One of the country’s leading pork-barrel politicians, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), has been indicted on corruption charges, CNBC reported at 12:50pm.
Interestingly, [initially] CNBC did not mention what party he was from[, though in updates a couple of minutes later they did mention that he was a Republican.]
UPDATE: More here. The Republican primary is on Aug. 26.
2d UPDATE: Remember that Stevens was the one who explained the internet to all of us:
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
I wonder whether Stevens was getting some money stuffed into his tubes in return for all those earmarks.
BTW, the grand jury indicted Steven on 7 counts.
I forget whence came the "Intarwebs", though.
No excuse for the corruption. If he's guilty he should be punished.
Says the "Dog"
Of course, if Stevens stubbornly stays in the race (which is entirely possible), he will lose.
Agree with M Mason - the timing is suspicious and stinks of a plot on the other side of the aisle.
Here's hoping he is fully vindicated.
In other, non-parnaoid, news, the charges were not (directly) corruption-related. He's been charged with seven counts of false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms. Obviously, anyone can tell that this is probably related to corruption, but presumably the investigation into the underlying, possibly more serious charges remains ongoing.
A plot hatched by the Bush appointee who's the USA for Alaska? Okay.
The Dems need to pick up on the order of 10 seats in order to get to a filibuster proof 60-vote majority without worrying about what kind of mood Lieberman is in. The odds of this, even with Stevens' seat changing hands, are rather low. The best case scenarios have the Dems getting to 57 seats, and after that the odds fall extremely low, so your little conspiracy theory really has about as much weight as some of the theories about 9/11.
True, however I think part of the reason so much ridicule was directed at him for making those statements is that people felt he was not using it as slang/metaphor, but really thought there were these old school vacuum tube things like at the bank teller.
To me, the weirder statement is when he talks about a staffer sending him "an Internet" and it taking 4 days to get to him. No Senator, I think a savvy staffer just used your ignorance of technology to excuse being late on something.
Why? What did I miss? Does West Virginia have a new senator?
Does anyone remember Strom Thurmond, may peace be upon him, during the Clarence Thomas hearings? I can't remember precisely what word he used, but I think he kept telling witnesses he could not hear to "Talk into the machines" (aka, "microphones".) Anyone have a better memory than I do?
Ever notice how they've all (with the exception of one state senator) been Republicans? It doesn't seem to be a Democratic problem....of course, that might have something to do with the Dem's being kept far away from any real power for so long in AK.
The trooper she had fired (allegedly because of his involvement in a child custody battle involving her sister) had previously employed his Taser on his unarmed 11 year old son. He had made threats to kill the governor's sister and "all of her family." The person responsible for seeking his termination was, in fact, the chief of Gov. Palin's security detail.
I don't think she's really facing any serious trouble. The fact is that she fired the Public Safety Commissioner because he allowed the whitewashing of illegal and threatening conduct by a trooper. That "scandal" will blow over as more facts come to light.
--PtM
Does anyone remember Strom Thurmond, may
peace be upon himhe roast in hell, during the Clarence Thomas hearings?No need to thank me for fixing it.
Good point. You'd never see the N.Y. Times print even the simple facts, like say, "Senator Barack Hussein Mohamed Obama, the junior Surrendercrat from Illinois, was indicted today for doing stuff that reminds me how much I hate Stalinists with forged birth certificates." Damn Surrendercratic lamestream media.
Anyhow, I hope that he'll lose the primary, although from what I understand none of them have any money or much name recognition. Is there anything we can do to change that in the next 4 weeks or so?
I think that's being a little generous to Palin. The fact is she shouldnt' be pushing for the Trooper's firing period. It doesn't matter how good her reasons were. I think Palin is catching some well deserved flak, but I agree it will blow over. Hopefully, after encouraging closer scrutiny of Alaska State Troopers and especially those with disciplinary problems, though that's probably wishful thinking.
Begich, Stevens Dem challenger (or maybe only one of them) was the mayor of Anchorage for the last 4 years. He definitely has name recognition, though probably not on par with Stevens.
And then there were eight, all Republicans:
1) Sen. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
2) Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.)
3) Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
4) Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
5) Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.)
6) Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.)
7) Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.)
8) Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
Hmmm. By golly, that's true - I've never seen my local paper identify any Senator or congressman as a Surrendercrat. How could I have missed their obvious bias?
But having said that, getting a conviction will be tough. Just play for the jury Steven's "Internets" soliloquy and they will find that he lacked the capacity to knowingly make a false statement.
"Clout," no; "dignity, honor, intelligence, wisdom, and commitment to public service," ...depends on the sandwich.
That just shows how deep the Democrat corruption in the DoJ goes.
Some ham sandwiches are guilty.
You are very deeply deluded. Only someone living under a rock or completely unwilling to credit not just media accounts, but reports from the DoJ's own personnel, could possibly believe the Bush DoJ is anything but deeply compromised by partisan Republicanism.
Unlike Rep. Jefferson (D-LA), Sen. Stevens (R-AK) will be pressured to resign by his party fellow-members. Unlike Rep. Jefferson (D-LA), Sen. Stevens (R-AK) will resign.
Considering torture was already illegal, your sense of outrage is a bit misguided.
Of being delicious, yes. It's just sad to see the gross criminalization of politics that is being directed at the longest serving Republican senator. Democrats won't be happy until being a Republican is outlawed.
As for whether Stevens will resign, that remains to be seen. Craig didn't, despite intense pressure from his caucus. Vitter didn't. Republicans don't have a particularly amazing record of resigning when they're doing their country and party more harm than good by staying on.
I am not defending either Senator Vitter or Senator Craig but there is a difference between a) being listed in a prostitute's Blackberry (Vitter); b) getting caught in an airport bathroom sting (Craig); and c) being charged with multiple felonies.
We could go all the way back to Senator Kennedy not resigning in 1969 (and perhaps even longer) for examples of politicians who should have resigned and didn't.
I would also note that a criminal conviction is not necessary to expel a member and that is likely a good thing--lest we depopulate Congress.
Do you consider 3 years to be a very long time? Am I to understand from this ad hominem fatuity that you support human torture?
I also didn't claim that a criminal conviction is necessary or sufficient to have a member expelled from Congress, merely that it is the sort of thing required, in practical terms, to get someone expelled, whereas an indictment isn't, historically speaking.
DeLay only resigned, many months later, when it was clear he was going to lose his election. Until then he had many defenders. Rick Renzi has not resigned, and other than a letter (prior to meeting with him), Boehner only asked Renzi to "consider whether he can continue to effectively represent" his constituents. Senator Craig didn't resign. Cunningham only resigned after pleaing guilty. Doolittle hasn't been indicted yet, but that FBI raid wasn't a suprise birthday party, either. Senator Vitter may not have been indicted, but he's admitted to indictable offenses, and yet he won't be before the voters until 2010. I wouldn't count on Stevens being pressured to resign until they figure out who has the best chance to beat Begich.
And most Democrats would love Jefferson to resign, but the Congressional Black Caucus is being painfully stubborn and threatening to make waves. And everything I read shows that other than the CBC, Democrats privately pressured Jefferson to resign.... I agree that Jefferson should have been handled more aggressively by Democrats, btw.
Don't know why I'm feeling feisty today, but there you have it.
Amusing, but according to Yoo, Scalia, a Bush annotation attached to the bill at his signing, and many others, it is not against the law. P{us 90 Senators believed that it was a proper and needed amendment.
Playing semantical games does not change reality.
Sen. Torricelli was pressured into abandoning his race, and former Senator Frank Lautenberg was substituted for him--keeping a Democratic Senate seat in a "blue" state from going Republican.
My guess is that something similar will happen in Alaska. If Stevens is renominated, he will withdraw and the the strongest potential Republican (perhaps Governor Palin, but there are others available if she is not) will be substituted to keep a Republican Senate seat in a "red" stte from going Democratic.
Yeah; that seems like a reasonable assessment of the situation.
While this is certainly true of of some Democrats (spend a few minutes reading some diaries at dailykos for some humor), I would be absolutely shocked and appalled if any Republicans ever felt the converse.
