In Stevens case, federal prosecutors lied and deceived
In 2008, then-Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was prosecuted and convicted on charges that he had failed to report free work that a politically connected contractor had performed on his home.
Eight days after his conviction in federal court, Stevens was defeated for re-election.
The late Sen. Ted Stevens, who died in a plane crash in 2010
In early 2009, however, that conviction was overturned at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, which had discovered serious prosecutorial misconduct by attorneys in its Public Integrity Section.
A new independent investigation of that misconduct has now been released, and it is chilling. It concludes:
“The investigation and prosecution of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated Senator Stevens’s defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government’s key witness.”
The details of the report make it even more chilling. Prosecutors were so determined to convict Stevens and get the scalp of a U.S. senator whom they believed corrupt that they point-blank lied to the court, to the defense and even to other members of the Department of Justice. (The report calls the lies “astonishing misstatements.”)
Prosecutors withheld crucial evidence. They allowed their witnesses to offer testimony that they knew to be false. There is also strong evidence that they pushed witnesses to fabricate last-minute testimony needed to close gaping holes in their case.
One of the few silver linings in the case is the fact that Stevens and the Bush administration that prosecuted him belonged to the same party. Had Stevens been a Democrat, this would been portrayed as a politically motivated hit job by the executive branch against a member of the opposite party, which would have created a crisis of an entirely different kind.
That also would have distracted attention from the real issues in the case, which are equally troubling in their own right:
– We need an aggressive, effective Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Justice Department; it is essential in ferreting out government corruption, especially at the state and local level where local prosecutors may be too intimidated or too compromised to take action themselves. However, actions such as these call into question the integrity of the Public Integrity Section. (It is important to stress that once other lawyers in the Justice Department began reviewing the case on appeal, they quickly discovered and reported the misbehavior of their colleagues; the Justice Department itself moved to have the conviction overturned.)
– If the defendant in the case was not a U.S. senator, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, it is questionable whether the facts of the case would ever have come to light. How many lower-profile cases in both federal and state courts are dogged by similar prosecutorial misconduct and are never discovered? When the awesome power of the government is turned against a single citizen, it is critically important that such power be wielded fairly and honestly. It is deeply troubling when such awesome power is abused.
– Despite evidence that “would prove beyond a reasonable doubt (that exculpatory) information was intentionally withheld from the attorneys for Senator Stevens,” the new Stevens report concludes that no criminal proceeding against the rogue prosecutors is possible because the legal barriers against such steps are so high.
Those barriers exist for a reason — prosecutors cannot do their job aggressively without a high degree of legal protection. But if those barriers are so high that they preclude punishment for conscious deception, fabrication and withholding of evidence, they need to be reconsidered.
As it is, prosecutors rarely suffer consequences for abusing the process. (Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the infamous Duke lacrosse case, was eventually disbarred for his actions in that case, but such steps are rare.)
Consider a case out of Louisiana, in which prosecutors withheld blood evidence and other proof that would have helped to exonerate a murder suspect. Instead, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death, eventually serving 18 years on Death Row and coming close to execution several times before being granted a new trial.
The truth came to light only after a junior district attorney on the case made a death-bed confession, and even then his confession was withheld for five years. In a new trial, the jury cleared the defendant after 35 minutes of deliberation.
Later, the defendant sued and was awarded $14 million in damages. But last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas, threw that award out on grounds that it violated prosecutorial immunity.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
262 comments Add your comment
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:24 pm
Well… since the prosecutor is no longer the hot topic, I may as well introduce this one here.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/officials-bear-bites-woman-buttocks/nLT2n/
Officials said the woman was walking her dog in the Camden Club apartment complex off Sabal Lake Drive when the bear went after the dog. They said when the woman tried to get the bear off her dog, the bear bit her in her buttocks.
St Simons - we're on Island time
March 16th, 2012
12:24 pm
As far as Stevens goes, you live by the Lie, you die by the Lie.
As far as our local embarrassment Clarence goes, even a blind squirrel…
As far as Atlanta goes, if that guy doesn’t charge Andrea Sneiderman
with at least CCM, you need a new DA, prosecutor, whatever.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:25 pm
Thought you were headed to Biloxi….. Are you already there and bored?
