Only 11% Of Mike Turner’s Votes Are Progressive, Only 3% Of John Boehner’s Votes Are Progressive

Posted on October 22, 2008 by Mike Bock

A web-site called ProgressivePunch.org gives all members of congress a “progressive score” based on their voting record.  For example, it calculates that Dennis Kucinich has a progressive score of 88.8, meaning that, according to Progressive Punch’s calculation, 88.8% of Kucinich’s votes are progressive.

John Boehner’s progressive score is 2.64, Jean Schmidt score is 4.12, Hobson’s score is 10.52, and Mike Turner’s score is 10.93.

Progressive Punch has collected data from 1991 to the present.  It follows 17 categories of votes.  This is a big job. In 2007, all told, it accumulated data on 747 different votes in the US House.

Here is Congressman Turner’s score (each out of 100%) in each category, accumulated since he was sworn in as a US congressman in 2003.

  • Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad (17 subcategories)        4.98
  • Corporate Subsidies (14 subcategories)         1.67
  • Education, Humanities, & the Arts (3 subcategories)         3.92
  • Environment (15 subcategories)         8.21
  • Fair Taxation (6 subcategories)     2.34
  • Family Planning (2 subcategories)       6.25
  • Government Checks on Corporate Power (31 subcategories)        3.52
  • Health Care (15 subcategories)         2.94
  • Housing (2 subcategories)         10.71
  • Human Rights & Civil Liberties (10 subcategories)         1.79
  • Justice for All: Civil and Criminal (7 subcategories)        1.27
  • Labor Rights (8 subcategories)         7.92
  • Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful (16 subcategories)         5.82
  • War & Peace (18 subcategories)       2.44

There is a lot of data to study.  For example, Turner got a progressive score of 2.94 in the Health Care category, but under that category are 15 subcategory.  One of the subcategories is “Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs,” and in this subcategory, Turner made a score of 0.0%, meaning each of Turner’s votes in this category were opposite of the votes deemed “progressive” by Progressive Punch.org. Here are the votes that determined that subcategory score:

  1. Roll Call 23. Requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare (H.R. 4)/On passage Jan 12, 2007.           Turner voted No
  2. Roll Call 22. Requiring the federal government to negotiate with drug companies for the prices of drugs covered under Medicare (H.R. 4)/Motion to recommit with instructions to add language that ensures that beneficiaries will not be restricted in their access to prescription drugs and that the negotiations will not result in the price increase of prescription drugs for any group Jan 12, 2007.   Turner voted Yes.
  3. Roll Call 11. H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/On adopting Title 5 of the resolution Jan 05, 2007. Turner voted No
  4. Roll Call 10. H. Res. 6 Adopting the rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress/Motion to commit with instructions Jan 05, 2007.  Turner voted Yes
  5. Roll Call 173. A vote on a Democratic motion to send back to its drafting committee HR 4281, — legislation allowing small business to band together as a means of lowering the cost of providing their employees with health insurance — with instructions that the bill must not preempt state regulations regarding coverage for breast cancer, pregnancy and childbirth, and well-child OB/GYN services. May 13, 2004.  Turner voted No
  6. Roll Call 172. Vote on passage of a Democratic substitute to the Republican-backed HR 4281, legislation designed to enable small businesses to join together to form “associations” that will leverage their collective buying power to get lower-cost health insurance for their employees May 13, 2004.  Turner voted No
  7. Roll Call 88. H. Con. Res. 393. Fiscal 2005 Budget Resolution/Vote on the Congressional Black Caucus’ Version of the Budget Resolution Which Would Reduce Previously-Enacted Tax Cuts to Wealthy Individuals and Increase Funding for Domestic Spending Priorities such as Education and Health Care. Mar 25, 2004.  Turner voted No
  8. Roll Call 670. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to End Debate on the Final Version of Prescription Drug Legislation. Nov 22, 2003.  Turner voted Yes
  9. Roll Call 669. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Final Passage of a Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation. Nov 22, 2003.  Turner voted Yes
  10. Roll Call 668. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation With Instructions that the Measure Be Amended to Allow the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada. Nov 22, 2003.  Turner voted No
  11. Roll Call 666. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation. Nov 21, 2003.  Turner voted Yes
  12. Roll Call 665. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Consideration of the Conference Report on Prescription Drug Legislation. Nov 21, 2003.  Turner voted Yes
  13. Roll Call 660. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow Same-Day Consideration of a Rule Governing Debate on the Prescription Drug Conference Report. Nov 21, 2003.     Turner voted Yes
  14. Roll Call 659. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Allow the Consideration of a Rule Governing Debate on the Prescription Drug Conference Report. Nov 21, 2003.         Turner voted Yes
  15. Roll Call 650. H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Sixth and Final Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. Nov 20, 2003.  Turner voted No
  16. Roll Call 637. H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Fifth of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. Nov 19, 2003.     Turner voted No
  17. Roll Call 624. H R 2673. Fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Include Provisions in the Omnibus Conference Report Which Would Allow the Importation of Less-Expensive Canadian Prescription Drugs Into the United States. Nov 18, 2003. Turner voted No
  18. Roll Call 619. H R 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Fourth of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the Conference Report Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. Nov 07, 2003. Turner voted    No
  19. Roll Call 615. H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Third of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. Nov 06, 2003.  Turner voted No
  20. Roll Call 599. H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Second of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. Oct 30, 2003.  Turner voted No
  21. Roll Call 573. H.R.1. Prescription Drug Benefit/First of Six Votes to Instruct House Conferees to Drop Provisions in the House Bill Which Would Allow Private Health Plans to Compete Directly With Medicare by 2010. Oct 28, 2003.  Turner voted No
  22. Roll Call 528. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Oct 01, 2003. Turner voted No
  23. Roll Call 524. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Sep 30, 2003.         Close Vote Absent
  24. Roll Call 522. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Sep 25, 2003.     Turner voted    No
  25. Roll Call 510. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Sep 23, 2003.     Turner voted    No
  26. Roll Call 502. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Sep 10, 2003.     Turner voted    No
  27. Roll Call 445. H.R. 2427. Importation of Prescription Drugs/Vote to Allow the Importation of Less-Expensive Prescription Drugs. Jul 25, 2003. Turner voted No
  28. Roll Call 420. H.R. 2799. Fiscal 2004 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations/Vote to Prevent the Federal Government from Interfering With State Laws that have Decriminalized the Use of Medical Marijuana. Jul 23, 2003. Turner voted No
  29. Roll Call 359. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Instruct House Conferees to Adopt Senate Language Which Insures Drug Coverage For All Seniors During Conference Committee Negotiations. Jul 14, 2003.     Turner voted    No
  30. Roll Call 332. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Final Passage of a Bill to Provide Seniors With Drug Coverage Through the Private Sector Rather Than Through the Medicare Program. Jun 27, 2003.     Turner voted    Yes
  31. Roll Call 331. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote to Recommit to Committee a Bill to Provide Seniors With Drug Coverage Through the Private Sector Rather Than Through the Medicare Program. Jun 27, 2003. Turner voted No
  32. Roll Call 330. H.R. 1. Prescription Drug Benefit/Vote on Democratic Substitute Bill Which Would Provide Prescription Drug Coverage Though the Medicare Program (Rather Than the Private Sector) and Would Not Contain Any Gaps In Drug Coverage. Jun 27, 2003.     Turner voted    N0
  33. Roll Call 328. H.R. 2596. Medical Savings Accounts/Vote to Make Prescription Drugs More Affordable By Creating Tax Incentives to Encourage Individuals to Save in Anticipation of Future Health Care Needs. Jun 26, 2003. Turner voted     Yes
  34. Roll Call 322. H.R. 1, H.R. 2596. Prescription Drug Benefit and Medical Savings Accounts/Vote on Rules of Debate on Two Bills: One Would Create a Voluntary, Privately-Run Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare Beneficiaries and the Other Would Create Medical Savings Accounts. Jun 26, 2003. Turner voted    Yes
  35. Roll Call 321. H.R. 1, H.R. 2596. Prescription Drug Benefit and Medical Savings Accounts/Vote to Allow Consideration of Two Bills: One Would Create a Voluntary, Privately-Run Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare Beneficiaries and the Other Would Create Medical Savings Accounts. Jun 26, 2003. Turner voted  Yes
  36. Roll Call 81. H Con Res 95. Fiscal 2004 Budget Resolution/Vote on a Democratic Substitute Measure Which Eliminated Tax Cuts for Wealthy Individuals and Increased Spending for Medicare and Prescription Drugs. Mar 20, 2003.     Turner voted  No
Posted in Special Reports | Leave a comment

