Hannity complained of DOJ bias in rapid Stevens prosecution, but Stevens reportedly requested speedy trial
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Sean Hannity complained of Sen. Ted Stevens' speedy trial on corruption charges, contrasting it with Rep. William Jefferson's case, saying that "justice moves at lightning speed" for Republicans like Stevens. Hannity added, "Not only do you get indicted, you get tried, you get convicted in record time, but the Justice Department moves so fast, it's like some kind of national emergency." But Hannity did not note that Stevens and his attorneys reportedly requested a speedy trial following his indictment so that Stevens could "clear his name" before Election Day.
During the December 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News' Sean Hannity suggested that there was a double standard in the Justice Department's prosecutions of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), who was convicted in October for lying on financial disclosure forms, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA), who was indicted in 2007 on racketeering, bribery, and money laundering charges and lost his re-election bid in the 2008 elections. Referring to Jefferson, Hannity said: "I mean, the smoking-gun evidence emerged against this guy, what, three years ago? I mean, what's the innocent explanation for having $100,000 in cash socked away in your freezer? Which was just pretty much the tip of the iceberg against the guy." Hannity continued: "Now, if you're a Republican, like Ted Stevens, even though the case against you is a lot more murky, you know, justice moves at lightning speed. Not only do you get indicted, you get tried, you get convicted in record time, but the Justice Department moves so fast, it's like some kind of national emergency."
In fact, Stevens and his attorneys reportedly requested a speedy trial following his July 29 indictment on corruption charges so that Stevens could "clear his name" before Election Day. As The Washington Post reported on July 31:
At Stevens's arraignment in U.S. District Court, the senator's attorneys and prosecutors agreed they could start a trial by late September, just a month before the 84-year-old senator could face a tough battle in the November election. After a 30-minute recess to consider Stevens's request, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set a Sept. 24 trial date.
Stevens's attorney, Brendan Sullivan, initially asked Sullivan to schedule the trial for October so that Stevens can "clear his name" before the general election on Nov. 4. Brendan Sullivan also asked to submit legal briefs urging the judge to transfer the trial to Alaska.
"This is not a complex case, and it should move quickly," Stevens's attorney said, adding that "this is the first time in my life I have asked for a speedy trial."
On October 27, as The Washington Post reported, Stevens was found "guilty on seven felony counts, each with a maximum penalty of five years in prison." Stevens subsequently lost his Senate re-election bid to his Democratic challenger Mark Begich.
From the December 8 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: That's the nature of politics. Liberals can get away with whatever they need to get away with for political expediency. You know, it's only conservatives that can do wrong things. You know, for example -- I'll give you one example. The -- it's all -- it's really an outrage.
We've talked at length about "Cold Cash" Jefferson -- William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. I mean, the smoking-gun evidence emerged against this guy, what, three years ago? I mean, what's the innocent explanation for having $100,000 in cash socked away in your freezer? Which was just pretty much the tip of the iceberg against the guy. Now, if you're a Republican, like Ted Stevens, even though the case against you is a lot more murky, you know, justice moves at lightning speed. Not only do you get indicted, you get tried, you get convicted in record time, but the Justice Department moves so fast, it's like some kind of national emergency.
And by the way, I'm not defending Ted Stevens. I'm not. The Stevens case broke well after the details of the Jefferson story was clear for everybody to see. Stevens has already been indicted, tried, convicted, voted out of office. "Cold Cash" Jefferson, whose case is much older, still doesn't even have a trial date, so I guess the voters of New Orleans just got tired of the Justice Department dragging their feet and they finally voted Jefferson out of office on Saturday. Barely, by the way.
Typical Sean Hannity...what else can you say? It constantly amazes me that Hannity can still be on the air when it's so apparent that all he does is lie.
Thats Sean Hannity for you. Never let the facts get in the way of your ranting.
Finding cash in your freezer that you allegedly know nothing about makes a whole lot more sense than someone who wakes up to find someone added a second floor addition to his house and he knows he didn't pay for it.
But in Ted Stevens' family he only handles the cash bribes...his wife handles the in-kind trades. ;>)
PARTISAN HACK (definition);
One who compares two crooks from two different political parties, whines and cries foul about the rough treatment against "yours", then whines and cries foul about the soft treatment against "theirs".
Classic.
With any luck, Blagojevich's trial will quell poor Shyawn's concerns.
Except for the schadenfreud of watching Hannity's fantasy world crumble around him, it might be utter sadness to see someone with so few redeeming characteristics failing so utterly.
Neon, I just spent a little of my lunch break with Sissy Sean, and Blagojevich ( and any connection to Obama) is definitely his new Great White Whale.Sean's got about 100 words of transcripts and he's interpreting like a madman.It should be fun to watch him go nuts, once again.
Oh joy. If there is one thing that Sean Hannity is good at it's playing connect the dots. Any photographs on the planet of this jerk governor and Obama will be wallpapered all over Fox with delicious pleasure over and over. Can't wait.....
If Fixed News can't find a photograph, they can always doctor one
Rush Limboob is now reporting that Blago met with Obama at Bill Ayers' house to decide how to divide up the proceeds from the sale of Sen. Obama's seat.
