What is it with Republicans and the Constitution?

[mikeylikesit]

I may have misread an early report of a statement from him. I'll look for it.

[mikeylikesit]

I may have inferred it from an early reference made re:

"This article in the Anchorage Daily News, headlined \"Stevens keeps right to vote until sentencing,\" keeps up with the latest legal news surrounding Senator Ted Stevens:

Sen. Ted Stevens gets to vote in next Tuesday's election despite being found guilty of seven federal felonies because his conviction won't be final until he's sentenced, the state Department of Law decided late Wednesday.

Alaska law bars felons convicted of crimes involving \"moral turpitude\ from voting for the duration of their sentence, including any probation period. Stevens' failure to report gifts is a Class D felony under federal law and constitutes such a crime because it involves willful fraud, said an opinion by Michael Barnhill, a senior assistant attorney general with the state.

But when is a person deemed convicted? Barnhill conceded in his opinion there are two ways to read the law, with a popular interpretation being that the jury's verdict is enough. But most legal precedents lean toward waiting until the judge in the case has entered his formal judgment and sentence, Barnhill said.... wrote:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing...maybe.html

Either way the man is another old, deluded, power-drunk emblem the GOP doesn't need (like the Cheney endorsement) this close to election. Looks like he's insuring a solid GOP seat goes Dem.

[Gutenberg]

So why did you put your inference in quotes and precede it with "What he actually said:"?

You would have flunked high school journalism, let alone journalism 101.

[AlphaDog]

I just came back and saw the posts made subsequent to mine. So, what Stevens actually said was "I've not been convicted yet. There's not a black mark by my name yet, until the appeal is over and I am finally convicted, if that happens. If that happens, of course I'll do what's right for Alaska and for the Senate ... I don't anticipate it happening, and until it happens I do not have a black mark."

It took a while, but after Googling, I think I figured out what he was trying to say. The judge has not yet set a sentencing date, and until Stevens is actually sentenced, he is not considered a convicted felon. However, before sentencing Stevens, the judge will be hearing a series of motions by Stevens' attorneys, including one in which they will be asking for a new trial.

"U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has not yet set a date for sentencing and first must hear a series of post-trial motions, such as one from Stevens seeking a new trial."

So, Stevens said he was not a convicted felon until after the appeals, but what he should have said was that he would not be a convicted felon until after the judge heard and ruled upon the motions that will be brought forth. The judge can deny the motions and continue on with the sentencing. If he does that, then Stevens will become a convicted felon, and he will remain a convicted felon unless and until his conviction is overturned on appeal. If, however, the judge rules favorably on that motion for a new trial, Stevens might die before he's ever found guilty of anything a second time.

[mikeylikesit]

Gutenberg wrote:
So why did you put your inference in quotes and precede it with "What he actually said:"?

You would have flunked high school journalism, let alone journalism 101.

So I was sloppy and this isn't school and I could have said "meant" instead of said. So? Seems to me I've managed to irritate you beyond this instance.

Not only that but I was never a journalist although I was at one time forced to write editorials and was also (for an short stint) a publisher. (That alone should explain my journalistic shortcomings -- should it not?) Do you take my "edit" needles as attacks or slurs or something?

I thought it was all in good fun. I guess either we got off on the wrong foot or I was wrong in my assumption. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Gutenberg]

The "This is what he actually said" got my goat.

I had already posted what he actually said. What he actually meant may be up for discussion, I suppose.

[mikeylikesit]

.

[mikeylikesit]

Gutenberg wrote:
The "This is what he actually said" got my goat.

I had already posted what he actually said. What he actually meant may be up for discussion, I suppose.

I recall, although I cannot put a link to it, that he said that after the trial. Maybe it was his lawyer, either way. I did not go out of my way to invent something. This is not J101.

I prefer we put it to rest end the discussion on it's merits and enjoy the prospects ahead. :thumbsup:

[Dennis S]

I don't think Stevens or the court is the one who decides if there is a black mark beside his name.