Monday, April 6, 2009

Really Final Linkorama of Reactions to Government's Abandonment of Ted Stevens Case


Here’s the truly last roundup—I can’t help it if the editorialists take a while to get to commenting on the story:

New York Times editorial entitled “Mr. Holder and the Stevens case” (“Given the flagrant partisanship of the Bush Justice Department, it is especially reassuring to see Mr. Holder ignore party lines to do the right thing by Mr. Stevens.”) — at

Philadelphia Inquirer editorial entitled “Stevens Case[:] The right course” (“…Holder's decision doesn't necessarily discount the initial reasons for bringing charges….But the misconduct by federal prosecutors renders moot the question of whether Stevens was culpable - the heart of this case.”) – at

Anchorage Daily News editorial “Case dismissed[:] Stevens, Alaskans ill-served by prosecution's shoddy work” (“Ending the case against Ted Stevens was the right move, but that means Alaskans will never get an impartial evaluation of the charges against him.”) – at

CQ staff, “Senators Relieved to See Stevens Case Dismissed” (“In essence, the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute the case gave Stevens ‘a get-out-of-jail free card,’ [George Washington University law professor Jonathan] Turley said, adding that it was likely a jury would have convicted Stevens even without the evidence that defense attorneys have called into question.”) – at

Devlin Barrett (Associated Press Writer), “Justice Dept Under Microscope After Stevens Trial” (“The FBI has 2,500 pending corruption investigations across the country, and whether the targets are lawmakers or suspected crooked government inspectors, prosecutors may be more cautious in bringing charges after the Stevens debacle.”) --

Republican-oriented blogger suggests that concerns about bringing more attention to overzealous prosecutors led to Department of Justice’s abandonment of the case – Eric Florack, “Holder Voids Case Against Ted Stevens. But Why?” at

Blogger “with no reasonable doubt that Stevens was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged” agrees that prosecutorial errors made the Attorney General’s call the right one (“Because we have an adversarial system, lawyers on both sides treat the case as a game, stretching the spirit if not the letter of the law as necessary. Prosecutors, acting as agents of the state, are supposed to be more cognizant of justice — defense attorneys are supposed to get their guy off even if they’re sure he’s guilty, whereas prosecutors are expected to stop prosecuting if they find they’ve got the wrong guy — but it often doesn’t work out that way.”) – James Joyner, “Ted Stevens Conviction Voided,” in at

Well-known conservative blogger says that Attorney General bowed to the inevitable given the prosecutors’ apparent misconduct (“Of course, none of this changes the fact that Stevens had oil-company lobbyists remodeling his house and hid that fact from the Senate. The fact that prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct does not make Stevens clean. It just makes him free.”) – Ed Morrissey, “Ted Stevens off the hook for good,” in at

Lawyer/blogger says “The really big decision here isn't just the dismissal of the indictment, but also the decision not to start the case over again with a new prosecution. In light of Stevens' age, and his exit from office in November, you can see why that makes sense. But it also means that the probable crime Stevens committed—and let's not forget, there was pretty good evidence that he accepted $250,000 in unreported gifts and renovations to his ski homes—goes into a small black hole of politician wrongdoing with no redress.” – Emily Bazelon, “Eric Holder’s Bold Move in the Ted Stevens Case,” at

Conservative commentator and long-time Alaska journalist attacks the prosecution (“The federal government's unconstitutional and outrageous conduct has cost Stevens his reputation, his seat of 40 years in the United States Senate -- and immeasurable personal grief. Its true cost to Alaska -- in terms of leadership and effective representation in the Senate and a stolen election -- remains to be seen.”) – Paul Jenkins, “We deserve the truth behind the prosecution of Stevens,” at

1 comment:

Beth said...

"Given the flagrant partisanship of the Bush Justice Department, it is especially reassuring to see Mr. Holder ignore party lines to do the right thing by Mr. Stevens."

Leave it to the NY Slime to totally miss the mark and inject an irrelevant cheap shot in there. If the Bush Justice Department were so "flagrantly partisan," they'd not have prosecuted, or would at LEAST have done the right thing! Bush = Republican, Stevens = Republican. God, the NYT is a joke. LOL!