The Tangled Web of the Stevens Trial
16 01 2009The Stevens trial. That story that we thought was going to be the biggest news out of Alaska in a generation, is back in the news.
The trial, with all its twists, turns and back-flips has proven to be far more complex, and difficult to follow than anyone could have imagined possible. In a previous post, I was actually reduced to sketching out a flow chart, which then later had to be revised, and now….I’m just throwing up my hands.
The latest subplot involves an anonymous FBI agent. He saw some things going on behind the scenes that he didn’t like and decided to blow the whistle. So blow he did, and the whistle was heard. He asked for whistleblower status, spilled his guts, and then he (and many others) learned a new piece of information.
There is no such thing as “whistleblower status.” Ruh-roh.
The only time protections are given to whistleblowers is after the whistle is blown and if they are the victims of retaliation. The Anchorage Daily News spoke with Michael Kohn, general counsel for the “National Whistleblowers Center” (who knew?) in Washington, D.C.
“Once you are identified as a whistle-blower, you essentially get a target put on your back because the protections are so anemic,” he said.
Even if a fired whistle-blower wins a case, the most the employee gets is back pay and the job back — there are no punitive damages, he said.
He hadn’t been following the whistle-blower complaint in the Stevens case, but he said that around the country the FBI has treated whistle-blowers poorly. In fact, FBI agents or officials who retaliate against whistle-blowers tend to be promoted up the ranks, he said. The nonprofit center has represented hundreds of whistle-blowers over the years, including some FBI agents, he said.
Prosecutors in the Stevens case revealed the aforementioned agent’s name on Wednesday. Anonymous no longer, Agent Chad Joy is now outed as the one who ratted out a fellow agent for allegedly becoming too close to witnesses, accepting the dreaded “things of value”, and sharing confidential information with others including her husband.
He also accused a federal trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of conspiring to send a witness in poor health back to Alaska without telling the defense, even though they had subpoenaed the same witness.
Stevens’ attorneys, of course, are using this whole episode as the central focus of their efforts to get Stevens a new trial.
For more on this news which is still breaking, check the ADN Politics blog for updates from Erika Bolstad in D.C.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Any clue as to what the “thing of value” is ???
January 16th, 2009 at 4:27 PM
No clue, but apparently one of the prosecutors wearing a skirt to court one day was the “present” for Bill Allen…
January 16th, 2009 at 4:28 PM
One word – mess!
January 16th, 2009 at 4:35 PM
As usual, I’m flummoxed…i.e confused! Trying to keep up with Alaskan politics at this time of the night is no easy job.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:42 PM
But I will try again in the morning.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Irishgirl–sleep tight, and don’t let the AK bedbugs bite!
January 16th, 2009 at 4:47 PM
InJunaeu – Really??
January 16th, 2009 at 4:51 PM
@InJuneau,
Good advice. 1.30 am here. I keep saying I will go to bed early. Blame AKM…
January 16th, 2009 at 5:14 PM
InJuneau (16:27:57) :
No clue, but apparently one of the prosecutors wearing a skirt to court one day was the “present” for Bill Allen…
Male or female? : )~
January 16th, 2009 at 5:35 PM
OK, so the thing is, even if Stevens gets a new trial and things go his way rather than the way of seven convictions, it now only matters to Stevens, right? He’s still out of office and wouldn’t be able to do anything about reversing his Senate loss.
Not that I don’t think he shouldn’t be accountable for his wrong-doing, which seems pretty obvious, but it almost seems so anti-climatic at this point. The problem I see is that more money would be spent on a new trial that could be spent elsewhere, not to mention tying up the courts when they could be doing something more useful.
What a mess. It certainly doesn’t encourage people to be whistle-blowers either, if there is no apparent protection. They really should close up that loop-hole. Who “they” are remains a mystery.
