Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Indictment is not a conviction.
Innocent until proven Guilty - does that ring a bell.
A simple Google search shows that the documented depth and breadth of his corruption is so stark that I doubt you've read any of the accounts of what Stevens is known to have done.
If Alaskans are stupid enough to re-elect him, he'll soon be tossed out of the Senate, and they'll be stuck with the cost of replacing him and the public embarrassment of proving how lame they are.
I am not questioning what is documented. What I am questioning is the fact that he is being convicted without a trial and jury of his peers.
In a court of law, he is innocent until brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. That jury is NOT the court of public opinion.
As others have posted in this thread; it is suspicious to find many thousands of $$ bills in a freezer or to have a bag of white stuff in your glove box.
Yet you have the inalienable right to be considered innocent in the legal sense until actually convicted of breaking the law by a trial of your peers.
People complain the the government is taking away rights; yet they are so willing to deny rights to others of innocent until proven guilty. This is not Europe where the opposite is true.
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Indictment is not a conviction.
Innocent until proven Guilty - does that ring a bell.
A simple Google search shows that the documented depth and breadth of his corruption is so stark that I doubt you've read any of the accounts of what Stevens is known to have done.
If Alaskans are stupid enough to re-elect him, he'll soon be tossed out of the Senate, and they'll be stuck with the cost of replacing him and the public embarrassment of proving how lame they are.
I am not questioning what is documented. What I am questioning is the fact that he is being convicted without a trial and jury of his peers.
In a court of law, he is innocent until brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. That jury is NOT the court of public opinion.
As others have posted in this thread; it is suspicious to find many thousands of $$ bills in a freezer or to have a bag of white stuff in your glove box.
Yet you have the inalienable right to be considered innocent in the legal sense until actually convicted of breaking the law by a trial of your peers.
People complain the the government is taking away rights; yet they are so willing to deny rights to others of innocent until proven guilty. This is not Europe where the opposite is true.
We are not talking about deriving someone of rights. We are talking about people making an intelligent decision when hiring someone to fill a position.
If you owned a daycare would you hire a person who was being tried for child molestation with DNA evidence? He hasn't been convicted yet but it looks pretty damned bad.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
I am not questioning what is documented. What I am questioning is the fact that he is being convicted without a trial and jury of his peers.
In a court of law, he is innocent until brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. That jury is NOT the court of public opinion.
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Indictment is not a conviction.
Innocent until proven Guilty - does that ring a bell.
Not in Dave's America. And apparently, in Dave's America there is only one political party.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, an incumbent senator won his primary against 6 poorly funded challengers. This will happen 100% of the time unless Stevens is actually caught in bed with a 10 year old boy. If he wins the actual election after his trial then I'm prepared to dispair about American politics like you guys are. Anyone who looked at the primary knew he was going to win a long time ago, indictment or no.
The fact that Stevens' victory was a foreseeable event does not make it any less deplorable. A vote for the corrupt piece of trash is inexcusable, and Alaskans who voted for him should be ashamed of themselves.
The dude delivered a $250M in funds for a bridge to an uninhabited island. Crooked he may be, but he shows them the money!
Originally posted by: babylon5
Bridge to nowhere: Alaskans don't care about corruption, as long as they get the loot reward from the rest of America taxpayers money?
Makes you question about the brains of average Americans.
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Google "Bill Jefferson".
Why don't you people get it? Both sides are corrupt as all hell but we fool ourselves into thinking one side is more or less corrupt depending on whose "team" we are on.