Judge Says Stevens Prosecution Worst He's Seen

[WorldAHope]

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

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 ?
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.

 

[Yurt]

yes...an inside job that cost a republican an election...and thus less republican seats....

 

[midcan5]

How does what you say relate to lawyers acting unethically?

Because they were incompetent does not make them unethical. When you don't care that government is run professionally you get these buffoons. And because they acted so poorly does not really exonerate Stevens, it merely allows him an excuse. Government done poorly is government done poorly.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The prosecutors are: the head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, William Welch; the lead trial attorney, Brenda Morris; two trial attorneys in the Public Integrity Section, Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan; and two assistant U.S. attorneys in Alaska, Joseph Bottini and James Goeke.

Ok, I'm having a hard time figuring out if William Welch is a Bush appointee or not.


I was able to find out he might be a registered Democrat, but I say BFD to that. Anyone can register as a Democrat. That doesn't make it so.

If Bush appointed him, he's a spy.

I found this:

Welch, a registered Democrat, served in the Springfield U.S. Attorney's office from 1995 to 2006, where he built a reputation as a brainy, unrelenting prosecutor.

Sealy, if the guy was appointed US Attorney in 1995, he was a Clinton appointee. Whether the guy sucks or not was pretty much covered by Judge Sullivan.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How does what you say relate to lawyers acting unethically?

Because they were incompetent does not make them unethical. When you don't care that government is run professionally you get these buffoons. And because they acted so poorly does not really exonerate Stevens, it merely allows him an excuse. Government done poorly is government done poorly.

Who said they were incompetent? Judge Sullivan said they deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the Defense. That's not incompetent, it's criminal.

If the information posted by TM and Sealy are correct, the lead US Attorney on this case was a Clinton appointee. Are you saying he was running his department poorly after 14 years on the job?

 

[sealybobo]

The prosecutors are: the head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, William Welch; the lead trial attorney, Brenda Morris; two trial attorneys in the Public Integrity Section, Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan; and two assistant U.S. attorneys in Alaska, Joseph Bottini and James Goeke.

Ok, I'm having a hard time figuring out if William Welch is a Bush appointee or not.


I was able to find out he might be a registered Democrat, but I say BFD to that. Anyone can register as a Democrat. That doesn't make it so.

If Bush appointed him, he's a spy.

I found this:

Welch, a registered Democrat, served in the Springfield U.S. Attorney's office from 1995 to 2006, where he built a reputation as a brainy, unrelenting prosecutor.

Sealy, if the guy was appointed US Attorney in 1995, he was a Clinton appointee. Whether the guy sucks or not was pretty much covered by Judge Sullivan.

I find it hard to believe Bush left a Clinton appointee in place.

But knowing how much Clinton went along with the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if some of his attorneys were also right wingers that the GOP told Clinton to appoint.

 

[sealybobo]

So, Sealy, are you saying you think this is what happened to Stevens too? The Democrats realized they couldn't beat him fairly so they targeted him for prosecution?

Weren't all the US Attorney's last year Bush appointees?

I doubt they would do that to such a loyal Republican.

Actually, the answer to your question is no, they were not all Repubs. Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office, but W did not do that. He left most of them in place that wanted to stay. Eventually, he replaced 8 and that developed into the Justice Department scandal that cost Gonzales his job.

Whether the attorneys involved in this case were Republican or not, I couldn't say. But, since it looks like this involved attorney misconduct, I'd say these were not appointees, but staff attorneys in the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept. staff attorneys are by and large packed with Dems. That's why the Dems in Congress acted like someone set their collective ass on fire when they thought Gonzales was using a political litmus test in his hiring practices. They thought they might lose their hegemony over the Department

Tech. It looks like someone busted you for being 100% full of shit. What do you have to say to that?

You are a liar it seems. Either that or you are really ignorant. You decide which one you are and let us know.

 

[sealybobo]

How does what you say relate to lawyers acting unethically?

