It wasnt in the indictment you retard. It was a comment made by the DOJ spokesman during the press conference announcing the indictment.

Like I said and you completely ignored, the only purpose for an indictment is to fully inform the defendant of what he’s being charged with. Its purpose isnt what to inform him what he cant be charged with because the SOL has run. I love how you law and order types, when faced with corruption by your own heroes, suddenly lower the bar to “if it wasnt in the indictment then it doesnt mean anything”

>My belief is that this situation is going to look a lot >different once the trial starts.

No one gives 2 sh@ts what you beleive! How did the scooter libby trial look to you once the jury returned a guilty verdict?

Gee, hmmm, stevens gets hundreds of thousands of dollars of services from people directly connected with the oil companies he lobbied so boisterously for in congress, doesnt list them as a gift or A DEBT (debts are something he was required to disclose, so that completely debunks the “it wasnt a gift it was a service the guy was waiting to get a bill for” talking point), and somehow the idea he was actually receiving some benefit from spending him time in congress defending these big oil interests doesnt sound suspicious to dullards like you…

nooo….sorry pal, im going to speculate that you don’t have any legal training whatsoever and you talking out your a@@.

the only things that an indictment is going to mention, beyond the statutory requirements to establish jurisdiction, etc, is the information necessary to inform the defendant of what he’s being charged with. Information about everyone who may have been involved is not necessarily going to be mentioned, unless it somehow does something more to explain to the defendant what he’s being charged with. So sorry pal, but “it wasnt in the indictment therefore theres nothign to it” is legal reasoning so flimsy most avid law and order fans would see through it.

> One more time, Stevens has not been charged with taking
> bribes, the DOJ noted they could not charge a quid pro quo.

Right, they also mentioned the statute of limitations as a factor as to why Stevens wasnt charged with bribery. So, basically, what they are saying is that bribes most likely occured, but they either occured so long ago that the statute of limations prevents prosecution and/or he only agreed in principal to do favors in exchange for money, not to do any specific favors for specific amounts of money.

So basically, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for your arguments. Politicians taking money in exchange for favors is ok with you, as long as he did it in a way that isnt technically against the law. Its ok with people like you that Stevens took money for favors, as long as he didnt agree to a specific favor for a specific amount of money, as is required to be in violation of the relvant bribery statutes.

Once again, listening to you law and order rightwingtards trying to lower the ethical bar for your heroes to the point where “its ok unless its illegal” is hilarious…

Bobwurst Says:
jimak is the latest rnc troll sent here to derail the threads. pay no attention to it.

Not exactly, Bobwurst. While JimAK (formerly known as Jim Wilke) is willing to post inane right-wing talking points on most subjects, his specialty is defending Ted Stevens.

Indeed, JIm has posted so many apologies for the good Senator here, I don’t even know why the DoJ is going through with this trial. It seems Jim has Sen. Stevens all but acquitted already.

Oil is an abomination

the great whore (big oil) corrupted the earth with her intoxication

Bush/Chaney/McOilmoney legacy

was involved in a sleezy bribery case. Not a chance.

Oh wait, maybe you’re talking about that egg-sucking, yellow corporate prick we have for a Vice President. That one…is definitely a corrupt piece of slime.

“I swear that I’ll lie”

¶ AIO

what i want to know is whether the fbi talked to cheney and whether he lied to them.
_______________

Nah… the Dickster jes’ invited them ta go huntin’ with him…