I have no doubt some Republicans feel the same way. I sure don't. Neither political party has a monopoly on good ideas--and the other party usually (but not always) does a good job of moderating policy proposals. Two perspectives are usually better than one.
Besides, I love my mom. And she's a Democrat.
So? Which Democratic voters are outraged about him still being in office?
Wake me up when you get to Alcee Hastings too.
You're claiming that you looked at Obama's bill. If so, then you're admitting you're a liar. Because what you did here is try to claim that the bill did not contain a provision to suspend the pullout in response to conditions on the ground. But
Wake me up when you explain Obama's incoherence. Which makes the "provisions on the ground" not only irrational, but irrelevant. You're actually endorsing the idea that Obama wants all the troops out "now" to use his word, but if conditions on the ground change (improve?) he'll stop pulling them out. Makes sense. If you're a dimwit.
As a point of fact I first discussed Obama's bill here, before you even stupidly waded in on the topic.
But keep pretending I don't know about the bill and Obama's bill makes sense. It would be par for the course.
The NR clip you cited is indeed irrelevant, and I did indeed already explain why. You used it to support your claim about the bill, but the clipping (and the article it came from) aren't about the bill, and don't even mention the bill.
The NR clip addresses the substance of the Obama bill. Which I've explained, twice. Again the substance is:
1. Remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008
2. would allow for a temporary suspension of the redeployment if the Iraqis meet security, political and economic benchmarks.
3. He titled the bill the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007"
1 &2 are not in any way compatible or coherent (Which of course is why Obama put them together), and Obama has been saying them both for a long time, which is what the NR clip addressed.
More:
Let's review. In your attempts to prove what the bill says, so far you've cited the bill itself this many times: zero.
Except I named the bill title and discussed it before you.
(Which took place before you wrote that silly statement).
More:
There you go again, with your dishonest citing. You are suggesting that Obama said those words ("offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008").
No, I posted a link to Obama's words which included "now"
Next:
Yes, the press is inclined to give Obama a free pass. That's why those Wright clips were run only once or twice.
Funny, when the media acutally do their job they are considered no longer "left wing." What does that say about your perception of them and their responsibilities?
Note how you dropped the silly meme that there is no evidence reporters donate to Democrats.
I hardly ever hear anyone who has no respect for his opponent's ideas mention having parents (you), siblings or close friends (me and me) on the other side. I won't jump to any conclusions, since it would only confirm one of my stronger biases. Which is that the kind of generalized hostility and personal attacks you see on these threads (and worse on others) is only possible for a lot of otherwise decent people to the extent they distance and abstract their opponents from anyone they actually know. I think many of them would automatically tend to treat someone expressing the same ideas in person a lot more generously, and sincerely so. Anyway, I wonder if my first correlation is actual or just perceived.
I would agree. It is much easier being hostile when there are no consequences and when one can remain anonymous in the process.
I don't read many blogs, because there is usually an echo chamber and an awful lot of name calling (of the other side) and simple minded rhetoric and repetition of talking points.
I like the VC because there are a variety of opinions and they make me think. I much prefer to intellectually ponder my views and am open to arguments that I may be mistaken. Sadly, many people on the Internet are not that way, even if they are genuinely nice people when not posting anonymous messages online.
I prefer a conversation and I genuinely respect other's opinions. I do not cast aspertions about motives and will generally give the benefit of the doubts. However, I will call out the trolls when I see them (and not just from the left).
But that's just me. We often disagree but I hope neither of us is ever disagreeable in the process.
What a joke. Your comment that I was discussing is here. This is how many times you "posted a link" in that comment: zero. This is how many times you actually quoted Obama in that comment: zero. This is how many times the word "now" appears in that comment: zero.
In that comment, you cited these words:
You suggested Obama said them. He didn't. I proved that, here. You're a liar.
There you go again, pretending to not understand what you did wrong. I never claimed that you hadn't "discussed" the bill before I did. What I pointed out is you never cited the bill. In all your gibberish about the bill, that you're spreading over several threads, you've cited actual text from the bill this many times: zero. And you've linked to the bill this many times: zero.
I suggest you sit down in a quiet place, start here, and keep scrolling. Then come back and explain why you've been telling so many lies.