Pat
January 16th, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Give him a new trial. Find him guilty again. Throw the book at him.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:10 PM
They should give him a FAIR trial this time, so Sen. Stevens can clear his name. That’s the least we owe him for 55 years of service to the good people of Alaska.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Welllll… Chad Joy may be the beneficiary of good timing and just plain luck.
A former FBI agent, John Connolly of the Boston office, was convicted in Florida of 2nd degree murder with a gun for telling Boston mobsters, including FBI most wanted White Bulger, about goings on with the competition and possible FBI raids. His info to the mobsters resulted in a man being shot dead. Connolly is currently in jail for providing the info that allowed Bulger to escape a dragnet with him as the primary target.
FBI people are being very careful because they know they can be convicted of being too close to criminals – even if those criminals are federal informants.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:53 PM
grewingkNo Gravatar (18:10:56) :
They should give him a FAIR trial this time, so Sen. Stevens can clear his name.
__________________
I almost always like your posts, grewingk, but this one has me baffled.
What was unfair about his trial?
And you have the direction of the “service” going the wrong way. Stevens has had 55 years of receiving service from the people of Alaska. He was too… whatever to remain in office any longer.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:07 PM
He also accused a federal trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of conspiring to send a witness in poor health back to Alaska without telling the defense, even though they had subpoenaed the same witness.
I believe this witness passed away last month, which would certainly justify a claim that he was too ill to testify. If it were me, I might ask them not to tell anyone until I was on the plane. The defense would call that a conspiracy.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:00 PM
I thought this soap opera might be settled this month…guess I’d better pop more popcorn.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:16 PM
@sauerkraut(19:53:41) :
I didn’t follow the trial real closely, but read most of the articles about it in the ADN, the WashPost and the NYT. The prosecution was a joke/circus; that was obvious to anyone who read any of the articles about the trial. Ted Stevens didn’t get a fair trial.
I stand by my earlier post that the whole deal to nail Stevens very well could have come from Dick Cheney, to discredit Stevens and get him the hell out of the US Senate, because Stevens was interfering in Cheney’s ability to channel no-bid gimmes in Iraq and elsewhere to his compadres. A very credible source told me that theory. I’m not a conspiracy-believing sort of person, but that one clicked. Cheney was good & pissed that Stevens got 10% of the no-bid contracts given to DBE’s, like Alaska Native Corps. You can imagine what 10% of the contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth.
Ted Stevens is guilty of bad judgement — letting Bill Allen get too involved in Stevens’ personal affairs. I believe that the FBI could have told Bill Allen to set Stevens up. Now a whistle blower FBI agent has come forth, saying stuff was hinkey in the whole investigation.
Follow the money. Bill Allen made millions in the Alaska oil patch. The FBI agreed to leave Allen’s kids (who made millions) out of it, if he’d roll on everyone. We have something like seven state legislators in federal prison right now, thanks to Bill Allen’s wiretaps, video and testimony that show him bribing and conspiring with legislators to buy their votes on the taxes we levy on Big Oil. Bill Allen is still walking free. I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop — Ben Stevens, former president of the Alaska Senate. Ben is an arrogant little prick. His dad, Ted, isn’t. I don’t think Bill Allen will ever go to prison.
The Constitution of the US guarantees every citizen a fair trial by a jury of his peers. Ted Stevens didn’t get a fair trial. And some of us in Alaska would argue that he didn’t get tried by a jury of his peers either.
If the Senator gets a fair trial and gets found guilty, fine. But he hasn’t had a fair trial yet.
Full disclosure: Ted Stevens has been a friend of my SO’s family since the mid 1950’s. My SO & FIL are on a first name basis with the Senator. I’ve met with the him in an official capacity in DC & AK as an advocate of Alaskan agriculture. (I’m a rancher.) I like & respect the man. I don’t think he’s crooked. I think he may have trusted Bill Allen to not screw him on an insignificant house remodel and he got caught in a spider web that Dick Cheney wove with the FBI.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Judge in Stevens Case: I Want Mukasey’s Declaration Before He Leaves
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who presided over Stevens’s trial, is telling the Department of Justice to buck up and play ball. Yesterday, Judge Sullivan ordered Attorney General Michael Mukasey to prepare a declaration that addresses questions about how the government handled the whistleblower complaint.
