CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Aug. 15, 2008 – 12:53 p.m.
Government Documents Reveal More Evidence in Case Against Stevens
By Kathleen Hunter, CQ Staff
New allegations have surfaced against Sen. Ted Stevens , R-Alaska, due to stand trial in September on charges of hiding expensive gifts.
In a court filing, prosecutors say they plan to introduce evidence that Stevens received a $31,000 interest-free loan to help finance a Florida real estate transaction, but he failed to report it on his 2001 Senate financial disclosure forms. Prosecutors allege that Stevens eventually made more than $100,000 on the deal.
The government also plans to introduce evidence that Stevens asked Bill Allen, the former head of VECO Corp., an Alaska oil and gas company, to purchase a backup generator for his Girdwood, Alaska, home in 1999 and that Allen — with Stevens’ help — provided gifts to Stevens’ children and grandchildren.
Prosecutors also filed a motion aimed at curbing Stevens’ ability to claim protections under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which is intended to shield legislative activities from executive review. Another motion is aimed at excluding the prior criminal record of potential government witnesses.
Stevens, the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, is set to stand trial Sept. 24 in federal court on seven felony charges that he made false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms over a period of seven years.
The government motions were filed late Thursday.
Earlier, Stevens’ legal team asked a federal judge to consider three different constitutional arguments for throwing out the case against him.
The defense claims the charges run afoul of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause.
The indictment accuses Stevens of concealing gifts he received from VECO employees and alleges that VECO employees solicited Stevens for favors he could supply in his official capacity as a senator.
“These allegations apparently involve Sen. Stevens’ legislative actions, votes and decisions,” the defense lawyers wrote in a brief filed Thursday. “The indictment alleges a series of official acts that, on their face, appear to fall within the protections of the [‘speech or debate’] clause.”
In addition, Stevens’ lawyers argued that the indictment is based on privileged grand jury testimony of current and former staffers and that the staffers’ testimony should not have been allowed under the “speech or debate” clause.
Beyond the “speech or debate” clause, Stevens lawyers made two other constitutional arguments in motions filed Thursday: One motion argues that the indictment should be found invalid because it violates the “separation of powers” doctrine. The other says the indictment failed to provide adequate detail about what Stevens should have disclosed on the forms required of all members of Congress.
“Only the Senate may discipline a senator for violating the Senate’s rules, and Congress cannot delegate that authority to the executive branch,” Stevens’ attorneys wrote.
Government Documents Reveal More Evidence in Case Against Stevens
The indictment accuses Stevens of violating a law (PL 95-521), not a Senate rule.
The defense attorneys petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to throw out the case on each of those grounds.
Comments
Clearly the Republicans hubris, lack of morality and typically unethical behavior has turned them into the most corrupt party the country has ever known. They make third world countries look open and honest. Have they no shame?
All he has to do is say he is pro-life and pro-war and he could be re-elected. That is the sad state of the Republican party.
There's no doubt that Stevens' outrage about these charges is not "how could they accuse of me of doing something wrong" but rather "how dare they accuse me at all." He's like Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men, so convinced of his superior wisdom and power that he is above the standards that apply to mere mortals. I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the American political model when the Congressional seniority system, coupled with the ability of incumbents to dominate the political apparatus in small state, topped off by the right of small states to wield disproportianate influence in the Senate, creates such monstrosities as Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd. Human egotism being as it is, such long-time officeholders inevitably reach the point where they equate the good of their state with their own personal good, and frame attacks on themselves as attacks on their state ("L'etat, c'est moi!). Before long, their longevity itself becomes the justification for them remaining in office ("If I'm not re-elected, our state will lose its influence!"). If the Senators from the 26 states with the lowest populations were to vote together against all the rest, the Senate representatives of 19% of the American population could outweigh the other 81%. This gives an idea of the damage that a Ted Stevens can do, lasting for decades. There is no greater argument for term limits than Ted Stevens.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: