Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Kohring Trial Day 7 - Defense Case Over Before Lunch
I dragged in about 40 minutes late. Aaron Kohring, Vic's nephew, was sitting outside the courtroom, having just testified. When I got in Robert Hall was testifying. A Dimond High School classmate of Kohring's, Hall owns fireworks stands in Wasilla, has been Kohring's attorney at times, as well as his friend and campaign adviser. When I got into court, the prosecution was cross examining Hall. And much to my surprise, the prosecution was asking Hall if he knew how much money Kohring had earned in 2006, and they were able to bring out the key facts that were in Sean Cockerham's ADN story this morning. That he earned about $100,000 that year, that he had a consulting contract with developer Mark Marlow, and they even asked him if the $31,000 he got in per diem was tax deductible. Hall didn't know, but the point was made.
I hadn't thought they could get this information about the $100,000 income and Marlow contract in any more. I learned afterward that they had this information all along - and were not that excited to see it in the newspaper this morning - but didn't think they could get it in as part of their case. They'd been hoping to be able to slip it in when cross examining defense witnesses. They got their chance this morning.
And Browne wasn't very aggressive in objecting and the judge allowed it.
The defense rested its case about 10:30am. But the prosecutors called a rebuttal witness to Aaron Kohring, one of the recruiting staff at Veco when Aaron was hired. Kari McDonald testified that the internship program was for college juniors and seniors, mostly in engineering. They got paired up with a mentor and got paid $16 - $20 an hour. Aaron had just graduated from high school, so he really wasn't qualified. They gave him a $16/hour job and he got a mentor, but basically he was doing manual labor helping people move from cubicle to cubicle. There is a new high school intern program, but they only make $10/hour.
When asked if Aaron Kohring would have gotten the job if Bill Allen hadn't recommended it, McDonald said, "I strongly doubt it."
Defense attorney Browne was able to get her to say, "I know they thought very highly of him [Aaron]."
And then the judge asked the lawyers when they wanted to meet in his office to work out the jury instructions (after lunch) and the closing arguments will be tomorrow morning.
I hadn't thought they could get this information about the $100,000 income and Marlow contract in any more. I learned afterward that they had this information all along - and were not that excited to see it in the newspaper this morning - but didn't think they could get it in as part of their case. They'd been hoping to be able to slip it in when cross examining defense witnesses. They got their chance this morning.
And Browne wasn't very aggressive in objecting and the judge allowed it.
The defense rested its case about 10:30am. But the prosecutors called a rebuttal witness to Aaron Kohring, one of the recruiting staff at Veco when Aaron was hired. Kari McDonald testified that the internship program was for college juniors and seniors, mostly in engineering. They got paired up with a mentor and got paid $16 - $20 an hour. Aaron had just graduated from high school, so he really wasn't qualified. They gave him a $16/hour job and he got a mentor, but basically he was doing manual labor helping people move from cubicle to cubicle. There is a new high school intern program, but they only make $10/hour.
When asked if Aaron Kohring would have gotten the job if Bill Allen hadn't recommended it, McDonald said, "I strongly doubt it."
Defense attorney Browne was able to get her to say, "I know they thought very highly of him [Aaron]."
And then the judge asked the lawyers when they wanted to meet in his office to work out the jury instructions (after lunch) and the closing arguments will be tomorrow morning.
Sean Cocherham's Gets Great Story
Sean Cockerham's piece in today's ADN shows some real, if obvious, journalism that the rest of missed - he checked with the APOC. He reports Kohring made $100,000 while he was panhandling from Veco. And it looks like $25,000 was one of those do little contracts in which he was paid to
"assist with the development of construction related projects, including arranging and conducting meetings, performing research, and developing plans and strategies."
Now, he may have done real work for Marlow, but if not, this could totally change the image the defense has built up of Kohring as hard working and poor. Who did nothing but respond to his constituents emails and phone calls all year. But the prosecution ended its case yesterday afternoon, so the jury won't see this.
"assist with the development of construction related projects, including arranging and conducting meetings, performing research, and developing plans and strategies."
Now, he may have done real work for Marlow, but if not, this could totally change the image the defense has built up of Kohring as hard working and poor. Who did nothing but respond to his constituents emails and phone calls all year. But the prosecution ended its case yesterday afternoon, so the jury won't see this.