No I didn't. And no matter how many times you type that, it won't be true.
I never claimed that you hadn't "discussed" the bill before I did. What I pointed out is you never cited the bill
Hilarious you would say this after I linked you to a post of mine where I named the bill, quoted from the bill and said it was Obama's bill.
In all your gibberish about the bill, that you're spreading over several threads, you've cited actual text from the bill this many times: zero
You can't seem to grasp this:
In the very thread you are referring to, I cited Obama's bill by name before you brought the topic up.
It wasn't 'several threads' it was one. One you keep referring back to your own posts in accusing me of not citing the bill.
Unreal.
And you've linked to the bill this many times: zero.
Which of course is irrelevant.
Funny, why aren't you defending the coherence of the bill?
Why all this bluster and false claims? Want to take a guess as to why you're doing that?
I suggest you sit down in a quiet place, start here, and keep scrolling
Funny you pick that post because it illustrates how you are such a dishonest hack.
I said:
Name one example of a "liberal" reporter doing this
You then claimed:
You claimed that no 'liberal' reporter ever said this.
Um, no I didn't.
Still waiting.
I think he will resign (or at least drop his re-election bid) once, as happened to Bob Torricelli, it becomes apparent that your party can keep your seat but that you, personally, cannot.
Ted Stevens is Mr. Alaska (at least in his own mind). Being defeated for re-election mars that legacy.
OOPS!
Otherwise, I'm suggesting he offered legislation which would do those things.
Gee, I wonder why you keep harping on this?
I'm guessing it is because you can't address the substantive criticism I offered.
See, Obama ran around the country saying this:
On top of offering a bill with a timetable. At the time he did it, people like you were cheering him on for "getting out of Iraq now." Nobody, not you, not any of your leftist cohorts were pointing out that the bill "would allow for a temporary suspension of the redeployment if the Iraqis meet security, political and economic benchmarks."
Why? Because that provision is incoherent, irrelevant, and would have never been enacted. I know this and you know this. Which is why you're playing semantic games and Obama was a hero of the nutroots.
Most of the regulars there are just like you, with regard to both intelligence and integrity.
I've just pointed out where you dishonestly put words into my mouth.
Project much?
You implied the study was left wing biased. What those links show is that if the people who did the study have any bias at all, it's pro right wing. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no evidence for your argument.
Um, those links in no way demonstrate any "pro right wing" bias.
Otherwise, I asked for and have not gotten any response to my question. Which was, what constitutes a negative story?
It is quite possible those running the study are not biased.
But the people trying report on it certainly are.
And again, the idea that Obama is getting negative press is laughably obscene. Reporters are donating to him at a 10:1 clip and nobody can cite any evidence Obama has gotten negative press.
And yes, I don't think it's fair to claim that Bush's victory margin (2.5%) was a 'mandate.' Since 1892, only three elections ('60, '68 and '76) have been won with a smaller margin.
Problem is, you're ignoring the Republican gains in Congress (became the first incumbent since FDR in 1936 to increase his own vote and the size of his majority in both the House and Senate).
Why?
You're an intellectual coward.
Remember, you blame Bush for the debt, but give him no credit when he is running the party (your words) and at the top of the ticket.
Incoherence much?
I meant to say that he more than doubled our debt to foreigners.
Laugh out loud funny.
You meant no such thing. But again, it's fascinating to watch a proud member of the party of government spending complain about, well, government spending!
Hoosier said:
Does anyone remember Strom Thurmond, may peace be upon him he roast in hell, during the Clarence Thomas hearings?
No need to thank me for fixing it."
Why do I have the suspicion that you dislike him for his . . . "intolerance"?
DOD Pres Release regarding Stevens indictment
Stevens Indictment
Do you have anything more current than Hastings past impeachment? This has nothing to do with the idiocy of his voters. Voter ignorance is an ongoing issue. GW Bush was, after all, elected twice to be President. Just the same, Hastings violated no law in his candidacy to be a House Member.
So he was convicted and punished two-decades ago; what else you got, other than unsubstantiated derogations? Wake me up when you get (apologies for the use of this next word that so many contemporary conservatives believe to be obscene) EVIDENCE, ok?