Transcripts of the meeting also show the three discussing/planning? a terrorist attack and also working on legislation to make the phrase "Merry Christmas" illegal in the state of Illimois.
This thing is going straight to Drudge Report.
Those bastards...I knew Obama was a Muslim. ;>)
Tommy, I didn't get a lot of details, but I think there's an FBI phone tap of Blag... talking about how much Obama's senate seat is worth, and discussing deals. Seanny already has the Obama-corruption-connection angle going.
This is a guy who can't get the pertinent details correct AFTER the fact. Call me cynical, but I can't muster up a whole lot of confidence in his theories.
My friends here seem to be missing the key point by Hannity. Jefferson's trial was delayed for over two years when caught red handed with $90,000 in cold hard cash. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Fortunately Jefferson lost his bid for re-election. In another nod to diversity, Jefferson lost to a Vietnamese-American Republican.
Are you saying that Jefferson also requested a speedy trial? I didn't see that in the story.
Kyle,
No. I didn't say that. It is that Jefferson was able to retain his seat in Congress when he was caught red handed. Thankfully he lost his seat on the HW&M committee but he should have been tossed out by Pelosi and gang. Letting Jefferson stay in office says a lot about the corruption in Washington.
Just making sure you didn't miss a key point by MMFA in this article.
Stevens should have been tossed out, too. He wasn't, he was voted out by a sliver, just like Jefferson, which 'says a lot about the corruption in Washington'.
I appreciate your concern for my well being.
I agree with you regarding Stevens and Washington.
IMHO the system is broken when it takes over two years for someone like Jefferson to go to trial. All trials should be done with the same speed it took to hear Stevens.
If a lawyer cannot gather facts or present a brief in a timely manner, then the lawyer ought not have taken the case. The hourly fees they charge point to another scandal if you ask me.
it took 6+ years to set a trial date for an accident I was involved in. 2 years=super fast overdrive in comarison.
dj,
That is simply ridiculous for a trial to be delayed six years.
All trials should be done with the same speed it took to hear Stevens. - AA
Yes, cause every trial is exactly the same.
OB,
Minus 5 points for snarky remark that makes no sense.
It made perfect sense, you pinhead. You were basing your argument on what you thought reality should be, according to what was convenient for you at this moment. It's pretty rude to insult people because of your ignorance.No points deducted, considering your huge deficit.
Look you simp, you stated...
All trials should be done with the same speed it took to hear Stevens. - AA
And I pointed out (in a sarcastic manner) why that was stupid.
Jefferson's case was just a teensy bit more complex than Stevens's. It's not often you have a political corruption trial with dozens of foreign witnesses, such an array of jurisdictional questions, and a constitutional battle between the legislative and executive branches. Not that Jefferson isn't guilty as all hell, but the Stevens case is a cake walk in comparison.
pyr,
I don't know if it was any more complicated. The defense lawyers threw up defenses that have been struck down time and again. I consider that to be ethical malpractice. The lawyers spend all their time arguing side issues in order to obfuscate the primary issue of Jefferson being caught red handed. Our system of justice has been corrupted by the law profession. No wonder people have such low opinions of lawyers... and politicians.
Actually, one of the defensees - FBI overreaching in violation of the separation of powers - stuck. The appellate court ruled in Jeff's favor and the Supremes denied writs. That debacle almost got the whole case thrown out. Hardly a side issue, it was a constitutional question without precedent. Being one of those lawyers people have such a low opinion of, I read the appellate briefs and opinion. It wasn't so simple to those who had the responsibilty of dealing with it in a legally coherent manner.
Jefferson's case was delayed by the appeal on the defense's theory that execution of the search warrant of his congressional office violated the speech and debate clause. Not a successful tactic, but the court did hear it. Stevens had no such appeal. Plus, Stevens thought he could beat the rap before the election and told the prosecutors to bring it on. Oops.
Cao's victory was a feel-good moment for LA Republicans, and for people from LA-2 who were just sick of the Jefferson saga, but it's a very blue district. Cao is a nice man and a smart person who means well, but before he memorizes the locations of the Capitol Hill men's rooms he will be back in NOLA because the Democrats are already planning for 2010.
tippy,
I understand the obsfucation tactic tossed out by the defense attorney. It was ludicrious to begin with to anyone with common sense. Delaying the trial allowed Jefferson to stay in Congress for two years and do who knows what else? Any public official arrested should be tried post haste as it is in the public's interest. A two year delay in Jefferson's case is a crime itself against the people.
A two year delay in Jefferson's case is a crime itself against the people.
Ever hear of "due process"?
You clearly don't understand. The "ludicrous obfuscation tactic" had constitutional law behind it, and it turned out to be a winner. The evidence from his congressioal office was excluded and they are now going to trial with only the evidence from other sources, including of course the frozen $90k. Even Bill Jefferson has rights. And the people of the sovereign state of Louisiana, as stupid as it may seem to everyone else, had every right to reelect him as their chosen representative if they believed his story about being set up - because he, like all of us, is innocent until proven guilty. Just as recently they were within their rights to toss him out on his ear when they tired of the whole saga.
