CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS
Updated April 1, 2009 – 7:15 p.m.
Senators Relieved to See Stevens Case Dismissed
By CQ Staff
Senators who served with Alaska Republican Ted Stevens, as well as the man who beat him in November, voiced relief Wednesday at the Justice Department’s decision to throw out the case against him.
But several assailed the botched handling of the case and said it might require Congress to exercise greater oversight of the Justice Department.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska, said she was pleased the charges against her former colleague would be dropped, “but I am deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man’s career and then say ‘never mind.’ There is nothing that will ever compensate for the loss of his reputation or leadership to the State of Alaska.”
Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, the Democrat who narrowly defeated Stevens, said he agreed with the move by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to dismiss the case.
“The decision by President Obama’s Justice Department to end the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens is reasonable,” Begich said. “I always said I didn’t think Senator Stevens should serve time in jail and hopefully this decision ensures that is the case. It’s time for Senator Stevens, his family and Alaskans to move on and put this behind us.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., said Stevens and his family would be relieved by the decision. But he voiced some frustration that the case had cost his party a seat in an election that closely followed the jury’s Oct. 27 conviction.
“It was disappointing to lose the seat, no question about it,” McConnell said. “Also no question that if this decision had been made last year he’d still be in the Senate.”
Sen. Robert F. Bennett , R-Utah, said he was reminded of a comment that former Labor Secretary Roy Donovan made after he was acquitted in 1987 of corruption-related charges, Donovan famously asked, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”
“It was the same kind of a deal, something of a witch-hunt,” Bennett said. “I am delighted for Sen. Stevens and for his wife. I’m outraged that the Justice Department allowed rogue prosecutors to go down this road in the first place.
When asked what he made of the fact that the Democratic Obama administration sought to dismiss the charges, which were brought under the Republican Bush administration, Bennett responded, “I wonder why the previous attorney general wasn’t as smart as Mr. Holder.”
Sen. John Cornyn , a Texas Republican who was a state attorney general, said there is little recourse to remedy how Stevens has already been punished with the loss of a Senate seat and the cost of mounting his defense.
“He’s already been punished pretty significantly. When you think about all the attorneys’ fees he now owes, it’s pretty sad,” Cornyn said. “I don’t think it’s just out of the kindness of the attorney general’s heart. He was offended by the prosecutorial misconduct. I applaud him for sending a message that that kind of misconduct will not be tolerated.”
Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., another longtime Stevens colleague, said, “This is great news for Sen. Stevens and his family.”
McCain, who was running for president when the conviction was handed down, and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , were among the first to call on Stevens to resign following the conviction.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said he was satisfied with Holder’s decision to seek dismissal of the case. “Ted Stevens is 85 years old,” Reid said. “He’s already been punished enough.”
Questioning the Dismissal
Legal experts meanwhile said Holder’s move obscured concerns about how the case was handled by his department.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has monitored the case, criticized Holder for not saying definitely whether further action would be taken against the prosecutors for the alleged misconduct.
“This is a case of the criminal going free because the constable blundered,” Turley said. “To say that this is vindication is perfectly bizarre. The trial showed ample evidence to support these charges.”
In essence, the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute the case gave Stevens “a get-out-of-jail free card,” Turley said, adding that it was likely a jury would have convicted Stevens even without the evidence that defense attorneys have called into question.
“The Justice Department didn’t come to this moral epiphany until after countless hearings ... The expectation is that the court was very close to taking serious action,” Turley said.
J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, said Holder’s decision not to pursue a new trial was “such an extreme measure that it warrants additional explanation.”
“We also need more from the attorney general than what we have received thus far,” Hebert said. “We need his assurances that the public integrity section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division is now being supervised to a degree that pending investigations ... are not at risk of being thrown out for similar prosecutorial misconduct.”
Committee Review?
Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter , the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last week that the Justice Department’s handling of the Stevens case “may be a matter for oversight by this committee when the case is finished, or perhaps even sooner.”
Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney, raised the case, and the allegations of government misconduct, at the committee’s March 25 FBI oversight hearing.
“As a district attorney, I saw many young prosecutors cut corners looking for big targets, publicity, high profile cases, and the prosecutors have to be quasi-judicial and not do that, and that applies to the FBI agents,” Specter said.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III declined to address the allegations specifically at the March 25 hearing, because they were still being reviewed by the court and by the Justice Department. But he assured Specter that senior department officials sign off on such prosecutions.
“(In) a public corruption case, particularly a serious public corruption case, the decision whether or not to take action is overseen by a number of people at levels, whether it be the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division, the deputy attorney general, ultimately, the attorney general, to assure that the case is appropriately brought,” Mueller said.
Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he would meet with Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Specter to see whether the case warrants greater oversight of the Justice Department.
“It just demonstrates the incredible power prosecutors have under our system,” Cornyn said. “It just seems like a tragedy all the way around.”
The committee approved legislation (
Keith Perine and Bart Jansen contributed to this story.
First posted April 1, 2009 10:29 a.m.
Comments
I'm so tired of people being let off the hook because they're "connected." I never had such luck so, personally, for the crimes these guys commit I'd say lock 'em up for life.
There is a huge difference between having charges or a conviction dismissed and being found innocent. The wiretaps of his conversations tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth! Crook, crooks and crooked!
It's interesting to watch Republicans on one hand say Stevens' case should be dismissed "because he's suffered enough" (presumably meaning his loss of office and reputation), and on the other hand say a special election should be held in Alaska to give him a chance to win it back. Gotta give them credit for a slick move, playing it both ways!
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: