Bush Justice Department”.
.
But I get your point.

af: i’m not familiar enough with the workings of the justice department to say much about this, or how justified it is, but i do know public integrity’s bad rep is longstanding.

Karen,
.
Thanks for the response. Your interaction with us is greatly appreciated. Hope it’s contagious among your co-workers. They could use more of it.

spob,
Thanks for those links.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104426.html?hpid=topnews
.
Living as I do in a territory and not a State I am sympathetic to the plight of disenfranchised DC residents but the Constitution itself is rather clear on the point. No State – No vote.
.
Anyone who cares to argue around that is showing a clear preference for expedience over principles.

Let me get this right, KT. The PUBLIC INTEGRITY section has had a BAD reputation for a LONG time!

The PUBLIC INTEGRITY section has had a BAD reputation for a LONG time!
.
bitterpill,
.
I have no doubt that the statement Karen made is spot on. Only one word I can think of to describe that -
.
Sad – very, very sad. For the country.

af and bitter: i suspect that this is not a very fun place to work, which means that the best and the brightest do their best to go elsewhere. but that is pure conjecture on my part.

I can see a distinction between prosecutorial misconduct in failure to disclose routine evidence to the defense, on one hand, and efforts to preserve the confidentiality of claimed national security info on the other. A new administration certainly isn’t going to be quick to start publishing classified stuff while it figures out what legitimately does and what doesn’t need to be concealed. Failure to disclose ordinary exculpatory evidence to the defense, however, is a gross denial of basic due process – at least in the absence of valid national security issues. It looks like the Stevens case is just an instance of prosecutors not doing their job lawfully.
.
I share Paul Dirks’s concern over the possibility of excessive concealment of evidence on national security grounds, but somebody has to make that call initially. So far I still feel better when it’s the current DOJ than when the previous Gang that Couldn’t Talk Straight automatically assumed the necessity of concealment of everything all the time. Meanwhile, the Stevens action is a significant slapdown of prosecutorial impropriety and an overall good omen for both small-j justice and capital-j Justice.

i suspect that this is not a very fun place to work, which means that the best and the brightest do their best to go elsewhere. but that is pure conjecture on my part.
.
Karen,
.
Based on experience while employed the government, I think you are probably right about this. Still, lying shouldn’t be thought of as part of anyone’s job description, no matter how crappy the job is. Especially when it obviously jeopardizes an investigation. They know what they need to be doing.
.
But I do understand . . . it’s how imperfect people act at times. Too bad, though.

afguy: I wasn’t questioning KT. It is IRONIC that the PUBLIC INTEGRITY section misled the defence attorneys and the judge.

bitterpill,
.
Don’t worry – I got the irony. Had the same thought too.

Siegleman’s next.
.
Freeing Stevens gives Holder cover to investigate and prosecute Rove and his co-conspirators.

bitterpill,
.
If I beat my head against the keyboard every time I felt like doing so lately, I’d have no head left.
.
I just keep asking myself: what in the he** has happened to this country? I never needed to be told that a lot of this was wrong when I was growing up. Why is it happening now?

Tom in the Swamp,
.
I hope there’s a plan to all of this. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Siegelman’s conviction was not the result of prosecutorial misconduct. He’s a crook.

No, Siegelman’s conviction is the result of both prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

He may be a crook, but unless this is a crime, what Siegelman was convicted of is not a crime.

Now, if someone wants to prosecute Siegelman for real crimes, I’m ready to listen to them.

Siegelman’s conviction was not the result of prosecutorial misconduct. He’s a crook.
.
spob,
.
Steven’s conviction would fit the same description. Overwhelming evidence of same guilt.
.
Siegelman’s conviction also contained strong suggestions of WH political coordination involving spouses of the prosecutorial staff, plus a prosecutor who recused herself yet remained in contact and involved with the process.
.
Siegelman may not be “lily-white” regarding integrity (he is, after all, a politician), but there are enough questions involving the entire process to make one wonder if the appeals process available to him was fair and open.
.
Wasn’t his prosecution re-opened after some extra WH interest?

Evidence, please, Tom. Last I checked, some lunatic’s unsupported charges that Rove was involved doesn’t get it done.
.

Here’s an interesting perspective:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWI4ZDcwMzNiZmQ5MmQ4MzkwNjEyOGEyMGU3N2JmMjY=&w=MA==

Thank you so much for responding to commentary, KT.

Evidence, please, Tom. Last I checked, some lunatic’s unsupported charges that Rove was involved doesn’t get it done.
.
spob,
.
So, let get him under oath and ask him about his involvement. Part of the problem to this point has been Mr. Rove’s lack of willingness to take that little extra step and do so. I’m sure that his testimony would help clear this up – unless what he says would contradict what others have said, then things might get a little dicey for him.
.
After all, your involvement in a state prosecution (or lack of same)shouldn’t pose “Executive Privilege” questions, should it?

afguy, ever hear of the term “fishing expedition”? Guess not.

I bet Rangel’s breathing a little easier. Isn’t taking below market rent similar to what Stevens has done?
.

Besides, what illegal conduct can you point to that got Siegelman convicted? Come on guys, evidence please.

Part of Mr. Rove’s problem may be that he isn’t quite sure of the version of events that’s in play right now. Anything he says now may contradict what someone else (or he himself) has said publicly in the past.
.
Makes it VERY important for him to keep any testimony off of the legal record. No perjury charge.

spob — Nice try at changing the subjest.

Whether or not Rove is involved, unless a president appointing big campaign donors to ambassadorships is a crime, Siegelman re-appointing to an unpaid state governance board a guy who made a donation to a campaign to raise money for schools — not even to Siegelman’s own campaign! — with no proof of quid pro quo even being asserted by the prosecutors, is not a crime. His was a purely political prosecution, and justice demands that Holder drop charges on the current appeal.

Then we can get Rove under oath and sort out his level of involvement.

spob,
.
Oh, yes, I have heard of that.
.
Stevens was convicted of more than just that (non-reported gifts that amounted to bribes) and the evidence was very solid. The prosecutors didn’t follow the accepted rules and, becasue of that, a re-trial is problematical. Therefore, he’s walking. But I don’t think there are many who will argue that he didn’t actually do what he was accused of doing.
.
In Siegelman’s case, the questions is also of whether or not the process was abused, from the way the indictment was handled to the appeal process.
.
He may NOT walk away, but I also think some of the prosecutorial staff have questions to answer about their conduct too.

I heard on the teevee that Stevens’ lawyer called Holder a “pillar of integrity.” Hope that’s true, and it’s refreshing to know that a someone representing a member of the opposition party can say that. Can anyone imagine, in your wildest dreams, anyone legitimately being able to say that Gonzales, e.g., was a pillar of integrity?
.

Paul D: Give Holder a little time on the NSA cases. He’s been in office 2+ months. The urgency on the Stevens case was probably precipitated by the sentencing hearings. Also, it’s a little simpler.

Would that lawyer be calling Holder a “pillar of integrity” if he hadn’t decided to drop the prosecution? Or would his language have been more inclined along the lines of “pile of something or other”?
.
Call it a case of “situational complements” but, at least, it’s a start toward civility.

http://www.redstate.com/martin_a_knight/2009/04/01/fratricide-and-ted-stevens/
.

Redstate’s take.

I was glad to see the charges dropped for one reason. Stevens is 85 and if he got sent to prison and died there, the right wing would have a field day with it. It isn’t hard to imagine the Corpulent One using his bully pulpit to claim that the left wing sent a long time republican public servant to prison to die when he wasn’t a threat to anyone. I can see the head shaking, the jowls flapping and a single tear flowing down the cheek. Cut to commercial and get me a scotch.

Well, sacredh, the “right wing” wasn’t all that enamored with Stevens. Few of us shed a tear when he lost. Now we find out that some career prosecutor (a Dem) stacked the deck to gain a conviction, and we’re not supposed to question it?

One thing we can all agree on though, I can think of one GOP pol who richly deserves his time in jail, George Ryan. He should have gotten a lot more than he did.

Now we find out that some career prosecutor (a Dem) stacked the deck to gain a conviction, and we’re not supposed to question it?
.
spob,
.
Stacked the deck??
.
Nice trick, that procecutor slipping that extra story on Ted’s house without his knowing about it. And getting those expensive gifts into his possession, then tricking him into forgetting to report them as such . . .
.
I apologize. The prosecutor was much more competent and underhanded than I gave him/her credit for.
.
Was the prosecutor a Dem? Haven’t heard anyone else say that or offer proof. Just that they were “career status” and that this section has had a sucky reputation for competence for a while. However, I did read a fair amount of speculation on another thread that allowing the screwups to happen would be a back-handed way of ensuring a dismissal of charges under the new admin or by anyone who would take an honest look at the process and conduct of the staff in this.
.
Let’s apply the same oversight to the Siegelman case. Seems there are questions about prosecutorial mis-conduct in that case too.

afguy, are you really that dense (kinda blows the stereotype for you Chair Force guys–I am assuming “af” refers to Air Force)?
.

Redacting witness statements–that’s stacking the deck. Redstate is saying that the prosecutor was a Dem. If they’re wrong, then you can smack me about the head and neck.

spob,
.
Did they redact, or just fail to turn over in a timely manner?
.
If that was the extent of their case, then I might agree somewhat. However, the actual main points of the case aren’t really in question.
.
As for Redstate’s being right, let’s just say I’m skeptical.
.
And yes, I’m retired AF. 20+ years, Aircraft maintenance. Just a point – might try dialing back on the sarcasm with anyone who doesn’t agree with you. You’ll get further with them. Especially in this forum. They’re some of the best I’ve seen.

Especially since QH/Hula has “twittered off” somewhere . . .

afguy, they did “stack the deck”. That’s what intentional prosecutorial misconduct does. Now you can argue that it wouldn’t have mattered etc. etc. But remember, it’s your side that yaps about the “just-us” system. You cannot cast that aside simply because a GOP senator got caught in its clutches.

And afguy, I hold my own. I have been viciously attacked in here (well, as vicious as blog posting can be)–I punch back (rhetorically anyway).