Comments on: DoJ Asks for Release of Kott and Kohring. No, I’m Not Kidding.

By: ValleyIndependent

ValleyIndependent — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:57:46 +0000

#45 Actually, Kohring was a pretty good representative, at first. He is pleasant in person and was extremely conscientious about returning phone calls and letting you know he actually understood your issues and was willing to work on them.

He took a lot of flak one year for securing money for a much-needed fire truck for our neighbor to the north, Houston. It wasn’t popular in Wasilla, but it was the right thing to do.

In later years, he couldn’t seem to get any legislation passed, so I started voting for his opponents.

I’m very sad he let himself and us down by taking Allen’s money, and I think he should be retried rather than having the case dismissed, but I’m not sure there’s any point in sending him back to the gray bar hotel. Let him go home on time served and take care of his elderly parents.

By: katiebegood

katiebegood — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:32:26 +0000

The U.S.Justice Department this afternoon asked that two former Alaska state legislators imprisoned after convictions in public corruption cases be released, saying their trials were tainted by the failure of prosecutors to disclose favorable information.

Ok, now this pisses me off. The Obama DOJ is doing something like this and they are allowing Don Siegelman to be sent back to jail. There is tons of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Siegelman. So why is the Obama DOJ not interceding with his case?

By: Fran

Fran — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:43:56 +0000

I don’t think the evidence wasn’t turned over out of some diabolical plot to get the case overtuned down the line. I think that many people in th the Bush JD was just incompetitent and they didn’t follow the rules all of the time either because they didn’t know them or they were just being careless. I can see a lot of reasons why Holder would be going through these cases now. First of all it is the right thing to do. Second, there were a lot of people hired into the JD that they want to get rid off, and showing incompetence or illigal behavior in in these cases may allow them to be fired some of them for cause. I am also betting one of the most incompetient aspects of these cases is that they didn’t use bargain with guys to make them spill the beans about bigger crimes and more inportant officials, and if there is a retrial being threatened , those kinds of things can be revisted. It also shows that Obama’s JD is behaving in an ethical manner which will be pointed out when they go after much bigger fish.

By: InJuneau

InJuneau — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:58:14 +0000

ValleyIndependent–oh, you have my sympathies for the time you had him as your rep!

By: ValleyIndependent

ValleyIndependent — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:27:51 +0000

“I want to know what undisclosed evidence that may have been favorable to the defense negates video footage of Vic Kohring and Pete Kott in a hotel room taking CASH.”

Me, too, AKM. Kohring was my representative. A new trial is in order if due process was not afforded him, though I will be exceedingly angry if the charges are dismissed, given the evidence we have seen to date.

By: sauerkraut

sauerkraut — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:18:25 +0000

39 samper Says: June 5th, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Here’s MY question (and I know ABSOLUTELY nothing about this case other than what is on this post):

If they were so BLATANTLY guilty and mountains of evidence attest to that, why, then, would the DoJ play games with a few pieces of evidence that might be favorable?
_________

Because it’s not a comparison; the rules are clear: if the prosecution has documents/information that is favorable to the defendant, they are obligated to turn it over. This is not case specific; it must be done in all cases, be it Republican or Democratic.

By: mlaiuppa

mlaiuppa — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:08:51 +0000

Next thing you know, they’re going to release Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the guiltiest of the guilty and the most corrupt of the corrupt. I may heave if they do.

I just want someone to make the Bush Administration pay. I want fines. I want jail time. I want a lot of court cases. Because I want this front, center and all over the new globally that we don not tolerate corruption or incompetance. And with Bush we had both. I want admittance of guilt. I want apologies. Lots of apologies. And I want all of the fingers pointed.

Send them to the Hague if necessary. I think it’s a shame we can’t clean our own laundry but must outsource it. But this is one case of outsourcing I’m glad to support.

One way tickets to the Netherlands.

By: Gindy50

Gindy50 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:26:03 +0000

The whole point of every facet of the Bush administration was to make government so unworkable and ineffective, that the “people” would want it dismantled except for the military. Putting idiots and unqualified morons into high positions in all departments was a hallmark of the Bush administration. The results will be felt for decades to come.
From bad prosecutions comes a massive distrust of the federal legal system. In order to clean it up each and every person the Bush administration shoved into it must be removed. The same with the EPA and all other departments of the federal government. The investigative agencies need to be over hauled as well. Without this massive colon cleansing, the same stuff we see in Alaska will crop up all over the USA in every part of our government.
The Bush administration was the final culmination of Grover Norquists “drown government in the bathtub” ideology.

By: Aussie Blue Sky

Aussie Blue Sky — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:39:30 +0000

samper, your question goes right to my point yesterday about the Petumenos “investigation” of Palin’s Troopergate complaint against herself: that it didn’t matter that she lied under oath (saying she didn’t know about it)because she wasn’t obliged to stop her husband from harassing Walt Monegan anyway.

Petumenos knew she was lying. But he said that her perjury in this case wouldn’t make any difference because he had already determined there was no case to answer. But Petumenos is only a shabby local lawyer, and the Personnel Board is very far removed from a court of law.

Maybe Holder feels a need to hear a judge say, “It’s evidence but it doesn’t count”.

By: samper

samper — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:23:19 +0000

Here’s MY question (and I know ABSOLUTELY nothing about this case other than what is on this post):

If they were so BLATANTLY guilty and mountains of evidence attest to that, why, then, would the DoJ play games with a few pieces of evidence that might be favorable? It’s not like the favorable stuff could outweigh the unfavorable stuff. They would still have been convicted and jailed, right?

It seems to me that if they wanted the convictions, they could have done it fairly and completely, whether or not the “favorable” evidence was brought to light.

Bush DoJ = A mess.
Holder = Clean Up Committee.