PDA

View Full Version : Longest serving senator, Alaskan Republican, indicted on multiple corruption charges.



Ashliana
07-29-2008, 03:56 PM
WASHINGTON — Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest-serving Republican senator in United States history and a figure of great influence in Washington as well as in his home state, has been indicted on federal corruption charges.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska in Washington last year.

Related
Times Topics: Ted Stevens

Al Grillo/Associated Press
The authorities at the Stevens home in Girdwood, Alaska.
Mr. Stevens, 84, was indicted on seven counts of failing to report income. The charges are related to renovations on his home and to gifts he has received. They arise from an investigation that has been under way for more than a year, in connection with the senator’s relationship with a businessman who oversaw the home-remodeling project.

The indictment will surely reverberate through the November elections. Mr. Stevens, who has been in the Senate for 40 years, is up for re-election this year. Mark Begich, a popular Democratic mayor of Anchorage, hopes to supplant him.

The Justice Department announced the charges at a news conference Tuesday afternoon. The document says that, from the spring of 1999 through the late summer of 2007, Mr. Stevens failed to report “things of value” that he received in connection with his home in the ski resort city of Girdwood, about 40 miles south of Anchorage.

Prosecutors say Mr. Stevens, who referred to his home as “the chalet,” accepted goods and services worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, ranging from an outdoor grill to extensive home remodeling and architectural advice. Not only did Mr. Stevens fail to report the items on his Senate financial disclosure form, as required, but he took active steps to conceal the receipt of the goods and services, the indictment says.

All the charges are felonies. Justice Department officials declined to discuss how long a prison term a conviction on the charges might bring, noting that the maximum sentences allowed by law are rarely imposed. Mr. Stevens was in Washington on Tuesday, and was allowed to turn himself in for paperwork processing.

The business executive at the center of the affair is Bill J. Allen, a longtime friend of the senator’s and the founder of VECO, a company that builds pipelines and does other construction work for oil companies. Mr. Allen pleaded guilty in May 2007 to making $243,000 in illegal payments to a lawmaker, who was later identified as State Senator Ben Stevens, Ted Stevens’s son.

Ben Stevens, who was once president of the Alaska State Senate, is one of a half-dozen lawmakers under scrutiny for their relationships with Mr. Allen and his company.

Republicans on Capitol Hill were already jittery over a lobbying and influence-peddling scandal related to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is now in prison. Mr. Stevens’s troubles are not linked to that affair. Instead, they stem from his ties to an oil executive whose company won millions of dollars in federal contracts with the help of Mr. Stevens, whose home in Alaska was almost doubled in size in the renovation project.

Under Senate Republican party rules, an indictment on felony charges compels a member to temporarily give up his leadership posts, and Republican senators were told at their weekly luncheon on Tuesday that Mr. Stevens would do so. Mr. Stevens has been the ranking minority member on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

Mr. Stevens is a former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and he is still on the panel. As chairman, he wielded huge influence, and did not hesitate to use it to steer money and projects to his state.

“No other senator fills so central a place in his state’s public and economic life as Ted Stevens of Alaska,” the Almanac of American Politics says. “Quite possibly, no other senator ever has.”

Mr. Stevens, one of only a handful of World War II veterans left in the Senate, grew up in Indiana and California and moved to Alaska in 1950, before it was a state, according to the political almanac. He first ran for the Senate in 1962, losing to Ernest Gruening, a Democrat. He was appointed to fill a vacant seat in the Senate in 1968 by the governor at the time, Walter Hickel, and has been re-elected six times since then.

Word spread through the Capitol like an electric current, prompting whispers among senators and staff. The Democrats were gathering in a room near the Senate chamber for their weekly conference lunch. Republicans, meanwhile, moved their lunch to the headquarters of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, a common change of venue when the primary topic of discussion is politics.

Mr. Stevens is seen as a legendary, even heroic, figure in Alaska, who played a crucial role in its achievement of statehood, which became official in 1959. According to Senate Republican rules, Mr. Stevens will have to give up his leadership positions, which include some hugely powerful posts, as the senior Republican on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the defense appropriations subcommittee.

The long-running federal corruption investigation in Alaska has been hanging over Mr. Stevens as he faces his toughest re-election contest in many years. Mr. Begich was expected to mount a strong challenge even before word of the indictment spread.

Alaska, which last elected a Democratic senator in 1974, is one of several seemingly unlikely states where Democrats believe they have a strong chance of pulling off upset victories in the November elections.

The indictment comes nearly a year after federal agents raided Mr. Stevens’s home as part of a continuing investigation into corruption that had already ensnared the senator’s son.

Though lawmakers have been aware of the Justice Department inquiry for some time, the news of an indictment still came as something of a shock this week, as both houses of Congress are trying to wrap up legislative business before the monthlong August recess.

Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, who is the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee and a friend of Mr. Stevens, said Mr. Stevens should be presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty.Mr. Inouye said he did not expect that the indictment would interfere with Senator Stevens’s ability to work in the Senate.

Other lawmakers, including Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, the chairwoman of the ethics committee, said they needed to know more about the indictment before commenting.

This guy's been a big proponent of drilling in ANWR, logging of Alaska's forests and favors network neutrality (and famously described the Internet as a "series of tubes").

Any thoughts? Another blow to the Republican party and another addition to the so-called "culture of corruption"--especially considering he's the longest serving Republican senator, and the corruption charges involve an oil services company.

BigWorm
07-29-2008, 04:00 PM
Damn, you just beat me to it. Fucking work meetings...

I liked Slashdot's headline: Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens Is Indicted

They also provided a link to an Alaskan paper (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/112569) that describes the investigation in an in depth manner that was pretty interesting.

Gan
07-29-2008, 04:01 PM
Very interesting.

Parkbandit
07-29-2008, 04:05 PM
This guy's been a big proponent of drilling in ANWR, logging of Alaska's forests and favors network neutrality (and famously described the Internet as a "series of tubes").

Any thoughts? Another blow to the Republican party and another addition to the so-called "culture of corruption"--especially considering he's the longest serving Republican senator, and the corruption charges involve an oil services company.


If this was a Democrat, would you have brought it up? If this was a Democrat, would you have tried to use your cute saying "Culture of corruption"?

For every corrupt Republican, there's a corrupt Democrat. Politicians are scumbags. The only thing worse in my book is a lawyer.. and the lawyers who turn politicians are the worse.

If these charges are true, throw the book at him imo.

NocturnalRob
07-29-2008, 04:08 PM
found his replacement:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/28/ap/strange/main4300438.shtml

BigWorm
07-29-2008, 04:13 PM
If this was a Democrat, would you have brought it up? If this was a Democrat, would you have tried to use your cute saying "Culture of corruption"?

For every corrupt Republican, there's a corrupt Democrat. Politicians are scumbags. The only thing worse in my book is a lawyer.. and the lawyers who turn politicians are the worse.

If these charges are true, throw the book at him imo.

Source? Other than William Jeffs most of the corrupt politicians brought to light recently have been on the R-team. The Abramoff scandal alone puts the Republicans way ahead of the Democrats. I'm not saying the Democrats are all clean, but there have definitely been more Republicans in trouble than Democrats.

Renian
07-29-2008, 05:10 PM
If these charges are true, throw the book at him imo.

That's all you needed to say.

crb
07-29-2008, 05:22 PM
Source? Other than William Jeffs most of the corrupt politicians brought to light recently have been on the R-team. The Abramoff scandal alone puts the Republicans way ahead of the Democrats. I'm not saying the Democrats are all clean, but there have definitely been more Republicans in trouble than Democrats.
... like Bill Clinton for instance....

Anyways... This guy was a giant douche, I'm glad he's out. Fucking pork barrel spending bastard.

BigWorm
07-29-2008, 05:26 PM
... like Bill Clinton for instance....

Anyways... This guy was a giant douche, I'm glad he's out. Fucking pork barrel spending bastard.

Okay, does a Gingrich, Foley, and Craig combo offset Clinton?

crb
07-29-2008, 05:26 PM
This guy's been a big proponent of drilling in ANWR, logging of Alaska's forests and favors network neutrality (and famously described the Internet as a "series of tubes").

Any thoughts? Another blow to the Republican party and another addition to the so-called "culture of corruption"--especially considering he's the longest serving Republican senator, and the corruption charges involve an oil services company.
Hmm... the longest serving Democratic Senator has such a good reputation too. I mean, with the Klan background and all that. His party must be so proud of him.

(and, he's as big a fucking pork barrel spender too).

crb
07-29-2008, 05:37 PM
Okay, does a Gingrich, Foley, and Craig combo offset Clinton?
What is corrupt about those three?

One guy was homosexual and hid it, and sent inappropriate, but not criminal, messages to teenage (but above the age of consent) boys. Unsavory sure, but he didn't you know, sell out his country to foreigners. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha#Abscam_investigation)

One guy tapped his foot in a bathroom. Fuck, Larry Craig got railroaded you gotta admit that. So the accusation again is that he's gay? Not exactly the same as grabbing land in Utah to benefit an Indonesian mining conglomerate donor (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/724170/posts).

Gingrich can probably weighed against Charlie Rangel or one of Clinton's various other transgressions. Maybe even Robert Wexler's new problem (which might end up with criminal tax evasion proceedings).

