Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
*Republican U.S. Sen Stevens Indicted' | General | |||
OT Libby's Conviction | ASA | |||
OT BushCo captures Cat Stevens! | General | |||
OT cat stevens not allowed in the US | ASA | |||
Canadians could be thrown in jail for watching TV | ASA |