Sen. Ted Stevens charges don't violate Constitution = NO dismissal

[L. Coyote]

Stevens charges don't violate Constitution, judge rules
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers - Sept. 16, 2008 - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/52637.html


WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Stevens won't be able to argue that evidence in the federal corruption case against him violates the constitutional separations that keep members of Congress from being prosecuted for their legislative actions.

A federal judge turned down Stevens' lawyers' request to throw out the seven-count indictment against the senator and said Tuesday in a hearing that if evidence arises at trial that looks as though it violates what's known as the speech-or-debate clause of the Constitution, he will consider barring it.

But it was Stevens' lawyers' job to show that he's entitled to immunity under the speech-or-debate clause and they failed to do so ....

[Javaman]

1. awwww, ain't that too fucking bad...

:rofl: LOLOLOLOLOL

[PVnRT]

2. Good. I hope his sorry ass ends up in jail.

[TahitiNut]

3. Didn't SCOTUS equate money to speech in campaign funding?

Didn't they claim that this meant that there were 1st Amendment protections for money? If Money = Speech, then doesn't bribing a legislator equate to speech immunity?

:dunce: :silly: :dunce:

[L. Coyote]

4. ROFLMAO

No, that's just protection for "free speech" and you are talking about "paid speech" for which the Constitution has no mentions.