What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
93 Comments
- EMFK, on 04/01/2009, -10/+72If the prosecution wanted to convict Ted Stevens, they had the evidence to do so. However, they bungled this case from the very beginning and thus, it makes them look worse than Ted Stevens.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -15/+69More incompetence from Bush's DOJ.
- swrostmore, on 04/01/2009, -4/+45Bush's DOJ gets the last laugh - their incompetence sets another corrupt swine free.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -4/+41Wasn't it Bush's DOJ that handled this prosecution? Last time I checked Stevens was not tried and convicted within the last 60 days.
- Christianptriot, on 04/01/2009, -11/+45We need to give credit where it is due, and Holder is making the tough choice to do what is right in this case and find fault with DOJ lawyers where it is appropriate. Good for him.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -5/+38All part of Bush's brilliant scheme to use his DOJ to turn the Congress over to the Democrats.
- enantiodromia, on 04/02/2009, -4/+32Bush's DoJ: Hey, we made this casserole a while ago, but we made it so badly, no one will eat it. Want it?
Obama's DoJ: You know what, let's just throw it out; it is beyond saving at this point.
Digg "Conservative": OBAMA'S DOJ CAN'T MAKE EVEN A SIMPLE CASSEROLE!!! - joeblow17, on 04/01/2009, -6/+34Meh, Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens wasn't even freed on a technicallity, Fed decided why waste more taxpayers dollars with endless retrials and appeals. Which these days Republicians suddenly like technicallites and endless court battles.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
That's not even the worst thing Stevens ever did
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/30/stevens-caught ... - dissolutionman, on 04/02/2009, -0/+27No, Bush's DoJ prosecuted Stevens.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -4/+27Wasn't Bush president when Stevens was tried?
- Mnementh2230, on 04/01/2009, -10/+32stealing our liberties? Where were you during the past 8 years when the Bush administration was stealing our freedoms and raping the constitution?
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -5/+25The Attorney General was picked by Bush, and Bush was president when the DOJ tried Ted Stevens. I know your knee jerk reaction is to always blame the Democrats, but this is another example of Bush era incompetence.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -6/+25You mean Bush's DOJ was prosecuting an innocent man?
- enantiodromia, on 04/02/2009, -0/+19i like how anything that has happened in the last few years is suddenly all Obama's doing.
you can actually see revisionist history as it is being written, real time. - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -4/+23I didn't realize Bush and his DOJ lawyers were Democrat Statists or ACORN members. You might want to loosen up that tinfoil hat. It seems to be cutting off the flow of blood to what's left of your brain.
- buddhistMonkey, on 04/02/2009, -2/+19Obama's Department of Justice is righting a wrong perpetrated by Bush's incompetent DOJ. None of Bush's Attorneys General -- Ashcroft, Gonzales, or Mukasey -- would have done the same thing, had the tables been turned. Alberto Gonzales, in fact, did the opposite: he fired attorneys who wouldn't prosecute Democrats on trumped-up charges.
Ted Stevens deserves to be in jail, but his case deserves to be dismissed even more. It's unfortunate that someone as corrupt as Ted Stevens must be set free because of prosecutorial misconduct, but at least it shows the country that we finally have an Attorney General in Eric Holder who is mandating that the rule of law be followed in every circumstance. - kent1146, on 04/02/2009, -4/+21April Fools?
Please?? - voyetra8, on 04/01/2009, -3/+20Hahhaah, good troll, would bury again!
A+++! - swrostmore, on 04/01/2009, -2/+18Funny how you refer to the notoriously partisan Bush DOJ as "Dems."
- Mnementh2230, on 04/01/2009, -6/+21"Did you see a defense of the Bush Administration in my post? Do you notice that Bush isn't in power any longer? Does negative behavior of one administration excuse the behavior of another?"
No, I just find it rather odd that you're jumping on something small that has been corrected (the charges against him were dropped, were they not? The self-corrective nature of the legal system prevails!), vs. the HUGE rape of our civil liberties and freedoms under the previous administration (some of which still exists today - thank you Patriot Act).
"...he's stealing our liberties faster than any other president in the history of this nation."
