The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • National

    Tiger Woods injured in car accident

  • Security

    W. House praises IAEA's censures of Iran

  • Business

    Wall Street tumbles on Dubai fears

  • Local

    Private funeral Friday for Pollin

  • Politics

    Ads add heat to health care debate

  • National

    At Mall of America, it's business as usual

  • World

    Drug lords finding safe haven in Bolivia

Home » News » Editor Favorites

Monday, August 18, 2008

DAVIS: Ted Stevens: An innocent man

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Videos
Subscribe to this story's comments

Cornelius

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.
Mark as offensive

Cobra

"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.
Mark as offensive

RDH

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?
Mark as offensive

Nobody1234

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.
Mark as offensive

St_m

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.
Mark as offensive

jdmf

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.
Mark as offensive

ipscshooter

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.
Mark as offensive

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
  2. Climate 'czar' says hacked e-mails don't change anything
  3. EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
  4. Grade-schooler unearths fossil at dinosaur park
  5. PRUDEN: Trouble afoot for high priests
More Top Stories »
  1. Top Republican lawmakers not attending State Dinner
  2. D.C. sports icon, Wizards owner Pollin dies
  3. In tobacco-loving Virginia, bars give up the habit
  4. Climate czar rejects doctored data claims
  5. List of W.H. state dinner guests

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
  2. PRUDEN: Trouble afoot for high priests
  3. EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
  4. Climate 'czar' says hacked e-mails don't change anything
  5. Finance mavens gloomy
More Top Stories »
  1. Fenty's approval in D.C. divided by race
  2. EDITORIAL: The duty of a nation to obey God
  3. Drug lords finding safe haven in Bolivia
  4. Global Warmists exposed
  5. In tobacco-loving Virginia, bars give up the habit

Most Commented

  1. Climate 'czar' says hacked e-mails don't change anything
  2. EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
  3. Climate czar rejects doctored data claims
  4. EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
  5. EDITORIAL: The duty of a nation to obey God
More Top Stories »
  1. PRUDEN: Trouble afoot for high priests
  2. Crashers probe may become criminal investigation
  3. Obama taking emissions goal to summit
  4. HOLMES: Behind Obama's overseas allure
  5. 9/11 families sharply split on civilian court trials

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

Are you planning to go shopping today?

Blogs & Columns

  • Hot Button Blog

    RNC: Breast cancer recommendations may lead to 'rationing'

  • Belief Blog

    Evangelicals OK civil disobedience

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • Redskins 360

    Hall out, Rogers will start

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.