Lock Ted Stevens Up And Throw Away The Key

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has been charged with accepting all kinds of things illegally. Stevens is accused of accepting $250,000 in gifts including renovations to his home. Stevens has been serving for 40 years and they have finally caught up with him. I say that if he is guilty (I already know he is) then they should put him in jail and throw the key off the bridge to nowhere.

Interesting that the charges should be filed now, just a few months before the general election. The cynic in me says that maybe this is to show Republican scandal just before an election like during the 2006 mid terms. The Democrats knew Mark Foley might be doing bad stuff with kids but they ignored it and put children in danger until they could use the information politically. Maybe the timing of this is designed to help them out.

This also gives the MSM the opportunity to ensure that every story about the charges reminds the public that Stevens is a Republican. Every story will mention Ted Stevens, Republican, from Alaska. This will take place courtesy of a media that never mentions the party of a Democrat who gets in trouble. When William Jefferson was caught doing all of his illegal things the media never mentioned he was a Democrat. It was so obvious that when Rush Limbaugh mentioned Jefferson he would say “William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.” But remember, there is NO media bias and as soon as they all get done spreading rose pedals across the path of Obama they will come back and tell you that.

Speaking of William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, what is his status? Why is it that Ted Stevens is being charged with crimes and there has been no word on what happened with all the charges filed against Jefferson (D, LA)? Jefferson was caught back during the Katrina time frame and his illegal activities have been well documented. He was indicted, why has he not had a trial? He should be in prison right now warming up a seat for Ted Stevens.

Maybe his status as a Democrat offers him immunity?

Regardless, Stevens broke the law and he needs to be gone (as does Jefferson). I have no tolerance for criminals regardless of which party they belong to. I don’t trust any politician and stories like this one make me hold them in even lower regard, if that is actually possible.

Source:
al-Reuters

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

28 Responses to “Lock Ted Stevens Up And Throw Away The Key”

  1. […] [Discuss This Topic with Big Dog] Share This Article With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

  2. Joe reinhart says:

    Oh, I agree he has been charged with serious crimes.
    And we can’t ignore the seriousnes of the charges.

    Of course, these charges have been pressed against Mr. Steven every four years for fourty years. Not the same ones but varieties of the same theme.
    But Democrats have learned a vital lesson with Limbaugh; it isn’t the truth of the charge but the seriousness of it.

    So for my money, I will wait untile the jury come back in, and pronounces Stevens “guilty as charged,” before I suck the liberal dode and get on the Dem-tar-and-feather band wagon. I still believe a man is innocent ’til PROVEN guilty, the serousness of the charge be dambed.

    I still think is a waiting line for justice, starting with Ted “dunk ’em” Kennedy, going to “spunk ’em” Clinton to “forget ’em” Davis. These peope were gulty as charged and still walked.

    Stevens? He said it was all lagit. Considering the guy, I bet he can prove it, too.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Well, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is not a court of law and the evidence is mounting against him. There are recorded conversations and the contractor has indicated he did the work as a pay off. Stevens failed to report a lot of things.

    He has been a problem for a long time and he needs to go. I am tired of criminals running the country and am particularly tired of Republicans giving the party a black eye.

    I will say this, if he is absolutely not guilty of this then good for him, however, being found not guilty does not mean there is no guilt.

  4. Reason says:

    I think that our public servants (the politicians seem to have forgotten that what they are) should hold themselves to a higher standard while they serve the people. However they do not.

    Also charges are often used as political smears against politicians & parties, especially during election years. Also the fact that Alaska’s Senators and Representatives are loud voices in the pro-drilling camp tarnishing their credibility will surely help to make people skeptical of their support for drilling.

    If he’s done wrong by abusing his position as a US Senator he should spend the rest of his life in prison or get a short drop and sudden stop in a public fashion on the Mall in front of the Capitol. If not then he needs to stop being harassed and our tax money wasted.

    I’m of the opinion that abuse of position within government needs to be addressed with harsh punishments. The ethics committee should not be run by Congress but should be an independent body that handles cases from all branches of the government.

    Major abuses of power and/ethics should be handled as treason to the US and carry the death penalty and government seizure of all assets. If the penalty is harsh enough they will not be so tempted.