Because they were incompetent does not make them unethical. When you don't care that government is run professionally you get these buffoons. And because they acted so poorly does not really exonerate Stevens, it merely allows him an excuse. Government done poorly is government done poorly.

Who said they were incompetent? Judge Sullivan said they deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the Defense. That's not incompetent, it's criminal.

If the information posted by TM and Sealy are correct, the lead US Attorney on this case was a Clinton appointee. Are you saying he was running his department poorly after 14 years on the job?

I don't think the lead attorney's were Clinton appointees. I think that is your fantasy world.

That other person arguing with you busted you for being wrong on all the facts. Perhaps you should stop trying so hard.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Weren't all the US Attorney's last year Bush appointees?

I doubt they would do that to such a loyal Republican.

Actually, the answer to your question is no, they were not all Repubs. Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office, but W did not do that. He left most of them in place that wanted to stay. Eventually, he replaced 8 and that developed into the Justice Department scandal that cost Gonzales his job.

Whether the attorneys involved in this case were Republican or not, I couldn't say. But, since it looks like this involved attorney misconduct, I'd say these were not appointees, but staff attorneys in the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept. staff attorneys are by and large packed with Dems. That's why the Dems in Congress acted like someone set their collective ass on fire when they thought Gonzales was using a political litmus test in his hiring practices. They thought they might lose their hegemony over the Department

It took me a total of 1 minute to find several articles to describe the Bush administration's turnover of 88 of the 93 US Attorneys by April 2001. Here - the Bush AG John Ashcroft's own press release.

#107: 03-14-01 WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

Q: Why would an honest person casually toss out an easily refutable lie in their attempt to make a fallacious point in an argument ?

A: Honest people don't do that.

They, as our president said a couple weeks ago "like to know what they are talking about before they speak".
Its a good habit to adhere to. People won't discount and disbelieve your every word.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903130012

From Savage's March 23, 2007, Times article:

In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?"

That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said.

A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo.

"On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said.

The difference appears minor. Both McNulty and Sampson acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.

Your supposed sources expose you as a hack. Hopefully you will do better in future. If you bothered to read the link you posted, you would have noticed this part of it:

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

That means that nearly all the US Attorneys did not offer their resignations. Nor were they fired. Your trifling "Media Matters" citation is nothing more than a left-wing hack blog used to support whatever crap the left is selling at the moment and has less credibility than a cite to Worldnetdaily.com. If you want to run around calling people liars, you're going to have to do better than that.

I can easily find how many US Attorneys were replaced by Reagan and Clinton, I cannot find that statistic for GWB, however, I based my statements on testimony before the Judiciary committee during the scandal. There was no testimony that I heard, nor implication by any Dems that GWB had fired all, or anything close to all, of Clinton's US Attorneys. To the contrary, there was tacit acceptance of that fact. If you will recall the rancor of those hearings, the Dems were in no mood to offer tacit acceptance of much of anything. The fact that they failed to raise that as an issue tells me you are flat wrong.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Because they were incompetent does not make them unethical. When you don't care that government is run professionally you get these buffoons. And because they acted so poorly does not really exonerate Stevens, it merely allows him an excuse. Government done poorly is government done poorly.

Who said they were incompetent? Judge Sullivan said they deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the Defense. That's not incompetent, it's criminal.

If the information posted by TM and Sealy are correct, the lead US Attorney on this case was a Clinton appointee. Are you saying he was running his department poorly after 14 years on the job?

I don't think the lead attorney's were Clinton appointees. I think that is your fantasy world.

That other person arguing with you busted you for being wrong on all the facts. Perhaps you should stop trying so hard.

I busted them back.

TM said the lead attorney was appointed in 1995. She's hardly a right wing supporter. So, I'll take her at her word that she did the research and came up with a negative to the Dems. In 1995, Clinton was the President. The President appoints US Attorneys. What can I tell you. Facts are facts. If TM has it right, then the guy was a Clinton appointee.

Besides all of that, the actual misconduct was likely not done by the "Lead attorney" it was probably done by an assistant US Attorney and those are not political appointees, they are career government service. (And, by and large, Dems....as are most lawyers). BUT NOT ME

 

[editec]

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

We speak to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, currently free on bond while he appeals a conviction on corruption charges. Siegelman says he’s the target of a political witch hunt directed by former White House Deputy Karl Rove. More than sixty former state attorneys general have called for a congressional investigation into Siegelman’s case.

60 Minutes did an exposé on this case, that they interviewed the former attorney general, Republican attorney general, from Arizona who said that the Republicans couldn’t beat Siegelman fair and square, so they targeted him with this prosecution. I was investigated by Karl Rove’s client, the attorney general of Alabama. My opponent, Republican opponent’s campaign manager’s wife was the US attorney who brought me to trial one month before the election. It’s interesting to note that her husband is a political operative from New York, a Republican who was Bush’s special assistant, who—


AMY GOODMAN: Who is that?


DON SIEGELMAN: His name is Bill Canary. Canary has a long, long history in the Republican Party. He was chief of staff of the NRC. He was a deputy to Andrew Card. He was in charge of the ground troops in the Bush-Quayle campaign in ’92.


Democracy Now! | Freed from Jail, Fmr. Alabama Governor Don Siegelman Accuses Karl Rove of Orchestrating Political Witch Hunt

So, Sealy, are you saying you think this is what happened to Stevens too? The Democrats realized they couldn't beat him fairly so they targeted him for prosecution?

Steven was prosecuted undr the Bush II administration.

Stevens' case is under review during the Obama administration.

How partisan can this case REALLY be under those circumstances?

 

[DiveCon]

Ok, I'm having a hard time figuring out if William Welch is a Bush appointee or not.


I was able to find out he might be a registered Democrat, but I say BFD to that. Anyone can register as a Democrat. That doesn't make it so.

If Bush appointed him, he's a spy.

I found this:

Welch, a registered Democrat, served in the Springfield U.S. Attorney's office from 1995 to 2006, where he built a reputation as a brainy, unrelenting prosecutor.

Sealy, if the guy was appointed US Attorney in 1995, he was a Clinton appointee. Whether the guy sucks or not was pretty much covered by Judge Sullivan.

I find it hard to believe Bush left a Clinton appointee in place.

But knowing how much Clinton went along with the GOP, it wouldn't surprise me if some of his attorneys were also right wingers that the GOP told Clinton to appoint.

only nbecause you are a FUCKING MORON
Bush left a TON in place you asshole
BUsh came into office trying his best to work with the dems(his biggest mistake cause every one of them stabbed him in the back)

 

[DiveCon]

We speak to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, currently free on bond while he appeals a conviction on corruption charges. Siegelman says he’s the target of a political witch hunt directed by former White House Deputy Karl Rove. More than sixty former state attorneys general have called for a congressional investigation into Siegelman’s case.

60 Minutes did an exposé on this case, that they interviewed the former attorney general, Republican attorney general, from Arizona who said that the Republicans couldn’t beat Siegelman fair and square, so they targeted him with this prosecution. I was investigated by Karl Rove’s client, the attorney general of Alabama. My opponent, Republican opponent’s campaign manager’s wife was the US attorney who brought me to trial one month before the election. It’s interesting to note that her husband is a political operative from New York, a Republican who was Bush’s special assistant, who—


AMY GOODMAN: Who is that?


DON SIEGELMAN: His name is Bill Canary. Canary has a long, long history in the Republican Party. He was chief of staff of the NRC. He was a deputy to Andrew Card. He was in charge of the ground troops in the Bush-Quayle campaign in ’92.


Democracy Now! | Freed from Jail, Fmr. Alabama Governor Don Siegelman Accuses Karl Rove of Orchestrating Political Witch Hunt

So, Sealy, are you saying you think this is what happened to Stevens too? The Democrats realized they couldn't beat him fairly so they targeted him for prosecution?

