Comments on: The Strange Case Against Ted Stevens

By: Da King

Da King — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:53:22 +0000

So, the Reverend thinks perjury is a lesser crime than the failure to fill out a form properly.

Think again.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:17:22 +0000

Au contraire…I think it's a perfect example. Stevens is more culpable because of the nature of the "crime".

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:01:21 +0000

Actually, they impeached that president for committing perjury in a sworn deposition regarding a sexual abuse charge against that same president.

Not a good example.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:43:05 +0000

I'd agree….except they impeached a president for fibbing about a blowjob.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:25:04 +0000

Rev,
I think you're only right about one of those two things. Stevens didn't report the remodeling work, but the withheld evidence is about the amount Stevens was supposed to pay. That evidence would disprove the accusation that Stevens didn't pay.

If all Stevens is guilty of is not reporting some remodeling work, then I'd say we have many, many more guilty people on Capitol Hill to fo after than him.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:15:33 +0000

The remodeling work was done, and you can, like, see it with your own eyes.

Stevens attorneys never demonstrated that Stevens paid for all of that remodeling, nor did they prove that Stevens filed accurate reports with the feds documenting the "gifts." The jury's verdict demonstrates that.

The "contradictory evidence" had to do with an alleged memo from Stevens to Bill Allen about billing him. We still don't know what impact that would have had on the overall case.

But…Stevens got the remodeling work and didn't pay for it, at least not all of it, and then he never reported it.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:57:47 +0000

If there's contradictory evidence and you don't know what it is, how on earth can you honestly claim to know he is beyond a doubt guilty, Reverend?

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:53:23 +0000

The Stevens case, as you correctly point out, is a bit of a clustermess.

I would add this…..Stevens, although the case has now been thrown out, was NOT innocent on the original charges. He did receive the expensive remodeling, didn't pay for all of it and didn't report it as the law requires.

Why prosecutors chose to withhold potentially contradictory evidence is not known at this point. But Holder's overturning of the case has got nothing to do with Steven's innocence….only the prosecutors' malfeasance.