Warriorbird
07-29-2008, 05:43 PM
The power of rationalization is intense. At least you can sort of understand PB's position on this.

Here's another one for you...

...how about leaving your disabled wife and three children for the 25 year old heiress you've been having an affair with?

Then you can campaign on 'family values.'

Oh wait. He isn't President yet.

Politicians are crooked.

crb
07-29-2008, 05:49 PM
I don't have a problem with the sex lives of politicians. I don't care about monica lewinski, even though it happened in the Oval Office, I really don't care about something John McCain may or may not have done 25 years ago.

I wouldn't call that corruption...

I define corruption as:

1. Letting your vote be bought
2. Treason
3. Abusing your power to gain favors, or to reward friends

Something... you know... directly in conflict with your job description. Not something in your personal life.

Stanley Burrell
07-29-2008, 06:02 PM
I don't have a problem with the sex lives of politicians. I don't care about monica lewinski, even though it happened in the Oval Office, I really don't care about something John McCain may or may not have done 25 years ago.

I wouldn't call that corruption...

I define corruption as:

1. Letting your vote be bought
2. Treason
3. Abusing your power to gain favors, or to reward friends

Something... you know... directly in conflict with your job description. Not something in your personal life.


When you expose the identity of Intelligence operatives because they might present information that happens to be actual proof as to why a country isn't enriching uranium, ultimately cause said intelligence operatives' HQ C.E.O. to resign and do it on the taxpayers' $$$$ (let's discard any notions of subsequent war thereafter: That everyone was virtuous and law-abiding up to that point), you've done a bit more than assign treason associated by getting head. In my humbly correct opinion.

Edited to Add: I think you do care, despite your claims not to. It is unbelievably difficult to capitalize the word "Oval Office" and John McCain and omit grammar from Monica Lewinski based on the sole assumption that you don't care. I am not being pedantic. I think you don't care as much as when ParkBandit is attempting to pretend to act to believe that he is biased towards conservatives, but that it's a reasonably close amount of faux congeniality.

I'd be much more satisfied with honesty.

Tsa`ah
07-29-2008, 06:08 PM
The bigger story is that this will likely result in one less republican seat in an election where they can't afford to lose any.

The Dems are another step closer to booting Lieberman without fear of him voting against Dem proposed legislation.

Parkbandit
07-29-2008, 07:10 PM
The Dems are another step closer to booting Lieberman without fear of him voting against Dem proposed legislation.

Yea.. I heard the same thing.. right before Lieberman beat the Democrat for the seat in the Senate.

crb
07-29-2008, 07:57 PM
When you expose the identity of Intelligence operatives because they might present information that happens to be actual proof as to why a country isn't enriching uranium, ultimately cause said intelligence operatives' HQ C.E.O. to resign and do it on the taxpayers' $$$$ (let's discard any notions of subsequent war thereafter: That everyone was virtuous and law-abiding up to that point), you've done a bit more than assign treason associated by getting head. In my humbly correct opinion.

Edited to Add: I think you do care, despite your claims not to. It is unbelievably difficult to capitalize the word "Oval Office" and John McCain and omit grammar from Monica Lewinski based on the sole assumption that you don't care. I am not being pedantic. I think you don't care as much as when ParkBandit is attempting to pretend to act to believe that he is biased towards conservatives, but that it's a reasonably close amount of faux congeniality.

I'd be much more satisfied with honesty.
I don't proofread my posts. So read into my grammar what you like.

And really, I don't care. I consider myself libertarian remember, I'm not some christian conservative.

I hate Bill Clinton for not pursuing Osama, for that Utah land grab, for whitewater, for his last day pardons, and I suspect if his library donors were made public we'd find more conflicts of interest. But I don't give a fuck that he got a hummer at the president's desk.

Now... analyze for me my motivation in capitalizing or not certain words in this post....

Back
07-29-2008, 08:05 PM
But I don't give a fuck that he got a hummer at the president's desk.

That definitely sets you apart from the moral majority.

PS. I use italics for the emphasis of a point. Not to indicate to the completely oblivious that my intent is sarchasm.

PPS. sarchasm = the gulf between those who use it and those who don’t get it

Stanley Burrell
07-29-2008, 11:04 PM
I don't proofread my posts. So read into my grammar what you like.

And really, I don't care. I consider myself libertarian remember, I'm not some christian conservative.

I hate Bill Clinton for not pursuing Osama, for that Utah land grab, for whitewater, for his last day pardons, and I suspect if his library donors were made public we'd find more conflicts of interest. But I don't give a fuck that he got a hummer at the president's desk.

Now... analyze for me my motivation in capitalizing or not certain words in this post....

