Ted Stevens case dropped: Eric Holder

Why shouldn't a prosecutor be held criminally liable for such an act? They should, it is fraud leading to possible prison time for a defendent. The punishment for depriving someone of their civil liberties should be the same, deprivation of liberty.

Is this an April Fool's joke? I guess we really aren't interested in going after corruption, after all.

In plain words, this was a political assault by the Justice Department to get rid of a U.S. senator by bringing this action on the eve of election. This is what we've come to in this nation? No wonder so many senators are AWOL when it comes to controversial issues. And if "Justice" can do it to a senator, what chance do people like us have if we speak out? The formerly greatest country in the world is now no better than a banana republic.

There must be something to the misconduct allegations if you have a Democratic AG dismissing the prosecution of a Republican Senator, originally begun by a Republican Jutice Department. Again, I think this reflects on the poor hiring practices of Bush's justice dept.

I am not at all surprised to hear you want to drop charges against Ted Stevens - The US US Government is so corrupt, immoral and greedy that it makes me sick - but you go ahead and let another criminal go free - after all he is one of your own!!

Stevens is 84 and guilty as hell. Prosecuters, in their rush to trial, took shortcuts and used less than ethical tactics to get their conviction. Now Holder thinks it's a better idea to drop the matter than to waste time and money defending the conviction as Stevens would probably die before these got thru the legal system again.
Basically, the American Justice system worked. Stevens lost face and status because he was a corrupt politician. The Alaskan people got to see what wrongs their elected officials do. Holder gets a chance to rise above the fray and state the Justice Department will be held to a higher standard starting right here and right now.
We all win. Better prosecutions in the future, corrupt politicians are being watch closer than ever, the Alaskan people get better representation and Stevens gets to live out his last days in a really nicely upgraded house!

This is for those of you who think that 'your' vote doesn't count. Stevens lost his re-election by a little more than 200 votes after a re-count. (Remember, if a democrat loses by 1000 votes or less, they will ALWAYS find enough votes to win the re-count). Now mark Begich (D) has his seat and he's that last vote the democrats need to over ride a fillibuster and being the obedient little lap dog he is, he will always vote the party line. So whenever you think that your vote doesn't count, think of the 200 votes that put Stevens out and gave the democrats the power to do virtually anything they want. The lack of 200 stinking votes could be the ruin of this nation. It's really pretty sad when you think about it.

Here's another example of the old double standard. One law for ordinary citizens and one for the wealthy and well connected. Is it any wonder why the "Tea Parties" are gaining in popularity? Bring back the America that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson created.

Give it a rest, Danforth; he was convicted on the facts, he wasn't innocent.

Oh, Please like you didn't see this one comming. The governement can put any one of us in jail forever with air tight cases, and now in this instance a senator has trial errors? Come on.

The frustration of what was done to Ted Stevens is almost unbearable. I never did think the Justice Dept had a valid case.....I guess the Dems got what they wanted tho it was by dishonest and unscrupulous behaviour.
Easy enough for them to say whoops, but in the end they harmed not only a good man but the State of Alaska as well.

This is the same Senator Stevens that earmarked federal money for "the bridge going nowhere". But you didn't mention that when you listed all his acomplishments- he should have lost the election on that basis alone-and I'm a Republican.

Looks like it took a socialist Democrat to put a stop to the political prosecution.
I, for one, accept Holder's decision.


Chris,
Unfortunately our 'justice' system has been so compromised in the past 30 years that we don't know what is a good or bad conviction.
All I know is, you don't want to get entangled with the law, as innocence or guilt has little to do with outcome. It's about notches on the gun and grooming for higher political office. If that means you do the time regardless, so what. They don't give hoot in Hell. And keep in mind that 'for profit' jails are now a profit center, and requires 'growth' to prosper.

Note all the death penalty convictions being thrown out based on beatings, lies, and expediency.
DNA is proving the innocence of many. How many have died? We don't really know.

There is so much to fix, who knows where to start.

What I hope it shows it that as frustrating as it is to see someone wriggle away, we're committed to doing it right. Whether it's terrorists or corrupt politicians or the drug dealer on the corner. It's not enough to just "know" they're guilty, and get the outcome you want. The entire system depends on preserving all the checks and balances and fairness built into it. That's the only way we can preserve any faith in the system long term. It's the only way we can have any confidence that a conviction or acquittal means anything more than payback or quid pro quo.
It's harder to do it right. It's harder to be the good guys. But that's what it takes. Bravo to holder for making the difficult choice and shame on those who should have done it right in the first place.

Thank the Justice Department for throwing this out and investigating their own for their wrong doing.