We’re heading out tomorrow and will stay through Monday. I’ve already earned some major boyfriend points, though. After convincing PB that we were going to have to stay at a Super 8 motel on Sat, I let her know yesterday that we’ll actually be staying at the Grand the first night, then in a luxury suite at the Beau Rivage the second night.
I’m going to need one hell of a craps roll to pay for it all.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:25 pm
Frak baby frak.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
12:26 pm
getalife
March 16th, 2012
11:32 am
Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
_____________________________________________________________________________
Yes!!!!!!!!
Because that is EXACTLY what this blog topic is about.
See my 11:02.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
12:28 pm
Brosephus™ – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:24 pm
“They said when the woman tried to get the bear off her dog, the bear bit her in her buttocks.”
Guess the bear wanted the rump roast for dinner…….
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:29 pm
Brono,
New Orleans is the place to be.
I get free rooms.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:29 pm
Do you really believe deep in your heart that the average Con is any different from the average Lib, either here or in the world at large??
Uh, yes. The average con and the average liberal have differing viewpoints, therefore are different.
However, to be more detailed, the average con supports more right leaning stuff, or stuff that is more right leaning, than the average liberals support left leaning stuff, or stuff that is more left leaning. The average liberals doesn’t even define themselves as a liberal, but as a moderate, which is essentially correct. The average conservative cannot make such a claim. Bear in mind this is the U.S. I’m talking about.
As for Jesus, I am making ridiculous claims partially tongue in cheek. I have no desire to claim Jesus as wholly supportive of liberal causes, just trying to make the point that he would not support all conservative ideals, as many like to claim.
Conservatives, for some reason, do make twists and leaps and acrobatics as an argument as to why god and Jesus would NOT support taking care of the poor, by selectively judging what kind of help is good help, and that only approved organizations should do it. There is only one point there, and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with retroactively finding a religious justification for an issue on which they have already made up their mind. To claim liberals, on average, or mostly, or whatever, would do something similar with religion is absurd.
Paul
March 16th, 2012
12:31 pm
Your Party
“Getting rid of internet porn and drilling will fix everything
_____________________________________________________________________________
Yes!!!!!!!!
Because that is EXACTLY what this blog topic is about.”
Sounds more interesting than the synonym – Santorum.
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
12:32 pm
Any more brilliant suppositions, Counselor??
Rather defensive there, my medical friend, aren’t we. Seems rather an emotional response from a simple question. Congrats on that low malpractice insurance rate. We seem to hear so often unfounded claims about high rates that require tort reform because those good people in the medical profession have to pay exorbitant premiums even if they have never had claims. You have just provided antedotal evidence that many of those assertions are false.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
12:33 pm
Bruno,
Been re-reading your 1157. Again it shows me a side of you I hadn’t or couldn’t see before.
which nicely segues to my biggest gripe with “people in power” No matter if Democrat or Republican, is that if they proclaim themselves “Christian” then they should…definitely embody the Unconditional Love through his admonitions to take care of the poor, as you so succinctly stated.
I hope I said that right. I have a hard time thinking slower than my typing and most times the word structure comes out wrong. I think I need to get Dragon,
Paul
March 16th, 2012
12:38 pm
Morning, Keep
“We seem to hear so often unfounded claims about high rates that require tort reform because those good people in the medical profession have to pay exorbitant premiums even if they have never had claims. ”
As Bruno noted, it depends of the specialty.
If you’re a dermatologist, you get off easy.
Pediatrician, anything dealing with surgery on an ongoing basis, radiologist… you get hammered.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
12:39 pm
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:03 pm
So, instead of the economy, or the transportation bill, or some other form of governing…. let’s talk about PORN!
Social issues again, only THIS time we’ve SURELY got a winner!
What is WITH you people? Obsessed with sex much? We all know, thanks to Rush, that you were thinking about sex sex sex regarding contraception. Now let’s move on to porn? You wonder why you’re not taken seriously?
_________________________________________________________________________
Exactly Adam.
Even though Santourm is not elected to ANY office, nor secured the republician nomination, nor the head of ANY major republician origanization, he does speak for ALL conservatives.
Woops…….make a hole, make it wide. Broad brush coming through.
Don’t forget the 55 gal drum of assumption mixed with irrational generalization.
We got work to do. We got to put that shyte on EVERYTHING.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:39 pm
You can thank stevems for our huge deficit.
A career pol that knew our corrupt system well and wasted your money on Alaska’s welfare.
He called himself the green hulk or some silly name like that.
You want to address our deficit, end career pols.
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:40 pm
HDB
I have no issues with pet owners at all, and I understand the attachment to their pets. However, I don’t know if I could have faced a bear to save my dog. Granted I was young when I had him. If it’s bear vs family, then I’m going for broke. If it’s bear vs dog, I’m shooting at bear from a distance….
Misty Fyed
March 16th, 2012
12:40 pm
Rule #1….Never…Ever…trust a lawyer.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:42 pm
Conservatives, for some reason, do make twists and leaps and acrobatics as an argument as to why god and Jesus would NOT support taking care of the poor, by selectively judging what kind of help is good help, and that only approved organizations should do it.
Which is matched by Liberals making twists and leaps as an argument as to why god and Jesus would NOT make someone take responsibility for their actions and face the proper consequences.
To claim liberals, on average, or mostly, or whatever, would do something similar with religion is absurd.
Adam–No matter what negative characteristic you throw out which you only believes applies to Cons, I can find a corresponding negative characteristic which applies to Libs. If you don’t believe me, we can spend the next 100 years going tit for tat. Except, I already know in advance that you will attempt to dismiss anything I say with your childish “diversion” claims and will accuse me of making the “Timmy did it too, mom” argument. I’m not your personal guru, but if you want to grow, you’ll need to ditch the chip on your shoulder and accept that people are pretty much the same, regardless of political orientation or any other orientation.
Misty Fyed
March 16th, 2012
12:42 pm
Dont you just love when non-Christians tell Christians how they are supposed to act as a Christian.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:45 pm
Rule #1….Never…Ever…trust a lawyer.
No, the number one rule in American politics is never ever trust a politician.
Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?
March 16th, 2012
12:46 pm
Paul, I definitely understand that rates vary by work performed. Same is true for attorneys. That said, those distinctions often seem lost in the overheated rhetoric about tort attorneys and reform. As well as the requirements to bring an action for medical malpractice that requires certain professional affidavits as part of the filing.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
12:46 pm
Brosephus™ – Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:40 pm
Remember the line everyone said: “If I’m in a bear fight, somebody better help the bear!”
Yep…..me + Glock 45 = dead bear!!
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
March 16th, 2012
12:47 pm
Well, if you’re a prosecutor and you’re going after crooks, you got to be more crooked than them, right? Crooks don’t play nice and neither should we. It’s thinking like Bookman’s that will have us all murdered one day or chased down and have a chip put in our head. And even if this Sen. Stevens wasn’t guilty he was probly guilty of something else he needed to be put in jail for.
Anyhow, I don’t see how you can be for Law and Order and be against prosecutors at the same time. You got to remember after all, they’re lawyers too. They all cheat and lie, and the ones that are on our side need to cheat and lie better than the ones that defend the crooks.
I just don’t see the big problem here. Besides, this Sen. Stevens is stone cold dead. What’s he going to do to us—sue us?
Have a good p.m. everybody. I’m hauling and lugging and doing my best to get you ready to swap weird music tonite so you can tell big lies about the time you saw a band none of us ever heard of playing live and how you was so sexed and drugged up you can’t recall much about it.
Adam
March 16th, 2012
12:47 pm
Bruno: I can guarantee you there are some things that one side does that another does not. There is no direct equivalence all the way across the board every single time.
You are essentially correct that “Timmy did it too” is not a valid argument. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yet I see more of that coming from the conservatives who get on here than the liberals. Here’s a hint: If 5 conservatives do such a thing, and then 1 liberal does it on the other side, that’s not “both conservatives and liberals do it.” That’s like saying one Republican voting for a tax increase makes the measure bi-partisan.
Misty Fyed
March 16th, 2012
12:47 pm
Ok
Rule #1…Never….Ever…trust a lawyer
Rule #1b….Never ….Ever…trust a politician.
Rule #1c……If a politician is a lawyer….just get ready for an unpleasant encounter.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:48 pm
New Orleans is the place to be.
I get free rooms.
Yeah, and my little sis also gets “free” rooms at the Borgata in AC. Only cost her about $200,000 in gambling losses.