Colin Powell’s Over The Top Argument For War With Iraq Is Still Outrageous, Still Unforgivable

Posted on October 21, 2008 by Mike Bock

My friend at Alone On A Limb wrote a post Sunday that praised Gen. Colin Powell’s “earnest, unreserved endorsement of Barack Obama,” and described Powell as, “a person admired in America by all but the opposite endpoints of the political spectrum.” In my comment to this post I disagreed.

You don’t have to be at the end of a political spectrum to be disgusted at the cabal of liars who pushed us into the Iraq War. The whole bunch is far from admirable. In my view, Powell’s over the top effort to persuade the UN, along with the US public, to initiate George Bush’s Iraq War is unforgivable.

Colon Powell at the UN, February 5, 2003, makes the case for war with Iraq.

Colin Powell at the UN, February 5, 2003, makes the case for war with Iraq.

I wrote, “I’m still angry with Powell, because, he is one person, who could have stood in the gap, and, I feel, could single handly have stopped or delayed the movement to war with Iraq. Powell’s endorsement of Bush’s madness to take us to war is really unforgivable, because, certainly, with the resources available to him, he should have known that the evidence for WMDs was weak and unreliable, yet he gave the impression that he was completely and absolutely convinced, and his confident testimony at the UN had a big impact.

“I doubt that Powell was as nearly convinced about WMDs as his testimony indicated. The high probability is that his testimony was basically dishonest. In Powell’s high level position, he had too much opportunity to know better. It seems to me that Powell’s testimony about WMD’s was politically driven, politically expedient; he seemed willing to sell his soul to stay in good standing with the Bush crowd. For this despicable act, dishonestly promoting this despicable war, Powell deserves to be shunned and forgotten.

“So, I can’t be too impressed with Powell’s Obama endorsement.  Maybe the endorsement will help Obama.  But, Powell’s endorsement doesn’t change my anger at his UN actions.  Powell’s Iraq testimony revealed his deeply political nature.  Powell waited until two weeks before election day to endorse — when, its seems, it was clear which way the wind is blowing.  If McCain was up in the polls, I’d bet that Powell would probably not say a peep either way — Powell would want to secure his opportunity to gain prominence in a McCain administration, and, it seems a safe bet, if he thought McCain had a good chance to win, Powell would not endorse Obama.

I concluded, “Obama, in my judgment, would be wrong to give Powell much positive attention.”

After writing my little tirade, I decided to do some research.

This web-site contains a complete transcript of Powell’s UN remarks, (along with the slides he used) and the transcript shows how striking were the words that Powell used.  He communicated absolute confidence in his “evidence,”  absolute conviction of urgency, of national emergency.  Powell achieved a big goal.  The goal was to convince, and what convinced was not so much the evidence, as Powell himself.  (Imagine George Tenet using the same script and props.)  Powell’s presentation demanded that his listeners accept his authority, vouch for his integrity, and heed his words.  Who else in the Bush administration could possibly have succeeded so well?

Powell says, “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.”  At another point, Powelll says,  “This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented. ... The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world.”

In a web-site called After Downing Street, I found this article, “Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago, and What He Told the World,” that outlines in detail what Powell knew at the time of his UN presentation, compared to what he testified to.  The article says,  “As much criticism as Powell has received for it—he calls it ‘painful’ and something that will ‘always be a part of my record’—it hasn’t been close to what’s justified. Powell was far more than just embarrassingly mistaken; the evidence is conclusive that he fabricated evidence and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false.”

