Q: I have a question abuot how you're paying your legal bills. I think in the context of a corruption case, it's very important that the voters here, your constituents, know who is footing the bill for your legal expenses. So I'm curious who those contributors are and if you won't answer the question, I would like to know why you think it's ok to hide that from your constituents.
A: I'm not hiding it at all, I'm not paying it from my campaign. There are rules to apply to the legal defense fund, we will abide by those rules, they do not call for disclosure until a specific time, and when that specific time arrives, it will be disclosed.
Q: When is that specific time?
A: That specifics by law - I don't know that exact date. It hasn't come yet.
Q: Do the rules say that you can't disclose it right now, and if not, why not let people know right now?
A: I don't know myself. But besides that the answer is, you're just trying to make it a political question. It's not a political question, it's a legal question and it's in court. I am not going to take it into my campaign.
Q: You don't think who is paying for your campaign is relevant voters -or sorry your court case - is relevant to voters? Do you think that's completely irrelevant to whether or not you're qualified to represent us in the United States Senate?
A: I think it's a matter of judgment. I think I'm entitled to the same concept of innocent until proven guilty which you don't seem to share.
Q:Senator, what happens if you win the primary, the trial happens, and you're convicted at trial?
A: I don't think about that. I have faith that's not going to happen. As a matter of fact, personally this whole issue, it's a matter of faith. I'm convinced that I'm innocent, so I must maintain my position that I have faith I will not be reaching that position you just indicated. If that happens, we'll have to make some decisions.
Q: Senator my question is, and I know you've said you can't discuss the specifics of your case and that you say you feel you are innocent, but if you are convicted, would you take a presidential pardon or would you live with the court's verdict?
A: Why would I cross a bridge I haven't seen? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.
Q: Well sir I just think it's something the Alaskan public should know...
A: Why? Why? Why? You tell me why. They're not, they're not, I've been around the state, this morning I've had more questions about the case and what I would do if I lost it then I've had in the last month.
Q: Well this is only the second question about the case and I think it's a fair one.
A: That's the second one I've had statewide.
Q: Senator, regarding the criminal indictment, I understand-
A: Oh no, not again.
Q: Yeah, I'm sorry, well you have to be accountable to your constituents. You don't have to refuse to talk about these actions you took. You choose to to protect yourself. Don't you think you should be accountable to the people who elected you regardless of your legal predicament? Either you took expensive gifts from Allen and Pico or you didn't. Who would know better at whether you took a cabinet full of tools, a gas grill, or traded a 35 year old car for a $44,000 one. So did you or didn't you?
A: [host] I'm not sure we can get an answer on that.
Q: Well, how about letting the Senator answer.
A: [Stevens] Why don't you go talk to the FBI, ask them that question, will you please, thanks again. Goodbye.
Q: I think you should be accountable to us, sir.
A: Goodbye, goodbye.
Q: Excuse me, but the Senator is a big boy and can take care of himself. He's been in the game a long time.
A: You're damned right I can take care of myself any time you want to come, friend.
Q: Well I'm here right now and I would like to talk about why you aren't accountable to the people of the state of Alaska-
A: I am accountable, I will be accountable next Tuesday and I will be accountable on November 4.
Q: I've been following the news lately and they were mentioning that you supported an ethics bill in 1989 that Congress had passed, it was an amended ethics and government bill that said that members of Congress needed to disclose their financial reports, anything exceeding $200, and now your defense team is saying that's unconstitutional, and I'm just wondering if you can talk to us Alaskans about how that's unconstitutional in 2008 but in 1989 that was satisfactory.
A: As I've said before, I haven't seen that pleading, it was filed by my lawyers in Washington, they've been hired to do it-
Q: OK well why don't you give us your opinion, aside from what your lawyers are saying-
A: I'm sorry I'm not going to give my opinion about what my lawyers have done that I haven't read. So thank you very much, I don't know who gave you that amendment, that question, but whoever gave you that question ask them.