I do have an older sister who is lucky, though. When we went to Charlestown last year on our family reunion, she hit big on roulette and the horses. The lucky part–she played some combination of birthdays on a race, and hit a big trifecta. I’m a good gambler, but I usually have to grind it out.
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:50 pm
“I’m a good gambler, but I usually have to grind it out.”
Vegas was built on people who thought they are good gamblers
Brosephus™ - Prima Donna since 3/16/2012
March 16th, 2012
12:53 pm
When we went to Charlestown last year on our family reunion, she hit big on roulette and the horses.
I didn’t see anybody hit anything at Charlestown when I was there other than hitting the buffet.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
12:55 pm
Bruno — “and face the proper consequences.”
I’d submit that there’s no such thing as prescriptive “proper consequences” for wrongdoing.
There’s what the law prescribes, and then there are the remedies that various commentors might deem “proper” from their perspectives. Yet there’s nothing magical about any of those recommended penalties that makes one or the other “proper.”
They BOTH suck
March 16th, 2012
12:56 pm
“I didn’t see anybody hit anything at Charlestown when I was there other than hitting the buffet.”
Too funny……. And I bet they were “hittin it” hard and fast
getalife
March 16th, 2012
12:56 pm
Misty Fyed ,
Fair enough.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:57 pm
You are essentially correct that “Timmy did it too” is not a valid argument. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yet I see more of that coming from the conservatives who get on here than the liberals.
Adam, grow up, will you?? In the real world, context counts. Your repeated attempts here, along with Paul and others, to restrict the blog conversation to whatever perceived faults you can find in Republicans, with no discussion allowed of corresponding faults in Dems, are beyond childish. If you perceive an imbalance in its use by Libs and Cons here, that may be because virtually 100% of Jay’s negative columns are directed at Republicans.
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
12:59 pm
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
12:42 pm
___________________________________________________________________________
Bruno, honestly, why bother?
Doggone/GA
March 16th, 2012
12:59 pm
“Dont you just love when non-Christians tell Christians how they are supposed to act as a Christian”
Well, you don’t have to be a believer to read what is written down for Christians to follow.
Tommy Maddox
March 16th, 2012
1:03 pm
“In the circumstances here described and measured against the standard established by the principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.220, we do not believe that a criminal contempt prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §401(3) should be initiated against any of the subject government attorneys.”
How’s that for a kick in the pants? But Footnote 78 states:
“We offer no opinion as to whether a prosecution for Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. §1503 might lie against one or more of the subject attorneys and might meet the standard enunciated in 9-27.220 of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See United States v. Convertino, et al., Indictment, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, No. 2:06-
cr-20173.”
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:05 pm
Bruno: You can make many legitimate claims that there are instances in which Democrats or liberals have been corrupt or done something questionable, and that there are similar instances on the Republican and conservative side that liberals and Democrats have criticized them for, leading to hypocrisy on those issues.
What you CANNOT do, if you are honest, is say that this always applies, to every single issue. You CANNOT say, with honesty, that the sides are hypocritical in equal measure, or that “No matter what negative characteristic you throw out which you only believes applies to Cons, I can find a corresponding negative characteristic which applies to Libs.” You just can’t legitimately make that case.
And this: If you perceive an imbalance in its use by Libs and Cons here, that may be because virtually 100% of Jay’s negative columns are directed at Republicans.
1) You cannot go through every single one of his articles and find an equivalent Democrat transgression.
2) There are plenty of conservatives here, but no one is forcing them to act the way they typically do, in the manner of “but but but Obama” or the like. Also, as can clearly be shown by their persistence, no one is “restricting” them at all.
Shall I go through YOUR posts and claim that every time you start another topic or talk about something more to your liking that you are trying to “restrict” everyone else’s conversation?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:05 pm
which nicely segues to my biggest gripe with “people in power” No matter if Democrat or Republican, is that if they proclaim themselves “Christian” then they should…definitely embody the Unconditional Love through his admonitions to take care of the poor, as you so succinctly stated.
Which is why I think declaring oneself to be a “Christian” is a perilous strategy to begin with. None of us can live up to the Glory, and claiming to do so only pushes us farther away IMO. As to your specific point, I can only add that you seem to be ignoring the corresponding requirement of both parties to embody Unconditional Love at the same time. But since no one person, or political party, can successfully embody both Conditional AND Unconditional Love, we can only rely on the group body to balance it out through debates, elections, etc. It’s a dynamic process in which neither side can–or should–get its way completely.
