Key evidence thrown out in Stevens' case
Date: Oct 9, 2008 4:45:00 AM
(page 1 of 4)

The judge in Sen. Ted Stevens' trial threw out Wednesday key evidence that prosecutors presented to show the Alaska Republican lied on financial disclosure forms, although he denied the defense's bid for a mistrial.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled the government's case that Mr. Stevens improperly accepted $250,000 in free home renovations, then failed to disclose them as required by law, was based partly on false and concealed evidence.

However, the judge rejected the defense's request to dismiss the charges, instead saying he would instruct jurors to ignore business records that implicated Mr. Stevens in lying about accepting gifts from VECO Corp., an Alaska oil-pipeline services company, and from company founder Bill Allen.

Judge Sullivan said he also would tell jurors that the government presented some evidence its attorneys knew was false.

"It's very troubling that the government would utilize records that the government knew were not true," Judge Sullivan said.

<link>

I don't know if he's guilty or not, but this surely looks bad and may be what we have to look forward to as more Dems take control of things.

To be honest I haven't even looked at it & know nothing about it. Which is why I haven't done any Steven's posts. But I'm sure when the talking points are out I'll be screaming about it.

whaddya think?

A good answer, or no

the dailykos, moveon.org, or the onion?

Doesn't follow a story, just waits fior his sides' talking points to come out, and will go with that as "the truth".

Thanks for the admission.

from here in BB.

Jakejerkmeoff:

the dailykos, moveon.org, or the onion?

of course that only applies to this, & really eric I was being humorus with the talking points part. Geeezz try a little humor dude, it won't hurt

You admit it to me, and that's supposed to be humorous?

The judge in the case was first appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan and the prosecutors in the case are Bush appointees.

What are these prosecutors' political beliefs? What's the impetus for downright illegal activity?

Not who appointed them.

C'mon. This is the Bush DOJ we're talking about.

You think "Bush's CIA" does his bidding and has politically agreed with him on everything? Not if you know what you're talking about.