DAVIS: Ted Stevens: An innocent man

Lanny, Regarding "presumption of innocence" not being in the constitution: Conservatives are not compelled to challenge things that aren't bothering them. If you don't want "presumption of innocence" to stand, then challenge it yourself. (I suspect you will find lots of conservatives supporting you. We are consistent in our thinking, unlike liberals, who can hold rock solid diametrically opposed views with no cognitive dissonance.) Because we don't challenge "presumption of innocence" doesn't mean conservatives can't challenge something based on the non-constitutional right to privacy. Your argument is sophistry.

"who must be presumed to be an innocent man until he is proven guilty by the U.S. government beyond a reasonable doubt" This statement is incorrect. It should be amended to read "who is presumed by law to be innocent of any crime until found guilty by a jury of his peers in a court of law." It's NOT the U.S. government that decides legal guilt or innocence in America, that decision is made by a jury of your peers (unless you plead guilty or wave your right to a trial by jury, of course). I would think that a lawyer would understand this. In regards to someone's public reputation, there is no such thing as a"presumed" standing so you can't rely upon some misleading reference to the legal process in order to maintain your reputation. It just doesn't work that way. There is no MUST about your reputation, as in we MUST trust someone until they are proven untrustworthy in a court of law, there is only IF, as in IF the public still trusts you even though you've never been to court.

As part of Team Clinton Lanny knows a lot about grand juries. But does he know something we don't yet know? Lanny likes to "pave the way" as a Clinton apologist. Wasn't there yet another Democratic fund raiser tied to Senator Clinton trying to flee the country last year? Or now that Obama and Clinton have made up is he out front to defuse some issure related to Obama? Has the Tony Rezko affair run its course? Perhaps he is about to join Team Edwards?

If Richard Jewell were alive today, what do you suppose the odds are that he’d point to the the Senator’s house in question and say, “Hey! They’re doing to Sen. Stevens, just what they did to me!” ? For that matter, how many phone calls and letters, offering support and encouragement, do you suppose Sen. Stevens has received from those wrongly accused members of the Duke Lacrosse team? “Hang in there, buddy! The truth will set you free!” And finally, unlike Republican Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan, in this case, the ‘guilty’ verdict returned by the “Court of Public Opinion” is in no small part the result of the “Expert Witness Testimony” given by Sen. Stevens’ very own “Reputation”. There is not a doubt in my mind that, regardless of the outcome of this “Federal” trial, and despite his best efforts, Sen. Stevens will find that his “Reputation” has remained intact and virtually unchanged.

Oh, oh, I've got one... How about that time when the government fabricated a bunch of evidence that some country full of terrorists had weapons of mass destruction and were secretly behind a terrorist attack on America. Get this, that turned out to all be wrong too, but fortunately we only had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and 4000+ American lives to figure that out. Give me a break... This article sounds more like a job application to be an intern in Sen. Stevens' office that something someone with your credentials would write. Sen. Stevens hasn't exactly been sneaky about his profuse corruption and your attempt to sidetrack the issue by suggesting that the public's perception of guilt upon indictment is somehow in conflict with Roe v. Wade is pandering at best. I don't think that a Federal Prosecutor was willing to indict a long sitting and powerful US Senator as an afternoon hobby. While I'm all for the presumption of innocence, your insinuation that the issue should be ignored until it's gone to trial and the issue has been played out is asinine. Stevens is one of the most powerful men in the country. I'm sorry, but he should be scrutinized and held to a higher standard.

Great analogies, Mr. Davis. Perhaps if Sen. Stevens turns out to be innocent, they can catch the *actual* senator who didn't report these gifts (bribes?), worth 100s of thousands of dollars, from the VECO Corporation. Perhaps this fugitive, unnamed senator lives with Ted Stevens in his newly remodeled house? I think they should check there first.

Cobra: There's no need for the author to amend. What he said is correct. A person must be proved guilty by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. The finding of guilt is made by the jury. But, the government must present the proof. I would think that someone critiquing another persons understanding of the law would make sure he understood it himself.