  5. Patsy says:

    As far as I’m concerned, the fact that Senator Stevens has been in office for 40+ years is reason enough to get rid of the corrupt SOB. As a lifelong Republican, I tell you all that I am thoroughly and completely disgusted by practically every Congressman and Senator representing us. Regardless of their party, we need to clean both Houses of Congress out and start over. The leaders of Congress yesterday refused to stay in session and pass legislation to solve our energy problems. They are all failures and should be fired. We need to get rid of the arrogant bastards and replace them with true public servants who will do the jobs they’re elected to do. Washington DC is a putrid city which should be purged of every old head politician. They have disgraced us all long enough. And Big Dog, I’m with you, if Ted Stevens did this (and we already know he did) then he should be sent to prison for the rest of his morally bankrupt existence. I am devoid of compassion for those who have so severely violated our trust. Off to prison with them all!!!!

  6. Reason says:

    Too bad we can’t introduce a national referendum for term limits on Congress. 12 years and you’re done; that’s 2 Senate terms, 1 Senate 3 House, or 6 House. More than enough.

  7. Patsy says:

    I thought there were some states which did pass Congressional term limits. But you’re right, we need a Constitutional amendment mandating term limits. There already is one (the 22nd Amendment) that limits the President to two terms, why not the Congress, too?

    This is the 22nd Amendment:

    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

    Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

  8. Reason says:

    There have been several attempts to get an Amendment that limits Congressional terms. It has never passed in Congress. Also several States with term limits have had them overturned by the courts when the politicians challenged them.

    They are sorely needed but we’ll never get them. It is the one area our Founding Fathers failed us, by not setting term limits on the both the President and the Congress.

  9. Patsy says:

    The country was so different, serving in Congress was such a thankless, burdensome responsibility. Just traveling to and from Philadelphia was quite an undertaking. They had no conception of the industrial revolution and what it would do to ease that arduous trek.

    We actually do have term limits, just vote for the non-incumbent, if their is an opposing candidate, that is. We just need to vote the bums out! The people have the power to do it, if they’ll only exercise it.

  10. SC says:

    I think you’d really enjoy this video of Ted Stevens’ wiretapped phone call:

  11. Reason says:

    There were calls for term limits from people like Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason. Term limits were also included in the Articles of Confederation which served the fledgling USA until the Constitution was ratified.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

    A little info on term limits.

  12. east coast says:

    I have to wonder – are republicans cannibals? They must be – they’re constantly eating their own kind.

  13. Patsy says:

    East coast, your post reveals your ignorance. What Republicans are is a law-abiding, righteous group of individuals who truly believe in what our country stands for. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who violates the laws of this nation should face the consequences. What a pity Democrats don’t believe the same … about fellow, law-breaking Democrats, that is. Democrats believe in those same values when a Republican breaks the law. Hypocrites.

  14. Joe reinhart says:

    You are all hypocrits, even B.D. on this one.
    Innocent ’til proven guilty.
    You are all stretchin’ the rope already!
    And how is limit to term in office going to deter opotunistic charlatens from seeking office? I can certainly see how it would deter long-term motivated people from it.

    Seems people would try to cultivate connections that would lead to other jobs after office rather than perfect the art of good governance.

    Patsy, don’t be such a patsy. How would you feel if after 40 years of service your company tossed you on your ear just because it has been 40 years?

    Yeah, it happens all the time. That doesn’t make it right. Just put that shoe on your foot and re-think your statements.
    How would you like it if others found you guilty ahead of the courts, had your entire profession in stokes and chains because of the alledged action of one member?

    That, Patsy is the definition of hypocrite. The reason Dem get away with it is because that is part of the deffinition of Democrat; hypocrite.
    But why do we have to sink that low?
    Let the law find him guilty or not guilty.

    Then cast your many stones.

  15. Joe reinhart says:

    And if you want to harp on me, I sugest you start with my spelling. Typing with one left foot isn’t easy.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Joe,
    Innocent until proven guilty is a feature of the court system. If I see a video of a guy robbing a store, he is guilty of the crime. He is presumed innocent in the eyes of the court until he can have his day in the court. Those of us who are not part of the court system are free to say someone is guilty regardless of the court issues. Besides, just because a person is found not guilty in court does not mean they did not commit the crime.

    As for being thrown out of the job after 40 years, here is where you have it wrong. Being in Congress IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A CAREER. If you work for a PRIVATE entity then there is an expectation you will make a career of your job.

    Being in Congress is supposed to be public service and the people return to their regular jobs after serving a term or two. It is not designed to be a lifelong career. That is why we have criminals in there now, because they stayed too long and were corrupted (or entered corrupt and got worse).

    Bill Clinton was not “found guilty” during his impeachment. He still lied under oath. Ted Kennedy killed a woman and we all know he is guilty of it but he never even went to court for it.

    Hope that clears it up.

  17. Big Dog says:

    How you spell is your issue, not mine.