I shall point you once again to the Patriot Act, and warrantless wire tapping.
"He is seizing private property (businesses)"
Only because the consequences of NOT seizing those businesses would be catastrophic, according to most economists.
"He is dictating income levels"
Only to the employees of those businesses that the US Government now has a stake in - no different than any other majority stock holder.
"He is firing employees at private companies"
I highly doubt Obama is personally firing people at any rate that would raise eyebrows.
"He is running up a national deficit that will enslave present and future generations to the government via oppressive tax burdens"
Only because the previous administration was too lax with regulation, and thus allowed our financial system to cause the mess we're currently in. I'm not arguing for complete regulation, but no regulation leads to the disaster we see now. Obama has said, and I agree, that there must be a middle ground which allows the financial sector to operate as it must, but still protects the interests of our nation and the economy.
"His actions have wiped out trillions of dollars in savings for 300 million citizens."
I suppose you're talking about the stock market being so much lower - understand this: the market would be lower with or without Obama. Markets are lower world-wide, in every country (possible exception of India), regardless of the political leanings of their leaders.
"His actions will devalue what little wealth is left."
Funny, I see them creating a lot of jobs and wealth in the near future, what with his green energy initiatives, practically doubling the budged of the Department of Education, and investment in our current infrastructure. Oh Boo Hoo, it's not an immediate solution, but ***** that - I'd rather have a stable future paid for with a little pain now than an immediate solution that doesn't look forward past the next election cycle. We as a nation need a little more forward thinking, and McCain certainly didn't have that - if he did, he wouldn't have gotten Palin on the ticket with him (that hockey-mom creationist-pushing journalism-degree reactionary-leaning loves-america-so-much-she-wanted-her-state-to-secede-from-the-union can't-give-an-interview-without-embarassing-herself spends-too-damn-much-money-on-her-clothing can't-live-down-troopergate COLOSSAL ***** UP. McCain is old, and if he died in office, that bulldog with lipstick would have been in charge of our nuclear arsenal!)
I'm not saying I support Obama 100% (I'm a centrist, I think both parties have some good ideas, and I think both parties have their loony-bins), but he was certainly a better choice than the alternative. The American Public seems to agree with me (not that I trust the American Public with much these days - what the hell is wrong with having the intellectual elite in charge? Don't they want someone SMART to lead the country???), based on both his current approval ratings and the fact that they elected him over McCain. - inactive, on 04/01/2009, -3/+18Ted Stevens is as innocent as Bill Ayers.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -5/+18It was Bush's DOJ that prosecuted Stevens. It's not election tampering, it's just another instance of Bush era incompetence.
- Anim8ir, on 04/02/2009, -2/+15Are we sure this isn't April Fools?
- DirtyBinLV, on 04/02/2009, -0/+12Just because the prosecution was incompetent doesn't mean he was the least bit innocent of the charges.
Let me tell you about a man named OJ.... - enantiodromia, on 04/02/2009, -1/+12didn't you know, the Democrats secretly controlled the DoJ while Bush was president!
- DigitalisAkujin, on 04/01/2009, -1/+11Stevens' case was already set. If you really think any political capital had to be expended on him you are sorely mistaken.
- mgraham80, on 04/01/2009, -0/+9@KingMorpheus: you have displayed admirable patience in this thread. These idiots really have no idea how the federal DOJ works.
- SlowFoodRules, on 04/01/2009, -2/+11empty charges? get real! there's no sense in spending more $$ or time prosecuting an 85yr old farthead who got caught.
- electricwaffles, on 04/01/2009, -4/+12Good news from the tubes.
- jessemoya, on 04/02/2009, -2/+10I want to know who these worthless lawyers are. I want to send them a handwritten letter that says "***** YOU" a thousand times on it and then suggests that they kill themselves.
This was supposed to be a rare story of a corrupt politician being slapped down by the rule of law he thought he was above, and they ruined it. As Americans we get so few stories of justice. I'm just so pissed about this. - sugarazor, on 04/02/2009, -0/+7Either way, justice was served. Guilty or not, the prosecution bungled the case and Stevens should rightfully go free. That's the system we have and I'd much rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail.
