The right wing’s new love of coddling criminals
So exactly when did the right wing fall in love with the idea of a criminal getting off on a “legal technicality?” Isn’t that something they’ve been running against for decades — you know, all that talk about those awful “liberal” judges coddling criminals? But, of course, that’s exactly what just happened with Ted Stevens.
All of the GOP talking points notwithstanding, Stevens has in no way been vindicated. Obviously, we can’t know what would have happened had he been retried, but his unethical conduct speaks for itself.
No, he got off, not based upon the merits of the charges, but because a liberal attorney general, when faced with evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, decided (reasonably) to drop the prosecution, rather than retrying him.
In other words, Stevens got off on a technicality.
Now, perhaps I’m a little confused here, but I seem to recall that Republicans, and especially conservative Republicans, don’t like it when criminal defendants are set free based upon violations of constitutional rights. So, naturally I’m expecting at any moment to hear the combined voices of every member of the GOP caucuses in both the House and Senate denouncing, in the strongest possible words, this classic example of coddling the criminal element.
I tell you it’s coming . . . any second now . . . I’m waiting . . . I’m still waiting . . . Seriously guys, feel free to speak up . . . any second now will be fine . . .
Huh, all I can hear is the chirping of a few crickets in the background.
To quote John Adams from the musical 1776:
Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?
(You can see it performed here.)
I guess this must be one example of a criminal getting off on a “legal technicality” that even a Republican can love.
You know, if I didn’t know better I’d almost think they’re being a little hypocritical here.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:31 am
The dictionary doesnt reflect the ongoing change in the spelling of “Republican” but since Reagan, it has been undergoing transformation. It is now spelled: HYPOCRITE. A little hypocritical? How about a gigantically enormously, overwhelmingly, obviously hypocritical?:)