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
1:07 pm
Y’all,
My game is poker, any kind. I’ve learned over the years that to be a good gambler is not having to gamble much at all. The old”know when to hold ‘em” thing. The trouble is I’ve also learned that it isn’t the bad hands that lose your money. It’s the good hands that just weren’t good enough….but that’s why they call it gambling…
Normal, Plain and Simple
March 16th, 2012
1:09 pm
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:05 pm
Once again, good post…now stop it! You’re making my brain hurt!
YOUR party SUCKS! But MINE is GRRRRRREAT! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 16th, 2012
1:11 pm
Bruno, there are posters here who MUST see everything through the jaundiced eye of partisianship.
If you say “the sky is blue today”
The skewed on the right may say “Yeah, and the dems will want to tax us for it”.
The skewed on the left may say “Yeah, and the repubs only want their rich friends to enjoy it.”
Or something equally stupid.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:11 pm
Dont you just love when non-Christians tell Christians how they are supposed to act as a Christian.
So, are you claiming to be a “Christian”, Misty Fyed?? Out of curiosity, what do you feel make you a “Christian” and someone else a “non-Christian”??
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:15 pm
The parties simply are NOT equally yoked anymore. You can see for yourself, as there are actual metrics from political scientists.
http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317
Just for extra measure, please note that only ONE party has people in it that view college as “indoctrination.”
Rationalist
March 16th, 2012
1:16 pm
Obama = fraud
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:18 pm
Once again, good post…now stop it! You’re making my brain hurt!
I only walk in the shadow of my spiritual hero, Shunryu Suzuki, the author of “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”.
There’s what the law prescribes, and then there are the remedies that various commentors might deem “proper” from their perspectives. Yet there’s nothing magical about any of those recommended penalties that makes one or the other “proper.”
The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??
Thulsa Doom
March 16th, 2012
1:24 pm
Damn. Just damn! I hate it when I not only agree with Jay but agree with him on every single point in the article. What the hell is going on here!
I’ve seen way too many cases lately in the news and in documentaries of prosecutorial misconduct and police misconduct in the zeal to get a conviction. I see no reason as to why they shouldn’t be prosecuted for withholding evidence. Its disgusting that that man in La. had to spend 18 years in prison all because a DA wanted to bolster his conviction record before running for office or going into private work at a great salary.
I can’t prove it but I also suspect the victims of prosecutorial and police conduct are mostly poor people- black too.
This should be something cons and libs can all readily agree on.
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:25 pm
Bruno, there are posters here who MUST see everything through the jaundiced eye of partisianship.
Like most organizations, that trend starts at the top. In this case, the top of every page.
Just for extra measure, please note that only ONE party has people in it that view college as “indoctrination.”
Adam–Stop for a minute and look at yourself. What do you hope to gain by “proving” that conservatives/Republicans are fundamentally different people from yourself, from your “group”?? Why is the demonization so important to you?? Of course there are some differences in approach within the two political party. And as I pointed to above, that’s a necessary thing, because no one person, or no one political party has all the answers. We need the balance. Do you believe otherwise??
getalife
March 16th, 2012
1:26 pm
This guy just flipped off a reporter at the Apple store on CNN.
The video will probably go “viral”.
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
1:28 pm
Bruno — “The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??”
Is that your prescriptive ‘proper consequence’ in *all* cases? If a man doesn’t work, then he shouldn’t eat, with no exceptions?
Bruno
March 16th, 2012
1:30 pm
Is that your prescriptive ‘proper consequence’ in *all* cases? If a man doesn’t work, then he shouldn’t eat, with no exceptions?
I asked you what your opinion was.
Soothsayer
March 16th, 2012
1:32 pm
Don’t you people have anything to do other than blog on this blog? You should get out an do something constructive like hit little white balls all over the place! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
1:34 pm
Bruno — “I asked you what your opinion was.”
And I’m trying to get you to clarify what I’m going to give you my opinion *on.*
Yesterday, you were all hog for supposedly clarifying yourself, and today you’re reticent about it. Pick one and stick to it, please.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
1:39 pm
Thulsa Doom
March 16th, 2012
1:24 pm
“Thulsa Doom
March 16th, 2012
1:24 pm
“I can’t prove it but I also suspect the victims of prosecutorial and police conduct are mostly poor people- black too.”
