GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

27 10 2008

We heard the verdict was in.  I ran over to the court house.  Stevens was already in the “House” camera crews reported to me.  Thinking that not many would know, I tried to get into the courtroom - but was sent to the overflow room.  Usually down the hall, but this time 2 floors down.  Rushed to find it.  Surprisingly? or Planned - this overflow room only had audio - so I was unable to see Uncle Ted’s tie or expression.

Judge Sullivan was on Count number 3 do you find the defendent not-guilty or guilty?  GUILTY - this was repeated for each count and all counts.  The Judge then asked each juror to confirm that they agreed with the verdicts.  They did. 

The overflow room was filled with suits (except for a colleague I spotted from Taxpayers for Common Sense) and family of Stevens.  They were visibly upset.  Some folks walked in late - what was the verdict they asked?  Guilty.  They were shocked.

So now the question remains - will the good people of Alaska re-elect a convicted Senator?  You never know - it is the last Frontier.

Cindy


Comments : No Comments »

Categories : Live Blogging

While the Jury Deliberates…

27 10 2008

We’ve read a lot lately, on this blog and in seemingly every other form of media, about the hijacking of American politics.  Increasingly we find ourselves staring our political process in the face and wondering precisely where it went haywire.  Truth is our politicians have a long and proud history of greed, corruption, philandering and general repulsiveness.  Congress seems to be composed of me-first bottom dwellers, more interested in reelection than reform; chained by an endless stream of corporate contributions to the status quo of failure and excuse-mongering. 

Make no mistake about it; the American people are paying attention.  They have their hands on the proverbial wheel, and the turn signal is blinking.  Congress has managed to achieve lower approval ratings than even Richard Nixon; in fact, the most productive thing they could do was to go home.  Incumbents are in more trouble than at any time in recent memory, and as we trudge to the polls in less than two weeks, we will know one thing for certain, and that one thing stems beyond ideology: the system is failing those on whose behalf it is supposed to work. 

We’ve got politicians who were caught red-handed with cash in the freezer, politicians that get busted in sex stings, and politicians who don’t feel the need to pay their taxes.  We’ve got politicians who come to Washington with Big Oil’s slick money in their back pocket, or maybe their particular wad of cash is from the trial attorneys, or the pharmaceutical companies, or the insurance industry; they can pick and choose like hogs at the PAC trough, where the dollars just keep coming.  Can we expect meaningful progress on anything from a Congress that has been bought and sold by corporations with a vested interest in permanent stagnancy?      

Ted Stevens, while representing The Last Frontier, has explored new frontiers of depravity.  In this regard, he is quite at home amongst his friends in Congress.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Ted Stevens trial is a symptom of a much larger problem; one that is potentially terminal to the American dream.  In the name of the First Amendment we’ve sold our political process to the highest bidder, and in the process we’ve put a price tag on Free Speech.

Anonymous


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : ,
Categories : Live Blogging

This marks the end of a long road for all of us.

22 10 2008

Well, the prosecution has rested and the fate of Senior Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska is in the hands of 12 upstanding Washington, DC citizens.  After taking an informal poll of my colleagues to determine if Ted is going to get the book, AWPF has come up with a resounding – maybe….

Brenda Morris’s closing rebuttal was, again, not something that is going to be repeated verbatim on next week’s Boston Legal, but it got the job done.  She did another run through of the key evidence: The massage chair that Ted loved but didn’t use and didn’t ask for; the notes on Veco stationary; the bill with “’labor paid by Bill” written on it that was sent to both Ted and Bill and that Bob Persons was tape recorded saying he wanted to somehow make go away; the thank you note from Ted sent to Veco; the myriad of e-mails to Ted and not Catherine, who was supposed to be handling the renovation project.  Etc., etc.

But the most compelling were a few key arguments.  In sum:

If you have items sitting in your house, that someone else paid for, and that you never gave them any money for, and that you never give back - that’s a gift, not a loan.  And just because someone, who happens to be a Senator, says it’s a loan, this does not mean “Voila!” it’s a loan.  He may be a Senator, but he’s not magic. 

And - the defendant in this case, as demonstrated by his own defense team, is a lion of the Senate, former chairman of one of the most powerful committees in Congress, and an exceedingly effective and intelligent lawmaker as verified by the likes of Colin Powell and others.  Is it really credible to say that such a man really couldn’t figure out how to get access to the key to his own house, how to get and pay a bill, or even how to stop a crazy man from “putting stuff all up in his house?”  As Amy Poeler and Seth Myers would say:  “Really?  One of the most senior Senators in American history couldn’t have figured this stuff out?  Really?” 

