Analysis: Case's End Doesn't Mean Stevens Is Vindicated
(AP Photo/Al Grillo)
Safe? Yes. Innocent? Hardly.
Hold on, Governor Sarah Palin. Just because federal prosecutors wisely decided to drop their successful corruption case against Ted Stevens doesn't mean that the former Alaska senator has been vindicated, much less exonerated. So not only does a new senate race up there have no political chance it has no legal or logical foundation, either.
Fraud and deception in the government's case, however inexcusable, doesn't magically erase from the world of our memory (or the universe of proof) those incriminating audio-taped conversations between Stevens his buddy, Bill Allen, that helped persuade federal jurors in Washington last fall to convict the legendary politician of failing to accurate file financial statements. The Justice Department may have tainted itself before and during the Stevens trial. But it did not taint all facets of the government's case against the man.
Stevens is dreaming a little dream if he truly believes, as he said last week, that he "always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come."
Actually, no, it hasn't. There are still plenty of dark clouds covering this scene. And Gov. Palin, too, is trying to turn logic around by morphing Stevens into some sort of a martyr.
"What a horrible thing he has endured," she declared. "The blatant attempts by adversaries to destroy one's reputation, career and finances are an abuse of our well-guarded process and violate our God-given rights afforded in the Constitution."
Stevens may have been forced to spend more money defending himself than he might have spent had Bush-era prosecutors played it fair last year. And perhaps he would have been acquitted had the bad evidence not been introduced (or had prosecutors turned over to the defense the information they were supposed to turn over). But his sleazy relationship with Allen was inglorious (if not unethical) and his conversations with the oil company executive were unbecoming (if not criminal).
If Stevens is a victim, his wounds were, in part at least, self-inflicted. The absence of integrity on the part of prosecutors does not translate into the presence of integrity within Stevens. The world doesn't work that way and no one should pretend that it does. Stevens could have conceded wrong-doing months before the election; he could have taken responsibility for his conduct. He could have avoided a trial. He didn't. And he paid for that choice with the end of his long career in politics.
This last twist in this sad story would have been huge political and legal news had it been a Democratic Justice Department that had pushed beyond constitutional limits to convict Stevens in advance of his re-election bid. But it wasn't. The law simply doesn't give defeated candidates a chance at a do-over when they lose a valid election, even if they lose it in creepy circumstances like this.
(CBS)
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 126 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 868 Comments
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Letter to a young scandalmonger
Republicans can not claim political bias, it was their own party that brought the charges. They can not claim that the election was biased, their own party did the timing.
It means he is innocent in my book and here is why it should be in yours too. The foundation of our rights is that the government must respect the law... and our rights enshrined therein. You are innocent until proven guilty... not innocent unless most people think you are guilty. When you get a bunch of people deciding whats right, despite the protections of the law and the constitution, you end up with what the founding fathers really did fear. The tyranny of the majority.
BTW, I think the prosecutors should be fired and the judge voted out of office. If Stevens is guilty which the evidence does seem to suggest some culpability... then the failure of getting a sound convication is inexcusable. The judge made several comments about how inexcusable the happenings were yet did not declare a mistrial as he obviously should've now in retrospect.
Now that its been laid bare for all to see, they still refuse to admit they were wrong. The ends truly justify the means if you vote for team blue.
Never mind the law, tax or otherwise, you have good intentions on your side!
In which direction does your moral compass point, Mr. Cohen?
"If Stevens is a victim, his wounds were, in part at least, self-inflicted. THE ABSENSE OF INTEGRITY ON THE PART OF PROSECUTERS DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO THE PRESENCE OF INTEGRITY WITHIN STEVENS. The world doesn?t work that way and no one should pretend that it does. Stevens could have conceded wrong-doing months before the election; he could have taken responsibility for his conduct. He could have avoided a trial. He didn?t. And he paid for that choice with the end of his long career in politics."
Note the emphasis. This is the most important take away from the article. Stevens was NOT - repeat NOT - an innocent man. There was plenty of evidence to convict him regardless of what the prosecution witheld. And if those who defend Stevens remember their outrage at the acquittal of O.J. Simpson who was as obviously guilty of his charges as Stevens was of his; and was acquitted only because the prosecution made such a shambles of their case - then they should accept the fact that a fair number of us will never believe in Mr. Steven's innocence no matter how aggressively or how unethically or how obviously the prosecution pursued their case.