Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sen. Ted STEVENS case: Special prosecutor can force testimony

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 07:24 PM
Original message
Sen. Ted STEVENS case: Special prosecutor can force testimony
Special prosecutor in Stevens case can force testimony
PROBE: Judge also OKs subpoenaing FBI agent, Allen and attorney.

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/879880.html

By RICHARD MAUER
[email protected]

Published: July 28th, 2009 08:27 PM
Last Modified: July 29th, 2009 03:54 PM

A special prosecutor in Washington, D.C., was granted authority Tuesday to compel testimony from the Justice Department team that took Sen. Ted Stevens to trial. He was also authorized to subpoena the former lead FBI agent in the Alaska corruption investigation and key witness Bill Allen and his attorney.

The subpoena authority was approved by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who presided over Stevens' trial last year. When the Stevens case fell apart over charges of prosecutorial misconduct, Sullivan appointed the special prosecutor, Henry Schuelke III, to investigate the prosecutors for criminal contempt.

The matter is also being investigated by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which is cooperating with Schuelke. The Justice Department investigation is expected to run at least into the fall.

The filings in Washington Tuesday -- Schuelke's two-page request and its quick approval by Sullivan -- show his investigation continues to move ahead even as little has shown above the surface.

Schuelke had been directed by Sullivan to only investigate the six prosecutors. ....

=========================
July 30, 2:58 PM, 2009 · No Comment · http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/hbc-90005444
Prosecutors Under the Loupe
By Scott Horton

A further development in the reversal-of-fortune prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, in which Stevens has been set free as his prosecutors now face a criminal probe into allegations of serious misconduct.

...........

Prosecutors are protected from misconduct accusations by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, which is only rarely cast aside, as in this case, when there is substantial evidence of criminal misconduct. The Stevens prosecutorial team will now have to decide whether to submit to the special prosecutor’s questions or claim their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. It is unheard of for a lawyer to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and remain in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor–recent examples included Bush Justice Department figures Brad Schlozman and Monica Goodling, each of whom was quickly forced to resign. For the moment, however, Attorney General Holder has left all the Stevens prosecutors—which includes the senior leadership of the Department’s Public Integrity Section—in their positions pending the outcome of the Department’s own internal probe.

The team that prosecuted Stevens is accused of pressuring and manipulating the testimony of a key witness against Stevens to give stronger evidence, while withholding potentially exculpatory statements he made. An FBI agent working on the prosecution team is also accused of “getting too close to witnesses,” according to the Anchorage Daily News.

The matter has potential repercussions for other cases in which similar charges have been raised. For instance, in a federal court in Alabama, former Governor Don E. Siegelman seeks a new trial, making virtually identical accusations against Public Integrity prosecutors. ...........

..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-01-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Stevens co-conspirator did not sing, hence Stevens gets off!
Edited on Sat Aug-01-09 07:35 PM by L. Coyote
Consider this quote:

"Asked under oath why he never sent Stevens a bill for the work despite Stevens' e-mailed request for one, Allen testified that one of Stevens' closest friends said the e-mail was just Stevens "covering his ass." That was the conversation that Allen couldn't initially recall in the meeting with Kepner and the prosecutors."

Allen conveniently protects Stevens by "not remembering" a conversation. Hence, Stevens is cut loose!
Sounds like they should send Allen and Stevens to jail, not use one's lies to free the other!

Allen is a criminal, paying bribes to Stevens, the criminal taking the bribes. Go figure this one out if you can!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC