Alaska Legislators Demand Apology to Stevens And Federal Lawsuit

225px-ted_stevens Former Sen. Ted Stevens (R., Alaska) and his allies are continuing their implausible campaign to rehabilitate the disgraced Senator and portray the Justice Department’s gross negligence as a vindication of the ethically challenged Stevens. Alaskan legislators in the House passed a resolution demanding not only an apology from the federal government but a lawsuit to recoup his fees and costs in defending himself.

The following resolution passed 34 to 1 with democratic support as HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 10:

Expressing support for Senator Ted Stevens and severe displeasure and indignation with the federal government’s deplorable investigation and prosecution of the Senator.


WHEREAS United States Senator Ted Stevens’ public service began with his military service during World War II; and

WHEREAS Senator Stevens served the State of Alaska for over 50 years as a United States Attorney, member of the Alaska House of Representatives and United States Senator; and
WHEREAS Senator Stevens was the longest serving Republican and seventh longest serving senator in the history of the United States; and

WHEREAS Alaska and its communities owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Stevens for his tireless efforts on behalf of the state; and

WHEREAS the United States Department of Justice has moved “to set aside the verdict and dismiss the indictment [against Senator Stevens] with prejudice”; and

WHEREAS the prosecutors in the case withheld information that should have been provided to the defense during the trial; and

WHEREAS the Department of Justice’s prosecution team was found in contempt of court for wilfully failing to abide by the laws and procedures of the federal court; and

WHEREAS, under 5 U.S.C. 1502(a)(1) (Hatch Act), a federal “employee may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election”; and

WHEREAS questions have arisen as to whether provisions of the Hatch Act have been violated; and

WHEREAS the dismissal of these charges does not restore Senator Stevens’ reputation and legacy or compensate Senator Stevens for his legal expenses and loss of future income; and

WHEREAS the federal government cannot be sued without its permission, except as
15 provided under 28 U.S.C. 1348 (Federal Tort Claims Act);

BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska House of Representatives demands that the federal government grant Senator Stevens permission to sue the United States Department of Justice for redress; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that federal employees involved with Senator Stevens’ prosecution be investigated for violations of the Hatch Act and, if found guilty, be subject to penalty under the Act; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Government should issue a formal apology to Senator Stevens and the People of Alaska for this heinous miscarriage of justice.

COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States; the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vice-President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States; and the Honorable Lisa Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, and the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.

Alaskan legislators have long been criticized for their tolerance of open corruption, here and here.

The suggestion of a Hatch Act claim is entirely laughable. The case was started by the Bush Administration, which desperately wanted Stevens or a Republican to win. The other problem is that Stevens was not acquitted. The prosecutors blundered. The jury clearly rejected Stevens’ testimony.

However, the most otherworldly provision is “WHEREAS the dismissal of these charges does not restore Senator Stevens’ reputation and legacy or compensate Senator Stevens for his legal expenses and loss of future income.” Stevens (and his family) were viewed by many as a virtual perpetual motion machine of corrupt practices. For a prior column, click here . To “restore Senator Stevens’ reputation and legacy” would require decades of new special dealings, sweetheart deals, and windfall investments with business interests. One does not re-build the lifetime reputation of self-dealing and flagrant unethical conduct overnight.

Of course, this may be moot when the giant divine hand gets its grip on the not-so-honorable member.

For the resolution, click here.

17 thoughts on “Alaska Legislators Demand Apology to Stevens And Federal Lawsuit”

  1. Lottakatz,

    Good catch. And here’s another example of some animals being more equal than others in the Obama administration:

    # Leon Panetta said in a statement to CIA employees that officers who took part in the interrogation program widely deemed to involve torture “should not be investigated, let alone punished.”Did A CIA Interrogator Get Away With Murder?
    # Red Cross Report: Treatment Of Detainees Was Torture (find this at TPM)

    Mike A.,

    I liked your joke on the other thread–so true as well!!!

  2. Apparently Holder’s pursuit of remedial justice isn’t so diligent as to extend to Siegelman and Minor. Maybe ‘equal protection’ isn’t as equal for some as for others.

    My e-mails (to relevant Offices, appointees and Congresscritters) regarding reviews for Siegelman and Minor have been ongoing since before the Obama confirmation continuing up to and including the day of Holder’s announcement regarding Stevens. I guess they didn’t get my memos after all.

  3. My guess is that the Senate, which gave him a standing ovation for outstanding service after his retirement speech (including Democrats), will now attempt to pass a resolution recognizing his “honorable service.” We are ruled by very small people.

  4. You got me at WHEREAS…and I quit reading.

    I approved of AG Holder’s decision. However, I never expected this corrupt runts rants.

    Please Mr. Stevens, be grateful that you got away with a full 1/2 century of corruption…

  5. US apology to Alaska:

    We the people of the United States are very sorry that your corrupt Senator was prosecuted by the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, and that Uncle Ted was convicted then released to sue us to recover his legal fees. We think Ted should be reinstated to a position more fitting his capabilities and ethics. How about Sarah Pallin’s wardrobe consultant in charge of returns?

  6. Gyges:

    that right there is the problem in a nutshell. the appropriation of rights by the government from the people. I think someone needs to remind them at whose pleasure they serve.

    Excellent call.

  7. “BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska House of Representatives demands that the federal government grant Senator Stevens permission to sue the United States Department of Justice for redress”

    I’m always glad when a state grants a resident the permission to sue.

  8. Let’s see…Teddy will get his apology from Chimpy and Gonzo about the same time that their plane leaves for the Hague…

    Note: Don’t expect it to happen before then or hold your breath waiting….

  9. If he gets the apology and fees for the lawsuit that will be disgrace.

    What did Rosti and Wright get?

  10. Hmmpt and to think that we have never ever ever had liars holding public office.

    Do you think that wizard lied to Dorothy? There’s No place like home, There’s No place like home, There’s No place like home.

    Hey stop, I can’t find my Ruby Slippers I have to try it over again.

  11. Sen. Stevens fed greedily at the public trough for fifty years. If he wishes to file a Hatch Act complaint, he is free to do so, even if the irony is lost on him. He would be wise to rein in his arrogance and instead thank the Almighty that he won’t be spending his last days in a federal rest home. As far as his reputation is concerned, the jury determined that he (and his spouse) are liars. Even the most liberal mortality tables offer no hope that he can outlive its conclusions.

  12. Did I miss the part about “New uncharged Crimes”? Heck, we all live in this life. we all have uncharged crimes.

    Have you obeyed all traffic laws every time you have driven?

    Ever drove drunk?

    Ever get back more from a bank than you were entitled to?

    Have you ever taken a hedge on your income taxes? The legality of the IRS is not in question here at this time.

    If so, you are an unindicted, uncharged criminal or are you some co-conspiratorial person?

    Before, you cast doubt and shame make sure you are not to blame…

  13. Some people should be reminded of (name escapes me – British poet of early last century) who was accused of homosexuality. He said it was slander, “prove it”, and the crown did. IIRC he was sentenced to prison for it.

    A bit of quiet ‘hmmpf’ for the supporters is one thing. But there’s a huge difference between loudly proclaiming your innocent when you really are innocent, or at most only slightly guilty, and loudly proclaiming your innocence when your hands are very dirty and you only escaped by the enemies bad acts. Especially when your ‘enemies’ probably had their fingers on the scales on your behalf.

    (How would that work here? Exactly as we’ve seen. Stevens would probably get off, or would drag out the case until after the election. If he was convicted the prosecutors left in solid grounds for an appeal, even poisoning the well so he couldn’t be retried. Nobody expected him to push for an early trial resulting in a verdict before the election.)

    I wonder if the Justice Department is reviewing the other allegations of fraud. It’s hard to claim innocence when you’re under indictment for new crimes after a review of what went wrong in the prosecution of your last trial.

  14. Now now, PA,

    There is no sure proof way to know that he would have ever ever gone to prison. He could have had his sentence commuted as well.

  15. Ok, all Politics or is that Ticks aside. Line them up in the isle and have a left side and a right side.

    The ones on the Left are the one that 1) had no comment until the suit was over; 2) truly believed in his innocence and were not afraid to say something publicly; or 3) did not care as this was politics as usual; and 4) he was a friend and needed my support

    The ones on the right are the ones 1) publicly castigated him for his predicament. 2) he must be guilty or the charges would not have been filed 3) he was convicted so he must be guilty 4) Oh I can’t be seen in public with him as it might hurt my political carer or 5) what can he do for me now?

    I have seen first hand and up close how many friends you have in politics wains when you have some difficulty.

    I bet the number on the left would be small in comparison to teh right. But as soon as the public controvery ceases people are your friend once again.

  16. The Alaskan Legislature wants an apology? OK, I’m sorry that your corrupt Senator cannot be tried again so that his guilt could be proven definitively. I’m also sorry that the poor distinguished misunderstood Senator will have to live out his retirement in a house that was built on graft instead of a dank prison cell.

  17. What is in the salmon up there?

    Did he ever lose his reputation for being corrupt and getting away with it? Didn’t what just happen reinforce this very reputation?

Comments are closed.