It’s been like that in perpetuity…..you wonder why the police and the law are held in such LOW esteem! More often, it’s the poor and minorities that are targeted….
Equal protection under the law does NOT exist….
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:40 pm
Bruno: What do you hope to gain by “proving” that conservatives/Republicans are fundamentally different people from yourself, from your “group”??
At the very least this idea of “equivalence” will be accepted as not true, eventually, since it is better to acknowledge the truth than this nonsense of “the parties are the same.”
Why is the demonization so important to you??
If you see a statement such as “please note that only ONE party has people in it that view college as “indoctrination”” as demonizing, then I suggest that perhaps that position is not one they should be espousing, nor should you vote for them “anyway.”
Adam
March 16th, 2012
1:43 pm
Bruno: We need the balance. Do you believe otherwise??
Figured I would answer this separately. You are correct, we need balance. Right now, we do not have that balance. And if the GOP keeps going the way they are, I can see many abandoning ship, giving Democrats a huge advantage, which is BAD, because then there is a big risk that Democrats could get just as big of a head as the people who considered winning in 2004 and 2010 a “mandate” to do all sorts of things the general public really strongly disapproved of. A weak GOP is bad for the country, as is a GOP that has moved too far away from the center.
Don't Forget
March 16th, 2012
2:02 pm
The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??
I personally have always thought that this pertained to those who refused to work and I would agree that it is fair. But I don’t think it applies to those who can’t work and I doubt there was actual “unemployment” back then like there is in the post industrial world. The elders would find something for you to do IMO.
Logical Dude - slut and ho
March 16th, 2012
2:38 pm
it was asked: “The Bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. What say you about that??”
Then I say, the first commandment should be to love your neighbor.
You ask, who is my neighbor?
Let me tell you a story. . .
One time, there was this woman, beaten and robbed on the side of the road.
A Bishop from the Catholic church came up to the woman, saw this, and walked across the road and passed by.
A Deacon from the Southern Baptist church came up to the woman, saw this, and walked across the road and passed by.
A Homeless, Gay, Arab, came up to the woman, and assisted, and helped revive her.
Who is this woman’s neighbor? Who is your neighbor?
Joe Hussein Mama
March 16th, 2012
2:45 pm
It appears Bruno’s not coming back, so here’s my response for him.
If a man CAN’T work, then I disagree. Disability shouldn’t mean starvation.
If a man CAN work and WANTS to work but can’t FIND work, then he should get some help finding a job. And I disagree in this case, too. He should be helped to find gainful work, and he should receive some help to feed himself during that search IMO.
If a man CAN work and COULD find work but either WON’T look or WON’T work, then IMO Bruno might have a point. But his original question to me was, IMO, quite indistinct and unspecific. I’m not in favor of cutting loose those unfortunates who, through no fault of their own, aren’t working.
HDB
March 16th, 2012
2:46 pm
Off-topic but pertinent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/asia/bain-capital-tied-to-surveillance-push-in-china.html?_r=1&hp
Firm Romney Founded Is Tied to Chinese Surveillance
BEIJING — As the Chinese government forges ahead on a multibillion-dollar effort to blanket the country with surveillance cameras, one American company stands to profit: Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney.
In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts.
The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet. Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet that “provides a solid foundation for the maintenance of social stability and the protection of people’s peaceful life,” according to Uniview’s Web site.
Such surveillance systems are often used to combat crime and the manufacturer has no control over whether they are used for other purposes. But human rights advocates say in China they are also used to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents. “There are video cameras all over our monastery, and their only purpose is to make us feel fear,” said Loksag, a Tibetan Buddhist monk in Gansu Province. He said the cameras helped the authorities identify and detain nearly 200 monks who participated in a protest at his monastery in 2008.
Mr. Romney has had no role in Bain’s operations since 1999 and had no say over the investment in China. But the fortunes of Bain and Mr. Romney are still closely tied.
The financial disclosure forms Mr. Romney filed last August show that a blind trust in the name of his wife, Ann Romney, held a relatively small stake of between $100,000 and $250,000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.
In a statement, R. Bradford Malt, who manages the Romneys’ trusts, noted that he had put trust assets into the fund before it bought Uniview. He said that the Romneys had no role in guiding their investments. He also said he had no control over the Asian fund’s choice of investments.