Court Room Escape
When I looked out this morning, the street was snow free and dry. One more day I can ride my bike. I know that some people resent cyclists for various reasons - but to be out in the chilly morning air, moving my blood around and going through the woods a good part of the way, and being able to park almost at the door of the federal building - what's not to like? But there was still ice on the bike path as you can see from these two pictures on my way
home. Still, this is so much better than being in a car. And for those of you in your cars, I'm one less car on the road and one more parking place.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Kohring Trial Day 6 - Defense May Not Defend
Most interesting part of the trial for me today:
Defense attorney Browne said after the jury was dismissed for the day, “Speaking candidly, I may not put on a defense.” (I’m always alert when people suddenly say they are speaking candidly. What were they doing before?) He then asked some questions about whether witnesses would be allowed to testify about Kohring’s habit of being very friendly and offering to help. After some questioning the judge said no. I’d heard at lunch from a close friend of Kohring, that his nephew was going to be called. And he said afterward he’d been told to call all the witnesses to cancel. I’m not entirely convinced. We’ll see. But if it’s true, we could be done tomorrow or Wednesday.
Today's Witnesses
Bill Allen, finished
Frank Prewitt - Former Commissioner of Corrections who is cooperating with the Government
Tom Wagoner, State Senator from District Q in Kenai area.
Joyce Anderson, Administrator for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Alan Vanderploeg, FBI Agent who led the team that searched Kohring's Wasilla office and interviewed him
Mary Jo Herrett, FBI agent who, I think I have this right, copied Kohring's hard drive.
The Issues
It's getting harder for me to sort things out. Either there was nothing particularly earth shaking - though a number of small details = or my head is turning to mush with all this.
1. Allen's credibility - I think more than anything he said, particularly in the cross examination, this was about whether Allen can be trusted as the only witness to the other times he handed over '6 or 7' to Kohring (Allen speak for $600-$700). It is hard to to be sure I haven't been tainted and my whether my judgment is objective anymore.
Browne would have us think that Allen will tell us anything because of his plea bargain agreement with the government who can recommend a significantly lighter sentence than his potential 10 or 11 years in prison. But Allen is that self made man of American mythology - pulled himself up from a crop picking, poor family to become a successful business man worth several hundred million dollars. And he didn't do it through trading, but through creating real things that were necessary for getting North Slope oil to the rest of the world. He's still proud of what he did, and he has a right to be. And he still had some of the dignity on the stand. This high school drop out stood up to Kohring's high priced lawyer and came out at least tied. Despite his cognitive problems from his motorcycle accident. But I don't know how much of my impression is influenced by seeing him in the Kott trial. I can't tell what the jury will think. (None of these comments is intended to diminish the gravity of the how he has corrpted the democratic process, but to give a sense of why the jury might believe him, despite what he's done.]
2. Gifts, loans, payments, what's the difference? Browne has been arguing from day one, that Kohring never got any payments. He got gifts from friends. The Easter egg payment was a gift from Allen to Kohring's step-daughter, whom Allen says he may have spoken to once by phone.
Joyce Anderson's testimony went right to this as she defined the requirements for legislators receiving gifts.
Does the loan count as something that needs to be reported? Well, it would if he had gotten one, but he didn't. (My comment: But for a legislator to ask for one - even though Browne took pains to point out it was a loan, not a gift or a payment - is problematic and loans fall into the category of something of value.)
However, Browne did point out that these are civil, not criminal offenses. I'm not sure how that plays out in the federal laws that Kohring is accused of violating.
I thought Anderson was probably the strongest witness of the day. She knew what she was talking about, even if Browne belittled her with a left-handed compliment
And when he tried to force her to say yes or no -
3. The Eric Musser Affair
We've heard bits and pieces of this since the opening statements. Browne even said he hadn't yet decided if he was going to call Musser as a witness. After what we heard today, I don't think he'd help Kohring's case.
Frank Prewitt, as part of his cooperation agreement with the government, video taped a dinner with Kohring during which he asked about Eric Musser. Kohring told Prewitt the story on tape. Musser had worked for Rep. Beverly Masek and they’d had a falling out. Musser came to work for Kohring. Then Musser filed a complaint against Masek with the APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) over illegal use of campaign funds. Kohring learned about this when an irate Bill Allen called to ask what was going on. Kohring checked with APOC and learned about the complaint.
Kohring on tape:
If he said he actually fired Musser over this I didn’t catch it. But what was clear was that Allen could call and make Kohring jump.
If Browne made important points in the cross, I didn’t catch them. He asked about Prewitt’s deal with the FBI, and kept asking things like,
B: You brought up Musser, obviously they asked you to raise that.
