Pangloss Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Just a week before he comes up for re-election, Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens has been found guilty of bribery. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10076855-38.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=am_l8kAQbIXw&refer=us He was convicted by the Bush Justice Department -- the greatest prosecutor of white-collar criminals and elected officials in the history of this country (which followed a Clinton/Reno JD that didn't prosecute a single one, and deliberately avoided Democratic contributors!). This is the same department which was tragically unable to find sufficient evidence to convict Louisiana Senator and Democrat William Jefferson after the FBI found $90,000 in his freezer. (I wonder if the left will give Bush some credit here. Probably not.) To amusingly follow-up on another recent thread of ours, Senator Stevens is now apparently unable to vote for himself next week. (grin) Not that he's likely to be elected at this point, having been thrown under the bus even by state-mate Sarah Palin today, who said he got what he deserved. This will likely solidify Democratic control over the Senate and help them achieve the 60 vote majority needed to break filibusters. I'm starting to wonder if they may reach the level of veto override, which I believe is 67 votes. I'm not sure enough seats are up for that to happen, but the ones running for re-election this year are the same ones that were voted in in 2002, right after 9/11, and the country is in a much different mood today. What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I think this could have been avoided if he had only realized earlier that the internet is not a truck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 What do you all think?I think there's something wrong when a convicted felon can't vote but he can be elected to the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I think this could have been avoided if he had only realized earlier that the internet is not a truck... I believe he called it a "series of tubes." Here is the 2 minute speech where he blathered himself into this ridiculous comment: I think there's something wrong when a convicted felon can't vote but he can be elected to the Senate. I thought the exact same thing as I read that. You seem to have forgotten the word "seriously" between "something" and "wrong." There's something seriously wrong when a convicted felon can't vote, but they can be elected to the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 I'm not sure that that's wrong. There shouldn't be a lot of restrictions on elections, and I can see a reasonable distinction between whether or not you want a felon in office and the issue of whether felons should be allowed to vote. Still, it does give one pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 (edited) I foresee a series of tubes in his future: Edited October 28, 2008 by bascule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 rofl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I think there's something wrong when a convicted felon can't vote but he can be elected to the Senate. I'm fine with that. Being a convicted felon is pretty much political suicide, and I don't particularly like excess laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvp45 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I think there's something wrong when a convicted felon can't vote but he can be elected to the Senate. It's still not clear whether he has lost the right to vote. Only felonies involving "moral turpitude", whatever the heck that means, result in the loss of voting rights in Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I was wrong in my phrasing. A convicted felon probably couldn't get elected (glad Steven's verdict wasn't a month later). Good calls, Pangloss and Mr Skeptic. I suppose anyone who donated money to the campaign of a convicted felon deserves to lose it. Moral turpitude is mostly used to show a wicked intent, something utterly against public standards of conduct. Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that moral turpitude is present in any case of abusing public trust while in elected office? I'm pretty sure they've ruled that way regarding fraud cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Only felonies involving "moral turpitude", whatever the heck that means, result in the loss of voting rights in Alaska. He wasn't convicted by the state of Alaska. He's a federal criminal. That's why he was tried in D.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now