[ceilirose]

I have to watch the replay but I read that Chris Matthews of Hardball/MSNBC said the reporters were like "zombies." At this point I'm not sure whether it's good or bad.

[sunnykerr]

Gates Announces Major Pentagon Priority Shifts

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a 2010 Pentagon budget Monday that reflects major changes in the "scope and significance" of Defense Department priorities. The proposed budget cuts several traditional big-ticket items while investing in programs designed to bolster the military's ability to wage an ongoing conflict against terrorists and other extremist elements in multiple regions at the same time. Gates acknowledged that parts of the budget are likely to run into significant opposition on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are concerned in part about preserving valuable defense contracts for their districts and states. "This is a reform budget, reflecting lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan," Gates said. "There's no question that a lot of these decisions will be controversial." He called on Congress to "rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole." House Armed Service Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, acknowledged that congressmen have concerns about job losses in their home districts but said that ultimately, "the national interest overrides anything." "The buck stops with us," he said. "We still have a lot of hard work ahead of us." Three key priorities are reflected in the changes, Gates said. The priorities are a stronger institutional commitment to the military's all-volunteer force, a decision to "rebalance" defense programs to better fight current and future conflicts, and "fundamental overhauls" of the military's procurement, acquisition and contracting process. Among other things, Gates called for production of the Air Force's most expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor, to be phased out by fiscal year 2011. He also called for terminating a proposed fleet of 23 presidential helicopters estimated to cost more than $13 billion. The proposed fleet, he noted, was originally projected to cost $6.5 billion. It "has fallen six years behind schedule and runs the risk of not delivering the requested capability," he said. Gates maintained that a new fleet of presidential helicopters will still ultimately be necessary, however. ...

Gates announces major Pentagon priority shifts - CNN.com

I don't understand finance very much, but it seems to make sense to me to cut back in times of crisis. And, still, it sounds like they're focusing on streamlining and focusing whatever budget they're keeping.

Or am I totally wrong?

[vc318]

How many more flipped weapons do we need? I say the budget is a necessity especially with everything going on.

[sunnykerr]

Well, it certainly makes sense to have a budget governing military spending. Of course, they have to stick to that budget.

Either way, I guess this is all about priorities...

[vc318]

Stevens case closed, prosecutors under fire - Politics- msnbc.com


WASHINGTON - A federal judge dismissed the corruption conviction of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens on Tuesday and took the rare and serious step of opening a criminal investigation into prosecutors who mishandled the case.

"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said.

Sullivan appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Justice Department lawyers who repeatedly mishandled witnesses and withheld evidence from defense attorneys during the monthlong trial. Stevens was convicted in October of lying on Senate forms about home renovations and gifts he received from wealthy friends.

The case cost Stevens a Senate seat he had held for 40 years. Once the Senate's longest-serving Republican, he narrowly lost to Democrat Mark Begich shortly after the verdict.

As Sullivan dismissed the case, Stevens turned to his friends and held up a fist in victory as his wife and daughters broke into loud sobs.

"Until recently, my faith in the criminal system, particularly the judicial system, was unwavering," Stevens told the court Tuesday, his first public comments since Attorney General Eric Holder announced he would drop the case. "But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed my faith. Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed."

Sullivan appointed Washington attorney Henry Schuelke as a special prosecutor to investigate contempt and obstruction by the Justice Department team. He said the matter was too serious to be left to an internal investigation by the department, which he said has dragged its feet looking into the misconduct.

In a criminal case, the prosecutors could face prison time and fines. The decision raises the question of whether the prosecutors, who include the top two officials in the department's public corruption unit, can remain on the job while under criminal investigation.

Sullivan repeatedly scolded prosecutors for their behavior during trial. After the verdict, an FBI whistleblower accused the team of misconduct and Sullivan held prosecutors in contempt for ignoring a court order.

The prosecution team was replaced and, last week, new prosecutors acknowledged that key evidence was withheld from Stevens. That evidence included notes from an interview with the government's star witness, contractor Bill Allen.