I found a transcript from a “Frontline” program that interviewed Greg Thielman, a former director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the State Department’s Intelligence Bureau.  Thielman was in a position to know, and he accuses the White House of “systematic, across-the-board exaggeration” of intelligence.  Thielman said, “Instead of our leadership forming conclusions based on a careful reading of the intelligence we provided them, they already had their conclusion to start out with, and they were cherry-picking the information that we provided to use whatever pieces of it that fit their overall interpretation. Worse than that, they were dropping qualifiers and distorting some of the information that we provided to make it seem more alarmist and more dangerous than the information that we were giving them.”

Thielman was asked by his interviewer, “And that criticism would be applied to the president, but also to the secretary of state?”  Thielman replied, I would, very reluctantly, have to include the secretary of state in that judgment.  He (Powell) took the tubes argument before the United Nations, when he had been expressly told by his own intelligence people that it didn’t hold.  And if one looks now, if one goes back to that very long presentation, point by point, one finds that this was not a very honest explanation. I mean, you had terrorist activity described that was taking place in Iraq without the mention that it was taking place in an area under the control of the Kurds, rather than an area under control of Saddam.”

Thielman said, “You had this very tenuous link made between Saddam and Osama bin Laden in the remarks of Secretary Powell, when his own terrorist officials and virtually everyone else in the U.S. intelligence community said there is no significant connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. … You had statements about missiles that Saddam allegedly had when, in fact, the intelligence community said that we cannot account for the destruction of all of the 819 Scud missiles that Iraq had acquired over the years. That was transmogrified into statements that Iraq has a small number of Scud missiles, with no qualification. Secretary Powell said that with no qualification, just as George Tenet, director of Central Intelligence, said it with no qualification. There is a big difference between saying, ‘We cannot prove that every last one of these missiles has been destroyed,” and saying, ‘We know Saddam has these missiles.’”

Powell tells about the power of anthrax

Powell tells about the power of anthrax

The Frontline interviewer asked Thielman, “What conclusion do you come to? Was he (Powell) lying?” Thielman replied, “I don’t like to use the word ‘lying’ because, again, it implies that I know what was in his mind on these issues. All I can say is that I have to conclude he was making the president’s case. He works for the president. The president had gone way out on a limb in making a lot of what I regard as unjustified characterizations of the intelligence, and Secretary Powell was being a loyal secretary of state, a ‘good soldier,’ as it were, building the administration’s case before the international community. …”

Media Matters shows four areas that evidence shows that Powell must have knowingly, at the minimum exaggerated his claims, or worse, deliberately misspoke.

1) Nuclear Reconstitution
“In his U.N. speech, Powell claimed: ‘We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. … Since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program have been focused on acquiring the third and last component, sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion…’

“Though Powell and the rest of the administration did not say so, the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) disputed the claim — advanced by the majority of intelligence agencies in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) — that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

As Media Matters has noted, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year CIA veteran who served as chief of the agency’s European operations during the lead-up to the Iraq war — said on the April 23 broadcast of CBS’ 60 Minutes that by the fall of 2002, the CIA had recruited an Iraqi official in the ‘inner circle of Saddam Hussein’ to provide intelligence on Saddam’s weapons programs. Drumheller said that the Bush administration ‘stopped being interested in the intelligence’ when the CIA reported that the Iraqi official — whom 60 Minutes identified as then-foreign minister Naji Sabri — revealed that Iraq “had no active weapons of mass destruction program.”

2) Aluminum tubes
“In October 2003, Greg Thielmann, who was in charge of assessing Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction programs for INR before the war, told CBS News that in 2001, he had ‘reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they [INR] were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program.’

“Yet in his U.N. speech, Powell claimed: ‘Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.’ He added, ‘Most U.S. experts think they [the tubes] are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.’ Powell acknowledged that ‘[o]ther experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher,’ but Powell did not reveal that this view was held by his own intelligence agency. Powell then cast doubt on INR’s assessment, stating that ‘it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

“In its 2004 report, the ISG found that ‘Baghdad’s interest in high-strength, high-specification aluminum tubes … is best explained by its efforts to produce 81-mm rockets.’”

3) Unmanned aerial vehicles
“In his U.N. speech, Powell explicitly linked Iraq’s unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) program to its supposed chemical and biological weapons, claiming: ‘The linkages over the past 10 years between Iraq’s UAV program and biological and chemical warfare agents are of deep concern to us. Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States.’