However, we still don't know if he did anything wrong or not and now never will. But maybe now he can run for Governor of the great State of Alaska?

Danforth, the case was brought by Gonzales-Mukasey's Justice Dept.

Watch Brian Lamb's 2 part Q & A program on Ted Stevens' prosecution and you'll conclude he was guilty.

Remedy for prosecutorial misconduct would be a new trial (unless prosecution actually destroyed exculpatory evidence or suborned an indispensible witness).

Ted, I guess you'll get to use that "Magic Fingers" massage chair after all.

Enjoy!

Omar, you make a very good point.

There's a lot more backstory to the Stevens prosecution than we are being told. But don't assume Stevens was innocent.

Perhaps Ashcroft/Gonzales/Mukasey decided to make Stevens a sacrificial lamb, as a cover for all the corruption cases they were NOT prosecuting.

It is a puzzlement. However I think they have released the tapes (as Pat Fitzgerald released the tapes in the Rezko case after the verdict) and Ted Stevens was pretty obviously trying to cover up.

Ted was arrogant and had the seniority in the Senate to back it up. Maybe he stepped on too many Republican toes and Mitch and Orrin decided to teach him a lesson.

I frankly don't know how bad the "misconduct" can be. Usually when the prosecution screws up, there is a new trial.

Infamous case in point: Rolando Cruz, who was tried for murcer at least 3 times before he was acquitted.

And the misconduct there was about as bad as it gets: detectives lying under oath in a cajpital case.

So I would think Eric Holder has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Years ago Williams & Connolly defended a criminal case in Chicago against an outfit Velsicol Chemical, where EPA claimed they failed to disclose a pesticide caused cancer in lab. rats (and by implication in humans further up the food chain).
Judge Leighton dismissed the indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct, but Justice Dept. decided to re prosecute the case, and then I think the corporation pleaded guilty and the individuals indicted were not reindicted.

So it will be interesting to see how Holder justifies not re-trying Stevens.

One of the reasons Bush/Cheney wanted to get rid of Pat Fitzgerald is his independence. I truly think Fitzgerald can't be influenced by the higher ups in the Justice Dept. and won't bring a case unless 1. he's convinced defendant is guilty and 2. he's got the evidence to get a conviction.

There is still much to be learned about the inner workings of the Stevens case.

This is for those of you who think that 'your' vote doesn't count. Stevens lost his re-election by a little more than 200 votes after a re-count. (Remember, if a democrat loses by 1000 votes or less, they will ALWAYS find enough votes to win the re-count). Now mark Begich (D) has his seat and he's that last vote the democrats need to over ride a fillibuster and being the obedient little lap dog he is, he will always vote the party line. So whenever you think that your vote doesn't count, think of the 200 votes that put Stevens out and gave the democrats the power to do virtually anything they want. The lack of 200 stinking votes could be the ruin of this nation. It's really pretty sad when you think about it.

This is for those of you who think that 'your' vote doesn't count. Stevens lost his re-election by a little more than 200 votes after a re-count. (Remember, if a democrat loses by 1000 votes or less, they will ALWAYS find enough votes to win the re-count). Now mark Begich (D) has his seat and he's that last vote the democrats need to over ride a fillibuster and being the obedient little lap dog he is, he will always vote the party line. So whenever you think that your vote doesn't count, think of the 200 votes that put Stevens out and gave the democrats the power to do virtually anything they want. The lack of 200 stinking votes could be the ruin of this nation. It's really pretty sad when you think about it.

Some of you are reading a media story, quotes from the attorney general and assuming he is innocent? Why? I see no specifics in this story to assume the charges should be dropped. Some of you claim politics was the reason for prosecuting him the first place. Keep in mind that this was a powerful GOP senator being prosecuted by a GOP administration. What if it is politics now and the Obama administration is taking care of a long time, old Senator now that the election is over and attention is on other things?

Yes....It isn't about whether Stevens is guilt...it's about not getting that seat. Morals be damned!

what do you think of this? i put up this poll: (linkback) Fair or Foul? All charges against Ted Stevens dropped for undisclosed evidence [VOTE] - http://www.pikk.com/959dd

Sorry folks, but according to what Holder said Stevens is, indeed, innocent. Not turning exculpatory evidence over to the defense is misconduct that can lead to disbarring. These prosecutors are in SERIOUS hotwater. This is the same argument that anti-death penalty advocates use all the time in relation to exculpatory evidence. For those who don't know what exculpatory means, turning this evidence over to the defense would have meant it would have been impossible to convict Stevens. That's why they withheld it. By nature it assures his innocence.

RNC Jeffy,

Please quote from the above Swamp story ANYTHING to substantiate your wild allegation that Holder says Stevens is innocent.