After all, isn’t it his obligation to report this stuff, not Bill Allen’s?  Can we not expect our politicians, especially of this stature, to be able to handle that fairly simply requirement?  Really?

All in all, Ms. Morris hit on the theme that Senator Stevens is a smart man, so inevitably a smart man is going to go to some effort to hide the ball when engaging in criminal actions.  Because, after all, he doesn’t want to go down in history being known as the Senator with the house that Veco built.

Now it’s just time to wait for the jury to see if that’s exactly what will happen.

- Kristin


Comments : No Comments »

Categories : Live Blogging

He’s not a crook! He has a wooden toolbox!

21 10 2008

After lunch, defense attorney, Brendan Sullivan, continued for another hour and a half with his closing statement…

Sullivan argued: “The government makes a big deal out of stained glass… Ted Stevens had nothing to do with stained glass. Ted Stevens doesn’t give a darn about stained glass or any other art… It was Catherine who cared about it.” Note to self: When giving Uncle Ted a gift, don’t go for an interesting art piece!

Leaning over the podium toward the jury, Sullivan questioned: “How can we go from stained glass to a criminal courtroom?”

The defense argued that in most instances it was about Catherine or Bill. “It’s true that all the bills didn’t come through,” remarked Sullivan. He argued that it was Bill Allen’s doing and not Ted Stevens’ fault.

One of the most entertaining comments of the afternoon was when Sullivan stated: “And by the way, do you want to know the real Ted Stevens? He’s the kind of person with a wooden toolbox from his grandpa…He can live with a wooden toolbox.”

Sullivan closed his speech by arguing that there is not sufficient evidence to vote guilty, and that Uncle Ted’s character is enough to provide someone with reasonable doubt that he would knowingly commit the crime.

- Anna


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , , , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

This isn’t some big conspiracy

21 10 2008

According to the defense, the court should be covered in throw-up!

In an energetic and boisterous manner, defense attorney, Brendan Sullivan Jr., used his closing arguments to say that the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence “is so far away from real life it should make you sick!”

He repeatedly referred to the trial as a conspiracy, and described it as sickening and twisted. Sullivan urged the jury to read the evidence for what it actually said. He described the U.S. government of “looking at life through a filthy, dirty glass.” Then he noted that the world will always look “dirty” using this approach.

Uncle Ted was portrayed as an old man, at the age of 77, not “sick” enough to write these letters as a cover-up. A decent man would not be involved in a scheme, Sullivan argued. Again, he said: “This isn’t some big conspiracy…”

Sullivan presented a document that “will take you straight into the Ted Stevens’ mind, he didn’t do anything to violate the law.” The document (written by Uncle Ted to Bill Allen) read “You owe me a bill.” It also showed Uncle Ted’s comments saying that his friendship with Bill Allen is one thing, following the rules is another. “You can see the innocence in the documents,” pleaded Sullivan.

The wise attorney began his next point calmly, saying that the U.S. government had “false testimony” from a witness who stated that he was told not to listen to Uncle Ted’s request for a bill. Sullivan’s voice then grew to a shout, and he yelled: “They brought this lie into court!”

Later he referred to Bill Allen as “a paid witness,” who was protecting his children, employees and work.

Sullivan continued by complaining about hearing VECO all the time. He said Uncle Ted, “…did not live through VECO, he was Bill Allen’s friend…it was not VECO that had dinner with him, it was Bill Allen. It wasn’t VECO that said ‘I love you Ted’…” Sullivan also commented that Uncle Ted’s friends were all dying and that he was in great need of a friend.

Switching gears a little bit Sullivan described Uncle Ted as the “Energizer Bunny,” always moving, and working on Alaskan issues. Sen. Ted Stevens did not have time to review household bills or write the checks. “He is a simple guy and asks for nothing… Do you think he cares about his fish statue?”

The lengthy argument began to lose steam when Sullivan presented numerous emails, bills and a “plumbing slideshow” of checks. His tactic to bore and slightly confuse the jurors seemed to be working, judging by the restlessness of the crowd. Sullivan mentioned that Uncle Ted’s wife, Catherine, was responsible for the expenses and renovations for the house. He showed an email of Uncle Ted’s approval for a jacuzzi, contradicting his own “unknowingly” argument.

The morning’s statements ended with a plea to the jury to not convict Uncle Ted because they do not have proof without a reasonable doubt. Sullivan also presented tax assessment documents that showed the house’s added value as being less than the $160,000 the Stevens’ couple paid for the renovation.

- Anna


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , , , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

You’ve heard “Pay me now or later.” In this case it’s “Pay me never.”

21 10 2008

“I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong and I’m going on with my life.”

I was pumped for the closing arguments.  Time for the prosecution to shine. Was sure it would be just like the closing argument by James Spader from Boston Legal last night when the power of the closing argument threw out the 50-year-old, outdated law that prevents returning vets from challenging shoddy medical care.

But no.  Real life does not imitate TV even in the trial of Senator Ted “the hulk” Stevens.

For a long, boring hour and half, the government’s attorney reviewed, reminded and inventoried every gift received and the value.

We again heard about Bill Allen’s power, his wealth and generosity.

While half-listening to what seemed to be a replay of all the previous testimony, I google chatted some colleagues to see how the 100-mile bike race went, I cleaned up some old emails and then, slowly, I was drawn back into the steady, monotonous litany.

Then it hit me.  Slow and steady wins the case.  Take for example that deluxe generator that Stevens claimed was just to survive the Y2 crisis.  That was clearly a gift.  A gift that Stevens requested.  A gift that Stevens did not return.  A gift he can’t blame on his wife Catherine.  A gift he can’t blame on Persons.  And the generator is still there!

The attorney asks the jury “Does anyone believe that Stevens can’t stop the gifts and does anyone believe that he can’t give them back?”  Hell no.

And then I’m hooked.  Like the attorney says, this “case is not about doing things for gifts.  It’s about his obligation to disclose the gifts.  He knows how to fill out the forms.  But he’s mad about the GD forms (God Damn).  He doesn’t disclose the gifts from VECO or Bill.  Funny that all other gifts he’s able to disclose.”

“Case isn’t about the dog. It’s about how he handled the gift.  On the disclosure form it says it was an award and only worth $250.  Everyone knows Penny bought the dog for $1k and then gifted Ted.”

Then the government has a one-liner: “You’ve heard of ‘pay me now or pay me later?’ Well in this case it’s ‘pay me never.’”

And then the finale.  Not James Spader, or Tom Cruise or Atticus Finch but maybe as good as it gets for the government.  They play the tape!!!

And just listen to Uncle Ted: “You have to have intention of doing something wrong to make it wrong.  Long time before we’re in front of a jury.  And I hope to God we aren’t going there.”

“Mental attitude…. They’re not going to sue us, might have to pay a fine, serve a little time in jail.  But I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong and am going on with my life.”

Prosecution rests.

Cindy Shogan


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

Is the Chalet a front for stolen property?

20 10 2008

Is Stevens’ Chalet a front for a fencing operation?

Last day of testimony of the trial of the century.   And what did we learn?  Not too much.  Stevens was on what could only be called the “warm seat” today, wearing a pale blue tie.

Government continued to grill Senator Stevens about his gifts which he continued to deny were gifts.  “Not my chair.  Not my chair at all.  He (Bill Allen) put it in our house.  We were always going to send our DC furniture north.” 

The wily government really tripped Stevens up about how much he used the chair.  He claimed that it wasn’t comfy, due to all his back problems he never used it. 

“But hold on, there is this email that says your wife and daughter had to drag you away from the chair.”

But what was most astounding was that Stevens revealed that he’s a stranger in his own house.  “We have lots of things in our house that don’t belong to us.” 

Ah ha.  I really think that the Stevens’ Chalet in Girdwood is a front for stolen goods. 

Stevens’ attorneys really made mincemeat out of the government’s other smoking gun – an email from Stevens inquiring if he should be worried about “heading up a blind canyon?”  Prosecution wanted you to believe it was about accepting the “non-gift-gifts.”   But it turns out it was really about the gas pipeline.  Stevens and his buddies at VECO and Arctic Power apparently contemplated an alternative royalty program  but Stevens’ wondered if that “would be heading up a blind canyon” because it would get referred to a congressional committee that Stevens’ did not control.

Stevens was dismissed.  All testimony ended.  Tomorrow – big long day – final arguments.  Government, prosecution, then government again.  Instructions to the jury will occur Wednesday.

Cindy Shogan


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

Alaska litigation smorgasbord

20 10 2008

Friday was a momentous day for Alaska in D.C’s Federal Courthouse.    Finally, after years of investigation, months of legal preparation, and weeks of trial, Ted Stevens took the stand in his own defense against charges that he failed to report gifts given to him by oil company employees during massive home renovations on his residence in Girdwood, AK.