4. He had to think about it
I'm not sure what Alan Vanderploeg's testimony added. He was a very cheerful, polite, and friendly witness. So perhaps he was there to counter any ideas that the FBI interrogation was the heavy handed third degree the Defense had suggested in the pre-trial motion to supress statements elicited from this interrogation.
However, I thought one exchange was notable.
The point, as I understood it, was that at first he admitted things - not totally sure what - and then he seemed to have backed off a bit.
5. The Red Carpet List and HB 198
Mary Jo Herrett, the FBI agent who copied Kohring's hard drive when it was confiscated in the search (at one point Browne said "Before this raid" and Bottini objected, and it was sustained. Then Browne said, "Before this incursion..." and Bottini objected, and it was sustained. Finally Browne said, "Before this search,...") of Kohring's office. She produced three items from the computer, nothing as incriminating as the updated invoices for the flooring work in the Kott case:
1. The Red Carpet list - which was a list of people who, if they showed up at the office, would be shown right in. It was divided into categories in this order:
Lobbyists
Personal Friends
Supporters
Other
-Family members and relatives
-All legislators
With a Note at the bottom: This list is not in order.
What was of interest is that Bill Allen and Rick Smith were listed, not as friends, but as supporters.
2. HB 198 History (Oil Royalty Reduction for Cook Inlet Offishore Platforms)
This bill is the one we heard about where Kohring is said to have gotten upset because Sen. Wagoner had 'hijacked' it from him, so Wagoner would get credit for having introduced it and getting it passed. This seems to me so petty and trivial that I don't even want to write about it. But it fits in the prosecution's case (if I haven't mixed this up with another bill) because Kohring is said to have been sitting on the bill, and Allen was the person who persuaded him to let it out of his committee, thus demonstrating Allen's power over Kohring. Wagoner testified how his Senate version got passed out of committee and by the Senate before Kohring's identical house bill. So the Senate bill was the bill that went on to be passed. This memo found on Kohring's computer wasn't on the screen long, but it was a history of the bill and included the words "hijacked' on the memo.
3. A memo with emails setting up a meeting with Allen and Smith. First from Kohring dated Feb. 22, 2006 to Pamela Marquez asking to set up the meeting
There are other minor events - like the judge chewing out Browne for sharing Bill Allen's crib sheet with the press Friday, which was mentioned in Lisa Demer's Saturday article on Browne. Allen had a list of names to help him with his cognitive problems of getting words from his brain to his tongue. Browne had asked him what it was and if he could look at it. Then took it to the defense table. Afterward he showed it to several members of the media.
Today, after the jury left for lunch, Bottini complained about this action. At first Browne was contrite. Then he defiantly said,
Defense attorney Browne said after the jury was dismissed for the day, “Speaking candidly, I may not put on a defense.” (I’m always alert when people suddenly say they are speaking candidly. What were they doing before?) He then asked some questions about whether witnesses would be allowed to testify about Kohring’s habit of being very friendly and offering to help. After some questioning the judge said no. I’d heard at lunch from a close friend of Kohring, that his nephew was going to be called. And he said afterward he’d been told to call all the witnesses to cancel. I’m not entirely convinced. We’ll see. But if it’s true, we could be done tomorrow or Wednesday.
Today's Witnesses
Bill Allen, finished
Frank Prewitt - Former Commissioner of Corrections who is cooperating with the Government
Tom Wagoner, State Senator from District Q in Kenai area.
Joyce Anderson, Administrator for the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
Alan Vanderploeg, FBI Agent who led the team that searched Kohring's Wasilla office and interviewed him
Mary Jo Herrett, FBI agent who, I think I have this right, copied Kohring's hard drive.
The Issues
It's getting harder for me to sort things out. Either there was nothing particularly earth shaking - though a number of small details = or my head is turning to mush with all this.
1. Allen's credibility - I think more than anything he said, particularly in the cross examination, this was about whether Allen can be trusted as the only witness to the other times he handed over '6 or 7' to Kohring (Allen speak for $600-$700). It is hard to to be sure I haven't been tainted and my whether my judgment is objective anymore.
