Letter to the Editor
Lawyer money
Published Friday, October 31, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Oct. 26, 2008
To the editor:
I just read that, as of last August, Don Young had spent $1.3 million of his re-election campaign treasury money and fund donations on his own legal defense. Well, good people, the last time I spent that kind of money on lawyers, I had been sinnin’ in a big way.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Really? I thought you were such a sweet non-sinful person. :)
But the point is correct. That Don Young has to spend so much on defense strongly suggests that he has not been obeying all the laws. Likely because of corruption since he has many indicators like his relationship with Abramoff and his earmarks for donations that have made the news.
Well if you browse over to http://www.adn.com/veco/story/573975.htm... you might see where some of that legal money is going.
Don, Ted, Sarah, Lisa... the whole lot of them. Corrupt, self serving, egomaniacs. We, the people they supposedly are respresenting, need to bring them all home, sit them all down, and have a little one way chat. The "ME FIRST!" attitude is going to stop. Now!
I would pour as much money as possible in legal defense in the wake of how the Feds handled Stevens' trail.
So, representation equals guilt. "Interesting" concept.
Whats a good lawyer get now? Something like $1,000 per hour.
Justice for all?
whether or not there is inequity in representation ; which there is,Young has the right to use whatever monetary resources he sees fit.Does that make him unjust by doing so? Do you think the feds are going to be more frugal?
To plainview: Rethink your position here. I'll bet I'm not the only Alaskan who's suspicious about the flubs by the (young, female) prosecutor in Ted Stevens' trial.
Let's face it, Uncle Ted is rich (despite his own claims and Bill Allen's tape-recorded b.s. about poor Ted needing help) and Uncle Ted is powerful --- so, let's see, isn't Ted rich enough to buy himself a darned good attorney? Isn't Ted powerful enough to see to it, by god, that some inexperienced kid (and female at that) gets assigned by the Feds to prosecute this trial, a landmark trial of one of the senate's most powerful old guys? Think about it. Ted Stevens must have had a great lawyer (and maybe he did have a poor prosecutor) yet he lost the case.
In Ted's trial, the flubs and so-called mistakes by the prosecution clearly didn't trouble the jury, and the mistakes apparently didn't convince the judge that the trial was worth redoing.
Far more than anything Ted has to say, I trust the judge and jury (who sure as heck ARE Ted's peers; they too live in D.C. and have to pay bills like other citizens and also sat through all the evidence on both sides). Way to go jury! That jury -- who returned their verdict so quickly and unanimously, as required in a felony trial -- saw corruption and recognized it when they saw it and spoke out against it clearly, unanimously, with charges of guilty on all seven counts. Good for them! The one I don't trust is the convicted felon (an attorney and a powerful senator, at that) who claims he has not been convicted. Strange and sad.
Yes, Don Young has the right to spend his defense war chest money received from god knows where any way he pleases, plainview; can't wait to see his trial. What's astonishing to me is how willfully blind so many Alaskans remain. Astonishing.
If you really believe the Feds are a poor little ragtag group, then Don and i have a bridge to sell you. I'm sure those who contributed will speak up if there's a problem with Don's use of the money(that's between him and them).If you recall, the jurors were not exposed to some of the"flubs".Whether Ted or Don are guilty or not,they have a right to buy the best they can afford.So,let me get this right: they are supposed to ensure the best prosecution against them because they are rich politicians?
Your reasoning dictates that you cannot trust whose convicted and exonerated through the appeals process,DNA evidence,etc.
It is true that Stevens has been convicted and stated he wasn't.There could be a reason other than a weak grasp on reality.Is that possible?
As I've said before, conviction of a crime is not always the same as committing a crime and representation does not equal guilt.
You may find it blind to give an individual the benfit against an entity as powerful as the Federal Government, but I don't find your view surprising. Your perception of that entity is likely much different than mine.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.