Stevens Says He Hasn't Yet Been Convicted

FAIRBANKS, Alaska — Sen. Ted Stevens says he is not a convicted felon, at least until the appeal process is over.

"I've not been convicted yet," the Alaska Republican insisted Thursday in a meeting with the editorial board of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. "There's not a black mark by my name yet, until the appeal is over and I am finally convicted, if that happens. If that happens, of course I'll do what's right for Alaska and for the Senate ... I don't anticipate it happening, and until it happens I do not have a black mark."

A federal court jury on Monday convicted Stevens on seven counts of lying on Senate disclosure forms to conceal more than $250,000 in gifts and renovations to his home from VECO Corp. founder Bill Allen.

Stevens, the longest serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, is seeking re-election in Tuesday's election, and faces a formidable challenger in Democrat Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage.

There have been growing calls among Republican leaders for Stevens to resign, including from GOP presidential candidate John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Stevens dismissed that as "statements made on the trail, in the heat of battle."

Alaska's junior senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski, sat with Stevens in the editorial board meeting and was more critical of Republicans turning on Stevens.

"For all of them, it's a very close election. I think they're looking to their own political skin. If it helps them in their effort to gain re-election, they will, unfortunately, throw Ted under the bus," she said.

Comments

[fdeblauwe]

Another funny cartoon at the Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3 blog: "Alaska: State of Denial."

[helonias]

Give him a few more doses or Geritol

[goodnessgracious1234]

He was, literally and legally convicted, and yet he denies it. So do we label that 'delusion' or 'lying' or 'idiocy'? Or maybe a mix of all three?

You betcha! Gosh, why does this remind me of someone else? At least he doesn't wink all the time and try to 'cute' his way through an interview.

Pathetic.

[bola47]

an appeal is not automatic. there must be a valid legal point on which the appeal is based. right now in the eyes of the law, he is a convicted felon.

[WilliamBudd]

"in the eyes of the law, he is a convicted felon"

I'd include a lot more eyes than just the law. In fact, the only pair of myopic eyes that don't see it that way are Stevens'.

[KeepMeLearning]

Let's see...The court CONVICTED him on Monday, but according to him he has NOT been convicted???

How does that work???

What's in the water up in Alaska???

[Shannyn Moore - Huffpost Blogger]

the water is frozen...
Sarah says she's vindicated.
Ted says he wasn't convicted.
Reality Deficit Disorder.

[Tenebrae]

Ha!

I'm sure many convicted felons serving jail time while waiting for an appeal would love to know they haven't been convicted yet!

Why is it our politicians (okay, mostly our GOP politicians, but some from both parties) think the law only applies to other folk?

[HDR]

He can only be technically right if he were unable to make it through the appeals process say like, uh, Ken Lay of Enron who conveniently dropped dead before his appeal which in turn erased his conviction. With the exception of his "widow," who here thinks Ken died an innocent man?

[Tommygun2146]

I never thought there would be a circumstance where I could be satisfied with Stevens coming out of this thing "not guilty", even on a technicality. Now I'm not so sure ;-).

[Milvette]

I'm NOT really a conspiracy-type person, BUT, did anyone REALLY see Kenny Boy get put into the ground? I can see him on a South Pacific island, wondering how things are going for those "poor folk" that worked for him at ENRON these days (well, maybe he's not really thinking THAT!).
Maybe he's anxiously awaiting a visit from his buddy Georgie now that he's gonna' have some extra free time - other than needing to cut brush at the ranch.

[BillMelater]

LOL - Kenny boy is probably hiding out on Bush's ranch.

[Sparty1]

Yet again we're experiencing bizarro world. Up is down, black is white and left is right.

[ron ray]

wow. republicans have no sense of reality, do they? That would mean a death row inmate isn't a convict until the lethal injection takes effect, since appeals go right to the end.

[Burning Daylight]

What? Not convicted? He was there, fer chrissakes. What, is alzheimers kicking in, or what?

An appeal in progress does not nullifiy a conviction. That's absolutely asinine. Frickin politicians.

[BillMelater]

I say Stevens is certainly convicted. The appeal, if he wins it, will overturn the conviction. But a jury of his peers found him guilty and convicted him. As far as his name, it is mud. Now if it were me or you, we would be sitting in jail awaiting our appeal. Why because we would have been convicted. Likewise, he is convicted and he should be in jail as well. And he may be after his sentencing. The sentencing should go ahead even though the appeal is not complete.

[RTIII]

It's not uncommon, even for us little people, that a stay order is granted delaying sentencing until after appeal, especially regarding the more substantive effects of conviction. This is just basic law as practiced in the U.S.
.

[BillMelater]

Here, I guess, is where social status comes to bear. I think if I were convicted of 7 felonies that I would be incarcerated even to await sentencing little less the appeal. And rightly so. Felonies are serious crimes are they not?

And count them, 7 of them! That is a rather habitual disregard for the law. Who is to say that he is not committing another Felony someplace while I am typing this.

[jsgaetano]

I guess that whole jury trial thing doesn't count in Republicania.

In Republican America, you are only convicted after all your appeals run out, and you fail to secure a pardon. Like with Watergate!

[MrBigDog2U]

IANAL but there is apparently a difference between a judgment based on a verdict of guilty and a conviction. One precedent is a New York state case people v. Fabian:

"disfranchisement (is authorized) only upon a conviction in the more comprehensive sense of that term - that is to say, upon a judgment based on a verdict of guilty"

Thus a person may be judged guilty by a jury but is not convicted by law until the judgment is rendered. Whether this has any bearing beyond the state of New York or not, I have no idea but it at least lends credence to Stevens' claim.

This might actually be good news. Since sentencing doesn't occur until February, Stevens won't actually be "convicted" until then. This would seem to imply that he is not eligible for a pardon until that time. Since GWB won't be president any more, he won't be able to grant Stevens a pardon.

[franklin opt]

Senator Stevens, give it a rest. We don't want to see you do the perp shuffle in an orange jumpsuit. Go out with some dignity. Please.

[tea in the harbor]

Lisa, it is not "throwing him under the bus" when people agree with the conclusions of a legally empanelled jury who has heard the evidence. If you have evidence that absolves the Senator, I suggest you share it, if not, perhaps you would consider supporting the basic tenants of our Constitution!

I would also like to posit a question, why is it that a convicted felon, who cannot legally vote in an election, can cast votes in the Senate? Are we to believe that politicians are so crooked that disenfranchising felons would leave us without representation? We need to change that!

[RTIII]

Apparently precedent has long since been set that only the Senate itself gets to decide that one; by two thirds vote of the whole body. I'm pretty sure it's in the Constitution (main body, not an amendment).
.