Stevens' Corruption Trial Will Proceed

Since the day the federal indictment of Senator Ted Stevens was handed down, his talented, resourceful legal team have been launching counterattacks designed to score a quick dismissal for their client. Yesterday, a significant portion of those counterattacks were rebuffed.

D.C. District Court Justice Emmet Sullivan shot down several of Stevens' legal motions to dismiss the case, including questions about the charges' statute(s) of limitations. He also made strong statements regarding the direction of the case, saying that he intended to give the defendant the pre-election verdict he has publicly requested, and that it is unlikely Stevens' team's other peremptory attempts to dismiss the case will see any more success than the ones put to rest today.

Speaking as a constitutional law student, my opinion is that Stevens' claim that portions of the prosecution's violate the speech or debate clause of the Constitution (designed to protect legislators from arrest or intimidation by the executive branch) stands on speciously-constructed legs. There's no clear indication that the evidence in question is directly pursuant to Stevens' legislative duties. Since the clause's aim is to protect legislators acting in their official capacity, it is doubtful it will apply to the predominantly extra-congressional dealings addressed in the indictment.

There are also polls to be discussed--among other things--but I'll be in Las Vegas for the weekend and may not be able to get to them before I leave.

Until then.