Immunity

With respect to the Abramoff scandal, the ACR Blog is not aware of any individuals who have been granted immunity from prosecution. We certainly believe that the Justice Department has made such offers -- it is just that we don't know who has received them.

The Government's Sixth Notice of Discovery Status (.pdf) provides evidence that immunity offers may have been extended, and that Kevin Ring and his defense team may already know or soon know who has been offered immunity from prosecution:

By July 15, 2009, the government intends to produce the following documents relating to prospective government witnesses and alleged coconspirators, even though certain of these documents are not strictly discoverable ...

(3) proffer letters or immunity orders relating to prospective government witnesses.

[Page 7]

Since we're not lawyers at the ACR Blog, we're not really sure what a proffer letter is. In order to inform ourselves, we reviewed this article written by some attorney at a firm called "Barnes & Thornburg". While we encourage you to read the whole article, this is what we gleaned:

1. A proffer letter is a written agreement between a person under criminal investigation and prosecutors where the person under investigation agrees to tell the prosecutor what he knows about the crime and the prosecutor agrees not to use those statements against the person under investigation.

2. A proffer letter is followed by a proffer session where investigators question the person with criminal exposure about his knowledge of the crimes being investigated.

3. If the government is satisfied that the person with criminal exposure was truthful in the proffer session, a plea agreement or immunity agreement is typically offered to the defendant.

According to the Barnes & Thornburg lawyer, attorneys should not allow clients without any criminal exposure to enter into a proffer agreement. So let's assume that people who sign proffer letters are under criminal investigation.

In the Sixth Notice, it appears that not only has the government entered into proffer agreements with persons involved in the Abramoff case, some of those people have received immunity offers. The ACR Blog doubts all persons who signed proffer letters received immunity; some proffers likely led to plea agreements. Ann Copland, Todd Boulanger, Jim Hirni, Trevor Blackann and others received plea agreements, and it isn't unreasonable to think that they may also have gone through the proffer process.

As the title of this post suggests, though, the ACR Blog wants to know who has been the beneficiary of the immunity orders referenced in the Sixth Notice. It is certainly clear to us that at least one person has received immunity. And it seems that at least one person who has an immunity order may testify in Mr. Ring's upcoming trial. It will be interesting to learn who has received immunity.

==

Immunity in the David Safavian Trial

Recall that at least one witness who was expected to testify at the David Safavian trial had received immunity. The ACR Blog does not know whether this person actually testified at Mr. Safavian's trial, and the ACR Blog certainly doesn't know who this person is.

==

Spousal Non-Prosecution Agreements

With the ACR Blog's layman's understanding of the law, it appears to us that Spousal Non Prosecution Agreements by the Justice Department are a form of immunity. We don't believe, however, that these agreements are Immunity Orders. Therefore, we don't believe that the Sixth Notice is referring to Spousal Non Prosecution Agreements.

The following people are protected by Spousal Non Prosecution Agreements:

1. Lisa Rudy (Wife of felon Tony Rudy, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Tom DeLay)
Tony Rudy Plea Agreement

2. Cynthia Zachares (Wife of felon Mark Zachares, aide to Alaska Republican Don Young)

3. Jessica Boulanger (Former Press Secretary to Tom DeLay; Wife of felon Todd Boulanger; Former Cheerleader)
Todd Boulanger Plea Agreement

==

Immunity for Tom DeLay Staffers

Recall that back in April 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department was offering immunity to aides of Tom DeLay in exchange for testimony. More than two years later, we don't know which aide(s) have received such offers.

==

Immunity for John Doolittle Staffer(s)

The ACR Blog has no specific information, but it seems reasonable to us that the Justice Department would be willing to offer immunity to a mid-to-high level staffer to John Doolittle who would be in a position to testify against both Kevin Ring and John Doolittle. Of course such a person would have to be have some culpability that the DoJ could leverage against him, but his culpability must not be so significant that the DoJ would insist on a plea bargain like it did for Trevor Blackann and others.

Kevin Ring @ Barnes & Thornburg

In a recent entry, we reviewed some items from the Government's Sixth Notice of Discovery Status (.pdf). There's one more thing the ACR Blog finds interesting.

On page two of the Sixth Notice, the Justice Department enumerates discoverable material that it has provided or will provide to Kevin Ring and his defense team. There's one item on that list that the ACR Blog would like examine more carefully:

(2) Ring's emails in the government's possession,<sup>1

1</sup> The government neither subpoenaed nor possesses all of Ring's emails, but rather limited its subpoenas, including by date ranges an search terms.

Since we know that Mr. Ring's defense team has a flair for the theatrical, they no doubt would claim that the Justice Department subpoenas were too broad. However, there is no denying that the government attempted to limit the scope of its subpoena(s).

Mr. Ring worked at two different lobbying firms during the events described in the indictment. From December 1999 until January 2001, Mr. Ring worked with Jack Abramoff at lobbying shop of Preston Gates. From January 2001 until 2004, Mr. Ring worked for Greenberg Traurig.

After leaving Greenberg, Mr. Ring surfaced at yet a third lobbying firm, Barnes & Thornburg. None of the events in the indictment occurred during Mr. Ring's tenure at Barnes & Thornburg. Mr. Ring abruptly resigned from Barnes & Thornburg in April 2007.

Despite the fact that none of the events described in the indictment happened while Mr. Ring was at Barnes & Thornburg, the Justice Department is still interested in some of Mr. Ring's activities there. Here is how the government describes its process to identify potentially discoverable material

Government's Fourth Notice of Discovery Status (.pdf)

First, the DOJ OIG searched the vaults of all fourteen officials for the following words and phrases in order to identify statements by or communications with Ring: (1) "gtlaw" (the domain name for Greenberg Traurig LLP); (2) "btlaw" (the domain name for Barnes & Thornburg LLP); (3) "ringke" (the user-name of one of Ring's personal email accounts): and (4) "kerrieandkevin" (the username of another of Ring's personal email accounts).

Emphasis Added

The emails described in the above paragraph were sent/received by DOJ officials -- they are not the product of a subpoena.

The fact that the DOJ OIG is involved in this aspect of the investigation tells us that these emails to/from DOJ officials likely refer to events in the Honest Services Fraud Relating to the DOJ section of the Ring Indictment (paragraphs 164-198).

Clearly, the Department of Justice alleges that Mr. Ring engaged in Honest Services Fraud with DOJ officials while he was at Greenberg Traurig. But why are emails to/from Mr. Ring's Barnes & Thornburg account relevant to the indictment? What did Mr. Ring and the DOJ officials discuss via email? Here are a couple of plausible explanations:

1. The alleged conspiracy to commit Honest Services Fraud continued even while Mr. Ring worked for Barnes & Thornburg.

2. Mr. Ring and his alleged co-conspirators discussed via email their plans to conceal acts committed during Mr. Ring's tenure at Greenberg Traurig.

The ACR Blog leans toward explanation #2. Perhaps Mr. Ring and the DOJ officials were trying to coordinate their responses to investigators.

Please suggest any other plausible explanations as to why Mr. Ring continued to communicate with his alleged DOJ co-conspirators while he worked at Barnes & Thornburg in the comments

... and starring Spencer Garrett as Tom DeLay

Wendy over at Unheard No More! has a well-sourced post informing us that there is a movie dramatizing the crimes of Jack Abramoff. Wendy gives us a ton of information about the movie and ties it into her primary interest, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Me? I'm more interested in how Tom DeLay is connected to this.

Spencer Garrett (Public Enemies) will play Majority Leader Tom DeLay

I don't know a lot about Spencer Garrett. I'm sure he's a talented actor and he certainly is a good looking man. I think he was miscast as Tom DeLay.

I was thinking more along the lines of Joe Pesci.



(L-R) Spencer Garrett, Tom DeLay and Joe Pesci

Friday Document Dump

A couple of minor Abramoff-related documents appeared on PACER today. Let's take a quick look at both:

1. USA v. Fraser Verrusio;
Motion for Second Protective Order

Not a lot to say about the actual substance of this request. Basically, the government wants the court to limit how law enforcement interview reports may be used in pleadings and hearings:

As good cause, the government states that it is poised to begin producting potentially discoverable Giglio material - in the form of law enforcement interview reports - that discuss other investigative subjects. If these other investigative subjects were to be publicly disclosed, such disclosure might impede those investigations which are ongoing and/or impair the privacy rights of third parties whose conduct is or was at one time under investigation.

The big takeaway here is that these still is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Verrusio has any intent of changing his plea to "Guilty". The Justice Department is proceeding as if both sides are committed to trial.

With respect to the substance of the Motion, the Justice Department doesn't even insist that the information it wants to protect has anything to do with a current investigation. My guess is that the interview reports actually do mention active investigations. But c'mon! Who would read pleadings in USA v. Fraser Verrusio anyway?

Also in this document, notice whose name appears first as submitting this motion. It is William M. Welch II, Chief of the Public Integrity Section. (Notice that Federal Prosecutors Kendall Day actually created the document and signed it.) Remember that on Wednesday we learned from Roll Call's Jennifer Yachnin that Mr. Welch is being removed from USA v. Kevin Ring. The ACR Blog doesn't know if something similar will happen in USA v. Fraser Verrusio.

==


2. USA v. Todd Boulanger;
Joint Status Report

Lawyers for both the government and Todd Boulanger are asking US District Judge Richard W. Roberts to delay sentencing:

As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Boulanger has agreed to cooperate with the government in any and all matters when required. In conformity with this agreement, Mr. Boulanger has been cooperating with government agents and prosecutors. The government anticipates that Mr. Boulanger's cooperation will continue for the foreseeable future.

Both sides suggest that Judge Roberts schedule another status report for July 30, 2009.

Good for Mr. Boulanger. It appears that he is holding himself accountable for his actions and is actually trying to atone for them. Hopefully, Mr. Boulanger is giving federal prosecutors valuable information to use in the trial of Mr. Boulanger's former colleague, Kevin Ring.

Lastly, also notice that even though Kendall Day signed the Motion for the Justice Department, William M. Welch's name appears on this document, too.

What is Kevin Ring doing Today?

Why, I'm glad you asked! According to the government's Sixth Notice of Discovery Status (.pdf) related to USA v. Kevin Ring:

The government has also given Ring the opportunity to review the FBI's indices of evidence it has received in the course of investigating Ring, Jack A. Abramoff, and related individuals (the "Abramoff Investigation"), and to review and copy any items from those indices. Ring has accepted that invitation and will review the indices on April 24, 2009. The government will also give Ring the opportunity to review and copy discoverable items from any indices maintained by the other law-enforcement agencies involved in the Abramoff investigation, which agencies the government listed in its November 17, 2008 letter to Ring. <sup>3

3</sup> They are the (1) Defense Criminal Investigative Service, (2) Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, (3) Department of Interior OIG, (4) Department of Labor OIG, (5) General Services Administration OIG, and (6) Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG, in addition to the (7) FBI and (8) DOJ OIG, discussed above.

Emphasis added

Wow! That's a lot of indices to look through, decide what is relevant, and make copies. Mr. Ring - and presumably his team of attorneys - should have a very busy day today.

The ACR Blog would like to know with certainty what interest each of these investigative agencies has in Mr. Ring. Here's the complete agency list, along with a plausible explanation of why each agency might be interested in Mr. Ring.

1. Defense Criminal Investigative Service - NO GUESS ^A

2. Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation - Tax investigations of various scandal individuals, including Kevin and Kerrie Ring. For example, were payments made to KAR Consulting and other alleged kickbacks declared as income on appropriate tax forms?

3. Department of Interior OIG - Various investigations related to fraud/bribery in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and/or various Indian tribal issues (e.g.. recognition of the Mashpee Wampanoag)

4. Department of Labor OIG - Investigation into CNMI labor practices.

5. General Services Administration OIG - Investigation related to David Safavian / Eshkol Academy

6. Department of Housing and Urban Development OIG - Appropriations related to Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe

7. FBI - General law enforcement investigation

8. DOJ OIG - Investigation related to securing a $16 million grant to build a Choctaw jail; possible collusion with Robert Coughlin expediting visas for athletes to attend Eshkol Academy, etc.

I guess we need to learn more about the role of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service in this case. The work of the ACR Blog is never done.

^A The ACR Blog does not know why the Defense Criminal Investigative Service would have something relevant to provide to Mr. Ring's defense. The ACR Blog does know that the Defense Criminal Investigative Service was involved in the investigation of convicted Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.). Brent Wilkes was convicted in that scandal. Tom DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham, was Mr. Wilkes' lobbyist.

USA v. Kevin Ring: Discovery Status

Last Friday, the Department of Justice submitted its Sixth Notice of Discovery Status (.pdf) related to the criminal case United States of America v. Kevin A. Ring. There are a few items in this document the ACR Blog would like to bring to your attention.

The Abramoff Investigation is Still Extremely Active

Mr. Ring and his lawyers are casting what the government contends is an excessively wide net in its discovery demands. This includes transcripts and notes relating to individuals who will not be witnesses and are not part of the conspiracy.

Page 8

Ring has requested grand jury transcripts and interview reports of various individuals who will not be government witnesses, arguing that they are discoverable under Brady or otherwise. The government does not agree that all such transcripts and interview reports are discoverable. Nevertheless, the government has provided or will provide by July 15, 2009 the following items:

The government agreed to provide grand jury transcripts and interview notes of people that the government doesn't even plan to use as witnesses. Basically, it sounds that if Mr. Ring's name was mentioned or events described in the indictment are discussed, the government will provide the document. Fair enough. But what I find most interesting is this disclaimer made by government lawyers:

Page 9

The government will interview numerous public officials over the coming months as a result of other prosecutions arising from the Abramoff investigation. As the trial team obtains reports memorializing those interviews, they will be added to the trial team’s database and searched and produced as described above.

"As a result of other prosecutions arising from the Abramoff investigation." That phrase is a little ambiguous to me. One interpretation is that the "other prosecutions" refer to recent guilty pleas by Ann Copland, Todd Boulanger and others. Under this theory, investigators are learning more about Mr. Ring from these recent guilty pleas and this is resulting in new interviews. Alternatively, the "other prosecutions" may refer to cases being built against other figures in the conspiracy that we don't know about yet. This would mean more guilty pleas and/or indictments may come in the future. Either way, it sounds like the government is learning more and more about Mr. Ring's activities in the alleged Abramoff conspiracy every day.

==

Unreasonable Demands

One thing that annoys me about lawyers is that too many of them think that their obligation to zealously represent their clients gives them license to act like jerks. Mr. Ring's defense team seems to exemplify this behavior.

Mr. Ring's lawyers have made unreasonable discovery demands:

Pages 10-11

The government and Ring disagree as to what constitutes Brady material in this case. Nevertheless, the government believes that the discovery process outlined above will satisfy the government’s obligations to disclose evidence under Brady, Giglio, and their progeny. The government would prefer to resolve any disagreement on this issue by providing all of the documents Ring seeks, regardless of whether such materials are exculpatory. The government cannot do so, however, because Ring has asserted, in six separate letters, myriad vague and unbounded categories of “evidence” that he contends constitute Brady materials, which categories extend far beyond what would be exculpatory as to Ring and far beyond the contours of this case.

For example, in the first of ten supposed Brady demands set forth in a February 24, 2009 letter, Ring demands any and all evidence that any public official whom Ring or a coconspirator ever lobbied took any action for any noncorrupt reason: “[a]ny evidence that a public official lobbied by Mr. Ring or one of his alleged co-conspirators made a decision or took an action for or because of factors other than the official's receipt of a thing of value . . . .” Elsewhere in that letter, Ring demands “[a]ny statement by any individual stating that they [sic] did not believe they had committed a crime or otherwise asserting innocence.” Ring’s demands simply are not limited to the contours of this case.

The government cannot conceive of a means of locating or producing the entirety of the boundless, mostly irrelevant information that Ring demands. Accordingly, the government has notified Ring that it may have to litigate some of these issues and ask the Court to resolve the scope of the government’s Brady obligations in this case.

In the first paragraph, the government basically says that whether or not it thinks a particular document is exculpatory to Mr. Ring, if Mr. Ring wants it, he gets it. Sounds more than fair, doesn't it? This apparently isn't good enough for Mr. Ring's lawyers.

The indictment of Kevin Ring identifies gifts and official acts that the government alleges are part of the grand Team Abramoff conspiracy. Certainly if the government is in possession of evidence that the decision to take official action of one of the items in the indictment was based on a non-corrupt reason, the government should provide that evidence to Mr. Ring's defense. But based on the government's characterization of the letter from Mr. Ring's defense, it seems Mr. Ring's attorneys want any evidence that any of Mr. Ring's alleged co-conspirators based any decision on non-corrupt factors -- even if that decision is not the basis of any part of Mr. Ring's indictment.

Mr. Ring's defense team should stick to the allegations in my opinion. They are being unreasonable by taking this excessively broad view that the government should provide evidence regarding acts not mentioned in the indictment. Such evidence wouldn't be exculpatory to Mr. Ring anyway.

The government's plan to litigate this unreasonable discovery demand is sound. Look, as a fiscal conservative, I typically don't like most government expenditures. But every penny spent prosecuting Kevin Ring and this gang of miscreants is money well spent.

Kevin Ring's Attorney wants to go 'Plumbing'

The ACR Blog is back in front of the keyboard after nearly a week long well-deserved break. But it is back to work. There has been a lot of activity in the Kevin Ring case in particular since that time, and it will take several posts to catch up.

==

On Monday, US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle held a status conference regarding US v. Kevin Ring. I had expected Judge Huvelle to deny Mr. Ring's Motion to Dismiss at that time. Never try to predict the actions of a federal judge. Judge Huvelle will deny Mr. Ring's Motion to Dismiss on her own timetable.

Jennifer Yachnin of Roll Call again earns the heartfelt appreciation of the ACR Blog for being the only reporter who found Monday's hearing to be worth covering. Apparently, the most interesting part of the hearing had something to do with the prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ak.).

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle said Monday that she expected prosecutor William Welch, the chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, to be removed from the trial of Kevin Ring, a former aide to then-Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) who later joined Abramoff as a lobbyist.

The ACR Blog has been reading (and posting) court documents in numerous Abramoff-related court cases. Although Mr. Welch's name indeed appears as a Justice Department attorney in the Kevin Ring case, the ACR Blog is unaware of any evidence that Mr. Welch has played an active role in the Ring case or any other Abramoff-related case. The Dream Team of government prosecutors responsible for prosecuting the Abramoff-related crimes include: Michael Ferrara (Public Integrity), Nathaniel Edmunds (Fraud), Kendall Day (Public Integrity), Peter Sprung (Public Integrity) and Michael Leotta (District of Maryland). These are the guys doing all the work ... Mr. Welch isn't really active in the Abramoff-related cases at all.

The fact that Mr. Welch isn't active in Abramoff-related court cases doesn't faze Mr. Ring's attorney, Andrew Wise, at all. Not only does Mr. Wise take a swipe (perhaps deservedly) at Mr. Welch, Mr. Wise also accuses attorney Henry Schuelke of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler of bias.

Mr. Schuelke is a highly respected lawyer. In 2004, Mr. Ring's former lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, hired Mr. Schuelke to perform an internal investigation into the actions of Team Abramoff. This is where Mr. Schuelke's testimony is likely relevant since Count IX and Count X of Mr. Ring's indictment involve allegedly false statements made to investigators hired by Greenberg Traurig. Mr. Ring was advised that information given to Greenberg's investigators would almost certainly be turned over to the Department of Justice.

More recently, Mr. Schuelke has been tasked with investigating the alleged misconduct of the prosecutors in the trial of former Sen. Stevens. Somehow, Mr. Ring's attorney is conflating these two events and making the result seem somewhat sinister:

Ring attorney Andrew Wise raised concerns that Schuelke’s testimony and ongoing investigation could give an “appearance of impropriety.”

“It’s the type of bias issue that is very hard to plumb in front of a jury,” Wise said.

Please believe me when I say I have no idea what Mr. Wise wants to plumb. I strongly suggest that you read the Roll Call article so that you may try to divine the point Mr. Wise is making. The ACR Blog believes that Mr. Wise is trying to claim that because Mr. Schuelke is investigating the misconduct in Sen. Stevens' case, his expected testimony in Mr. Ring's case is called into question. The author of the ACR Blog has never claimed to be very smart. I truly don't follow the logic there.

It comforts the ACR Blog that Mr. Wise's arguments also appear incoherent to a person the ACR Blog recognizes as knowledgeable and experienced in matters of the law -- US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle:

“[Mr. Schuelke's] role has to do with four or five people who have nothing to do with this case,” Huvelle said of Schuelke’s investigation, and later added of the opposition: “I must be thick. I don’t understand it at all.”

Changes at the FEC

The New York Times publishes an editorial reflecting their optimism that President Obama truly intends to bring change:

President Obama will soon be able to deliver on his campaign promise to rescue the Federal Election Commission from the machinations of party hacks dedicated to foiling campaign laws. Three of the commission’s six seats come open on May 1, providing the president a not-to-be-missed opportunity to appoint independent experts truly dedicated to enforcement and reform.

Umm. I'm not holding my breath.

The reason I bring this editorial to your attention is this:

Of the three seats opening up, two are reserved for Democrats and one for a Republican. The Republican seat is now held by Donald McGahn, a poster boy for what has gone wrong with the F.E.C.: He is a onetime ethics adviser to Tom Delay, the former House Republican majority leader driven from Washington by campaign abuse scandals. As for the two Democrats, both are well-connected party stalwarts — unlikely to bring the “strong impartial leadership” that Mr. Obama promised to restock the agency with during the campaign.

Don McGahn. Now I freely admit I haven't been following the activities of the FEC, so I'll let the "poster boy" comment slide. But I'm beginning to warm up to the idea that having Tom DeLay's ethics advisor chair the FEC is unseemly. I'd be pleased to see Mr. McGahn go.

The NY Times also splashes a little cold water on the optimism at the top of the editorial. I'm not hopeful that the FEC will become an organization that bases its actions on what is right.

Of the three seats opening up, two are reserved for Democrats and one for a Republican. The Republican seat is now held by Donald McGahn, a poster boy for what has gone wrong with the F.E.C.: He is a onetime ethics adviser to Tom Delay, the former House Republican majority leader driven from Washington by campaign abuse scandals. As for the two Democrats, both are well-connected party stalwarts — unlikely to bring the “strong impartial leadership” that Mr. Obama promised to restock the agency with during the campaign.

On the Docket ...

Judge Ellen S. Huvelle has scheduled a hearing on Monday, April 20, 2009 related to Kevin Ring's case. My suspicion is that Judge Huvelle will deny Mr. Ring's Motion to Dismiss at that time.

If Judge Huvelle indeed issues an order, the ACR Blog will certainly post it.

Stephanie Szymanski Victory and the City of Valdez

Stephanie Szymanski
1986 Chugiak High School Chaparrals Drill Team
Chugiak, Alaska

Long ago, I promised a follow-up post on former Tom DeLay staffer Jack Victory and his wife, Stephanie Szymanski Victory. I haven't forgotten. And this isn't the promised post. But I did find out something interesting about Stephanie Szymanski Victory.

As I often do on Tuesday nights, I was reading the agendas and minutes of the Valdez, Alaska city council. According to a January 20, 2009 Agenda Statement, Valdez was considering hiring Stephanie Szymanski Victory as the city's federal lobbyist in Washington, DC. The document states that Stephanie Victory had been the city's lobbyist since 2004.

The ACR Blog could not independently verify that Ms. Victory has been a lobbyist for the City of Valdez during this time period. According to the US Senate Lobbying Database, no lobbyist by the name of Stephanie Victory or Stephanie Szymanski has registered as a lobbyist at all. Furthermore, entering "Valdez" in the "client name" field yield no lobbyist representing the City of Valdez at all. Certainly Ms. Victory is aware that lobbyists are required to disclose the clients they represent. After all, her husband, Jack Victory, appears in the Senate Lobbying Database as the representative for over a dozen clients including the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, GovBiz Advantage Inc., and the American Gas Association.

Nevertheless, the minutes of the January 20, 2009 meeting (page 7) indicate that Ms. Victory was hired to represent the City of Valdez as a lobbyist with a compensation of $30,000. ¹

Strangely, less than two months later, the City of Valdez was looking for new lobbyist representation in Washington, DC. See page 2 of the March 16, 2009 minutes.

The ACR Blog does not know what is going on in Valdez, but it does have its suspicions.

==

¹ Also on Page 7 of the January 20, 2009 minutes, we learn that Ms. Victory reports having one other client. This client manufactures erosion control products, but since Ms. Victory doesn't seem to appear in the Senate Lobbying Database, the ACR Blog cannot say with certainty who this client is. That said, the ACR Blog believes the unnamed erosion control product manufacturer to be Hesco.

Scandal Felon Gets Talk Radio Show

Admitted Felon Bob Ney

When I was first told this, I thought it was some sort of lame overdue April Fool's joke. But tipsters to the ACR Blog tell the truth: Admitted felon and former US Congressman Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is getting a talk radio show. From The State Journal (Charleston, W. Va.):

A brand new radio show begins Monday featuring former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney.

It will air on WVLY AM 1370. According to morning host Howard Monroe, Ney will focus on ethics, earmarks, prison reform and Ohio Politics.

In 2006, Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements in connection with a probe into lavish gifts by lobbyists. Ney served 17 months in prison until his release in August of last year.

Ethics? You've got to be kidding me!

Do you think he'd take a call from the Anti-Corruption Republican?

Shane Tessimond, Todd Boulanger: Jailbirds of a Feather Flock Together?

Shane Tessimond, March 18, 2000


Gentle readers, you know I have long harbored suspicions that there might be more to the case of Shane Elliot Tessimond than meets the eye. Originally, it was the assignment of Mr. Tessimond's case to Judge Ellen S. Huvelle in US District Court in Washington, DC. As one who carefully monitors the proceedings in her courtroom in order to catch the latest developments in the Abramoff scandal, I wondered: Was it mere coincidence that Mr. Tessimond's case appeared on the docket of the judge hearing the majority of the cases related to Jack Abramoff? Or is there more to the story? To refresh your memory a bit, here's how I summarized the contents of Mr. Tessimond's indictment on January 18, 2009.

Shane Tessimond is a former employee of Sen. John F. Kerry's failed 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. Tessimond worked for the Kerry campaign in 2002 and 2003. According to a federal indictment issued last month, Mr. Tessimond is accused of stealing contribution checks from the Kerry campaign and, with the help of an accomplice, unlawfully converting the campaign contributions into personal funds. Mr. Tessimond is also charged with stealing the identity of one of his co-workers at another job he held.

Mr. Tessimond subsequently pleaded guilty to two felony counts on February 26, 2009, pledged to cooperate with federal prosecutors, and currently awaits sentencing. The few media accounts describing his indictment and plea deal seemed to characterize the caper as one committed by an errant campaign worker, whose theft led to the enrichment of himself and his accomplice - Mark Parisi of Connecticut (The ACR Blog would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows more about Mr Parisi, especially how he and Mr. Tessimond came to be such good "friends" - confidentiality assured.)

In the January 18 post, I wrote that I had "good reason to believe that Mr. Tessimond is personal friends with Todd Boulanger." I based this statement, in part, on a party invitation I discovered on a website, www.bigpappa.com, that seems to cater to Hill gossips, alcoholics, status climbers, and the occasional white-collar criminal. This particular invitation was for one of a series of parties being held around Independence Day 2001 2000 under the banner "F Street Strikes Back!", and the listed hosts were Shane Tessimond, Todd Boulanger, and two other individuals. I didn't disclose this information at the time, as I feared the content might quickly be deleted from the website by its host/owner. Alas, Robert "Big Pappa" Turner II has done precisely that - my readers may speculate on his motive(s) for deleting this information and draw their own conclusion(s).

But pity poor Mr. Turner, as Web Archive Strikes Back! Scroll down to Saturday to see the party invitation hosted by Mr. Tessimond et al.

Just as the trail was growing cold and the ACR Blog began losing interest in Mr. Tessimond, Mr. Turner's behavior caused us to change course and want to dig deeper. What was he trying to hide? Who might he be trying to protect? With the help of webarchive (and other anti-corruption intelligence sources), we have unearthed new information regarding Mr. Tessimond that suggests close ties to a number of scandal figures. In fact, click on the thumbnail of the photo featuring Mr. Tessimond below to see him on the Hill in 1999 sandwiched between an admitted criminal (Todd Boulanger) and a person who, insists a friend of the ACR Blog, bears an uncanny resemblance to a PR flack for Tom DeLay:



In fact, remember the picture of Kevin Ring we previously uncovered (also deleted from bigpappa.com by Mr. Turner), where he's sitting on a couch next to an admitted criminal sipping beer?

That picture was taken on the couch in Shane Tessimond and Todd Boulanger's living room (aka "House of the Homies") at 328 F Street NE in Washington DC on July 1, 2001 2000. That's right, Mr. Tessimond and Mr. Boulanger were roommates in 2001 2000, one year two years prior to Mr. Tessimond's employment with Kerry for President in 2002. Of course a few pics of Mr. Tessimond hanging out at home with indicted individuals, admitted criminals, and even possibly a DeLay apologist prove nothing, except perhaps that Mr. Tessimond has extremely poor taste in selecting friends. But stay tuned - because there's more to come on Mr. Tessimond...

Part VI -- Kevin Ring Indictment: REP. ERNEST ISTOOK

Kevin Ring Indictment (.pdf)

We all know that former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) earned a lot of ink in Kevin Ring's September 2008 indictment, but that was not the first time Rep. Istook was referred to as "Representative 4". Rep. Istook was originally named "Representative 4" in June 2008 court documents related to the guilty plea of his aide John Albaugh.

From time to time, I like to provide a running list of Justice Department codenames and their status. This is a good time to do that:

Representative 1: Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) -- GUILTY
Representative 2: Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Fort Bend County) -- Not charged
Representative 3: Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) -- Not charged
Representative 4: Rep. Earnest Istook (R-Okla.) -- Not charged
Representative 5: Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) -- Not charged

Staffer A: Tony Rudy -- GUILTY
Staffer B: Neil Volz -- GUILTY
Staffer C: Will Heaton -- GUILTY
Staffer D: Fraser Verrusio -- INDICTED
Staffer E: Ann Copland -- GUILTY
Staffer F: Kevin Koonce -- Not charged

Lobbyist A: Jack Abramoff -- GUILTY
Lobbyist B: Ed Buckham -- Not charged
Lobbyist C: Kevin Ring -- INDICTED
Lobbyist D: Todd Boulanger -- GUILTY
Lobbyist E: Jim Hirni -- GUILTY
Lobbyist F: Unidentified lobbyist for United Rentals <sup>1

1</sup> The unidentified lobbyist for United Rentals was referred to as "Lobbyist F" in the Factual Basis for Plea of Trevor Blackann. "Lobbyist F" was renamed "Person #1" in James Hirni's Information. Although press accounts have never identified Lobbyist F/Person #1, we do know that Ernest Delle Donne has served as Vice President - National Accounts and Government Services at United Rentals.

Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.)

Let's take a moment to review the appearances of Rep. Istook in the Ring Indictment:

February 4, 2003: At Mr. Albaugh's request, Mr. Ring hosted a fundraising dinner for Rep. Istook at Jack Abramoff's Signatures Restaurant. Rep. Istook's campaign committee failed to reimburse Mr. Ring, Greenberg Traurig or Signatures for this event. (Paragraph 34)

March 13, 2003: Mr. Albaugh suggested to Rep. Istook that Rep. Istook thank Mr. Abramoff in advance for the use of Mr. Abramoff's FedEx Field suite for a fundraising event. (Paragraph 37)

March 19, 2003: Following a conversation with Rep. Istook, Mr. Abramoff emailed Mr. Ring and other Team Abramoff members telling them that Rep. Istook had "basically asked what we want in the transportation bill". Mr. Abramoff instructed his staff to "make sure we load up our entire Christmas list." (Paragraph 38)

July 14, 2003: Mr. Ring emailed Mr. Abramoff to tell him that funding had been secured for various Team Abramoff clients (including $2 million for the Sandia Pueblo). Mr. Ring asked Mr. Abramoff to call Rep. Istook to thank him for his "help with our priorities in the" bill and say, "Your staff, especially John Albaugh, has been very responsive and helpful in working with Kevin Ring on our team." (Paragraph 43)

July 28, 2003: Mr. Ring hosted a fundraiser for Rep. Istook during an American Idol concert at the MCI Center. Rep. Istook's campaign failed to timely reimburse Mr. Ring, Mr. Abramoff or Greenberg Traurig. (Paragraph 45).

July 29, 2003: Mr. Ring asked for Mr. Albaugh's help in securing $4,183,000 in funding for a Team Abramoff client's road project. (The ACR Blog believes this client to be Carter County, Montana.) Mr. Ring, Mr. Albaugh and Rep. Istook had discussed this funding item the night before at the American Idol concert. Mr. Albaugh replied, "I don't think it will be a problem ..." (Paragraph 46)

September 4, 2003: Mr. Ring and Greenberg Traurig held the fundraiser for Rep. Istook at FedEx field discussed on March 13, 2003. Rep. Istook's campaign did not timely reimburse Mr. Ring, Mr. Abramoff or Greenberg Traurig for the use of the sports suite. (Paragraph 47)

January 13, 2004: Mr. Ring sent Mr. Albaugh an email offering to host another fundraising event for Rep. Istook. In the email, Mr. Ring asked about a "bill in the US Senate" and Rep. Istook's "office's relationship with the U.S. Department of the Treasury." The ACR Blog does not know what those two items refer to. (Paragraph 56)

==

Simply due to the fact that the Justice Department has given Rep. Istook the codename "Representative 4", the ACR Blog believes that the DoJ may be building a case against the former Congressman. Contrast this with how the DOJ referred to Rep. Heather Wilson in the indictment. The DoJ called Rep. Wilson "the New Mexico tribe's U.S. Representative" (Paragraph 156). If the DoJ had given Rep. Wilson the codename "Representative 6", the ACR Blog would have been more likely to think that Rep. Wilson might possibly face legal jeopardy herself.

==

Part I -- Kevin Ring Indictment: ED BUCKHAM!

Part II -- Kevin Ring Indictment: MASHPEE WAMPANOAG

Part III -- Kevin Ring Indictment: REP. HEATHER WILSON

Part IV -- Kevin Ring Indictment: JENNIFER FARLEY

Part V -- Kevin Ring Indictment: DAVID LOPEZ

Judge Huvelle: “This indictment is not going away”

Jennifer Yachnin of Roll Call ($) seems to be the only reporter in the country who thought yesterday's court hearing regarding Kevin Ring's Motion to Dismiss was worth covering. Kudos to Ms. Yachnin.

Mr. Ring's defense rested on an Clintonian-style "everyone does it" argument:

Ring attorney Andrew Wise argued at a status hearing Thursday that Ring’s actions, including providing tickets to sporting events to various individuals, were “tools that were quite traditional and widely accepted.”

Judge Huvelle didn't issue a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, but she did say, “This indictment is not going away.” I'm guessing that Mr. Ring's Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Andrew Wise, Mr. Ring's attorney, carves out what undoubtedly is a minority viewpoint:

“You can’t just line up things of value, you can’t just line up [official] acts, and presume the requisite explicit agreement,” Wise said.

Many other defendants have pleaded guilty to crimes very similar to the ones Mr. Ring has been indicted for. Those defense lawyers have felt that it was best to have their clients plea guilty to these crimes. Here is a sampling.

Todd Boulanger: Pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud

Ann Copland: Pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud

Jim Hirni: Pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud

Mark Zachares: Pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud

It seems Judge Huvelle hasn't been persuaded by the arguments of Mr. Wise. They haven't persuaded the ACR Blog, either.

What We're Watching

A story out of Alabama has caught the attention of the ACR Blog:

Several televi­sion stations have stopped running ads from a pro-bingo group that at­tempt to link Gov. Bob Riley to Choctaw tribal casinos in Mississippi.

