Dana Milbank sounds somewhat scornful of superlawyer Brendan Sullivan's theory for defending AK Sen. Ted Stevens against corruption charges for receiving gifts in return for political favors. In his Washington Sketch, Milbank describes Stevens as "ungallant" for blaming his current legal difficulties on his wife. I'll give you Milbank's conclusion at the top, and if you don't trust his judgment,
And how about Uncle Ted? "The workhorse of the Senate," Sullivan said. "You don't get a title like that unless you're at the job every moment." Or at least every moment when you're not throwing your wife under the bus.
read below the fold to make your own assessment:
Here in a nutshell is Sullivan's defense, based on his opening statement to the jury:
"You have to look at the relationship between Ted and Catherine, because it says something about what happened here," superlawyer Brendan Sullivan declared. In fact, he said, the Stevens family has a saying: "When it comes to things around the tepee, the wife controls. That might seem old-fashioned, but Ted Stevens is old-fashioned."
Yeahhhh, that's the ticket, it was all my wife's fault. I didn't even want a few some any, yeahhh, that's right, I didn't even want any of those things:
"He didn't want these things," Sullivan said of the gifts. The tool cabinet? "He wanted it out of there." The furniture? "Used! Big cigarette hole in it." The garage? "It snows six feet a year." The $20,000 worth of Christmas lights? "I suppose Ted Stevens, the senator, should go home and get some climbing shoes on, go up and take them down, and send 'em back?"
Milbank's typical media elite take on this won't matter though, for Ted's a guy the jurors can relate to:
"You won't find him at the art gallery" on days off, Sullivan assured the jurors. "He'll put on boots and go out in the woods." Sullivan even tried the creative argument that his client sided with labor unions over big oil. "To heck with them!" Sullivan recalled the former Senate Commerce Committee chairman saying of his beloved energy companies.
Ted's presumed innocent and Sullivan, in spite of what you just read, is one hell of a lawyer. He knows his case inside out and probably has extensive background info on the jurors (especially the 10 women on the panel)that tells him they'll buy in to his theory. I say this because being a trial lawyer for over 20 years myself, Sullivan's approach is counter-intuitive.
I see a couple of big problems for Ted. First, did he not see all the shit turning up in and on his house? Assuming he did, and granting Sullivan's claim that his wife was handling it, didn't he ask his wife where all the shit came from and how it was paid for? I mean give me a break, if he's just folks like you and me, I know if I came home to find my house being renovated, I'd ask a few questions about what the fuck was going on.
Milbank points out a bigger problem. If there was nothing wrong with what Ted was doing in receiving the gifts:
Actually, all he had to do was report them to the Senate on his disclosure forms.
What's that adage, it's not the crime that nails you, it's the cover-up.
So the the flaw in the "It's the wife's fault" defense doesn't explain why the gifts weren't reported, unless they're planning to prove that she filled out and signed his name to the reporting form.
Not to be nitpicky, but even with my lawyer hat off I think that supposed "To heck with them" response to the oil companies was an unfortunate turn of phrase to put before the jury. The first thing I thought of when I saw that was "Thanks but no thanks", and I think the same thought may have crossed a few jurors' minds. Maybe the crafty Sullivan knows they all love Sarah, but Stevens was eyebrows-deep in the Bridge to Nowhere deal and I don't know, I think Sullivan could have phrased the point he trying to make in a way that had no risk of conjuring up his client's widely-reported boondoggle and Palin's widely-reported lies about her role in it.
IMO, Sullivan's taking a pretty high-risk approach. If the jurors, especially the women, take the view that Ted's not blaming his his wife, but rather that he is crediting her competence as an effective "home executive", then maybe he skates (not that he's guilty). But don't competent executives (let alone spouses) communicate with their cohorts about projects that are going on?
And if the jurors don't take that view (that she handled everything and never communicated the details to Ted), it's real bad for Ted, because then in their minds he is throwing his wife under the bus, which I don't think will sit too well with 10 women jurors.
"When it comes to things around the tepee, the wife controls. "
says Sullivan. Ted's wife may have the teepee to herself when this trial is over.