Comments on: Stadd found guilty

By: Kris Ringwood

Kris Ringwood — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:52:24 +0000

Sad. Once more the small fry are nailed while the big boys slip away scot-free. If the NASA Top Brass- Griffin especially – were investigated,as Stadd has obviously been, as to their close financial tie-in with ATK, the originator of the basic ARES 1& 5 concept, and how they made sure nobody else were able to compete on fair terms, NASA would at this moment be imploding.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:44:42 +0000

Iâ€™m pretty sure it was another DOJ that started the investigation in the first place.

Yes, no doubt. These things don’t happen overnight.

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:08:45 +0000

“I also have a feeling that if he had been a Democrat, this Justice Department might have been less interestedâ€¦”

Yes, another justice department may well have been happy to look the other way when it appeared that a law was being broken. But I’m pretty sure it was another DOJ that started the investigation in the first place.

Stadd is a sharp guy, and has been effective in the managerial overhaul of the agency (e.g. F2M). Let’s hope that his appeal is successful and, if not, his sentence is light.

By: common sense

common sense — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:17:40 +0000

“Just like the rest of us, Congressmen and their staff should be persecuted when they donâ€™t respect the language of the laws that they pass. ”

I am sure you meant prosecuted ah!

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:42:05 +0000

As a commenter wrote at my blog:

It just doesnâ€™t seem like Courtney. If only he had been a Member of Congress, he could have steered billions of dollars to anyone he wanted with impunityâ€¦

Two legs good, four legs bad... I also have a feeling that if he had been a Democrat, this Justice Department might have been less interested...

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:36:13 +0000

Although ignorance of the law is not a defense, even when directed by a superior and a U.S. Senator’s office to do something unlawful, there would seem to be a lot of mitigating factors in this case that should weigh in Mr. Stadd’s favor during sentencing and appeals. The only thing he really seems guilty of is using the situation as an argument after the fact to increase his compensation with Mississippi State U.

Per Griffin and Cleave’s testimony, the root of this problem lies with Senator Cochrane and/or his office. It appears that the earmark language called for a competition. If so, Cochrane’s chief of staff should not have told Griffin to steer the earmark money to Mississippi State U, contrary to the language passed by the Congress or the Senate Appropriations Committee. Logically, Cochrane and/or his chief of staff should also be facing DoJ charges (if the earmark was in legislative language) or a Congressional ethics review (if the earmark was in report language). Just like the rest of us, Congressmen and their staff should be persecuted when they don’t respect the language of the laws that they pass.

FWIW…