Thursday, April 9, 2009

Some Thoughts on Senator Ted Stevens and the Law

Posted by Will Moredock on Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:23 AM

I don't generally write about Alaska politics. In fact, I have never written about Alaska politics! But this is something that amused me and I wanted to pass it on.

As you may recall, Alaska's geriatric Senator Ted Stevens was convicted last fall of accepting gifts from wealthy business people he had secured legislation for and not reporting those gifts to the Federal Election Commission. In common parlance, that is called bribery. In Washington, it is called an election law violation.

A week later, Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, lost a close race and ended his political career looking at federal prison sentence.

But this week there was a dramatic turn in the case when Attorney General Eric Holder threw out the conviction, citing gross misconduct on the part of the Justice Department's prosecutorial team. Among other things, they had withheld exculpatory evidence from Stevens' lawyers. Stevens was back in court two days later, claiming that he he had never lost faith in the American legal system and he was now vindicated of the charges against him.

Here's a news flash for the 85-year-old former senator. He was not found innocent of the charges. No one has said he did not take the gifts from powerful associates he had served in Washington. No one said he had failed to report those gifts in accordance with federal election law. All the attorney general said was that the prosecutors screwed up big-time and the conviction could not stand. Stevens got off on a technicality!

And that brings me to a second point. Isn't it Republicans and conservatives like Ted Stevens who are always whining about criminals beating the rap on a technicality and walking away scot-free? That's what happened to the famous rightwing loud-mouth Oliver North in the 1980s. His federal perjury conviction was thrown out and he also left court claiming he was "vindicated." No, North had indeed lied under oath to Congress, but a smart lawyer got him off.

Here's my question to Stevens and North and other sanctimonious rightwing yahoos: If your criminal convictions are overturned on a technicality, shouldn't you demand to serve your sentence on a matter of principle? Shouldn't you? Huh? Huh? Just asking.

  |  

Comments (2)

Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Will, why don't you tell the whole story about the voting rights act. Did you forget that without 30 of the 32 republicans senators voting in favor, the bill would have been stalled ? of course, that does not fit into your agenda. what is so wrong with a pictured ID being required to vote unless you have something to hide. do a little test with the common middle class and poor voter. Ask them the same questions that a legal immigrant would have to answer to obtain citizenship. it's sad that a man got voted in because of his color rather than his qualifcations. Bud

report   
Posted by bud on April 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Bud,

You are right -- technically. The Voting Rights Act could not have passed without Republican support. But you must remember that those were the days of the old Democratic solid South and a progressive Republican Party. In those days there was room for Nelson Rockefeller and Charles Percy and their like in the GOP. They would never be tolerated today. The Club for Growth and the Moral Majority would drive them out. Likewise, the Democratic Party prior to 1965 was dominated by southern white supremacists. Today they have migrated over to the Republican Party. The world has changed in nearly half a century

report   
Posted by moredock on May 27, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
By Email
With RSS
Showing 1-2 of 2

Add a comment

Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS