jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:47:35 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:19:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:

Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.
There were mounds of evidence against him, that's why he was
convicted. From all accounts, his guilt or innocence would not have
been affected by what was withheld.
Why was it withheld? Were these prosecutors afraid that the withheld
evidence would provide reasonable doubt?

Read about the charges and proof and you'll find the situation pretty
damned obvious. Uncle Ted was on the take in a big way. That he's no
different than other pols isn't a defense against prosecution or
conviction.
Charges are not convictions.

What charges and evidence brought forward were damning and conclusive.
I don't know what was withheld or what effect it may have on the case
but it was clear he was caught red handed.

It was exculpatory evidence from the governments primary witness. You
really do need to be better informed about the subjects your offer
opinions and arguemnts about.

When the prosecutors withhold evidence you can only conclude that the
either the prosecutors are idiots or that they were afraid the withheld
evidence would have sunk their case.

Prosecutors' job is to seek the truth, not to gain a conviction.

You've got to be kidding. Justice Department officials and Republican
politicians specifically asked Republican appointed prosecutors to try
cases against Democrats in front of elections as a tool to supress
support.

How many refused and how many complied?

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.
More twilight zone stuff. Tsk tsk.
Agreed but worth a moment of fantasy. Wouldn't be the first time
prosecutors screwed things up on purpose.
Nobody is perfect.

You mean Republican prosecutors in Alaska prosecuting a senior
Republican senator from Alaska aren't perfect.

Are you under the delusions that the entire federal governments
workforce is replaced each time a new president is elected?

Bureaucracy is the word of the day
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bureaucracy). And, just for
fun lets view its meaning with the word entrenched as an adjective. You
know entrenched bureaucracy.