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -4/+11"NO!"
- enantiodromia, on 04/02/2009, -0/+6when you think about it, these people can't even remember facts from 90 days ago and have already re-remembered them in a way they prefer, and I am supposed to believe them about some magic tricks which happened 2,000 years ago?
- jessemoya, on 04/02/2009, -0/+6I agree. That's some encouraging silver lining.
- abduln, on 04/02/2009, -0/+6There is no evidence that the conviction occurred as a result of withholding the prosecutorial notes; not sure where you are getting that idea from. The whole point of the dismissal was that the misconduct prevented a fair evaluation of the evidence, and therefore an unfair trial, and a mistrial. The outcome of what the judge might consider to be a fair trial may have been exactly the same guilty verdict. Don't confuse a mistrial with an incorrect verdict; they are two different things.
- EELander, on 04/01/2009, -0/+6What evidence would have been withheld? Would it be damning evidence that would have bolstered the prosecution's case? Or might it have been exonerating evidence that would have damaged the prosecution's case?"
It would be the kind of evidence withheld that either way, didn't allow for Steven's full due process. - stonebear, on 04/02/2009, -1/+7Incompetent like a fox.
- HappyScrappy, on 04/02/2009, -0/+6They weren't empty charges. They were dismissed (rightfully) due to prosecutorial misconduct, not because there was no evidence.
- Dustin00, on 04/02/2009, -1/+7ACORN?!???? Seriously?
They pay people to collect voter signups. They don't police it well and some of the workers just make stuff up to earn a buck. So some bad "voters" get added to the rolls. But at the election, guess what... the invented voters don't show up. No vote gets cast at all. So then ACORN is left wondering why they lose when they got so many new voters.
ACORN is just Democrats wasting money, you should be thrilled they have ACORN. - sugarazor, on 04/02/2009, -3/+9"Hmm. Seems like the Senator was railroaded. Another example of a political hit job by Democrat Statists that helped them take control of the government."
Yeah, it's Obama's Justice Department that's dropping all charges in this case. But nice try... maybe you should let the adults do the debating from now on. - publiclurker, on 04/02/2009, -1/+5don't take it too hard, Dustin, He's just upset that the ACORN group is ruining all of that voter intimidation and lynching that his friends went to the effort to do a few decades ago.
- riceyrice, on 04/02/2009, -2/+6Dropped charges = fail.
Lost his seat = win! - Gonthim, on 04/02/2009, -0/+4Yea, totally man, abuse of power shouldn't even be a crime. Who cares? Why even bother investigating?
- indyattic, on 04/02/2009, -0/+4The worst thing he did was to amend a bill after it passed both houses, but before it went to be signed.
- catdawg555, on 04/02/2009, -0/+3The D.O.J. should be an independent entity
- Ratteler, on 04/02/2009, -2/+5What a miscarriage of justice. Steven SHOULD be facing a ***** firing squad for selling this nation out to Big Oil, and the RIAA/MPAA terror groups.
I bet the Republican DOJ deliberately botched the case. Either to allow their sloppy demon Alaskan traitor to go free, as has happened, or more insidiously, to set a precedent so that other neocon prosecutors still in position could use the Stevens case to railroad real patriots. - Steve31005, on 04/02/2009, -0/+3Now it's time to review the Don Siegelman case.
- ssjaken, on 04/02/2009, -2/+5credit where credit is due!
- ultar6, on 04/02/2009, -0/+2I agree on all counts. We're talking about a man whose house was 'broken into' and the furniture replaced. He claimed that he didn't like the new furniture, but chose not to report the 'break-in' or have the furniture removed.
Then there was the expensive massaging chair that showed up in his house, which he refused as a gift but allowed to remain in his home as a 'loaned' piece...a seven-year loan.
Then there was the time he showed up at his house and it had a second story, expansive deck, and top-of-the line BBQ that he forgot he paid for.
The man was dirty. He might not have asked for the things he got, but he sure didn't refuse them. - Bartboy919, on 04/02/2009, -0/+2I really hope you mean 7 term, he was one of the oldest senators in the senate.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is