Comments on: Senator Ted Stevens Exonerated

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:35:35 +0000

It is somewhat ironic, but good luck finding anyone who worked on Capitol Hill who didn’t work with a Member of Congress or Senator that didn’t try to put federal money toward one boondoggle or another. (I worked on federalism as counsel to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which he chaired at the time, not on appropriations, and I was long gone during the “Bridge to Nowhere” episode.)

By: Little Jim

Little Jim — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:47:24 +0000

I find it ironic that the guy who now runs a blog to scrutinize every penny of government spending once worked for the guy who tried to get Congress to waste taxpayer dollars on a “bridge to nowhere”.

By: D. Masters

D. Masters — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:39:44 +0000

BTW..where did you get “exonerated”? That’s not what I heard. What paper or prosecutor or court published that word with regard to Stevens? Could be a technicality if, without sentencing the trail is without documentation or record. But you tell me the technicalities, since you say Stevens is “exonerated”.

By: D. Masters

D. Masters — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:35:18 +0000

Outside of some obvious spelling errors of my previous post, I’d like to add: some people in Alaska (hard core whatevers) had his conduct of “business as usual” determined to be enough and voted him out….in Alaska? Geeze Loueeze! How bad do you have to be as a multiple incumbent in Alaska and get voted out at the Fed level???? Can you smell crook? And will we ever know the long term damage.?

Just for your fyi Mr. Harper…I’m active with many subjects. I’m saddened by what you posted above;not because of Mr. Stevens, but because of your power on this site and your lack of Constitutional Law and seemingly, mindset. Could you take the time to consult someone?

Before you speak, get the the legalities right. He was NOT exonerated. But the discussion of the legal system and the sloppiness of our judicial system is not the question here….OOOooh, maybe it it is.

By: D. Masters

D. Masters — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:13:02 +0000

Mr. Harper:

Thought the last technicality was for sentencing and the prosecutors failed to provide necessary evidence or provide case closure of smae. Queer…but it is, what it is.

To eloborate, Mr. Stevens was NOT aquitted…prosecution of the sentencing was not persued. Doesn’t make what he was accused and convicted of go away. However, I smile at your attempt to quibble the circumstances and bottom line results.

No, sir…EX-Senator Stevens is not “exonerated”…he stands now as not going forward to sentencing. The case to the point of conviction was NOT dropped….his sentencing was. Hardly a victory, don’t wish the man evil; but certainly know where you stand. Poor EX-Sen Stevens….abused, maligned and trashed. Nothing of substance, voting record, or goodness accomplished?

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:58:39 +0000

True, Stevens was also convicted. His indictment seemed to draw the most public attention (and it’s what I wrote about here), so I recited the fact of his indictment.

From the context, it looks like you may have intended to write, “he was _not_ exonerated,” distinguishing exoneration from having a case dropped. Maybe there is a distinction, but in the eyes of the law now, the man’s guilt has been reversed and he is not guilty of any crime. To me, that’s exoneration.

Now, was he a power-mad, conniving old so-and-so? 100% guilty, in my opinion.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:11:19 +0000

Jim,

Stevens wasn’t merely indicted, he was convicted. And he was exonerated, the case was dropped due to misconduct by the prosecutors.