US v. Ted Stevens Tells You All You Need
To Know About Why A Federal Prosecutor
Doesn’t Indict Before They Are Ready.
RedState,
by
Shipwreckedcrew
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
9/14/2020 10:27:37 AM
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was the longest-serving United States Senator on the Republican side when he was indicted in August 2008 by the Bush Justice Department on a variety of fraud charges connected to allegations that he took money from campaign contributors in Alaska. The case was relatively complex (Snip)This is why the basic rule for federal prosecutors is ALWAYS have your case ready for trial on the day you seek an indictment. Never count on the possibility that you will have additional time to build your case after the case is indicted by doing things after the indictment that should have been done prior to the
Reply 1 - Posted by:
john56 9/14/2020 10:36:01 AM (No. 540402)
Understood. I want these coup plotters so boxed in that the ONLY option they have is to turn state's evidence and accept a long prison sentence in return for giving up their fellow plotters. One of their biggest problems is keeping these cases out of the DC and NY federal courts. I think that was one of the reasons Brennan was interviewed at CIA HQ (Virginia) and not DC, so that the venue of any false statement prosecutions could take place in a less-biased court.
Our coup plotter friends are fortunate that they have their deep state court judges in the DC circuit that can give them cover for their show trials (Flynn, Stone, Manafort, etc.).
5 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
BarryNo 9/14/2020 10:49:50 AM (No. 540414)
Stevens trial was a kangaroo court and a game which the Democrats knew Stevens could not win. Either he had to drop out because he was under an indictment, or he could try to win his case while they were hiding the exculpatory evidence. And Judge Sulivan, who's now involved with the terminally challenged persecution of General Flynn? Please! I don't care if this guy knows his stuff. He picked a bad example for his defense of Barr/Durham - maybe intentionally.
I haven't given up on Barr/Durham, but we've all seen in the past, Democrats runing the clock out past an election, yet no matter which party wins, the prosecution goes away. Not. This. Time...
6 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
earlybird 9/14/2020 11:26:49 AM (No. 540454)
Author is not commenting on the merits of the Stevens case. Just using it as an example of how a federal case, pushed in an election year, ends up being a very mismanaged case. Using an election to hurry the prosecution of a case is a very bad idea.
2 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Vitaman 9/14/2020 11:27:32 AM (No. 540455)
The sad and dangerous thread that runs throughout this article is the idea that if only the federal persecutors (spelling intended) had done their homework and been more careful and diligent then the railroad job they were running on Stevens could have been made to stick. Am I alone in seeing this?
1 person likes this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
RU4us 9/14/2020 11:49:21 AM (No. 540476)
FTA: "This is why the basic rule for federal prosecutors is ALWAYS have your case ready for trial on the day you seek an indictment. Never count on the possibility that you will have additional time to build your case after the case is indicted by doing things after the indictment that should have been done prior to the indictment. ... Pushing for an indictment from Durham before he’s fully prepared to take a case to trial is a path to a potentially unhappy outcome. Durham understands that. I wish the public understood it better."
Oh, I think we do! That's why we are wondering, why by now, there haven't been early morning warrants for offices, homes and storage of all those reasonably suspected of felonious if not treasonous crimes against the people of the United States. By the time Judicial Watch wins their suits, the evidence not so mysteriously disappears. The clear answer is that the Deep State is still running Justice, IC, State and a big chunk of the Pentagon.
6 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Right Time 9/14/2020 1:30:29 PM (No. 540592)
They knew the case would fall apart, but the whole plan was to get an INDICTMENT on the eve of the election, and to have a dramatic arrest and documents seizure, with Senator Stevens' files and campaign contributor lists, without which the campaign was paralyzed.
This was an Obama Dirty Trick. Actually, an illegal trick, because they used the cover of law to destroy a political opponent.
But they got their Obamacare vote
3 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Right Time 9/14/2020 1:35:29 PM (No. 540597)
ALWAYS have your case ready for trial on the day you seek indictment?
Does the same rule apply to Presidential Impeachments ? I think not. Ask Peelousy
2 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
AlpineLace 9/14/2020 2:15:44 PM (No. 540640)
Why weren't the federal prosecutors in involved in this travesty prosecuted themselves?
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
3XALADY 9/14/2020 3:41:54 PM (No. 540708)
Curious what Senator Stevens did that 99.9% of the rest of our elected princes/princesses haven't done. They just weren't on the hit list.
0 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
G Mo 9/14/2020 3:51:41 PM (No. 540715)
I am an Alaska who is familiar with the case against Senator Ted Stevens. He was an honorable man. He later died in a small plane crash that he never would have been on had he not lost the election.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
The nuts and bolts of the Stevens case are snipped out in the intro. They must be read in order to understand the author’s point. A retired 22 year federal prosecutor, he should know how this works.