Riley's deputy legal adviser sent the stations a letter threatening legal action if the ads aired by the Sweet Home Alabama Coalition -- a group pushing a bingo bill in the Alabama Legislature -- were not pulled. The commercial suggests Riley opposes the bill because he received cam­paign donations from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, which op­erates casinos in Mississippi...

Mississippi Choctaw lobby­ist Michael Scanlon, who briefly worked for Riley as a congressional aide in 1997, gave money to four groups that in turn gave to Riley's 2002 campaign for governor.

Scanlon's lobbying firm gave $500,000 in October 2002 to the Republican Governors' Association, which soon after transferred the money to a re­lated Republican committee. The committee donated $650,000 to Riley and $150,000 to the Alabama Republican Party the same month. But RGA officials said the Scanlon money did not go to Riley.

Scanlon, who was a busi­ness partner of Abramoff, pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiracy for trying to bribe a member of Congress and other public officials.

Shortly after the 2002 elec­tions, Abramoff told the Choc­taw tribe that it had saved millions because of Scanlon's work in Alabama to stifle gam­bling, according to an email Abramoff wrote that was re­leased as part of the Senate Indian Affairs investigation.

Riley said he never had a conversation with Scanlon about the Choctaws.

Long time readers know who Michael Scanlon is. Mr. Scanlon pleaded guilty to his part in the Abramoff corruption scandal back in 2005. He has yet to be sentenced because he continues to cooperate with federal investigators. Other than Jack Abramoff himself, Mr. Scanlon is the most culpable non-public offical in the Abramoff scandal. Mr. Scanlon received millions of dollars through Abramoff's illicit Gimme Five scheme.

Mr. Scanlon also famously called people who get information from Christian sources "Wackos". Mr. Scanlon intended to whip the "Wackos" into a frenzy to oppose the spread of gambling that would compete with Mr. Scanlon's clients.


(Click on the little picture for a big picture)

And no one should forget that Mr. Scanlon served as a staffer for none other than Tom DeLay himself.

These events are not quite ripe enough for the ACR Blog to comment on. That said, the ACR Blog believes there is a fair chance that this story could Turner into something more interesting.

Friday, July 10, 2009

The ACR Blog's calendar is already filling up on July 10, 2009. Even though that date is still over three months away, we know of three interesting events scheduled for that day:

1. Status Conference for Tony Rudy
2. Status Conference for James Hirni
3. Status Conference for Mark Zachares

Historically, federal prosecutors and defense attorneys assert that the defendants are cooperating satisfactorily at these hearings. Both sides ask the judge to defer sentencing and a new date is set. The ACR Blog doesn't recall seeing so many conferences set for a single day. At the same time, we don't know if there is anything to read into this development, either. It all could be one big coincidence.

A friend of the ACR Blog, Unheard No More! takes a closer look at one of the Motions to Continue. Be sure to check her blog entry on Mark Zachares.

Part V -- Kevin Ring Indictment: DAVID LOPEZ

Kevin Ring Indictment (.pdf)

The office of former Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) provides much material for our on-going series of posts clarifying items in the Kevin Ring indictment that the Justice Department intentionally left vague. Today, we look at Rep. Doolittle's Chief of Staff (CoS). By my count, the CoS was mentioned no fewer than eleven times in the indictment. The earliest event involving the CoS was on January 26, 2000 when the indicted Mr. Ring gave the CoS and Rep. Doolittle's District Director¹ two suite tickets to a Washington Capitals hockey game (paragraph 61). The last event mentioned was a dinner the CoS attended at Jack Abramoff's Signatures restaurant that Kevin Ring expensed on March 16, 2002 (paragraph 116).

Of course, we're going to try to identify this unnamed Chief of Staff.

Puerto Rico Trip

95. On or about April 25, 2001, defendant RING sent an email to Abramoff in which he discussed a trip to Puerto Rico for Representative 5's [John Doolittle's] Chief of Staff and his wife and wrote, "I don't think they want to have too many scheduled visits or activities." Abramoff replied, "They don't need to have any scheduled activities."

From Legistorm, we can view the names of all 17 Doolittle staffers during the second quarter of 2001. None of them held the title of Chief of Staff. Rep. Doolittle did, however, have an Administrative Assistant (AA) named David Lopez. Congress.org indicates that the responsibilities of an AA and Cos are virtually identical. I don't know why the Justice Department isn't using precise language here, but let's see if we can find any evidence that Mr. Lopez is the person described as Rep. Doolittle's Chief of Staff in the Ring Indictment.

The Center for Public Integrity has a travel disclosure filed by Mr. Lopez (.pdf) that appears consistent with the Puerto Rico trip described in paragraph 95. Greenberg Traurig, Mr. Ring's firm at the time, is listed as the sponsor who paid for the trip. Notice that Mr. Lopez indicates the purpose of the trip is "fact finding". The Center for Public Integrity considers such a vague explanation for the purpose of the trip to be an example of an incomplete form. Honestly, it isn't clear to me, either, what the purpose of this trip was. Mr. Lopez doesn't indicate that his wife accompanied him on the Puerto Rico trip like the April email suggests. Nevertheless, I believe this trip is the one mentioned in the Ring Indictment.

There's one more point to be made about this trip:

[David Lopez] took a trip to Puerto Rico in 2001 paid for by Abramoff's firm, although House rules prohibited trips paid for by registered lobbyists; Lopez said he'd consulted with the Ethics Committee and intended to abide by the rules.

Erica Werner; Associated Press

I think we can assume that Ms. Werner's reporting is accurate. So what is going on here? Are we to believe that Mr. Lopez consulted with the Ethics Committee and the Committee approved a trip that violated House rules? I'm confident that Mr. Lopez has been asked about this.

Job for Julie Doolittle

One of the themes we repeatedly see in the Abramoff scandal is the employment of the relatives of officials. Specifically, wives of Congressmen and staffers were often offered employment by Jack Abramoff and associated entities. Here is another example from the Kevin Ring Indictment:

84. On or about September 20, 2000, defendant RING sent an email to Abramoff in which defendant RING wrote that Representative 5's [John Doolittle's] Chief of Staff reported that Representative 5 [John Doolittle] was excited and appreciative of a possilbe employment opportunity for his wife and wanted to speak with Abramoff about the job.

So can we connect Mr. Lopez to this email? I think we can! Again, from Erica Werner's AP article:

Lopez was also referenced in an e-mail Ring wrote to Abramoff in 2000 about finding work for Doolittle's wife, Julie, who went on to work for Abramoff on retainer. Julie Doolittle's fundraising and event-planning company, which she ran out of the couple's Virginia home, was the focus of the FBI's subpoena in April [2007].

************

***UPDATE***
April 26, 2009

Discovered in the extensive TPM Document Collection is what the ACR Blog believes to be the actual September 20, 2000 e-mail written from Mr. Ring to Mr. Abramoff and mentioned in the indictment. An excerpt:

David told me that Doolittle (JTD) is very excited and appreciative about the Toward Tradition position for Jule. JTD knows of the group and would like to talk to you about it. Can you call him whenever you get a free moment - does not need to be today.

Of couse, the ACR Blog believes that "David" is David Lopez.

************

Legal Liability

It is unclear whether or not Mr. Lopez is on the hook for any of his own actions. Mr. Lopez's lawyer, Bill Portanova, has consistently said that he doesn't believe is client is a focus of the investigation.

Let's learn more. To the AP article one more time:

David Lopez, who was Doolittle's longtime chief of staff until 2005 and continued to work for him as a campaign consultant for about a year after that, has turned over several hundred pages of campaign finance records to the Justice Department under subpoena, said his attorney, Bill Portanova.

First, notice that the AP, like the DoJ, seems to make no distinction between the positions of Administrative Assistant and Chief of Staff. But also notice what interested federal investigators. They wanted "campaign finance records". What's that all about?

Of course I don't have inside information into these records, but as always, I have a guess. Read this entire article from Roll Call. My excerpts aren't going to fully portray what was going on here:

Consulting has long been a family affair for Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) — including his extended “family” of Congressional aides.

His two top aides, and the spouse of one of them, collectively took in more than $300,000 over five years this decade in consulting fees from Doolittle’s re-election campaign committee and his leadership political action committee.

They are David Lopez, who served as his chief of staff until April 2005; Kathy Lopez, the former chief of staff’s wife; and Richard Robinson, the longtime district director¹ who became chief of staff after Lopez’s departure.

Until last year, Lopez and Robinson served as the partners of a political consulting firm, Votenet Systems, which appears to have had only Doolittle as a political client...

[House ethics] rules allow for senior aides to receive outside income, including from political work for their bosses, but staff cannot earn more than 15 percent of a Member’s salary in outside income — which, under current calculations, puts the ceiling for such payments at almost $25,000.

Throughout this decade, Lopez and Robinson have earned just about $20,000 each per year when both were working for Doolittle. That calculation is based on a 50-50 split of their consulting revenue according to fundraising expense reports compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine.com and a review of filings with the Federal Election Commission and the IRS.

At first it seemed strange to me that Congressional staffers would be in possession of "campaign finance records". I guess this explains what those records are likely to be.

==

¹ The ACR Blog believes that Richard Robinson, the District Director who received consulting fees from Rep. Doolittle's re-election campaign committee is the same person described in paragraph 61 of the indictment as the District Director who received a suite ticket to a Washington Capitals hockey game from Mr. Ring.

==

Part I -- Kevin Ring Indictment: ED BUCKHAM!

Part II -- Kevin Ring Indictment: MASHPEE WAMPANOAG

Part III -- Kevin Ring Indictment: REP. HEATHER WILSON

Part IV -- Kevin Ring Indictment: JENNIFER FARLEY

::

Sen. Stevens Skates

The ACR Blog didn't write anything about the trial and conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Basically, we took the editorial position that since Sen. Stevens' alleged malfeasance was not related to the Jack Abramoff scandal, it was outside the purview of this blog. Now that the Justice Department has decided to drop all the charges against Sen. Stevens, there is a point to be made.

First, let's examine why the Justice Department won't pursue Sen. Stevens:

Stevens was accused of concealing an estimated $250,000 worth of goods and services — the majority of which was devoted to house renovations — he received from Bill Allen, a longtime friend and executive at an Alaskan oil-services company.

In their court filing Wednesday, Justice lawyers said they found that prosecutors had concealed from Stevens’s defense team notes from an interview with Allen, in which Allen maintained that the work on Stevens’s home was worth only $80,000, an amount that conflicted with testimony Allen gave during the trial.

Holder, in a statement, said it was in the “interest of justice” to drop the charges because “certain information” should have been provided to Stevens’s defense team.

Clearly there was prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutors in Sen. Stevens' case were far from professional. Make no mistake, this is not the DoJ at its best. In contrast, the prosecution team handling the Abramoff crimes is the epitome of professionalism. (Does anyone know where I can buy a Nathaniel Edmonds Fathead?)

The politics surrounding this case cross the threshold of absurdity. First up, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.):

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a constant critic of the Justice Department under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush administration, hailed Holder’s decision, calling it solid proof that “there’s a new sheriff in town.”

“I think it just demonstrates that Eric Holder is a different attorney general who follows the rule of law for everybody and will not tolerate prosecutorial misconduct,” he said.

Sen. Leahy seems to take the position that the Bush Administration and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey condoned the prosecutorial misconduct. Sen. Leahy does not explain why the Bush Administration would ignore the "rule of law" in order to prosecute a member of its own party. The equivalent argument from the other side would be that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to drop the charges against Sen. Stevens is evidence that the Obama Administration condones corruption. Fortunately, I haven't seen anyone advance that position.

Next up, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah):

"I called him to congratulate him and tell him I'm really happy for him. He sounded elated, as anybody would after going through that tremendous problem and being falsely accused like he was." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

I find it disturbing that the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee confuses prosecutorial misconduct with a false accusation. Even Sen. Stevens himself didn't claim the vindication that Sen. Hatch conferred upon him.

Look, either Sen. Stevens accepted things of value without reporting them or he didn't. The fact that certain segments of the Justice Department engaged in egregious misconduct has no bearing on what Sen. Stevens did or did not do. I tend to believe the jury verdict was appropriate. After all, aren't we really discussing whether Sen. Stevens received $80,000 of home improvements or even a larger amount of home improvements? Either way, he didn't report it.