On the witness stand, Allen said a mutual friend told him not to expect Stevens to pay for the home renovation project because Stevens only wanted the bill to cover himself.

But in the previously undisclosed meeting with prosecutors, Allen said he had no recollection of such a discussion. And he valued the renovation work at far less than what prosecutors alleged at trial.

"I was sick in my stomach," attorney Brendan Sullivan said Tuesday, recalling seeing the new evidence for the first time. "How could they do this? How could they abandon their responsibilities? How could they take on a very decent man, Ted Stevens, who happened to be a United States senator, and do this?"

With the prosecution team now under the scrutiny Stevens felt for years, the 85-year-old smiled and posed for pictures with his family on the courthouse steps.

"I'm going to enjoy this wonderful day," he said.

What is there to be proud of? Stevens still lied and has to live with that. The prosecutors really messed up with one.

[sunnykerr]

I think Ted Stevens's 40-year career is testament to just how little general common sense and human decency we can expect from the man. Look at how he had his constituents foot the bill for his own expenses... I can't say I'm shocked that he has the gall to be pleased to get away with it.

[ceilirose]

Well Palin wants a new Senatorial election in Alaska, doesn't she?

IIRC Stevens was on thin ice even before this trial. Yes the prosecutors botched it but at least the AG acted responsibly. I don't think Holder was thrilled about dropping the charges but at least he followed the rule of law and did the right thing.

[Callace]

You guys dont seem to like this guy a lot do you? His prosecutors seems to have messed things up in a rather monumental fashion, but... fill me in: he's still a crook, that ought to have been going down, by proper procedure?

[sunnykerr]

Okay, so I don't actually know enough about his case to be in any position to properly explain the whys and wherefores of his being a crook who can't legally be prosecuted.

However, I do know that, over the past couple of years, he's made a pretty solid reputation for himself as a guy who will use the system to further his own interests. In other words, when Sarah Palin expected the citizens of Alaska to fund her new wardrobe and pay her rent on two manors? She didn't have to go very far for inspiration.

The point being that he's still a crook, but he used the system to cover his rear.

[vc318]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) The point being that he's still a crook, but he used the system to cover his rear.

Don't they always? So the case is pretty much closed, I guess.

[wanderer78]

This is what he allegedly did:

from CNN.com

Stevens was convicted of seven counts of making false statements on Senate ethics forms to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and work on his Alaska home from an oilfield contractor at the center of a corruption investigation in the state.

He's also (in)famous for not knowing anything about the internet. The Daily Show (among many people) had a field day with that.

Top 5 Daily Show Ted Stevens Moments

They're all funny, but #1 is the best. The sad thing is he was in charage of regulating the internet in the U.S.

[Callace]

I see that this jerk is getting away with everything makes me angry too I can understand why the prosecuters might eventually get so pissed off at not being able to get him hooked for something that they broke protocol to nail him.

ANd it might of course also be that they had good reason fo what they did, since he would have found a way to temper with the evidence or something, if they had shown it to him

[mh67511]

The point is if the evidence had not been withheld, he might not have been convicted. He didn't receive a trial and that is a serious offense.

[sunnykerr]

^ I agree!

[mh67511]

Originally Posted by Callace (View Post) I see that this jerk is getting away with everything makes me angry too I can understand why the prosecuters might eventually get so pissed off at not being able to get him hooked for something that they broke protocol to nail him. ANd it might of course also be that they had good reason fo what they did, since he would have found a way to temper with the evidence or something, if they had shown it to him

It doesn't matter how you much you dislike someone, there is NO good reason to withhold evidence! Period. It is wrong, unfair, and unethical. And if you one cannot control their urges and gets so pissed off that they would act unethically, they have NO business being a prosecutor.

They withheld the evidence because it was FAVORABLE to him -- why would he tamper with evidence that benefits his case? That doesn't make sense.