Why Didn’t DOJ Name Cheney in Stevens Filing?

We learned over the weekend, via Newsweek, that there’s a Dick Cheney connection to the Ted Stevens case. But are federal prosecutors looking the other way?

In a phone conversation recorded by the FBI and included in a court filing by prosecutors, Sen. Stevens (R-AK) told oil-services executive Bill Allen that he would try to get some “bigwigs” from Washington to weigh in on a bill pending in the Alaska legislature, that would have given the go-ahead to a pipeline Allen wanted. Two days later, Newsweek notes, Cheney sent a letter to Alaska lawmakers urging them to pass the bill. Stevens told Newsweek that Cheney’s letter had been sent at his urging.

But we were curious about one thing. Why didn’t prosecutors mention Cheney’s letter in their filing? Although technically Stevens is being prosecuted for giving false statements on disclosure forms, demonstrating that Stevens took action on Allen’s behalf is still at the heart of the case.

And in citing another example of Stevens using his influence on Allen’s behalf, prosecutors did include chapter and verse on the results Stevens got. Consider this passage from the filing:

Stevens added: “I’m going to try and see if I can get . . . the Secretary of Energy and also the head of, of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [(“FERC”)] up there to explain why it’s necessary that they act before we act.”

On July 7, 2006, Senator Stevens traveled to Alaska and addressed the Alaska Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, urging it to cease infighting and pass the pipeline legislation before liquified natural gas monopolizes the marketplace. Three days later, on July 10, 2006, the FERC issued a report similar to the message delivered by Stevens.

But when it comes to Stevens calling on Cheney, the prosecutors — who are from the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, and the U.S. attorney’s office in Alaska — go strangely silent.

One former government prosecutor we spoke to said he could see little reason why the link to Cheney wouldn’t have been mentioned. The most charitable explanation, the ex-prosecutor said, is that the government thought that bringing in Cheney would unnecessarily bog the case down. The least charitable is that they were “trying to protect Cheney.”

Another former federal corruption prosecutor agreed, writing in an email to TPMMuckraker:

“If the government has the evidence that Stevens asked Cheney’s office to intervene/write a letter, I can see no strategic or tactical reason not to have cited that evidence in their motion. They specifically argue for the admission at trial of evidence regarding Stevens’ attempts to influence the executive branch on behalf of VECO. Citing the Cheney evidence could only bolster that argument and help educate the judge on the extraordinary lengths Stevens was going to help out VECO, which just happened to be providing him with undisclosed personal benefits at the time.

The source cautioned, however, that prosecutors may not have had evidence that Stevens was behind Cheney’s letter, before Stevens confirmed it to Newsweek.

A DOJ spokesperson did not immediately return a call for comment.