A Dual Fight for StevensSenator’s Trial Begins Monday as He Campaigns to Keep Seat By Del Quentin Wilber and Paul Kane Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska goes on trial tomorrow in a historic public corruption case, bucking conventional legal wisdom in the hope of winning acquittal in time to be reelected to a seventh full term. The first sitting senator to face a federal trial in more than two decades, Stevens, an 84-year-old Republican icon of both the Senate and his home state, was indicted eight weeks ago on charges that he failed to disclose lavish gifts he received from executives of an oil services company. If convicted, Stevens could face prison time, his 40-year Senate career would meet an ignominious end, and Republicans would probably lose a normally reliable Senate seat. While battling prosecutors in what is expected to be a month-long trial, Stevens also will be running an uphill reelection campaign from the same Washington courthouse — 3,500 miles from Anchorage. He may have to debate his Democratic opponent well after midnight by teleconference and make arduous red-eye flights to attend weekend campaign events. It’s a risky strategy but perhaps the only one that could result in his reelection, analysts say. “We have an Alaska Senate race that’s about to be decided by 12 residents of the District of Columbia,” said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “If he’s acquitted, he goes home, and it becomes more of a victory lap than a campaign.” Prosecutors have said their case is simple. In a 28-page indictment and other court filings, the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section alleges that Stevens repeatedly lied on Senate financial disclosure forms about gifts and $250,000 in home renovations he received from executives of the now-defunct oil services company Veco. Prosecutors say Stevens never attempted to pay Bill Allen, Veco’s chief executive, for the cost of the renovations or other gifts. Allen pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy charges in a long-running federal investigation of corruption in Alaska’s government, and he has provided critical testimony that already has helped convict two Alaska state legislators. In hearings and court filings, prosecutors allege that Veco, Allen or friends gave Stevens a Viking grill, a discounted Land Rover, a $29,000 bronze statue of a fish, a $2,700 vibrating massage chair, a $3,200 stained-glass window and a sled dog — none of which the senator reported. Those gifts were in addition to extensive renovations to Stevens’s Girdwood, Alaska, home by Veco employees and contractors, who installed a wrap-around deck and raised the home on stilts to add a new floor, prosecutors allege. They say Stevens interacted with the workers, discussed the project with Allen and suggested improvements to the renovation plans. In exchange, the government says, Stevens helped or promised to help Veco on various matters, including prodding officials to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska and requesting that the World Bank get involved in a dispute between Veco and Pakistan over delays in a project. At the time, Stevens chaired two of the most powerful committees on Capitol Hill, the Senate’s Appropriations and Commerce panels. Prosecutors have described those favors as Stevens’s motive for lying on the disclosure forms. “He knows someone is going to look at that and say, ‘Wait a second, he’s getting stuff from Veco and Allen and he wrote a letter on their behalf,’ ” prosecutor Joseph Bottini said at a recent hearing. But prosecutors stopped short of charging Stevens with corruption. By limiting the charges to failing to report gifts, some legal experts said, the prosecution can introduce Stevens’s alleged favors as context and motive, not a required element of the crime. “The case is devastating in its simplicity,” said Victoria Toensing, a former top Justice Department official who is now a criminal defense lawyer. Stevens’s lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, does not speak to the media about ongoing cases and did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment. Several criminal defense lawyers and former prosecutors said Stevens’s defense has several ways to counter the charges. His lawyers are likely to argue that he never tried to hide his friendship with Allen. The senator is well known for his ability to obtain federal funds for Alaska, and the things he did for Veco benefited other companies and Alaska residents, the lawyers are expected to tell jurors. “Stevens’s lawyers are going to argue that if the government had a case where prosecutors thought Senator Stevens had done something wrong, they would have charged him with bribery,” said Steven Tabackman, a criminal defense lawyer. “Instead, they will argue that the government is trying to back-door this by saying he didn’t put these things in his disclosure forms.” Tabackman said he would be surprised if defense lawyers didn’t try to introduce evidence that aides, not Stevens, filled out the forms. Some criminal defense lawyers criticized Stevens’s rush to trial, saying it is better for defendants to delay as long as possible. Memories are more likely to fade, and witnesses can get in trouble or even die, they said. But others said the early trial date was a brilliant tactic that put the government in the unexpected position of having to hurry to prepare. But the senator didn’t ask for the early trial date just to pressure prosecutors. He also is fighting for his political life. Even before his indictment, he faced a tough race against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, who is ahead in recent polls. Stevens is embarking on an unprecedented political effort in the modern era of multimillion-dollar campaigns. From Monday through Friday in the final weeks of his bid, he will be a continent away from his home base outside Anchorage. On some weekends his aides will have to weigh the physical toll of putting Stevens on a Friday night flight for about eight hours to the Alaska airport that bears his name, so he can spend the weekend campaigning before returning on a red-eye flight to appear here at trial on Monday morning. Begich’s campaign, which is hoping for about five debates with Stevens, expects that some will involve the senator appearing via teleconference on weeknights. If local television hopes to broadcast those debates live in prime time in Alaska, the four-hour time difference would require Stevens to appear near midnight in Washington. Stevens has yet to agree to any specific debates, and some observers question whether he can afford to do so without reinforcing his legal predicament in voters’ minds. While Begich runs ads about his positions on issues, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Alaska Democratic Party have pounded away at Stevens. A DSCC ad began airing last week accusing him of steering more than $100 million in earmarked funds to lobbying clients of his son Ben Stevens, a former state senator who has been accused in court documents of accepting consulting payments from Veco in exchange for legislative favors. But the coordinators of the anti-Stevens effort are careful that the past service of a man who helped Alaska enter the union and went on to be named “Alaskan of the Century” is not dismissed. Rather, the focus is on his most recent years in the Senate. “He’s no longer the same person we sent there 40 years ago,” said Bethany Lesser, spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party. Despite his legal woes, Stevens, who remains a senior member of the Appropriations and Commerce committees, has raised $4 million in campaign funds. National Republicans appear to be gearing up to defend him. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has paid for staff members to follow Begich to public events with video equipment, usually a sign of a TV advertising campaign to come. There is even the prospect of Stevens winning reelection despite a conviction. William Canfield, an ethics lawyer who has advised the senator for more than two decades, said he might win if he is convicted of only one or two of the seven counts against him. If that were to happen, Stevens could resign, or the Senate ethics committee would have to consider expelling him. |
 |
 |
 |