Stevens' Dismissal Motions Denied

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:21:10 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ted Stevens' prosecution is on track for trial as U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected a number of defense motions to dismiss the case.

[The motions] challenged the indictment on the grounds that it was constitutionally vague or violated the statute-of-limitations. This came after Judge Sullivan earlier ruled that the indictment did not violate separation-of-powers provision for the executive branch and Congress. A move to change the venue for the trial to Alaska has been rejected as well.

Although "there is still a chance that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan will dismiss the case on the grounds that it violates the Speech or Debate Clause," that chance seems infinitesimally small. That Clause does not insulate legislators from prosecution for filing false financial disclosure forms. Stevens' trial is scheduled to commence in twelve days.

< The Legacy Of 9/11 | McCain Holds Small Lead In Polls >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Stevens' Dismissal Motions Denied | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ted, you got some 'splainin to do. (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST

: And he is so good at 'splainin (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST

"It's a series of tubes!"

And he really tangled ankles (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST

with his attorneys, b/c he demanded a speedy trial and they are only now (a) getting deep into the discovery, (b) filing sheafs of motions and (c) trying to delay the trial in discovery.

IF he hadn't stood so firmly on having a speedy trial RIGHTNOW, before the election, he easily could have had it come after the election.

Like McSame, he's doubling down. Unfortunately, the case is not venued in Alaska, where he could have controlled the result.

Wonder if this will show up in the polls (none / 0) (#4)
by JAB on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST

Stevens is now within 2 of his challenger - he's climbing in the polls.

Stevens is a disgrace (none / 0) (#5)
by TomStewart on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST

but people who have benefited from his corruption in the past will keep defending and his actions, until his conviction, of course.

You know, this kind of stuff Stevens is accused of, the petty nonsense he sold his vote, his integrity and his constituents out for is sickning. But it's petty enough that I think he'll end up paying for it. The corruption of the Bush years has been overwhelming, to the point where I think the average American cannot really comprehend its scope, but getting a free 2,000 chair, a 1,000 dog and 200,000 worth of home renovations? A jury can understand that well enough.

Agreed, but I would unfortunately (none / 0) (#9)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST

extend this to way too much of our "political class". Cheap mortgages, sweetheart deals, jobs for their kids (and don't even get me started on Chicago... my city is a disgrace).

More and more, I think that term limits or at least consecutive limits should be national... maybe if these people held real jobs occassionaly they would actually understand their constituents instead of just thinking of them as votes!


: Terms limits won't do it (none / 0) (#12)
by TomStewart on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:48:36 AM EST

it would just make politicians even more vulnerable to lobbyists, who could 'guide' them on positions. Get the money out of politics, and make sure ethics are enforced, maybe by a 'civilian' board who would oversee congress rather than having congress police itself.

I hope he wears his Hulk tie... (none / 0) (#6)
by TomStewart on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:17:07 PM EST

Alasken's don't seem to care (none / 0) (#7)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST

He easily won his primary and in all likelihood he'll win reelection. Does that mean that if convicted, Palin will appoint his successor to complete his term if he's convicted?

Unfortunately, so did Jefferson in LA (none / 0) (#8)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST

Seems like once these guys get caught... the people in their states just don't seem to care.

Both parties should be ashamed to have either of these guys under their flag.

I'd say America deserves better... but if people keep voting for them, maybe they deserve what they get. Sad.

On a happy note, maybe they can share a cell and drive each other nuts :)


: Well They Did Care, Seemingly (none / 0) (#11)
by The Maven on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST

in Alaska, until Gov. Palin took over the national (and state) spotlight. For much of the mid-summer, Begich held poll leads of 13-21 points over Stevens, but the last three polls now seem to show a race that's too close to call. Unlike Jefferson's district, Stevens still has to face a determined challenger from the other party. He's in far better electoral shape than a month ago, but he's hardly home-free, and the course of his criminal trial may yet derail his re-election.

And It's So Nice To See (none / 0) (#10)
by The Maven on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST

Sen. Stevens's defense attorneys "seeking Allen's medical records, as well as the drug and alchohol history of other expected government witnesses", as if somehow that will absove the senator's actions. I suppose the attorneys could claim that the testimony of these witnesses/accusers is unreliable because of their conditions, but unless that was inquired about at the depositions (it's fairly standard to ask a witness if he or she is under the influence of anything that might affect their ability to give truthful testimony), it would seem a little late to be doing so now.

If trying to undermine the credibility of the government's witnesses is pretty much all the defense has at this stage, it would seem they sense the weakness of their case. Would any of our esteemed corps of defense attorneys here care to weigh in on this from a strategic perspective?