However, that was not the only case with major impacts for Alaska going on at 3rd and Constitution, in the nation’s capital on Friday.  At that exact same time, just one floor up, another lesser known case was being argued in front of a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a native village in the far northwest corner of Alaska.  Much different in nature, this case had to do with alleged environmental violations in relation to a massive oil and gas leasing program that was approved by the federal government in July 2007, much of which is proposed to take place in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Northern Alaska, right in the backyard of these Alaska Native’s home. 

Although different, the two cases have this in common – Uncle Ted very well might not like the outcome of either.  The first is obvious – a conviction in the federal gift reporting case would, at worst, lead to potential jail time and, at best, end his political career, one of the longest in Senate history.  The second, unlikely to come down anytime soon, could mean that the government’s short-sighted offshore leasing program for Alaska, one adamantly supported by Senator Stevens, would be suspended until the effects of the proposed development project on the abundant marine ecosystem and native subsistence rights are properly evaluated and addressed. 

I guess you can understand why Ted was so hostile during his cross exam, giving ornery retort after ornery retort as prosecutor Brenda Morris led him through years of e-mails, notes, and other evidence of his involvement with Bill Allen and Bill’s generous “help” with his Girdwood home renovations.

“If it was a gift, why did I ask for a bill?”

“You’re making a lot of assumptions that aren’t warranted.”

“You’re not listening to me. I answered it twice.”

And that’s even before she’s got to the good evidence (Expected Monday: FBI tapes of Ted and Bill Allen discussing the potential ethics violations of what had gone on).

I’m just waiting for Brenda to get “permission to treat the witness as hostile,” and start the seriously aggressive questioning of Ted, and then for him to break down in uncontrollable anger and admit to everything:  “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” 

Okay, maybe I’ve been watching a bit too much Law and Order………

- Kristin


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

Oscar the Grouch

16 10 2008

Catherine Stevens (aka CAS) was called to the stand this morning.  The defense started out with the standard biographical piece where they asked Catherine questions about her personal and professional life.  Only somewhat interesting part of this: she sometimes refers to Ted Stevens as “Oscar,” a reference to the Odd Couple character (Oscar was the messy one).

Much of Catherine’s testimony showed that she had signed many of the checks to Christiansen Builders.  There were also some questions regarding the $100,000 loan that the Stevenses took up.  Then the defense took a turn and began questioning Catherine about the decor of the chalet.

Catherine used the words “upset,” “unhappy,” and “very angry” to describe her reactions to items such as exterior metal stairs, a gas grill, a lounging chair, and some furniture.  The metal stairs jotted out at an odd angle that could be dangerous for kids.  She thought the gas grill could be a fire hazard.  The chair and furniture, on the other hand, were not her own and clashed with her taste.  It seems like the defense was not finished with this line of questioning, but I’m guessing that they will argue that her anger over these items would explain some of the missing payments.

In addition to how upset she was with these findings, Catherine said she was “very concerned” when she saw Ted holding the Alaskan sled dog at the Kenai River Classic auction.  You see, Ted loved his black labradors, and wanted a big dog for DC, and Catherine knew she would have to care for it.  Just a little more info for those of you who can’t get enough about the husky puppy scandal.


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

The People v. Persons

16 10 2008

I wish I had worn black socks today with my work shoes…so unprofessional.  Bob Persons was in court today and the room was packed (more likely for the next witness, to be revealed in the next blog post).  The prosecution was cross-examining Persons.  He admitted he frequently served as the contact person for updating the Stevens family on the chalet’s progress, and that he mostly dealt with Ted, not Catherine.

Things got tense at one point over the meaning of “2 for 1,” which was a deal that was struck since Rocky knew of another Girdwood residence that also needed to be painted.  The prosecution claimed that meant the second one was free, Persons said it just meant both were offered at discount.  There were also awkward moments when the prosecution asked how many times Persons sat in the chair, and if he was trying to protect anyone.  However, Bob Persons did manage to crack a laugh several times during his testimony.

Persons recounted that Ted had told him that, although he loved the chair, he could not keep it and considered it “a loan.”  I do not believe the “loan” was ever returned to Persons.  Persons did say that Ted had wanted Bill Allen to give him invoices regarding the chalet, but Persons never secured several of those bills.

Near the end, Bob Persons had some special words for the FBI Agent that came to his house to question him about the case.  Two statements were stricken from the record, but it was obvious that Persons held no love for the man.  He stated that the questioning was like being “mentally waterboarded.”

- Alex


Comments : No Comments »
Tags : , ,
Categories : Live Blogging

« Previous Entries