Possibility in Alaska...

[Sam Spade]

Sadly, the old fart may not be dead yet (figuratively, not literally). 

Apparently, his lawyers got a trial date of September 24 (which is amazingly quick in my book), which means that a verdict (unless we get multiple adjournments) should occur before the November election.  The DOJ says their evidence is strong, but we'll only know come trial time.

There are more implications here than you might think - a guilty verdict a week or two before could well hurt Congressional Republicans generally, whereas an innocent verdict at that time could throw that whole race into a big state of unknown.

Probably also means he's not interested in dropping out.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Stevens_Trial_date_very_encouraging.html

[Keystone Phil]

Burns also would have won if not for:
1. The NRSC giving up on him instead of DeWine and Santorum for Heaven's sake.

It's good to show some loyalty to even the most doomed incumbents. How about the NRSC's brilliant leader insisting on Michigan being the upset special of 2006? That's where the money should have been taken from.

[MarkWarner08]

Sadly, the old fart may not be dead yet (figuratively, not literally). 

Apparently, his lawyers got a trial date of September 24 (which is amazingly quick in my book), which means that a verdict (unless we get multiple adjournments) should occur before the November election.  The DOJ says their evidence is strong, but we'll only know come trial time.

There are more implications here than you might think - a guilty verdict a week or two before could well hurt Congressional Republicans generally, whereas an innocent verdict at that time could throw that whole race into a big state of unknown.

Probably also means he's not interested in dropping out.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Stevens_Trial_date_very_encouraging.html

Smart move. If Stevens is truly guilty, he'll lose the case in October or December. If he's innocent, a December or later exoneration would do nothing for his political career. Now he has a viable path to electoral victory.

[Sam Spade]

Sadly, the old fart may not be dead yet (figuratively, not literally). 

Apparently, his lawyers got a trial date of September 24 (which is amazingly quick in my book), which means that a verdict (unless we get multiple adjournments) should occur before the November election.  The DOJ says their evidence is strong, but we'll only know come trial time.

There are more implications here than you might think - a guilty verdict a week or two before could well hurt Congressional Republicans generally, whereas an innocent verdict at that time could throw that whole race into a big state of unknown.

Probably also means he's not interested in dropping out.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Stevens_Trial_date_very_encouraging.html

Smart move. If Stevens is truly guilty, he'll lose the case in October or December. If he's innocent, a December or later exoneration would do nothing for his political career. Now he has a viable path to electoral victory.

I think it's a fair assumption to make that this race may, in the end, depend on the outcome of that case.  Scary.

[MarkWarner08]

Sadly, the old fart may not be dead yet (figuratively, not literally). 

Apparently, his lawyers got a trial date of September 24 (which is amazingly quick in my book), which means that a verdict (unless we get multiple adjournments) should occur before the November election.  The DOJ says their evidence is strong, but we'll only know come trial time.

There are more implications here than you might think - a guilty verdict a week or two before could well hurt Congressional Republicans generally, whereas an innocent verdict at that time could throw that whole race into a big state of unknown.

Probably also means he's not interested in dropping out.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Stevens_Trial_date_very_encouraging.html

Smart move. If Stevens is truly guilty, he'll lose the case in October or December. If he's innocent, a December or later exoneration would do nothing for his political career. Now he has a viable path to electoral victory.

I think it's a fair assumption to make that this race may, in the end, depend on the outcome of that case.  Scary.

What if the government loses its case? Liberal conspiracy theorists will claim Karl Rove was somehow involved with that outcome. After the Goodling and U.S Attorneys scandals, the DoJ can't afford anymore political scandals besmirching its reputation.

[Sam Spade]

Sadly, the old fart may not be dead yet (figuratively, not literally). 

Apparently, his lawyers got a trial date of September 24 (which is amazingly quick in my book), which means that a verdict (unless we get multiple adjournments) should occur before the November election.  The DOJ says their evidence is strong, but we'll only know come trial time.

There are more implications here than you might think - a guilty verdict a week or two before could well hurt Congressional Republicans generally, whereas an innocent verdict at that time could throw that whole race into a big state of unknown.

Probably also means he's not interested in dropping out.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Stevens_Trial_date_very_encouraging.html

Smart move. If Stevens is truly guilty, he'll lose the case in October or December. If he's innocent, a December or later exoneration would do nothing for his political career. Now he has a viable path to electoral victory.

I think it's a fair assumption to make that this race may, in the end, depend on the outcome of that case.  Scary.

What if the government loses its case? Liberal conspiracy theorists will claim Karl Rove was somehow involved with that outcome. After the Goodling and U.S Attorneys scandals, the DoJ can't afford anymore political scandals besmirching its reputation.

That would kinda funny, actually.  We'll find out soon enough.

[Хahar 🤔]

If he loses, it could wind up being a big millstone around his neck.

[HardRCafé]

It's good to show some loyalty to even the most doomed incumbents. How about the NRSC's brilliant leader insisting on Michigan being the upset special of 2006? That's where the money should have been taken from.

