The Occasional Observer

I'm rarely surprised at this point by the shotgun tactics that are often used in politics, but what happened to Senator Stevens in this case (and I'll admit, I bought into the prosecution's case hook, line and sinker) is one of the most disturbing political episodes I can think of.

You may recall that Stevens was convicted on 7 felony counts of corruption just days before the election this past November. As a result, the WWII veteran and longest serving Republican in the Senate was defeated by Democratic challenger Mark Begich by the slimmest of margins (Stevens was actually leading when the polls closed, before absentee ballots were counted). Clearly, if not for his legal troubles, Stevens would have breezed to reelection.

But get this: the U.S. Attorney's office apparently worked to suppress exculpatory evidence, and fabricate evidence of criminality on Stevens part.

Stevens had written a note to Bill Allen, a wealthy friend who was coordinating the work on Stevens' home, that Allen should send Stevens a bill for all the work done. He further told Allen that more instruction regarding the renovation project would come via a mutual friend, named Bob Persons.

During Stevens' trial, the U.S. Attorney had to explain away this note to Allen, which read: "You owe me a bill. Remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing, compliance with the ethics rules entirely different."

The U.S. Attorney's solution? Solicit testimony from Allen, under oath, stating that Persons had told him to disregard Stevens' note; that the note was merely CYA for Stevens.

Here's the rub: the FBI had interviewed Allen 5 months before the trial, and Allen stated he'd never spoken to Persons on the topic. And this interview, occurring 5 months before the trial, was mysteriously never written up according to standard FBI procedures:

The newly discovered April 15 interview wasn't transcribed the way interviews with Allen and other witnesses had been, on FBI form 302s or memorandums of interviews, the Justice Department said this morning. Rather, it was discovered in the notes of attorneys who questioned Allen that day, five and half months before his testimony.

"The notes of the April 15 interview indicate that Bill Allen said, among other things, in substance and in part, that he (Bill Allen) did not recall talking to Bob Persons regarding giving a bill to the defendant,"

Translation: the U.S. Attorneys knowingly allowed an erroneous statement to stand unchallenged, and buried evidence that they knew the testimony was false.

Bush's Justice Department managed to successfully convict the longest sitting GOP Senator, a legend in his state and a WWII veteran, of corruption charges, through the use of corruption. A Democrat won a Senate seat that should still be in Stevens' and the GOP's hands. And an 85 year old man had his reputation impugned so that a couple of young punks could try and make a name for themselves.

Disgusting.

And of course, there's the double standard of the relatively light coverage this story has received in the MSM. Could you imagine if a Democrat had been wrongly convicted of corruption and lost his seat as a result? The endless "pursuit of the wrongdoers" that would be found on page one?

I haven't heard one call from the press--or a Democrat--for a Special Election (as Gov. Palin has done), given how unfair and tarnished the vote was. I'm not sure if a Special Election is the right solution, but you can bet the drumbeat for one would be deafening if the shoe were on the other foot.