That post was directed at AA, of course. I must have hit the wrong reply button.
The speech and debate argument did succeed in getting some evidence thrown out, actually, although it wasn't deeemed egregious enough to get the whole case dismissed. But the Jefferson and Stevens cases are two completely different animals.
Off topic: I just heard the following:
A federal judge in Chicago has ordered Governor Rod Blagojevich released on his own recognizance after the Democrat was hit with federal corruption charges.
The governor was arrested at his home Tuesday on charges he conspired to sell or trade President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.
I see the Gov. going to court sometime in 2012 if at all.... :-)
So if he asks for a speedy trial, you think the vast-left wing conspiracy will delay that for a couple of years? How high do you think the DOJ corruption goes, all the way up to SCOTUS? Attorney General?
There's nothing more sickening than corrupt public officials. I have no idea whether releasing him or not was appropriate given the crime he is charged with, but I would have let him rot in a jail cell for a good while. Jerk.
Yeah! Trials are for pussies!
Did I say rot in jail without a trial ever occuring? Ahh, No. Any clueless person who took that from what I said, is, well, clueless.
Ya think? Cause I was under the impression that the decision to grant bail or not is predicated on the determination by the court as to whether or not the defendant will show up for trial (i.e. a flight risk). Or in some cases, bail is denied if it's thought that the accused will continue to break the law, or be a threat to others.
I don't believe bail is intended as punishment, because that's decided AFTER a trial and conviction. But then again, you wouldn't be so cluelsess as to not realize this.
Well, if that's the case then I would chain him to his bed in the jail cell. The crooked Governor, in my mind, is quite the flight risk. Who's to say he may flee the country at the drop of a hat. Besides, let him get a taste of incarceration like any other indicted individual.
Well, if that's the case then I would chain him to his bed in the jail cell. The crooked Governor, in my mind, is quite the flight risk. - tommy
You mean you DIDN'T know this before you posted that he should "rot in jail" prior to his conviction? Sounds, umm I don't know, clueless?
Besides, let him get a taste of incarceration like any other indicted individual. - tommy
So an indictment leads to jail before a trial? In all instances?
Ok, as long as you aren't pre-judging anything. Oh wait you are!
Fitzgerald sounds pretty serious about the case. I'm sure he will try to get things going well before their gubernatorial race in 2010.
In the interim, what happens to the Senate seat? Anyone appointed by this governor, or maybe even by the Lt Gov if teh Gov the sense to step aside could be tainted by scandal. What a mess. And how stupid and/or arrogant do you have to be to discuss bribes on the phone when you know you've been under investigation for years? Has anyone heard anything else on the report that is was Rahm Emanuel who threw Rod under the bus after he was approached?
Apparently, Blagojevich can still make the appointment. I think they're right that just like Stevens was threatened to be kicked out of the Senate should he have won, the same can happen for anyone Blagojevich chooses.
It's a mess no matter what. I think he'll get burned bad by this, and if the allegations are true I'm certainly looking forward to it.
It's just crazy - I'll bet he does try to make an appointment. He appears to be nuts.
The Rahm angle struck me immediately, just because Obama had motivation to fix this situation before it got any worse. Thinking about it for a minute, it seems like it shows that Blagojevich isn't that bright. In Obama, you have a man who is clearly going to be under serious fire from conservatives looking desperately for any sign of scandal. We all remember the Clinton years. So Blagojevich essentially asks him to bribe him in one form or another in order for him to have his say in who gets the Senate seat.
What's the risk analysis on that? On one hand, you're guilty of bribery for the sake of choosing a Senator. If that story blows up, it's a tremendous disaster. And for what? Because you have 58 seats and you're worried that some other choice is going to significantly damage that dynamic? It's like someone's blackmailing you because you jaywalked. The pro/con ratio is a joke. Clearly the best move is to expose this jackal for what he is and do your best to clear the air before January 20th.
The other thing I'd like to know is who Blagojevich was talking to when he was taking bids for the seat, and what were the responses? I mean, if anybody indicated a willingness to make a deal, who else could be going down? The whole thing is staggering.
new Federal Prosccuters will be appointed on or shortly after the inaugeration, i doubt that the current attorney general will be allowed to continue....just as Clinton kept Dan Rostenkowski in Congress 2 years after the initial charges, by re-appointing the Federal Prosecuter at that time...
if there is any real connection between the Gov, the Sen/Pres, or further dirt from Rezko connections, we will not likely hear about it... it will all be nice and tidy by February, i'm sure.
Fitzgerald has very little time to get the story out...
While the noise machine collectively engages in a mass head explosion?
Fitzgerald has cred to most rational people. Obama has conservative people in his administration. To continue the shrub path of ideological purity for Federal Prosecutors will be one more meme to be discarded.
How many more years do you figure it'll take to get to the bottom of the Rezko connection? How much money spent on it? I'm just asking cause I'm looking for a job with some security and as much money per hour as I can squeeze out of a bunch of idiots.
Hey ya'll, he, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Cunningham, and two or three others have done nothing but stretch the truth. They pretend to be mind readers and and they constantly assert total lies......well, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! They should be forced to only assert things that they can prove!