Senator Stevens to go free.

[Patroklos]

I would prefer voters got a chance to make a proper choice not tainted by a deliberate (and perhaps cirminal) campaign of personal destuction by the government.

[TCO]

I would prefer voters got a chance to make a proper choice not tainted by a deliberate (and perhaps cirminal) campaign of personal destuction by the government.

that's whiner ***** talk. Let the voters deal with what they did.

[SpencerH]

I don't. He was a RINO porker anyhow. I want to gut the party of RINOs. I'd rather have a solid minority and be able to articulate things that resonate with the people (anti-bailout) than have a majority and just pork like a K street lobbyist whore as in the Bush Admin.

I agree that he was virtually the posterboy of republican pork. That doesnt change that his election loss was most likely due to a level of prosecutorial misconduct that amounts to election fixing.

[Ramo]

I agree. In fact, every every Democrat who picked up a Republican seat over the past couple years should have to face a revote because many of them wouldn't have won if not for the potentially criminal incompetence of the Bush Admin.

[TCO]

I agree that he was virtually the posterboy of republican pork. That doesnt change that his election loss was most likely due to a level of prosecutorial misconduct that amounts to election fixing.

So, the voters made their best guess with the info they had at the time. They don't get a do over. Stevens might have won on appeal as well. The voters can live with their decision. The RINOs can live with their decision not to replace Stevens in the primary. Tough cookies.

[Blaupanzer]

Stevens is not a man we want to put back in office no matter our own affiliations. He was a nasty troll, insisting on his own way, and demanding the pork of which he should have been ashamed.

[Patroklos]

So, the voters made their best guess with the info they had at the time. They don't get a do over.

If it was private smearing, I would agree with you. Surely you can see the differnece when it is the government itselve doing so.

[Kuciwalker]

The big problem is that while he may not have been convictable on those particularly charges, he sure as hell is guilty of corruption, and he was deservedly convicted of that in the court of public opinion.

[SpencerH]

The big problem is that while he may not have been convictable on those particularly charges, he sure as hell is guilty of corruption, and he was deservedly convicted of that in the court of public opinion.

Great, now we should convict people based upon the court of public opinion! All hail the high court of Oprah! Isn't it bad enough, given the ignorance and incompetence of most people, that the government is selected by public opinion.

[Blaupanzer]

If it was private smearing, I would agree with you. Surely you can see the differnece when it is the government itselve doing so.

This is stupid humans, not "Government." Neither the executive branch/ Justice Department or the administration really had anything to gain out of pushing Stevens to the street. I'm not as inclined to agree with you under those circumstances.

If the evil President Reagan orders the AG to "get" a Senator by smear and charge before the election and that happens causing the Senator to lose reelection, then the Government goes "Whoops," and drops all charges, then the election itself has been flawed. However, if that top-level interference is not there, then this is business as usual, other than that this one got exposed. Such revalations do not change results after the fact anymore than any other mixup does.

[Patroklos]

This is stupid humans, not "Government." Neither the executive branch/ Justice Department or the administration really had anything to gain out of pushing Stevens to the street. I'm not as inclined to agree with you under those circumstances.

I never claimed any nefarious political motives on the part of the government, but is now a fact that the government (through its selected representatives) knowing pursued a case against a citizen with no merit and in fact deliberately obstructed justice in order to pursue that case.

I will go ahead and say that if it were just incompetence then I might be inclined to see it your way, but given we now have a criminal investigation it probably turn out to be willful defamation of character. The government shouldn't be doing that to citizens no matter who they are.

However, if that top-level interference is not there, then this is business as usual, other than that this one got exposed. Such revalations do not change results after the fact anymore than any other mixup does.

This would be the case if it were incompetence, Judge Stevens clearly thinks it was willful criminal intent.

[rah]

The big problem is that while he may not have been convictable on those particularly charges, he sure as hell is guilty of corruption, and he was deservedly convicted of that in the court of public opinion.

I'm astounded that someone actually said this.

[TCO]

If it was private smearing, I would agree with you. Surely you can see the differnece when it is the government itselve doing so.

Nope. No do overs. Man up. It's not in the rules. Live with it.

[Kuciwalker]

Great, now we should convict people based upon the court of public opinion!

Idiot.

[Lefty Scaevola]

In the prosecution of criminal contempt occurring within his own court, and Federal judge can appoint a prosecutor of his choice, and Sullican has done so in this case. For any other criminal charges against the prosecutors, I think the AG would have to appoint a special prosecutor.