Well, gee, let's see where the EVIDENCE is before condemning Senator Stevens then?
Or is EVIDENCE only necessary for those you favor?
Hilarious to discover that your claim ("quoted from the bill") is false.
You quoted from the bill? Really? When you say "I linked you," you are referring to a link you included in a post of yours just upthread, here. In that post, you (twice) included a link to another post, here (in another thread). What follows is that post, in full:
This is the post where you allegedly "quoted from the bill." Let's focus on the four passages in your post that are delineated by quote marks:
A) offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008
B) It is time to give Iraqis their country back
C) It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces
D) Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007
You are claiming, obviously, that one or more of these passages are where you "quoted from the bill." The bill is here. This is how many of those passages can be found in the bill: one. It is D, the title. Is that what you meant, when you said "quoted from the bill?" That you stated the title of the bill?
A, B and C are passages that do not appear in the bill. Let's find out where they came from (since you didn't tell us).
A is from here. It's text written by a reporter. It is not from the bill.
B is from here. That's a speech Obama made. It's not the bill.
C is from the same WP article which was your source for A. C is not text from the bill. It is text written by a reporter.
Please consider these three items:
X) text in the bill
Y) text written by a reporter who is trying to paraphrase and summarize the bill (either correctly or incorrectly)
Z) text in a speech
Do you understand that X, Y and Z, are different? Do you understand that it is wrong to claim that you provided X, when in fact you provided Y and Z? Even if the ideas and words are similar? I guess not.
The OOPS is all yours. You're getting excited because you found a speech where Obama said words similar to the words the reporter said when she was paraphrasing him. Here's a simple rule you never learned: it's not OK to take a paraphrase and pretend that it's a quote. Even if the paraphrase is mostly correct.
I'm prepared to have a serious conversation about the bill with someone who is prepared to have a serious conversation about the bill, but that obviously excludes you, since you can't even manage to grasp the difference between quoting text from the bill, as compared with quoting text from a newspaper article that is talking about the bill.
Because you're such an outstanding specimen of the brains, honesty and attitude that fuels the GOP. And hopefully you're going to tell us why you said you "quoted from the bill" when you didn't.
Good point. A better word, instead of "claimed," would have been "suggested," or "implied." Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad you could help clear that up.
Now that we've cleared that up, here's a simple question. Please explain why you said this:
Of course not. Running Wright clips incessantly is certainly not "negative press." Likewise for Fox hosting Reverend James Manning:
(That text is not from Fox, but it's about Manning, and Manning has appeared on Fox discussing these matters.) Why would anyone think of that as "negative press?"
Really? Do much mind-reading? How do you know?
75% of our national debt was accumulated under Reagan, Bush and Bush. So tell us again which is the party of "government spending?"
You're wrong. He did.
Harry Reid declared the surge a failure before it even started.
Obama said the surge would not work.
Don't worry, accountability is something Democrats shout at Republicans.
Hilarious.
Um, gee, I wonder why you're doing this?
Want to take a guess? Because I know the answer and given you're an intellectual coward, it's clear you do too.
More:
And hopefully you're going to tell us why you said you "quoted from the bill" when you didn't.
Mind you, from the author of:
This is how many of those passages can be found in the bill: one
Um, I quoted from the bill. You admitted this, before accusing me of not doing so.
But again, you're doing this becasue you can't address the substance of the criticism. Everyone reading knows this, you know this.
What is comical is you're wasting all this space pretending I somehow misrepresented Obama's position. I did not, you know this, which is why you're carring on in your silliness.
Um, you don't have any evidence they were run "incessantly"
On top of the fact you can't define "negative press"
The Democrats. The same Democrats runnnig up the debt under Reagan and the ones who killed the BBA under Clinton, and the ones who oppose spending cuts and entitlement reform now.
Too funny. Except I didn't claim the paraphrase was a quote and you are harping on this because you can't address the substantive criticism of Obama.
Keep flailing. It suits you.
Coward.
When?
Obama &Harry Reid, wrong on the surge, wrong for America!
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.