Didn't Casey and Stabenow win by the same margin?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It's good to show some loyalty to even the most doomed incumbents. How about the NRSC's brilliant leader insisting on Michigan being the upset special of 2006? That's where the money should have been taken from.

Didn't Casey and Stabenow win by the same margin?

57%–41% in MI; 59%–41% in PA.

[HardRCafé]

So, it actually made more sense to fund Bouchard than Santorum.

[Flying Dog]

So, it actually made more sense to fund Bouchard than Santorum.

If we could look into the future with our magic binoculars, yes.

[Keystone Phil]

So, it actually made more sense to fund Bouchard than Santorum.

As I stated, it makes more sense to show loyalty to an incumbent in leadership than some county sheriff that was only hyped by the NRSC chairwoman.

I know it's more fun to make fun of the Santorum race, though, so you win!

[HardRCafé]

As I stated, it makes more sense to show loyalty to an incumbent in leadership than some county sheriff that was only hyped by the NRSC chairwoman.

It makes even more sense to show loyalty to incumbents who are not trailing by double digits (Allen, Burns, Talent).

[Keystone Phil]

As I stated, it makes more sense to show loyalty to an incumbent in leadership than some county sheriff that was only hyped by the NRSC chairwoman.

It makes even more sense to show loyalty to incumbents who are not trailing by double digits (Allen, Burns, Talent).

So, again, take money from the MI race and we still have the Senate and showed some appreciation for a guy that put his neck on the line for the party plenty of times. Downside - we upset some county sheriff in MI.

[minionofmidas]

Spending on either race (besides a bare minimum that should be spent on all races except those where the party really can't endorse the nominee, like Kelleher in MT) was just throwing good money after bad.

[Sam Spade]

Stevens seeks "change of venue" to Alaska

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/Stevens_formally_seeks_change_of_venue_for_corruption_trial.html?showall

Attorneys for indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) formally filed a motion today to move his upcoming corruption trial to Alaska, arguing that the "center of gravity" of the case is in Alaska, not Washington, D.C., where Stevens was charged.

Stevens was indicted last week by a federal grand jury in Washington for failing to dislcose more than $250,000 in gifts that he had received from oil services company VECO Corp., as well as its former CEO Bill Allen, most notably extensive renovations on Stevens' home in Girdwood, Alaska. Stevens has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, and he asked for a speedy trial.

But if Stevens' legal team, led by Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, pursues a lengthy legal battle over venue, it could drag his trial beyond Election Day. Stevens was first appointed to the Senate in 1968, and he is seeking re-election to a sixth full term as a senator.

Although Senator Stevens’s public representation requires him to spend time in  both Alaska and the District of Columbia, he has been a legal resident of Alaska for more than fifty years. Presently, Senator Stevens is in the middle of a reelection campaign, and he is required to spend much of his time in his home state of Alaska," Stevens' attorneys wrote. "he Senate is currently in recess until September and intends to adjourn again in late September for the general election...This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer."

They added: "Moreover, Senator Stevens’s residence in Alaska is the focus of the indictment.
The value of renovations to his Girdwood residence is central to both the government’s case and the Senator’s defense. To assist the jury in understanding these renovations, Senator Stevens intends to request that the Court permit a jury visit to his Girdwood residence – an option that obviously would not be convenient for a Washington, D.C. jury.  Moreover, it makes little sense to hold this trial over 3,000 miles from the renovations (the value of which is clearly in dispute) that lie at the heart of this case."

The defense also points out that most of the potential witnesses in the case, both for the Justice Department and on Stevens' behalf, live in Alaska.

Another central argument in the 20-page motion is the fact that Stevens' trial is scheduled to start on Sept. 24, meaning it will take place during the middle of the Alaska Republican's re-election campaign. Moving the trial to Alaska would allow Stevens to campaign at night and on weekends, his lawyers argued.

"This Court agreed to an expedited trial schedule that gives the Senator the chance
to clear his name before voters go to the polls in the general election on November 4, 2008.
Unfortunately, no matter the outcome of this trial, this schedule alone may not be enough to
ensure that Senator Stevens has the ability to compete meaningfully in the upcoming election," the attorneys wrote.

"The Court has scheduled this trial to begin on September 24, 2008, with the government representing that it estimates that it will need three weeks to make its case. The defense estimates that it will need one week. The jury could be expected to get this case on or
about October 22, a mere two weeks before the general election. Senator Stevens must be able to campaign, albeit limitedly, during the trial. Were venue transferred to Alaska, Senator
Stevens would have the opportunity to campaign in the evenings and on weekends during the
trial."

Sullivan also revealed that Stevens will soon hire an Alaska-based attorney to help with the defense case.

[Torie]

Didn't Stevens file the false report in DC? 

[Sam Spade]

Didn't Stevens file the false report in DC? 

I dunno.  I haven't been following the case "that" closely.