Browne would have us think that Allen will tell us anything because of his plea bargain agreement with the government who can recommend a significantly lighter sentence than his potential 10 or 11 years in prison. But Allen is that self made man of American mythology - pulled himself up from a crop picking, poor family to become a successful business man worth several hundred million dollars. And he didn't do it through trading, but through creating real things that were necessary for getting North Slope oil to the rest of the world. He's still proud of what he did, and he has a right to be. And he still had some of the dignity on the stand. This high school drop out stood up to Kohring's high priced lawyer and came out at least tied. Despite his cognitive problems from his motorcycle accident. But I don't know how much of my impression is influenced by seeing him in the Kott trial. I can't tell what the jury will think. (None of these comments is intended to diminish the gravity of the how he has corrpted the democratic process, but to give a sense of why the jury might believe him, despite what he's done.]
2. Gifts, loans, payments, what's the difference? Browne has been arguing from day one, that Kohring never got any payments. He got gifts from friends. The Easter egg payment was a gift from Allen to Kohring's step-daughter, whom Allen says he may have spoken to once by phone.
Joyce Anderson's testimony went right to this as she defined the requirements for legislators receiving gifts.
1. Gifts to legislators related to legislative status cannot be over $250 cumulative from the same person over a year.She also testified that Kohring had never reported any gifts from Veco, Allen, or Smith.
2. Gifts that not related to legislative status can be over $250, but must be reported
3. Cannot receive gifts from lobbyists during the legislative session.
Does the loan count as something that needs to be reported? Well, it would if he had gotten one, but he didn't. (My comment: But for a legislator to ask for one - even though Browne took pains to point out it was a loan, not a gift or a payment - is problematic and loans fall into the category of something of value.)
However, Browne did point out that these are civil, not criminal offenses. I'm not sure how that plays out in the federal laws that Kohring is accused of violating.
I thought Anderson was probably the strongest witness of the day. She knew what she was talking about, even if Browne belittled her with a left-handed compliment
Browne: You have obviously memorized the statutes for state ethics
And when he tried to force her to say yes or no -
B: If Allen gave money to VK’s child that would be ok? Right?I can't imagine how this exchange would have endeared him to the jury. She came across to me as knowledgeable and dedicated.
JA: There is no definition about ‘related or not to legislative status’.
B: Witness is not being responsive
Judge: I thought she was being responsive but if you don’t think so...
B: If he gave a gift to the child for any amount if not related to leg behavior, it is ok, Is that correct? [I wrote down ‘behavior’ but the language she had used earlier was ‘status’ I don’t know if that is what Browne said or something I miswrote.]
JA: After a long pause….. It’s difficult to answer when you use language “related to legislative behavior” LB is not defined in statue, the determination, sorry if you think I’m not answering. If I assume that it is not, then yes.
3. The Eric Musser Affair
We've heard bits and pieces of this since the opening statements. Browne even said he hadn't yet decided if he was going to call Musser as a witness. After what we heard today, I don't think he'd help Kohring's case.
Frank Prewitt, as part of his cooperation agreement with the government, video taped a dinner with Kohring during which he asked about Eric Musser. Kohring told Prewitt the story on tape. Musser had worked for Rep. Beverly Masek and they’d had a falling out. Musser came to work for Kohring. Then Musser filed a complaint against Masek with the APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) over illegal use of campaign funds. Kohring learned about this when an irate Bill Allen called to ask what was going on. Kohring checked with APOC and learned about the complaint.
Kohring on tape:
He filed complaint while he was working for me, Didn’t tell me. Bill Allen said, what is this chicken shit? Doesn’t he work for you? I called APOC and sure enough it had gone through. I was shocked. Eric didn’t even tell me. BA really liked Bev and didn’t want that to happen to her. So that was a bad thing for me to go thru and affected so many of my supporters. He wanted to get Eric to withdraw the complaint. But they already had it. She was caught red-handed..He then listed various illegal ways she spent campaign money, including paying off her credit card bill. In his opening statement, Browne said this was about integrity. But as we hear it now in Kohring's words, he wasn't interested in making sure a legislator who had violated the law was caught. He was upset that his aide did this behind his back and helped get rid of a legislator who was a friend of Allen's. This made him look bad. Getting rid of corrupt legislators wasn't his objective here. It was just too bad about Beverly. This doesn't make him look like a man of 'integrity."
If he said he actually fired Musser over this I didn’t catch it. But what was clear was that Allen could call and make Kohring jump.
If Browne made important points in the cross, I didn’t catch them. He asked about Prewitt’s deal with the FBI, and kept asking things like,
B: You brought up Musser, obviously they asked you to raise that.
4. He had to think about it
I'm not sure what Alan Vanderploeg's testimony added. He was a very cheerful, polite, and friendly witness. So perhaps he was there to counter any ideas that the FBI interrogation was the heavy handed third degree the Defense had suggested in the pre-trial motion to supress statements elicited from this interrogation.
