California Senator Yee Denies Gun-running Plot after FBI Sting

Inter Akyson

Chinatown gangsters, gun-smuggling, Muslim rebels in the Philippines and a shady character called "Shrimp Boy."

Oh, and envelopes full of cash from mobsters.

It may sound like the plot of a cable television mini-series, but FBI agents say it's the real tale of a California state senator willing to do nearly anything for campaign cash.

Appearing in a San Francisco federal courthouse on Tuesday, now-suspended senator Leland Yee pleaded not guilty to bribery and gun-running charges that could land him behind bars for life.

Yee is the highest-profile of 29 defendants ensnared in an FBI sting that initially targeted the gang underworld of San Francisco's Chinatown before taking a surprising detour into political corruption.

In addition to being accused of accepting cash for political favors, Yee -- a Democrat and a gun-control advocate -- is charged with plotting to smuggle guns from the Philippines.

A 137-page arrest warrant affidavit portrays Yee as desperate to pay down campaign debt.

That desperation allegedly led him to approach a man he believed to be a mafia member -- actually an undercover FBI agent -- with a surprising proposal: He could get the mobster guns from overseas.

At first Yee said the weapons would probably come from Russia, though he noted "the Muslim countries" were also a possible source, according to the FBI.

"Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money," he is quoted as telling the fake mafioso over coffee. "Do I think we can get the goods? I think we can get the goods."

Do I think he's dirty.  I think he's dirty.

But what I object to is the hypocritical pro-gun folks who adamantly defend gun misuse when committed by one of their own but were jubilant in condemning Senator Yee from the very moment the story broke. For this guy, there was no "innocent until proven guilty."

Soft on Criminals

via The High Definite. People accuse me of being soft on criminals, but even I draw the line at a certain point. Of course, he could be mentally ill and therefore not guilty of anything. I certainly wouldn't want him back on the streets, though.

O.J. Simpson Sentencing

The O.J. Simpson case, which we've discussed before is back in the news because the sentencing phase of the trial is here. CNN reports that O.J. could face as much as Life in prison or as little as 6 years.

Simpson could receive a maximum life sentence from Judge Jackie Glass on Friday. A pre-sentencing report recommended an 18-year sentence.

On October 3, a jury convicted Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart of 12 charges, including conspiracy to commit a crime, robbery, assault and kidnapping with a deadly weapon.

The question for me was whether or not the jury could render a fair verdict based only on the facts of this case and not influenced by Simpson's infamous past. Personally I don't think they did that. Now the question is can the sentencing be done fairly?

"There was overwhelming evidence at trial that Simpson's intent was to recover property that was his and only his," the lawyer argued. "The trial testimony showed Simpson's intent was to return anything that did not belong to him. This intention can be heard throughout the recordings of the Palace Station incident."

I believe that. Or, at least I believe that's reasonably possible, that reasonable doubt of his guilt exists. Yet, he was convicted. Of course not everyone sees it like I do. On the blog called Football news from a chick there's a fascinating post entitled How's that karma taste OJ? The Chick doesn't have much to say in the post, of course the title of it said enough. But, in the comments you get a pretty clear idea of what she and her friends think.

What is it with all this exaggerated vengeance talk? Aren't people concerned with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and due process? In cases like this, and even more so in some of the violent capital cases we discuss, people are crying out for vengeance even before the facts are known, in the spirit of "an eye for an eye." What kind of Justice is that?

What's your opinion? I say O.J. should receive a suspended sentence and if that's not possible, then he should get the minimum. What I predict will happen is he'll get 10 years or so and a year from now it'll be overturned in the Appellate Court and he'll get out.

What do you think?

O.J. Requests New Trial

CNN reports that the lawyers for O.J. have requested a new trial in Las Vegas.

Lawyers for O.J. Simpson have filed a motion for a new trial, saying he was denied a fair hearing when two African-Americans were dismissed from the potential jury pool.

An all white jury found Simpson guilty on October 3 on 12 counts related to a September 13, 2007, robbery involving sports memorabilia at a Las Vegas hotel.

I personally don't think it will help much. The all white jury was probably stacked against him, but would black jurors be likely to be more fair and impartial? I don't think so.

I'm afraid for The Juice, there's not much hope unless the appeals court can overturn the conviction. If they can see some breach in the fair processing, perhaps his time in jail will be cut short.

In my opinion, what happened 14 years ago should not enter into this. I believe, given the limited information I have, that he was railroaded this time. In America that's not supposed to happen.

Here's the take on it from an interesting site called OJTalk.com.

What's your opinion?