According to the Robb-Silberman Commission’s final report to the president, a separate NIE, published in January 2003, dealt specifically with the suggestion — later advanced by Powell and Bush — that Iraq might use its UAVs to target the United States. The commission reported that in the NIE, the Air Force, Army, and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had stated that Iraq’s acquisition of “mapping software” — upon which the claim was initially based — was “not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the US homeland.”

4) WMD training for Al Qaeda
In his U.N. Speech, Powell said that a “senior Al Qaeda terrorist” who had been “responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” but had since been detained told interrogators about “Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000.” Bush apparently made reference to the same claim in his October 7, 2002, speech, asserting, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

Media Matters has noted that according to a November 10, 2005, web-exclusive article by Newsweek investigative correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, “the principal basis” for these claims was a series of statements made to investigators by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured Al Qaeda commander.

In a November 6, 2005, article, Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus noted that “in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information.” But Pincus reported that in February 2002 — eight months before Bush reportedly referred to al-Libi’s bogus claims and a year before Powell’s U.N. speech — the DIA produced a document in which it concluded that it was “likely” that al-Libi was “intentionally misleading” his interrogators.

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Leave a comment

Ted Stevens’ Corruption Trial: Wouldn’t You Realize If Your Contractor Gave You Tons of Free Stuff?

Posted on October 20, 2008 by Mike Bock

The corruption trial of Ted Stevens is almost finished and the result of the trial may decide whether or not Democrats can achieve a 60 vote super majority in the US Senate.

Stevens is the 84 year old Republican senior senator from Alaska of “bridge to nowhere fame.” He has been in the senate 40 years, the longest serving Republican senator. Stevens faces reelection on November 4 and if convicted of this corruption charge, his Democratic challenger, Mark Begich, is sure to win his senate seat.  And if convicted, the earmark help Stevens gave to Sarah Palin will probably come under greater scrutiny.

Closing arguments in the trial are tomorrow.  Federal prosecutors have accused Stevens of trying to hide more than $250,000 in renovations to his Alaska cabin and other gifts from Bill Allen, former head of the oil services company VECO Corp. The exhibits — such as e-mails, letters, notes, photographs — used by the government in developing its case can be seen here.

This is the cabin after its big renovation. Prosecutors claim that Stevens never paid for much of the work that was done.

This is the cabin after its big renovation. Prosecutors claim that Stevens never paid for much of the work that was done.

During the trial, Colin Powell took the stand and gave high praise to Stevens’ honesty:   “When  defense attorney Brendan Sullivan asked Powell to describe Stevens’ reputation for honesty and integrity, Powell’s answer was simple: ‘In a word, sterling. … There was never any suggestion that he would do anything that was improper,’ said Powell, who told jurors he knows Stevens ‘extremely well’ after having worked with him on military appropriations issues for decades.”

During the trial, Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii called Stevens’ reputation for truthfulness and honesty “absolute.”  Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called Sen. Ted Stevens a hero, a legend, and one of the Senate’s greatest minds.

This AP article lays out the case against Stevens, “Did Sen. Stevens know about freebies,” in an article written by Matt Apuzzo:

“In the corruption trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, prosecutors want jurors to ask themselves this question: Wouldn’t you realize it if your home-improvement contractor gave you tons of free stuff?

“The answer to that question could determine the fate of the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, now on trial and locked in a tight race for a Senate seat he has held since 1968.

“Stevens is charged with lying on Senate forms about receiving more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts. His defense is built on the argument that he thought he paid for everything and, because his wife handles the bills, he had no idea he got any freebies.

“For that defense to work, it needs to work again and again, for each of the many projects that prosecutors said Stevens never paid for: an upgraded electrical system, a balcony, a steel staircase with custom railings, a new roof and more.

“In order to convict Stevens, prosecutors must show that Stevens “knowingly” lied on his Senate documents. Authorities are counting on the sheer volume of work to persuade jurors that this could not have been a misunderstanding. It was an expert at work, they say, a cunning politician who has learned over four decades in Congress how to accept gifts without getting caught.”

Posted in Special Reports | Leave a comment