On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:


Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.

More twilight zone stuff. Tsk tsk.

--Vic

wrote:

Loogy, answer these questions...

Why did William Jefferson (D-La) have $90K in his freezer?

Why did William Jefferson (D-La) have the National Guard escort him to
his home in New Orleans to liberate the $90K in his freezer when people
were dying trapped on their roof tops?

wrote:
On Apr 7, 1:53 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
And the corruptocrat federal prosecutors are facing criminal charges
of their own.. The politics of personal destruction and winning
elections through bogus prosecution is finally biting them in the ass.
You dumb little ****...you're as short on brains as you are on height.
Stevens, a Republican, was prosecuted by Republicans, and just like
everything else in the Bush justice department, it was corrupt. Stevens
got a walk not because he was innocent, but because the Republicans
broke the rules of prosecutorial procedure.

In your next life, if you come back as a human, pay attention in high
school.

--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

Hang it up Harry. Best you stay under your desk with your cap guns,
spewing your hate and making it up as you go along....

Stevens was persecuted by career prosecutors in the DOJ.

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:30:19 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:11:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Looks like it's about time for violent revolution against both
parties.... It won't be long now with our freedom being stripped
every day.. Have you heard about samhsa.gov?
Ever see the movie "Videodrome"?
They were taking over through the TV sets.
Melted your brains, basically.
I suspect that site you posted is the internet version, so I won't go
there until I make my hat. Out of aluminum foil now.
The only answer I see is the Tea Parties.
But I just heard Neil Cavuto on Fox saying the Tea Parties are being
infiltrated. By Acorn.
Things are going to hell in a hand basket real fast.
Time to buy more guns and stock up on ammo.
Maybe food too.
Ever see the movie "Tremors"?
Burt Gummer saved the day with his armory.
Blew them worms clear back to hell.
Reba McEntrye played his wife, Heather.
That .50 cal was a mean piece, but Reba had a sweet matched set of
38's. But that could be an exaggeration.
Good flick.

--Vic

You are a funny man.

Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

So justice is no longer blind?

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.

Career prosecutors (aka Democrats).

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:19:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:

Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.

There were mounds of evidence against him, that's why he was
convicted. From all accounts, his guilt or innocence would not have
been affected by what was withheld.

Why was it withheld? Were these prosecutors afraid that the withheld
evidence would provide reasonable doubt?

Read about the charges and proof and you'll find the situation pretty
damned obvious. Uncle Ted was on the take in a big way. That he's no
different than other pols isn't a defense against prosecution or
conviction.

Charges are not convictions.

When the prosecutors withhold evidence you can only conclude that the
either the prosecutors are idiots or that they were afraid the withheld
evidence would have sunk their case.

Prosecutors' job is to seek the truth, not to gain a conviction.

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.
More twilight zone stuff. Tsk tsk.

Agreed but worth a moment of fantasy. Wouldn't be the first time
prosecutors screwed things up on purpose.

Nobody is perfect.

On Apr 7, 10:47*pm, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:19:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:

Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.

There were mounds of evidence against him, that's why he was
convicted. *From all accounts, his guilt or innocence would not have
been affected by what was withheld.

Why was it withheld? Were these prosecutors afraid that the withheld
evidence would provide reasonable doubt?

Read about the charges and proof and you'll find the situation pretty
damned obvious. *Uncle Ted was on the take in a big way. *That he's no
different than other pols isn't a defense against prosecution or
conviction.

Charges are not convictions.

When the prosecutors withhold evidence you can only conclude that the
either the prosecutors are idiots or that they were afraid the withheld
evidence would have sunk their case.

Prosecutors' job is to seek the truth, not to gain a conviction.

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.
More twilight zone stuff. *Tsk tsk.

Agreed but worth a moment of fantasy. *Wouldn't be the first time
prosecutors screwed things up on purpose.

Nobody is perfect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...

wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:19:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:
Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.
Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.
There were mounds of evidence against him, that's why he was
convicted. From all accounts, his guilt or innocence would not have
been affected by what was withheld.
Why was it withheld? Were these prosecutors afraid that the withheld
evidence would provide reasonable doubt?

Read about the charges and proof and you'll find the situation pretty
damned obvious. Uncle Ted was on the take in a big way. That he's no
different than other pols isn't a defense against prosecution or
conviction.
Charges are not convictions.

When the prosecutors withhold evidence you can only conclude that the
either the prosecutors are idiots or that they were afraid the withheld
evidence would have sunk their case.

Prosecutors' job is to seek the truth, not to gain a conviction.

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.
More twilight zone stuff. Tsk tsk.
Agreed but worth a moment of fantasy. Wouldn't be the first time
prosecutors screwed things up on purpose.
Nobody is perfect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...