There's no such statement in this story and you know it.

I am unsure of either Stevens' guilt or innocence. Like the rest of you, I wasn't at the trial and I don't know what kind of evidence either side had, much less the convincing force of any of it. I don’t particularly like Senator Stevens, because I view him as one who has betrayed the cause of conservatism in the federal government. It is an understatement to say that he is no friend of small government, accountability or transparency, in which case I think it is just as well that he no longer holds office.
.
All of that aside though, I do know that what the prosecution did in this case was very bad. A defendant has a due process right to all “exculpatory evidence” the prosecution has. Exculpatory evidence is any evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment, including evidence that is relevant only to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness. It doesn’t have to be so favorable that its introduction into evidence would invariably result in an acquittal. It is sufficiently to deny a defendant his or her right to due process if the absence of improperly withheld evidence raises a reasonable probability that a more favorable verdict would have ensued had the evidence been presented for the jury’s consideration. Problems with exculpatory evidence (also known as “Brady material”) are especially acute in federal criminal cases due to limitations on discovery and the difficulties encountered in conducting an independent investigation into the facts. Federal prosecutors have a lopsided advantage over defendants in criminal cases with regard to evidence inasmuch as the feds often have control over all the physical evidence and witnesses. In this case, it not only appears that the prosecution withheld material evidence, but that it was intentionally withheld for the purpose of railroading Stevens.
.
This, in turn, makes me wonder why Holder wants to drop the Stevens case like a hot potato. Sure, some of you are thinking that it has to do with Holder’s sense of justice. I wouldn’t be so fast to go there. If Holder wanted justice, I think he would allow the case to be retried by new and different prosecutors after full disclosure of the evidence the prosecution withheld. If, on the other hand, the case gets dropped, Stevens will never get to vindicate himself or clear his name. The absence of a conviction and pending prosecution will make it less urgent for the trial court to enforce the defendant’s rights. It is also less likely that the prosecutors involved in the wrongdoing will ever have their conduct fully exposed in the light of day. They’ll just do a soft-shoe to get out from under the contempt citation and proceed to disappear into the woodwork like the bunch of cockroaches they probably are. Air and light are the best antiseptics. I say they should let the whole truth be told and let the chips fall where they may.

Nice "spin" Jeff. "By nature it assures his innocence." What a crock! Read John W's post. Yes, it's misconduct, but hardly proof of innocence, "by nature." Maybe we'll learn more down the road.

John W, I think Stevens' age, sending a message to his prosecutors, and maybe even priorities were factors.

Whatever the prosecutors did wrong -- and it seems like they did a lot wrong, that doesn't erase the fact that Stevens got a freebie home renovation from a wealthy contributor/lobbyist whose interests Stevens repeatedly and habitually serviced in Washington.

John W.,

You make an excellent point. I think from a justice standpoint, your suggestion of letting the whole truth out makes good sense.

I don't always agree with what you say, but you always bring up interesting points and support your opinions well.

This guy was found guilty! He is so corrupted he can't even tell what is right and wrong anymore. Binge money? He'll take it. Monopoly money? He'll take it. Funny money? He'll take.

But, when you are powerful and know people, forget the law. . .you get a free pass from jail. Ever play Monopoly? Same principle. . .different boardwalk. If it was you or me, we would be in the slam and never see the sun again. LOL

the justice system is evidently more garbled than ever right now; they should simplify the law as much as possible for the sake of average people

Prosecutorial misconduct is a plague on our justice system, happening much more frequently than most people believe. It just adds to the travesty that prosecutors who break the law are so rarely prosecuted themselves. I researched this issue and wrote a novel about a young man who finds himself in Sing Sing prison for a murder he did not commit, put there by a NYC prosecutor who knew he was innocent. To learn more about how prosecutors cheat, and to read about and perhaps purchase my book, look up A GOOD CONVICTION by Lewis M. Weinstein on amazon.com.

So, why did Stevens pick the biggest criminal in Alaksa, a convicted felon, to run the job on his house additions ?
I suppose we should all be greatful it was not a public project, cosing billions, like the bridge to nowhere, or some big public airport job.
How come the smoking gun docs not turned over( in 2008), are being kept secret(2009), except for hanging purposes of the black lady in D C who indicted Stevens ? Again, many unansered questions.
Eric Holder seems to get brownie points for allowing the big fish to get away, his Marc Rich, claim to fame, that put him now as Mr DOJ AG, political boss.
Apparently, Ted's house was not a troubled asset at least, like Dodd's digs.

Ted Stevens will be missed. Condolences to his family and friends.