Another Republician Indicted

[WDRacing]

You called me a dumbass...period. So deal with it...I don't need to "walk through your neighborhood" to know your type. How was my post mean spirited? Because I disagreed with what you posted? Because I outlined a point you clearly missed? Does that make me a big ole meanie?

...bleep...

I would have no issue with anything you did until you called me a ...bleep...I don't take kindly to that. When I'm ever up your way I'll visit and we can discuss this over a beer ...bleep.. Until then, call me a ...bleep... and I'll call you a ...bleep...

[ishkabibble]

No, because that's part of Due Process.

You probably know more about this than I do, but warrants are not necessary when you invite the cops in, serve them tea and crumpets, and ask them to take a look around and help themselves to whatever like smockers would do. At least that's been my experience.

I have never heard of FBI agents confiscating possessions referred to as anything other than a raid. They even use the term when a *gasp* "libby's" office is, uh, invaded. I bet all of us would even use the term if we were minding our own business when one day the FBI showed up and took all of our stuff! Well, except Greg; he probably knows some special criminal law jargon for the experience.

[srellim234]

...No one said "raid" when they went after Hillarious's Whitewater docs.

Please help me out here. I've used Yahoo!, Cuil, and a few other search engines and I cannot locate a single instance of the FBI, with search warrant, going after Hillary's Whitewater documents. Subpoenas were issued, but that's totally different; officers don't actually show up on your doorstep and come on in for a subpoena. You're required to send the documents over.

All the articles I'm finding on the related FBI search warrant cases (Hale, etc.) all refer to the FBI raid, calling it a "raid".

Please identify when these "raids" for Hillary's documents that weren't identified as such occurred so I can research it myself and confirm your statement.

[RED_DET]

don't mind me..

[AZhitman]

You probably know more about this than I do, but warrants are not necessary when you invite the cops in, serve them tea and crumpets, and ask them to take a look around and help themselves to whatever like smockers would do. At least that's been my experience.

No, you've pretty much got it. Although, they never know what you're going to do until they get there, and securing a warrant is typically done long prior to the visit.

Even though I have nothing to hide and am pretty much a complete "straight arrow", I still wouldn't do as smocky said. You want in my place? Bring a warrant. I love our LEO's, but I love my liberties more.

Wait - Imagine that, big bad Conservative me, telling the Feds to go F themselves... Hmmm.

I have never heard of FBI agents confiscating possessions referred to as anything other than a raid. They even use the term when a *gasp* "libby's" office is, uh, invaded. I bet all of us would even use the term if we were minding our own business when one day the FBI showed up and took all of our stuff! Well, except Greg; he probably knows some special criminal law jargon for the experience.

In that context, yep.

Although, I've been in a similar position, and I didn't consider it a "raid"... until now... THOSE BASTARDS!!!!

[smockers83]

What I said was supposed to be mostly sarcastic. I wouldn't be too happy if the law showed up at my door investigating me for any reason, whether I was truly guilty or not. But if I knew I was clean, I can taunt them and say you aren't going to find what you're looking for. What are they going to do? Use that against me in court? There's no evidence against me, none whatsoever.

[Cold_Zero]

No offense guys, but this is like arguing what 'is' really 'is'.'

From the sounds of things, Federal Agents went to Senator Steven's offices and multiple other Alaska State Legislators' offices to serve search warrants. I guess I would use the term 'raid' because it contains the element of surprise and the attempt to extract something from the premises before it is moved or destroyed.

As opposed to Ken Star's special investigation in the White Water Scandal, I believe that since he was investigating a sitting President and working in conjuction with the Congress he would have probably served Subeona's to the Clinton's lawyers who would have produced all material evidence requested. I seriously doubt that FBI agents went to the Clinton's offices and served warrants. Now Federal Agents may have gone to the offices of the McDougals (and others) and served search warrants.

[rn79870]

Note to everyone. I've cleaned up the thread and I hope, put out some unnecessary fires here. We have important things to discuss and they don't include insulting any other members. Let's take the high road here.

[WDRacing]

I'll refrain from over reacting....apologies Ish

[Cold_Zero]

OK guys.

Where have you guys been since Thursday? Shouting from the Roof Tops that frmr Senator Ted Stevens has had the case against him dropped by the Justice Department?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....html

Holder Asks Judge to Drop Case Against Ex-SenatorJustice Dept. Cites Prosecutors' Behavior During Stevens Trial

During the corruption trial of former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, federal prosecutors were chastised by a judge for letting a witness leave town. They got in trouble for submitting erroneous evidence and were reprimanded for failing to turn over key witness statements. An FBI agent has since complained about the prosecution team's alleged misconduct.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough. The Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to drop the case after learning that prosecutors had failed to turn over notes that contradicted testimony from their key witness.

The discovery by a fresh team of lawyers and their acknowledgment that the material should have been shared with Stevens's defense team led Holder, a former public corruption prosecutor, to conclude that the department's biggest public corruption case in a decade could not be salvaged.

Holder's decision invites tough new scrutiny of a unit that polices corrupt officials, and it could foreshadow a shakeup in the way the government prosecutes those crimes, according to lawyers who work on such cases.

Current and former department lawyers predict an overhaul that will sweep aside senior leaders in the Public Integrity Section, two of whom were cited for contempt of court by the Stevens trial judge. That ruling triggered an internal ethics probe that has produced an awkward situation in which prosecutors and FBI agents who worked side by side on the case are pointing fingers at each other, sources said.

The Public Integrity Section in recent years has lagged in personnel and investigative firepower, veterans of the office say. Its work has produced acquittals and second-guessing from judges, which may intensify after the Stevens debacle.

Stevens issued a statement saying he is "grateful that the new team of responsible prosecutors at the Department of Justice has acknowledged that I did not receive a fair trial and has dismissed all the charges against me."

Holder's decision could also benefit another Alaska politician, Rep. Don Young (R), who is the subject of a corruption probe. Inconsistencies by witnesses in the Stevens case could make prosecutors reluctant to use those same witnesses -- oil services company executives Bill Allen and Rick Smith -- in any case against Young.

And other ongoing investigations of members of Congress -- probes that have already been slowed by problems with collecting evidence and protecting lawmakers' constitutional privileges -- could grow more painstaking with additional oversight by department brass who want to avoid a repeat of the Stevens case.

Defense lawyers who represent public officials already are seeking to exploit the government's problems to help their clients accused of political corruption, three of those lawyers said yesterday.

Stevens, 85, was convicted in October, eight days before Election Day, of seven counts of making false statements on financial disclosure forms to hide about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his Alaska house. The Justice Department filing yesterday means that he can no longer be prosecuted on any charges stemming from those allegations.

On Capitol Hill, outrage was palpable among Republicans who believe the case cost them a Senate seat. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters, "No question that, if this decision had been made last year, he'd still be in the Senate."

Former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, a Republican, praised Holder for making a tough call and reminding government lawyers that "the power to prosecute is the power to destroy. The significance of this misconduct is monumental."

Holder's decision to drop the Stevens case comes less than two weeks after a federal jury in Puerto Rico resoundingly acquitted the commonwealth's former Democratic governor, Anibal Acevedo Vila, of conspiracy and money laundering charges. Justice Department prosecutors charged Acevedo Vila last year, not long before indicting Stevens, in the midst of a tight reelection campaign that he ultimately lost.

Bradford Berenson, who worked on Vila's defense team, said public corruption cases demand acute judgment and sensitivity. "Too often they are tempted to indict marginal or ambiguous cases, and that's where they get into trouble, trying to present highly technical infractions to a jury," Berenson said.

Guy Singer, a former prosecutor, said Holder's decision "does not necessarily signify a belief in Senator Stevens's innocence, but it indicates serious concerns about the way the case was handled by both prosecutors and agents."

In his statement yesterday, Holder cautioned that an internal ethics review continues and that no determination has been made about the conduct of individual prosecutors. Calls and e-mails to several prosecutors in the case were not returned yesterday.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) last week announced his intention to investigate the way the government conducted the case. Judge Sullivan had been preparing to conduct evidentiary hearings in his own review of allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. After the Justice Department asked for the dismissal yesterday, Sullivan told both sides to appear in his courtroom Tuesday. He is likely to grant the request.

In February, Sullivan held three prosecutors -- William Welch II, Brenda Morris and Patricia Stemler -- in contempt for failing to comply with a court order. Welch is the head of the public corruption unit, and Morris was the lead prosecutor. Six members of the prosecution team eventually withdrew from the case.

Brendan Sullivan, Stevens's lead attorney, told reporters yesterday that "the conduct of the prosecution was stunning to me. They were hell-bent on convicting a United States senator."

Holder assigned a team of top department lawyers to review the case and said yesterday that he made the decision after a thorough review of the evidence.

In a three-page memo that accompanied the announcement, prosecutor Paul M. O'Brien said he discovered evidence that two prosecutors did not turn over notes from an interview in April 2008 with the case's key witness, Bill Allen. Those notes contradicted a critical piece of testimony Allen later gave at trial.

Allen is the former head of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company, and a close friend of Stevens's who allegedly gave him many of the gifts and funded most of the renovations to his house. At the interview in question, according to the notes, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, O'Brien wrote.

Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work. "Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."

Wow! Just Wow! This is our government at work.

[telcoman]

OK guys.

Where have you guys been since Thursday? Shouting from the Roof Tops that frmr Senator Ted Stevens has had the case against him dropped by the Justice Department?

Wow! Just Wow! This is our government at work.

Hey Bud

Not the first government screw up. Probably not the last?

http://writing.upenn.edu/~afil....html

Telcoman

[Cold_Zero]

Definitely not the last. That is for sure.

[szh]

Definitely not the last. That is for sure.

Yup.

The latest news is that the Federal Judge is extremely tee'd off about the prosecutorial misconduct and how slow the Justice Department has been to correct the problems.

So, he has appointed his own special investigator to decide who and how to prosecute the people who went after Stevens. It may mean disbarment for some of the folks involved - he takes his constitutional stuff seriously.

This morning, on NPR (of all liberal places!), a law professor from Brandeis University commented that it was about time for "new young lawyers" in the Justice Department to be given formal training on what the rights of defendants means! And that this could be a bellwether case to teach them.

Z

[telcoman]

Yup.

The latest news is that the Federal Judge is extremely tee'd off about the prosecutorial misconduct and how slow the Justice Department has been to correct the problems.

So, he has appointed his own special investigator to decide who and how to prosecute the people who went after Stevens. It may mean disbarment for some of the folks involved - he takes his constitutional stuff seriously.

This morning, on NPR (of all liberal places!), a law professor from Brandeis University commented that it was about time for "new young lawyers" in the Justice Department to be given formal training on what the rights of defendants means! And that this could be a bellwether case to teach them.

Z

I guess what goes around comes around?

Too bad the former Attorney General was so poorly trained and used such poor judgement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new....html

[szh]

Incompetence does not stop at party lines.

Z