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.

On Apr 7, 10:47*pm, 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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...

wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, 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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...

He comes around every once in a while when a gun jumps up off the shelf
and kills some people all by its inanimate self.

He is a fun to bitch slap for a few days and then he leaves.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:01:59 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, 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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...

He comes around every once in a while when a gun jumps up off the shelf
and kills some people all by its inanimate self.

He is a fun to bitch slap for a few days and then he leaves.

I'll come around one year and find that one of you idiots has gone
bezerk and shot up his former employer or killed your wife.

I'm happily watching your chosen party shrink into a ball of quivering
goo while a real man with a brain leads us back out of the woods.

The **** you support is backwoods, backwards and just plain ****in'
stupid.

Your kind is on the decline, thank God.

Until then, this is the easiest place to find relics like you and spit
in your faces.

Sweet dreams.

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:01:59 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, 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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...
He comes around every once in a while when a gun jumps up off the shelf
and kills some people all by its inanimate self.

He is a fun to bitch slap for a few days and then he leaves.

I'll come around one year and find that one of you idiots has gone
bezerk and shot up his former employer or killed your wife.

It was a hunting accident, I swear.

I'm happily watching your chosen party shrink into a ball of quivering
goo while a real man with a brain leads us back out of the woods.

A real man? Real men don't talk like cheese eating surrender monkeys.
(Let's see if you understand the context of this statement)

The **** you support is backwoods, backwards and just plain ****in'
stupid.

Personal responsibility is backwoods, backwards and just plain ****in'
stupid.

The bank hasn't repossessed my cars nor have the foreclosed on my house.

Your kind is on the decline, thank God.

I would appreciate it if you would tell me how you enjoy waiting in line
for your medical care, your food, your clothing and your job.

Until then, this is the easiest place to find relics like you and spit
in your faces.

The USA was not built by men standing in line with their hand out
waiting for the government to fill it with their next day's sustenance.

Sweet dreams.

Soon that's all you will have is dreams. I want my children's dreams to
turn into reality.

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.

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.

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.

BAR wrote:
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.

The chief prosecutor was appointed by George H.W. Bush and promoted by
George W. Bush


--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

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



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.

Exactly right.

I've always thought that if an innocent man went to jail because of a
prosecutor's misconduct, the prosecutor should be jailed for as long as
the innocent person was. That would cut down on this type of crap.