STEVENS GUILTY….Ted Stevens, whose defense against corruption charges was that he was just “borrowing” stuff from campaign donors, lost his case today:
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted today of lying on financial disclosure forms to hide tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and renovations to his Alaska home that were financed mostly by a powerful business executive and his oil services company.
….Despite the guilty verdict, Stevens remains on the ballot in Alaska, where he is locked in a tight race with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.
If he can pull off an upset victory, Stevens could remain in the Senate for months, if not longer, if he chose to appeal the verdict. Tradition allows him to exhaust his appeals before the ethics committee begins expulsion hearings, according to the Historical Office of the Senate.
A reader asks, “If Stevens is re-elected and the US Senate then kicks him out, can Palin then name herself to replace him?” I assume the answer is no, and I further assume that even if the answer is yes Palin wouldn’t have the chutzpah to do it. But of course, those are my big city values talking, so I might be off base here.
In any case, I assume that Stevens is now considerably more likely to lose his seat next week, thus making this point moot. Any Alaskans care to weigh in on how this is going to play up in the Great White North Last Frontier?
UPDATE: False alarm. Sorry. After Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter Lisa to an open Senate seat in 2002, Alaskans approved a ballot initiative to change the law. An open Senate seat in Alaska is now filled via a special election.