  18. Patsy says:

    My dear Mr. Reinhart: How naive can you be? Have you listened to the audio tapes on you tube featuring the thoroughly corrupt Senator Stevens? So a slick attorney gets this sleazebag acquitted, then we’re all supposed to forget about his decades of malfeasance that he managed to get away with? Whether the man is convicted in the courts or not, the man is a disgrace who has violated his Oath of Office. He needs to resign, NOW!

    As for a 40 year career, refer to Big Dog’s comments regarding this, I couldn’t have said it better myself, so I won’t attempt to.

    I believe in our system of justice, Mr. Reinhart, but that is very different from using the common sense I was born with to pass judgment on a criminal, who happens to also be a United States Senator.

  19. Joe reinhart says:

    No Patsy I have not. Audio tapes on the Ytube can be easily doctored, and as BD points out, this is a difinitive argument, not a factua; or logical one.
    BD defines guilty in one sense, as you also do; that it looks to you like Stevens did the crime.
    Based on that meaning of guilty, you are ready to apply the second meaning of guilty, which is pronounced by a jury in a courtroom.

    In this, all we have here is a difinitive argument in which you are both guilty (not by court but because you did it) of equivocation.

    You use one meaning of the word to apply to actions that are reserved for the second meaning of the word.

    Now, another fact; I grew up in Alaska. Te Stevens may be guilty! To the letter of the law in the jury-trial sense of the word.
    But you are talking violation. The money and service he got from Veco has nothing to do with you. Nothing to do with Alaskans.

    If Veco chooses to remodle Steven’s house, what part of that scenario violates you?
    It is the implied quid-per-quo that you invision must happen to inspire Veco to do the remodel.

    Veco wins oil-feild service contracts the same other companies do; by being the low-bider. If they use government knowledge to BE the low bidder, how does that hurt anyone? I mean, the low bid is the holy-grail of bidding and if the Stevens/Veco arrangement provide services for less cost to tax-payers, where is Patsy’s rape-case?
    Does a win-win situation make you feel like the three-legged cat at a dog-team convention?

    Don’t call Stevens a criminal until after the trial is over, “dear.” That is not polite nor is it factual.

    Technically and factually this isn’t the dark ages and it isn’t a Stalinist Gulag. Is it? Steven is still innocent until the gavel falls, he remains so. Accused, yes! Looking bad. Yes.

    It isn’t a point for either of you to debate. It is a legal issue so the legal definition of the word applies.

  20. Patsy says:

    Good morning Mr. Reinhart: You make some good points and you are correct that Senator Stevens has yet to be convicted in a court of law. However, your assertion that no one is hurt by the gifts the Senator allegedly accepted to remodel his home is preposterous. Your assertion that no quid pro quo necessarily exists is equally ridiculous. Who’s hurt by this misconduct, you ask. THE RULE OF LAW. It especially egregious because it’s a lawmaker who’s breaking those laws. Just how much of the this cronyism, behind-closed-doors, backroom dirty dealing is acceptable and should be tolerated? I would argue that no amount of it is acceptable. It defiles everything to have a powerful Senator conducting OUR business in an unlawful manner. The charges filed against the Senator weren’t doctored up, Mr. Reinhart. They are the result of factual evidence uncovered during the investigation.

    Bottom line: Public servants accept the salaries of the positions they run for when they achieve them. If they feel they’re entitled to more compensation, let them rejoin the private sector and earn the money like everybody else. This is a simple case of abuse of power.

  21. Big Dog says:

    Joe,
    The word innocent is not used in trials. You are either guilty, or not guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent because it is a legal term with regard to how the law views you. A person can commit a crime and be found not guilty but he is not innocent.

    If there is quid pro quo the trust of the public is harmed. The law and Senate rules specifically do not allow this. I am not harmed if a company that I do no business with is robbed blind by its employees but the people still committed a crime.

    Ted Stevens has abused his power in this and in the earmark process. Bridge to nowhere is reason enough to get rid of him.

  22. Reason says:

    I’m not a fan of the earmark system but here are some things to consider.

    If a Congressman or Senator uses the earmark process to bring much needed funds or jobs to their constituents (who may or may not be us) are they doing wrong?

    I ask this because my father moved to MT several years ago and he’s told me how a long time member of the House Conrad Burns recently (2006) lost to his Democratic opponent. You see the Dems promised that Tester would get Burns’ seat on the Senate Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, he did not. This has hurt Montana economically as projects and funds appropriations are no longer coming to MT. Nobody is claiming Burns was a great Senator (he was nowhere near a saint), just that his position did help MT economically.