Steven was prosecuted undr the Bush II administration.

Stevens' case is under review during the Obama administration.

How partisan can this case REALLY be under those circumstances?

yeah, because everyone that works for the government is replaced when the WH changes party's

 

[WorldAHope]

yes...an inside job that cost a republican an election...and thus less republican seats....

Their conduct was either gross and obvious almost scripted incompetence by formally very capable attorneys, or it was deliberate. One or the other.
IF it was motivated, perhaps they were hoping to get a mistrial declared and prolong the jury procedings past the election. They certainly destroyed any hope of upholding conviction on appeal.
Like I said, the jury convicted Stevens on all 7 counts based upon the evidence. The prosecutors' misconduct was strictly procedural, it poisoned the proceedings of the trial, but did not degrade or negate the evidence. Stevens did take bribes and favors. He did break the law.
AG Holder did the right thing. Stevens did not get a fair trial.

 

[WorldAHope]

Actually, the answer to your question is no, they were not all Repubs. Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office, but W did not do that. He left most of them in place that wanted to stay. Eventually, he replaced 8 and that developed into the Justice Department scandal that cost Gonzales his job.

Whether the attorneys involved in this case were Republican or not, I couldn't say. But, since it looks like this involved attorney misconduct, I'd say these were not appointees, but staff attorneys in the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept. staff attorneys are by and large packed with Dems. That's why the Dems in Congress acted like someone set their collective ass on fire when they thought Gonzales was using a political litmus test in his hiring practices. They thought they might lose their hegemony over the Department

It took me a total of 1 minute to find several articles to describe the Bush administration's turnover of 88 of the 93 US Attorneys by April 2001. Here - the Bush AG John Ashcroft's own press release.

#107: 03-14-01 WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

Q: Why would an honest person casually toss out an easily refutable lie in their attempt to make a fallacious point in an argument ?

A: Honest people don't do that.

They, as our president said a couple weeks ago "like to know what they are talking about before they speak".
Its a good habit to adhere to. People won't discount and disbelieve your every word.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200903130012

From Savage's March 23, 2007, Times article:

In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?"

That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said.

A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo.

"On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said.

The difference appears minor. Both McNulty and Sampson acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.

Your supposed sources expose you as a hack. Hopefully you will do better in future. If you bothered to read the link you posted, you would have noticed this part of it:

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

That means that nearly all the US Attorneys did not offer their resignations. Nor were they fired. Your trifling "Media Matters" citation is nothing more than a left-wing hack blog used to support whatever crap the left is selling at the moment and has less credibility than a cite to Worldnetdaily.com. If you want to run around calling people liars, you're going to have to do better than that.

I can easily find how many US Attorneys were replaced by Reagan and Clinton, I cannot find that statistic for GWB, however, I based my statements on testimony before the Judiciary committee during the scandal. There was no testimony that I heard, nor implication by any Dems that GWB had fired all, or anything close to all, of Clinton's US Attorneys. To the contrary, there was tacit acceptance of that fact. If you will recall the rancor of those hearings, the Dems were in no mood to offer tacit acceptance of much of anything. The fact that they failed to raise that as an issue tells me you are flat wrong.

From Savage's March 23, 2007, Times article:

In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?"

That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said.

A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo.

"On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said.

The difference appears minor. Both McNulty and Sampson acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.

Those are the quoted words of Bush DoJ top staffers, in a NYT article. Are Sampson and McNulty lying libs, too ?
Quit trying to fudge it, Tech. Stick to the facts. Don't try to make reality fit into your silly petty argument.

 

[garyd]

Permitted some to stay on a few months? How many is a few? How many is some? Why the big to do over Bush firing a few Republicans if he'd already fired all the Democrats? And how many Democrats did he appoint to fill those vacted positions?

That's just some of the relevant questions truth. But then you don't read between the lines well.