He comes around every once in a while when a gun jumps up off the shelf
and kills some people all by its inanimate self.

He is a fun to bitch slap for a few days and then he leaves.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:47:35 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:19:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:

Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.

There were mounds of evidence against him, that's why he was
convicted. From all accounts, his guilt or innocence would not have
been affected by what was withheld.

Why was it withheld? Were these prosecutors afraid that the withheld
evidence would provide reasonable doubt?

Read about the charges and proof and you'll find the situation pretty
damned obvious. Uncle Ted was on the take in a big way. That he's no
different than other pols isn't a defense against prosecution or
conviction.

Charges are not convictions.

What charges and evidence brought forward were damning and conclusive.
I don't know what was withheld or what effect it may have on the case
but it was clear he was caught red handed.

When the prosecutors withhold evidence you can only conclude that the
either the prosecutors are idiots or that they were afraid the withheld
evidence would have sunk their case.

Prosecutors' job is to seek the truth, not to gain a conviction.

You've got to be kidding. Justice Department officials and Republican
politicians specifically asked Republican appointed prosecutors to try
cases against Democrats in front of elections as a tool to supress
support.

How many refused and how many complied?

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.
More twilight zone stuff. Tsk tsk.

Agreed but worth a moment of fantasy. Wouldn't be the first time
prosecutors screwed things up on purpose.

Nobody is perfect.

You mean Republican prosecutors in Alaska prosecuting a senior
Republican senator from Alaska aren't perfect.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:43:29 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:30:19 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:11:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Looks like it's about time for violent revolution against both
parties.... It won't be long now with our freedom being stripped
every day.. Have you heard about samhsa.gov?
Ever see the movie "Videodrome"?
They were taking over through the TV sets.
Melted your brains, basically.
I suspect that site you posted is the internet version, so I won't go
there until I make my hat. Out of aluminum foil now.
The only answer I see is the Tea Parties.
But I just heard Neil Cavuto on Fox saying the Tea Parties are being
infiltrated. By Acorn.
Things are going to hell in a hand basket real fast.
Time to buy more guns and stock up on ammo.
Maybe food too.
Ever see the movie "Tremors"?
Burt Gummer saved the day with his armory.
Blew them worms clear back to hell.
Reba McEntrye played his wife, Heather.
That .50 cal was a mean piece, but Reba had a sweet matched set of
38's. But that could be an exaggeration.
Good flick.

--Vic

You are a funny man.

Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.

So justice is no longer blind?

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.

Career prosecutors (aka Democrats).

They were Republican appointees, certainly not Democrats.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:01:59 -0400, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:47 pm, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:19:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:03 -0700, jps wrote:
Just because Ted Stevens was convicted by less than honorable
prosecutors doesn't mean he wasn't guilty as hell -- and everyone
knows he was and is.
Why do you say that?
Last I heard guilt is determined by evidence and a verdict.
The feds withheld exculpatory evidence.
I don't like Stevens, but he seems no different than most of the pols.
Which is why I don't like him.
If the feds had a good case, they'd prosecute.
There were mounds of evidence against him, that's why he was
convicted. From all accounts, his guilt or innocence would not have
been affected by what was withheld.
Why was it withheld? Were these prosecutors afraid that the withheld
evidence would provide reasonable doubt?

Read about the charges and proof and you'll find the situation pretty
damned obvious. Uncle Ted was on the take in a big way. That he's no
different than other pols isn't a defense against prosecution or
conviction.
Charges are not convictions.

When the prosecutors withhold evidence you can only conclude that the
either the prosecutors are idiots or that they were afraid the withheld
evidence would have sunk their case.

Prosecutors' job is to seek the truth, not to gain a conviction.

You have to wonder if the Republican prosecutors purposefully screwed
this up so it could be overturned later.
More twilight zone stuff. Tsk tsk.
Agreed but worth a moment of fantasy. Wouldn't be the first time
prosecutors screwed things up on purpose.
Nobody is perfect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, remember JPS said "By all accounts".. Of course it would not be
the first time he was found to be making things up as he went along
snerk...

He comes around every once in a while when a gun jumps up off the shelf
and kills some people all by its inanimate self.

He is a fun to bitch slap for a few days and then he leaves.

I'll come around one year and find that one of you idiots has gone
bezerk and shot up his former employer or killed your wife.

I'm happily watching your chosen party shrink into a ball of quivering
goo while a real man with a brain leads us back out of the woods.

The **** you support is backwoods, backwards and just plain ****in'
stupid.

Your kind is on the decline, thank God.

Until then, this is the easiest place to find relics like you and spit
in your faces.

Sweet dreams.