I guess I was over-analyzing you, my bad.

Tsa`ah
07-30-2008, 12:24 PM
Yea.. I heard the same thing.. right before Lieberman beat the Democrat for the seat in the Senate.

I take it that you're not aware that Lieberman still caucuses with the Dems and also holds a chairmanship.

That was the point that flew right over your head.

Parkbandit
07-30-2008, 12:27 PM
I take it that you're not aware that Lieberman still caucuses with the Dems and also holds a chairmanship.

That was the point that flew right over your head.

Well aware.

The point that flew right over your head was that you are predicting the demise of Lieberman.. much like the 2006 election when he went with an (I) behind his name.

Tsa`ah
07-30-2008, 12:46 PM
Well aware.

The point that flew right over your head was that you are predicting the demise of Lieberman.. much like the 2006 election when he went with an (I) behind his name.

Are you impaired in some way that we should know about?

I'm not predicting the demise of Lieberman. I'm predicting the potential for the GOP to lose more seats than they can afford to and one of the results will be the Dems giving Lieberman the boot and not having to worry about which way he'll cast his vote.

What fucking retard can't understand that. EVERYONE KNOWS HE'S A FUCKING INDEPENDENT.

ClydeR
07-30-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm confused by this indictment. If you watch the mainstream media, you get the impression that Stevens is being charged with accepting bribery. But it looks like Stevens isn't being charged with bribery. The charge is that he failed to report the "gifts," which were remodeling work to his home, on Senate disclosure forms.

I think the Justice Department is just prosecuting Stevens because he embarrassed Bush on the "bridge to nowhere." It's no secret that the Justice Department has in recent years become political in its actions.

Warriorbird
07-30-2008, 06:34 PM
It's funny. Why don't you hate Bush for not pursuing Osama, crb?

Tisket
07-31-2008, 01:37 AM
I'm confused by this indictment. If you watch the mainstream media, you get the impression that Stevens is being charged with accepting bribery. But it looks like Stevens isn't being charged with bribery. The charge is that he failed to report the "gifts," which were remodeling work to his home, on Senate disclosure forms.



The guy is 84. Jesus, I think he just wadded up the cash, stuffed it in his Depends, and forgot about it.

crb
07-31-2008, 11:07 AM
It's funny. Why don't you hate Bush for not pursuing Osama, crb?
Clinton had the opportunity to take out Osama and he didn't.

Bush HAS been trying to get him. I know you'll bring up Iraq, as you perpetually do, and say he should focused on Afganistan instead, but unsuccessful tactics != not trying.

After the embassy bombings clinton should have took the fight to Al Qaeda, instead he sent a few cruise missiles to suspected camps, probably merely so he didn't look politically weak.

Kembal
07-31-2008, 07:23 PM
I'm confused by this indictment. If you watch the mainstream media, you get the impression that Stevens is being charged with accepting bribery. But it looks like Stevens isn't being charged with bribery. The charge is that he failed to report the "gifts," which were remodeling work to his home, on Senate disclosure forms.

I think the Justice Department is just prosecuting Stevens because he embarrassed Bush on the "bridge to nowhere." It's no secret that the Justice Department has in recent years become political in its actions.

It's basically bribery. Due to the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause, legislative actions on a chamber's floor are possibly consitutionally protected, even if the result of a bribe. (Rep. William Jefferson is fighting his indictment on that basis) The Justice Dept. didn't want to take the chance of these charges getting thrown out, since the Jefferson case is ongoing (and they've already lost one round of motions in the case in regards to the raid on his office), so they went after him on the forms instead.

ClydeR
07-31-2008, 08:16 PM
It's basically bribery. Due to the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause, legislative actions on a chamber's floor are possibly consitutionally protected, even if the result of a bribe. (Rep. William Jefferson is fighting his indictment on that basis) The Justice Dept. didn't want to take the chance of these charges getting thrown out, since the Jefferson case is ongoing (and they've already lost one round of motions in the case in regards to the raid on his office), so they went after him on the forms instead.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that it's unconstitutional to punish a Senator for taking a bribe? All you can do if punish him if he fails to report taking the bribe, but if he does report it, then it's all legal?

Kembal
07-31-2008, 10:29 PM
Wait a minute. Are you saying that it's unconstitutional to punish a Senator for taking a bribe? All you can do if punish him if he fails to report taking the bribe, but if he does report it, then it's all legal?

Specifically, to take a bribe for doing a legislative action. That's what Rep. Jefferson is arguing. And since he got the search of his office thrown out (at least, I think so), the DoJ isn't taking any chances with the Stevens case.

And yes, I know it sounds insane. I'm not sure it'll survive going to the Supreme Court. But until then, the DoJ is playing this correctly.