WorldAHope
Ready to Rock n' Roll
- Apr 1, 2009
- 415
- 45
- 16
This is interesting. Looks to me to be an inside job. The attorneys assigned to porsecute Stevens, all Bush appointees, apparently deliberately botched the case. Why would they put their own careers and licenses on the line ?I really don't give a crap this time about whether or not there is an (R) or a (D) involved. I'm pissed that this man's life was destroyed for whatever the reason and I want those responsible to pay with their very asses.
Yea you don't care this time, because this time it was a Republican that got fucked.
Show me once you cared about this story:
The Bush administration insists that the United States attorney scandal is a non-scandal. But the Siegelman and Thompson cases are a reminder that when the power of the state to imprison people is put in the wrong hands, lives can be ruined and democracy can be threatened. Since the Justice Department refuses to appoint an independent prosecutor to examine whether these and other cases were politicized, Congress must provide the scrutiny.
The Strange Case of an Imprisoned Alabama Governor
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/opinion/10mon4.html
Show me one post from you last year caring about this. You can't, because you didn't.
do you have anything concrete like the steven's case? all you have are maybes and allegations....the judge tossed steven's case because of concrete proof, not mere allegations
Leave that up to Holder to figure out.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/did_mukasey_ignore_evidence_of_misconduct_in_steve.php?ref=fp2
Now that the judge is seeking contempt charges against the government prosecutors on the case, it's worth looking a bit more closely at what happened here.
In fairness, the misconduct that ultimately convinced Mukasey's successor as Attorney General, Eric Holder, to ask that the charges be dropped only came to light recently, so it wasn't included in the letters to Mukasey (though that itself hardly reflects well on the department.) Nonetheless, it's clear that at least one of the letters contained a slew of serious charges of prosecutorial misconduct.
On October 28, 2008, Stevens' lawyer Brendan Sullivan (no relation to the judge, of course), sent a 16-page letter to Mukasey which called the government misconduct in the case "repeated, severe, intentional, and inexcusable." (The letter was released publicly at the time.)
Brendan Sullivan alleged, among other things, that the prosecution had knowingly presented false evidence to the jury; that it had intentionally concealed exculpatory information; and that it had fabricated testimony from its star witness, Bill Allen.
The letter included courtroom pronouncements from the judge, agreeing with many of these allegations. In one case quoted in the letter, Judge Sullivan declared: "We're talking about the United States using documents that the government knows are false, not true." In another case -- referring to Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court decision that prosecutors must turn over key evidence -- Judge Sullivan said: "This is Brady material ... It's difficult for the Court to believe that the government overlooked this exculpatory information."
The letter called on Mukasey to initiate an immediate probe of the allegations, and to take the prosecutors off the case.
None of this is to say that Mukasey erred by not doing everything that Stevens' lawyers were requesting. These were only allegations, after all, despite the judge's apparent agreement with many of them. But one would think that the letter at least merited a response from Mukasey (and that's leaving aside the two other letters that the defense team sent). Judge Sullivan certainly seems to think so.
Of course, Mukasey's apparent lack of interest in these allegations of misconduct by prosecutors runs counter to the Bush DOJ's reputation for putting narrow partisan politics above principle, since Stevens is a Republican.