Too Prose-cute

The prosecution of Alaska’s former Republican US Senator Ted Stevens has come full circle now that the election is over and he has been replaced by a Democrat. A fellow federal agent, Chad Joy, of the Stevens prosecution team has gone public with his concerns about the relationships between prosecutors and star witnesses against Stevens, funny how the news media is not interested in a real FBI agent whistleblower when it points to a political prosecution agenda of the left.

 

When Senator Stevens was indicted I combed the internet for the facts regarding his alleged corruption, there was not much “there, there” from what I could find. As a NH taxpayer activist who stumbles across municipal corruption I think I have a notion of what it takes to prosecute and convict an elected official. Alaska is a sparsely populated good-old-boy network just like our state so I thought any pattern of Alaskan corruption would red flag corruption here. What did I find?

 

The judge in the Stevens case rebuked the prosecution team repeatedly for not providing evidence to the defense, evidence that would have certainly helped Senator Stevens. Here is how the defense has put it in their appeal:

 

"If the agent in charge accepted favors from witnesses, did favors for witnesses, inappropriately revealed information to witnesses and the media, and failed to properly catalog and store documents, then the government's factual presentation and its discovery cannot be trusted."

 

This only shows Stevens did not get a fair trial, not that there was no case to begin with.

 

The Feds claim Steven got something for nothing from an oil contractor pal, mostly free work on his A-frame camp. But the something for nothing was work done by oil contractors building a new first floor under the existing Stevens summer cabin. This work was deemed insufficient to hold the A-frame by the local authorities and a new contractor re-built the sub-structure. The oil contractor did not bill Stevens for the shoddy work. Is that a quid pro quo or what any sane person would expect? The Feds say it was a gift.

 

Apparently, the Feds thought the “scam” not worthy of prosecution of itself so they charged Stevens with not reporting the “gift” on his Federal Disclosure form and prosecuted him in DC with a local jury. Anyone want to guess what political party makes up a DC jury? How about we prosecute Charlie Rangel for his cheating on Carribean getaway resort income with a trial up in Alaska, staked with a jury of loggers?

 

So now, suddenly, a halt has been called to the Stevens case and he will probably walk away a free man and without his Senate seat or reputation. But the feds could have dragged this out much longer, what’s with that? Maybe the Feds would like to avoid a radio talk-show flogging regarding exchanges of favors for testimony against Stevens.

 

Could it be that the upcoming Blagojevich case is a bit shy of evidence as well since Federal prosecutors shut down mid-case the wire taps that may have lead to Rahm Emanuel and “other” Chicago thugs? April 7, 2009 is the cutoff date for bringing charges against Blago. Remember him?

 

Federal prosecutor Fitzgerald went whole hog after Scooter Libby and the White House when he knew full well it was Colin Powell’s aid who broke the fake secret’s agent cover. Does Fitzgerald have weak knees regarding corruption he once said would make Lincoln roll over in his grave?

 

This is Change We Can Believe In.