Thanks to meanderline for noting this post by Tom Ryan over at Left in Alabama:
The CNNPolitics.com website had this to say about the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens for scheming to conceal thousands of dollars worth of gifts from a major employer in his state, a company on whose behalf he sometimes intervened in Washington:
Stevens has not been arrested. The Justice Department said Tuesday he would be allowed to turn himself in.
If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison for each of the counts, although he could face a lighter penalty.
The indictment does not accuse Stevens of accepting bribes, said Matt Friedrich, the acting assistant attorney general.
“Bribery is not charged in this case,” he emphasized in a news conference Tuesday, adding such a charge “requires proof of a specific quid pro quo. This indictment does not allege that.”
Note the quote above by Matt Friedrich, the acting United States Department of Justice assistant attorney general, who states that a bribery charge “requires proof of a specific quid pro quo. This indictment does not allege that.”
Recall the jury instructions given by Judge Mark Fuller in Don Siegelman’s case that NO SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO WAS REQUIRED for the jury to convict him of bribery.
Perhaps AG Friedrich should school Judge Fuller on the law of bribery.
Yep, him and Paul Minor’s Judge Wingate.
UPDATE: See also JFP’s Adam Lynch (h/t Sailor).
Federal criminal law enforcement has been completely out of control for years, regardless of which party controlled the White House.
Only now, when some political figures are being convicted are people waking up to the fact that federal criminal trials are never fair, and that the federal prosecutors get to make up the rules as they go along.
This didn’t start with Bush. It’s been going on a long time, and is getting worse and worse.
Remember, Martha Stewart and Judge Nixon were both convicted for lying to federal agents for denying they committed a crime. In Stewart’s case, she was never charged with the crime she was accused of lying about. Judge Nixon was ACQUITTED by a jury of the crime he was convicted of perjury for lying about not committing.
Take off your partisan political glasses and take a real look at how the bureaucracy has been running federal law enforcement for at least 30 years.
Good catch! Thanks.
Question for the lawyers: Could this kind of public statement by high-ranking DOJ officials carry any weight in court?
This administration at best are idiots, at worst are true threats to our democracy. Karl Rove has orchestrated a plethora of misdeeds to take out political opponents. Get caught up to speed on what’s really going on, go to http://www.donsiegelman.com and take a look at Rove’s mastery.
Lindsay, the answer to your question should be no. Whether a quid pro quo is required as an element of the crime is an issue of law for the court to decide, and out of court statements by someone unconnected to a specific case should not carry any weight on that issue. Is it an interesting quote a judge might see in a brief on the issue? Certainly.
Heard from someone ‘in the know’ about Minor’s current attitude while being incarcerated in P’cola: He’s surly and generally being an a– to everyone.
Thus, Minor may very well have no one else to blame for his remaining imprisoned and lack of time off premises than none other than his own surly self.