All three of our congressional delegation made the list. I am so proud to be an Alaskan today. :sarcasm:
At least they're being called out on it and Alaskans are starting to question.
Two editorials from today's Anchorage Daily News...
http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/9312339p-9227306c.htmlSpeak up, senator
Testimony raises questions; Alaskans deserve answers
Published: September 18, 2007
Last Modified: September 18, 2007 at 02:53 AM
Bill Allen, former chairman of Veco, testified last week that he paid for some of the labor and provided some materials for the remodeling of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens’ home in Girdwood.
Sen. Ted Stevens has said little about the FBI investigation into the remodeling, which is part of a wide-ranging corruption probe. He has said only that he paid every bill he was sent.
Even before Mr. Allen’s testimony at the corruption trial of former state Rep. Pete Kott, the next question was obvious:
Were some bills never sent to Sen. Stevens, and paid by someone else? According to Mr. Allen, his oil-field services company picked up the tab for some furniture. Employees on Veco’s payroll did some of the work. And Mr. Allen said Veco might have paid the bills of some contractors on the job, but he wasn’t sure.
Sen. Stevens has refused to say more about the remodeling deal, in part because he refuses to comment about an ongoing investigation. Any lawyer would advise silence for his client in these circumstances. But Sen. Stevens has more than just an obligation to himself here. He has an obligation to clear the air with his constituents, the people of Alaska who have elected him to office, the people for whom he works.
If he wasn’t getting all the bills, did he know that? Did he make sure he was paying for all services? Why did he have his home remodeled through Veco, a company that was not in the home building or remodeling business?
Mr. Allen is an admitted felon, so his word may not be the coin of the realm. But his account under oath naturally makes Alaskans wonder about the legitimacy of the Girdwood work - did Sen. Stevens accept gifts and services and, if so, did he violate federal tax laws and Senate ethics rules?
No one has suggested, nor is there any evidence, that Mr. Allen received any favors from Sen. Stevens in return for his work. But the evidence does suggest that an influential Alaskan was taking care of the senator.
Sen. Stevens hasn’t been charged with anything. But the Girdwood deal and Mr. Allen’s testimony have raised questions that Alaskans deserve to have answered, not with stonewalling and anger, but straight up. The Alaskan of the Century gets no free pass - he’s still accountable to those who elect him, and not just every six years.
BOTTOM LINE: Sen. Ted Stevens owes Alaskans an explanation, the sooner the better.
Steer clear
Sen. Stevens should abstain from key FBI, justice agency votes
Sen. Ted Stevens is under investigation by the FBI.
Sen. Stevens also sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has a strong say in the funding of that agency along with the rest of the federal government.
Sen. Stevens should steer clear of any role with regard to FBI funding and abstain from voting on it.
He also should steer clear of the Senate’s advise-and-consent role on the nomination of a new U.S. attorney general. That individual will head the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI. The attorney general would likely have a role in discussions about the investigation of Sen. Stevens and what, if any, further action the evidence suggested.
Finally, should the Internal Revenue Service take a look at the Girdwood remodeling project, the senator should abstain from any appropriations decisions about that agency.
Let’s reiterate: Sen. Stevens has not been charged with anything. The fact that he is involved in a federal investigation is not an indictment. His service to Alaska since 1968 entitles him to a generous benefit of the doubt.
But the investigation creates a conflict between the senator’s appropriation duties and the budgets of one or more federal agencies - and with his prospective vote on a new attorney general. The subject of an investigation shouldn’t have a say in an investigating agency’s budget or personnel.
Sen. Stevens should steer clear of those votes as he lets the investigation take its course.
BOTTOM LINE: As long as he’s the subject of a federal investigation, Sen. Stevens should abstain from votes and debate on the investigating agencies.