However, I thought one exchange was notable.
Bottini: Tell VK about allegations at the beginning?Browne did a good job in the cross examination pointing out that from the written summary - I learned in one of the previous trials that the FBI policy is to NOT tape interrogations, so now we have to rely on the FBI's notes, and can't see or hear for ourselves - that the next thing was that Kohring talked about this, so he didn't think very long.
AVanderploeg: Told him conducting corruption probe, there were allegations he had taken money or other things of value.
JB: Did you ask him
AV: He said he had asked and received for personal benefit and campaign contributions?
JB: Did you ask to elaborate?
AV: Yes He said that he preferred to think about that question further.
The point, as I understood it, was that at first he admitted things - not totally sure what - and then he seemed to have backed off a bit.
5. The Red Carpet List and HB 198
Mary Jo Herrett, the FBI agent who copied Kohring's hard drive when it was confiscated in the search (at one point Browne said "Before this raid" and Bottini objected, and it was sustained. Then Browne said, "Before this incursion..." and Bottini objected, and it was sustained. Finally Browne said, "Before this search,...") of Kohring's office. She produced three items from the computer, nothing as incriminating as the updated invoices for the flooring work in the Kott case:
1. The Red Carpet list - which was a list of people who, if they showed up at the office, would be shown right in. It was divided into categories in this order:
Lobbyists
Personal Friends
Supporters
Other
-Family members and relatives
-All legislators
With a Note at the bottom: This list is not in order.
What was of interest is that Bill Allen and Rick Smith were listed, not as friends, but as supporters.
2. HB 198 History (Oil Royalty Reduction for Cook Inlet Offishore Platforms)
This bill is the one we heard about where Kohring is said to have gotten upset because Sen. Wagoner had 'hijacked' it from him, so Wagoner would get credit for having introduced it and getting it passed. This seems to me so petty and trivial that I don't even want to write about it. But it fits in the prosecution's case (if I haven't mixed this up with another bill) because Kohring is said to have been sitting on the bill, and Allen was the person who persuaded him to let it out of his committee, thus demonstrating Allen's power over Kohring. Wagoner testified how his Senate version got passed out of committee and by the Senate before Kohring's identical house bill. So the Senate bill was the bill that went on to be passed. This memo found on Kohring's computer wasn't on the screen long, but it was a history of the bill and included the words "hijacked' on the memo.
3. A memo with emails setting up a meeting with Allen and Smith. First from Kohring dated Feb. 22, 2006 to Pamela Marquez asking to set up the meeting
Can you call RS and get a brief meeting including brief bite to eat at the Baranof would be good.And her response:
I have talked with Rick today, He’ll get back to me to schedule you in.I wasn't sure the point of this and I'm still not. But it takes place the day after Kohring talked to Rick Smith and was told, "Don't you dare go...whacko." And before the meeting where Kohring tells them he needs $17,000 because of his credit card debt. The ADN summary of the audio tape adds more insight to how strange this all is:
Kohring calls Smith, who says he's having dinner with U.S. Rep. Don Young, Veco CEO Bill Allen and Veco President Pete Leathard. Smith mentions that he would be having dinner the next night with then-Atty. Gen. David Marquez (a former lobbyist for Veco whose wife, Pam, was an aide to Kohring at the time). "So we'll be with your staff tomorrow night," Smith says, laughing. "Small world, man," says Kohring. Later, Kohring - who is strident about opposing tax increases of all forms - says he might reluctantly support the oil tax plan being pushed by Veco. Smith suggests how Kohring can justify his support then says this: "Don't you dare take this as an opportunity to go crazy, you know, to go wacko." Kohring, at the time chairman of the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas, says he'd reluctantly go along with the tax if Veco and the North Slope producers want it. (Smith and Allen testified that Allen gave Kohring $1,000 in cash two days later, on Feb. 23.)
There are other minor events - like the judge chewing out Browne for sharing Bill Allen's crib sheet with the press Friday, which was mentioned in Lisa Demer's Saturday article on Browne. Allen had a list of names to help him with his cognitive problems of getting words from his brain to his tongue. Browne had asked him what it was and if he could look at it. Then took it to the defense table. Afterward he showed it to several members of the media.
Today, after the jury left for lunch, Bottini complained about this action. At first Browne was contrite. Then he defiantly said,
I believe in a public trial.Judge Sedwick then asked:
Did you get permission from Mr. Allen? It was not an exhibit.