    It is good to remember that sometimes what is good for the constituents of a member of Congress might not be good for the rest of the Nation’s taxpayers as a whole. Now are they doing their jobs in such a case? Whom are they more responsible to, their constituents or the American taxpayer overall?

    As for me I’m not throwing any stones…yet. I said if he’s guilty throw the book at him, if not leave him alone and stop wasting tax dollars.

    Term limits give them less time to become corrupt, that is if they aren’t already. Also it blunts the powers of lobbyists some as the players may change more frequently. Also if they are worried about life after service its likely they might behave a little better since if they act poorly it might keep them from getting a job.

  23. Reason says:

    Opps correction to the above Burns was in the Senate, must have had a brain malfunction when I wrote House.

  24. Joe reinhart says:

    OK, Patsy, I concede the point that as a Senator, a maker of Law, Stevens has an obligation to be above breaking the law. You are correct.

    But that of course tosses this back into the legal definition of guilty, and BD’s equivocation of the meaning of “innocent” doesn’t change the fact that IF we are in the legal arena, we have to play by the rules of law, too; Innocent ’til proven guilty.
    There is no path you can tread to justify setting aside this precedence.

    Sorry BD. I love you and you know it. But I will not let anyone hang because the media proclaims him “guilty as charged.” Especially a conservative that we know the media, in all it’s entirety, hates.
    I love you, but question your judgement, because you follow them down that dark path.
    I wont go there.
    If the media is screaming for Steven’s blood, then I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a lot more than meets the eye, and you should also note the warning flags.

    Just the fact that the media is on Steven’s 84 year-old ass should be enough for you to say, “Wait just a dad-burn minute, here!” Al-la Hoss Cartwright!
    You are better than this! You are a law-and-order man!
    Why forsake what you believe in to go for the throat of a man who will be dealt with by the law in it’s own good time?
    And as far as the bridge to now-where goes, are you really prepared to put your two-pipe shoot-gun to Stevens head on that? Worse mistakes were made by lessor people.

    Much worse.

  25. Big Dog says:

    Like I said Joe, I am not in a court of law. I have seen what is going on and have formulated my opinion and it is that he was doing something very wrong.

    If it turns out he was not then I will change my opinion but it will have to be more than being found not guilty. OJ was found not guilty…

    I am a law and order guy and if I were a lawyer I would be all “presumed innocent” but since I am not a lawyer, I will wait and see while keeping my opinion.

    If he is guilty he should be in jail until he leaves this Earth. If not, he will end up losing his seat over this…

  26. Joe reinhart says:

    OK.
    Whatever. Be that way.

    Where did the OJ rip come from? Was that suposed to show the correctness of the law? Or, are you saying, because OJ knifed two people and walked, all courts are a sham?

    But whatever, BD. You have your hate well honed and I am finding it tiresome to repeatedly point out the obvious.

    We have established; 1. this isn’t court, 2. you don’t care about Stevens constitutional rights, and 3. You are wrong and I am right.

    OK. Nuff said.

  27. Big Dog says:

    I think you are incorrect on all counts. First, the OJ thing is designed to show that a not guilty ruling by a jury does not mean innocent.

    1. Obvious
    2. I care about his rights. I never said not to allow him his day in court. When he is found guilty then lock him up and throw away the key.
    3. I believe that we have both been correct depending upon perspective.

  28. Joe reinhart says:

    Eh? Truth isn’t relative to the opinion you take. Truth is, even if you don’t agree.

    Incorrect on on all counts?
    But you said i am correct on #1, on #2 you stated and i quote, ” I have seen what is going on and have formulated my opinion and it is that he was doing something very wrong.” to which I say exactly what did you see? You saw the liberal media doing what it does best; smear conservatives.

    Based on that “view,” you have what is called an uninformed opinion. So excuse me, but I will take point two.

    #3. If you believe that we have both been correct, even if the reasoning is faulty, you can’t also say I am wrong.

    I have to give us this point, we out-lasted all the others on this subjetc!
    BTW, what has the recent information on Stevens been? This is following a pattern we saw in the Delay of Texas smear; big news on the acusation prior to election, and then when little or nothing comes from it, BANG, the news-papers go silent.

    That is why I prefaced my original post with the observation that it isn’t the substance of the charge, but the seriousness of it. It is substance that indicats guilt, not the seriousness.

    And yep, it chaps my ass that OJ walked!
    But it wont cause me to loose any sleep if Stevens walks. Because inspite of the “broken public trust issue,” no one was hurt.
    There were less personal injuries in the Stevens charges than in a standard homsexual relationship.