“This is the most important thing on his desk right now,” Judge Sullivan reportedly declared at a hearing. “I want the declaration of the attorney general before he leaves office.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/15/judge-in-stevens-case-i-want-mukaseys-declaration-before-he-leaves/
January 17th, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Good catch, Aussie Blue Sky. I don’t read the Wall Street Journal, because those people just piss me off.
While working people are losing their jobs and homes, the WSJ cries about how unfair it is that the bankers and Wall Street brokers will get their multi-million dollar bonuses cut. Cry me a river already.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:34 AM
grewingk, thanks for sharing your perspective on Stevens. I don’t know more about him than what has been in the news lately. I’m sure that he did a lot of good things for Alaska or he couldn’t have remained in office so long.
But there is the matter of ethics. It sounds like ethics violations, to me. And the problem that I have with Stevens is that he’s been around politics long enough and is certainly old enough to know what is right and what is wrong. Claiming that he trusted the wrong person or that he was tricked just doesn’t excuse him from responsibility, in my opinion.
We are all faced with choosing how we conduct our business and our personal lives every day. Do we tell the clerk in the store that he gave us too much change – or do we consider it a lucky break? What do we do with money we find on the ground in the parking lot – turn it in to security only if it’s over a certain amount or put it in our own pocket? After all, $10 to a person who doesn’t have a good job is a huge amount – but if we don’t try to find the person who lost it, then how would we ever know. Do we set the record straight when we are complimented or given a raise or bonus even though it was someone else who did the work? Do we admit that we made a mistake even when no one knows? What about our tax returns – do we only take legitiment deductions or do we look for the loophole and congratulate ourselves that we’ve outsmarted the government?
Each of us, every day, chooses how we conduct our lives. The choices we make are the indication of our character. I’ve found that the older I get the more aware I am of the importance of living my life honestly and ethically. It’s the reason I can sleep at night and the reason I don’t feel guilty about things I’ve done. I don’t have regrets and I don’t have to wonder when I might get caught in a lie because I haven’t lied. If we choose to do the right thing, the ethical thing, then no one can put us in a position of having to prove that we didn’t do anything wrong – it won’t even be an issue.
Stevens had to have known that all that remodling was way beyond what was allowed. That’s just common sense. And past service doesn’t exempt anyone from being held accountable for current choices.
Pat
January 17th, 2009 at 2:25 AM
@Pat, Washington state(01:34:14) : I think Ted Stevens was telling the flat-footed truth when he said he paid every bill that was sent to him for remodeling his house in Girdwood. I also think that Bill Allen didn’t send him all of the bills. Was it entrapment or was it a friend doing a favor for a friend?
It’s a crappy house, IMO. Have you seen the photos of it? I can’t imagine someone who served 40 years in the US Senate risking his seat and his reputation for that crappy little house. Stevens didn’t spend much time there, because the Senate schedule had him stuck in DC so much of the time. He only spent less than a month every year at home, and much of that traveling around the state to talk to us, his constituents.
In my mind, it just doesn’t add up. Maybe he’s guilty as all get-out, I dunno. But somehow, it just doesn’t feel right to me. I just don’t think the old man failed to disclose $240,000 in crappy home improvements on his Senate Disclosure paperwork on purpose. Ted Stevens is not a stupid man. And his wife practices international law. Catherine Bittner-Stevens isn’t stupid either.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:16 AM
grewingk – your story/theory works for me. look what Rove did to the Gov. of Ala. these people will do whatever they want to who they want.BTW – Cheney was drunk when he shot the guy in south Texas. The local sheriff was not allowed to see or interview Cheney until 8am the next day. Also – I think the Feds have a lot more material (pun intended) to work with in taking down Sarah/Todd on house-gate.