Mr. Romney reported on his August disclosure forms that he and his wife earned a minimum of $5.6 million from Bain assets held in their blind trusts and retirement accounts. Bain employees and executives are also among the largest donors to his campaign, and their contributions accounted for 10 percent of the money received over the past year by Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney “super PAC.”
Joseph
March 16th, 2012
2:53 pm
What you fail to mention or even realize is that the Democrat Party played a huge role in those lies. Remember they are the one who benefitted from Stevens losing. Of course we will right that wrong in 2014 but still… Much damage has already been done….
David Granger
March 16th, 2012
2:59 pm
Prosecutors should not have immunity from either lawsuits or prosecution themselves. They should be required to sign a notarized document stating that all laws were followed in a prosecuted case, and that all mandatory discovery materials were made available. If it turns out later not to be true, then any conviction should be immediately overturned.
Brian
March 16th, 2012
11:08 pm
The man responsible for an abuse of power is one, William Welch.
Welch oversaw the Stevens corruption trial as chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. Stevens was convicted in October 2008 for failing to report gifts on his financial-disclosure forms. But the case fell apart five weeks later when an FBI agent who’d helped investigate the senator alleged ethical and legal violations on the part of federal prosecutors.
Where is he now?
Breuer sees Welch’s doggedness as an asset in the Obama administration’s efforts to stop national-security leaks, which rests on a complicated—some say dubious—interpretation of the Espionage Act. The administration has used the law to prosecute five people in leak-related cases, more than all previous administrations combined.
The Washingtonian reviewed every case that Welch worked on when he was an assistant US Attorney in Springfield, from 1995 until 2006. It was during those years that Welch earned his chops as a prosecutor. His biggest victories were in a string of city corruption cases that became his steppingstone to the Public Integrity Section at Justice.
Most of Welch’s cases in Springfield appear routine. But some raise questions. In three cases, defense attorneys filed motions claiming Welch hadn’t turned over exculpatory evidence, sometimes after a judge had directed him to do so. One attorney accused Welch of mounting a vindictive prosecution against a woman who had refused to cooperate with one of his investigations. One suspected Welch of trying to prevent a witness favorable to the defense from testifying—an allegation that would surface against the prosecution years later in the Stevens case. (None of these complaints resulted in a case’s being overturned.)
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/20220.html
captguitarman
March 17th, 2012
1:47 pm
From federal prosecutorial non-action against two uniformed, jack-booted, Black Panther thugs with batons, filmed out side of a polling place threatening and intimidating voters — to Fast and Furious — it would seem that some level of quality control in side the Justice Department might be necessary. Of course, that polling place was not in the South, and the thugs were not white, so that got a big yawn from Justice. As to Clarence Thomas, the Dem/Libs are desperate to force him recuse himself from the Obamacare case, which he cannot be compelled to do. If this persists and gets ugly, the Pub/Cons need to fire up a similar conflict of interest investigation of Kagan, who helped to write and provide legal rationales and arguments for Obamacare when whe was in the Solicitor General’s office. If Thomas has to sit it out, so should she. She won’t have to recuse either, but it will establish some balance. And the vitriol against Thomas? That’s an easy one. He is a conservative black man (or African American?) I don’t know which one is politically correct any more since both terms are still widely used by blacks/African-Americans. It is clearly time for the PC police to makea ruling on this, I hope that “black wins” because I don’t see all of us prefacing our American citizenship with national or continental identifiers such as English, French, Irish, Italian, Polish, or Western European, or Asian, or Indian, etc. as being conducive to a sense of national unity — but that’s just me, I guess. But, I digress. Clarence Thomas is hated for the unforgivable sin of “ingratitude” toward his LIb/Dem benefactors and “massahs” who expect mindless and thoughtless life long loyalty and allegiance from prominent blacks/African-Americans in politics and government, and who strongly frown upon them rejecting their Dem/Lib tentets, and running away from the Great Federal Plantation.
William T. Aram
March 18th, 2012
8:50 pm
I read about 20 articles on elites reactions to Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III’s report.
Here’s one elite (Jay Bookman) who provided unique and educational insights to the situation.
Hat’s off to Jay Bookman
Jay, your story was the best. Nobody else came close. (Don’t get a big head now)