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.

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 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.