January 17th, 2009 at 6:58 AM
@ grewingk:
YOu make some interesting points. however, it doesn’t explain his explanation of receiving a gift that he didn’t want and wasn’t a gift event hough it had been there for years. Sounds like a wink, wink, nudge, nudge definition of a gift that a lawyer would think up. Even if it looks like a gift, and acts like a gift, it isn’t a gift because I told the guy who gifted it to me that I didn’t want it and he could come pick it up any time. Maybe if there were not disclosure requirements I might just roll my eyes.
On the other hand, I can see where what Stevens did was skirt the edges like a whole bunch of others and it’s part of the culture, and the reason he was targeted was not because he was more egregious than others, but because it was a Cheney plot. I don’t know if it’s true, but I found ever so plausible.
I think that targeted prosecutions, even for bad behavior, are bad for the system.
Maybe the second time around there will be a plea deal? Hmmm. Would Stevens settle?
January 17th, 2009 at 7:02 AM
The amazing thing about the Cheney thing is… he was so busy covering his own sweet ass…he really didn’t know how badly hurt his friend was. By the time the cops got there they were all sitting around the table having dinner. Very strange. Regarding the Cheney/Stevens relationship…think there is validity in it. Read an article about it & it made sense. There is so much “gift giving” to politicians thought it was strange they focused on that & him. Not saying he’s innocent, just saying maybe they were looking for something. Hope the same rings true for Ms Palin …..there’s plenty there if the powers that be choose to look.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:40 AM
Joy had problems with his boss and made charges. As was correctly stated, there is no whistleblower if there is no retaliation. I just don’t see how Joy’s charges are going to lead to getting the convictions thrown out.
I don’t begrudge the ADN trying to boost circulation, but this is all the ADN doing their best to spice up what is basically no story and Stevens supporters doing their best to keep the dream alive. It is interesting to compare with the Washington Post trial coverage. WP reporters are appartently a lot more used to seeing crooked politicians on trial in D.C., their trial coverage was a lot more matter of fact, without most of the drama and defense flourishes reported by the ADN.
It is certainly possible something may come out of the investigation of the prosecutors, but we’ll see.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
This mess isn’t quite so complex to me. But maybe its just me.
Did Stevens fill out the required forms with full disclosure ? No? Pleading ignorance of the ‘value of the things because his wife takes care of those things?
Lawmakers should not delegate their responsibility to comply with a law requiring lawmakers to be held accountable.
The defense of -’the law doesn’t apply to me because I didn’t take my responsibility seriously’, doesn’t wash, IMO.
Does that help simplify things?
January 17th, 2009 at 12:11 PM
@ DrChillNo Gravatar
Part of me agrees with you – did he or didn’t he. And I thnk he did. I hang my hat on the Clintonesque statement he made (in sum and substance): It wasn’t a gift because I didn’t like it and didn’t want and it was just sitting in my house for several years because ….. ??. This is simply a lawyer redefining the word “gift” as having something to do with the response of the recipient.
HOWEVER
I do find selective prosecutions more troublesome than conviction for failure to report something that I’ll bet a whole lot of Senators aren’t reporting, and/or are creating new definitions to avoid reporting, and/or are volitionally deaf and blind to keep them from reporting.
My opinion is that there isn’t a Senator and Rep alive who either isn’t skirting some issue, perhaps on this side of the line or perhaps on the other side, OR who can’t be made to look guilty of some transgression, at least in an indictment. And if the AG’s office is allowed selective prosecution of representatives, we cease to have a democracy.
Personally, I’d like to see the AG’s office prosecuted for something.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:02 PM
You haven’t come to the end of the Dysfunction Trail yet : not by a long walk. Get a load of this : http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/1209/85649/949/516706