In the future, you will not show things to the press without getting their permission.
Kohring Trial Day - Allen Cross Examination
Defense attorney Browne was much more polite in his cross exam this morning, most of the time anyway.
But Bill Allen proved again - as he did in the Kott trial - that he's not given up his dignity yet. He did not simply agree to everyting Browne asked. He forced Browne to wait until he found the lines Browne was asking about. Other times he simply disagreed. His long pauses seemed to try Browne's patience. At one point he asked for another headset. It was close to break and the judge had asked to hurry things along. Browned didn't want to wait. Allen retorted, "it's not my fault I can't hear." and put in his hearing aid. But it messed up Browne's pace, which had been picking up as he seemed to be trying to rattle Allen. Instead, Allen seemed to rattle Browne.
Mostly Browne was trying to get him to acknowledge that Kohring always said the money he asked for was for a loan, not a payment. The judge got irritated when Browne asked, "When he asked you for a loan, he always intended to pay it back? Right?" The judge said, well, of course, that's a tautology, rephrase the question. Browne didn't see to understand the Judge's objection, but finally figured out a different way to ask, "When he aske for money, it was for a loan, right?"
At one point Browne asked Allen about his being mad at Pete Lethard, then President of Veco, for telling the Australians who were considering buying Veco, that he was buying politicians including Don Young and Ted Stevens. That this disclosure caused them to drop out of negotiations. Allen responded, I said that, but I may have been wrong about Pete saying that.
Browne also spent a lot of time quoting Allen's profanity. He asked him whether there were two Bill Allen's - the one in front of us in his suit and the one who says fuck 52 times on the tape. Allen said, no, there's only one.
What about the Bill Allen who gives money to the Boys Club and the one in the tapes. Allen: It's the same Bill Allen.
Bottini has jumped up a few times to object to Browne reading to Allen.
I don't quite know where Browne is taking this. Even if it is a loan and not a payment, so what? If he could get a legitimate loan he should go to the bank. If he can't get such a loan, then being able to get one quicker or even at all, is a special benefit most people don't have.
He also tried to distinguish Vic Kohring from the others that Allen bribed. Well, it may be Kohring got less than the others, but so what?
This is a little disorganized, I just hae a short time during break this morning.
But Bill Allen proved again - as he did in the Kott trial - that he's not given up his dignity yet. He did not simply agree to everyting Browne asked. He forced Browne to wait until he found the lines Browne was asking about. Other times he simply disagreed. His long pauses seemed to try Browne's patience. At one point he asked for another headset. It was close to break and the judge had asked to hurry things along. Browned didn't want to wait. Allen retorted, "it's not my fault I can't hear." and put in his hearing aid. But it messed up Browne's pace, which had been picking up as he seemed to be trying to rattle Allen. Instead, Allen seemed to rattle Browne.
Mostly Browne was trying to get him to acknowledge that Kohring always said the money he asked for was for a loan, not a payment. The judge got irritated when Browne asked, "When he asked you for a loan, he always intended to pay it back? Right?" The judge said, well, of course, that's a tautology, rephrase the question. Browne didn't see to understand the Judge's objection, but finally figured out a different way to ask, "When he aske for money, it was for a loan, right?"
At one point Browne asked Allen about his being mad at Pete Lethard, then President of Veco, for telling the Australians who were considering buying Veco, that he was buying politicians including Don Young and Ted Stevens. That this disclosure caused them to drop out of negotiations. Allen responded, I said that, but I may have been wrong about Pete saying that.
Browne also spent a lot of time quoting Allen's profanity. He asked him whether there were two Bill Allen's - the one in front of us in his suit and the one who says fuck 52 times on the tape. Allen said, no, there's only one.
What about the Bill Allen who gives money to the Boys Club and the one in the tapes. Allen: It's the same Bill Allen.
Bottini has jumped up a few times to object to Browne reading to Allen.
I don't quite know where Browne is taking this. Even if it is a loan and not a payment, so what? If he could get a legitimate loan he should go to the bank. If he can't get such a loan, then being able to get one quicker or even at all, is a special benefit most people don't have.
He also tried to distinguish Vic Kohring from the others that Allen bribed. Well, it may be Kohring got less than the others, but so what?
This is a little disorganized, I just hae a short time during break this morning.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Enigma that is Vic Kohring
Here's some of what his defense attorney said about him in his opening argument:
John H Browne Opening Argument uploaded by AKRaven
(audio edited from court recording posted on ADN's site today)
It's true that he's a giant teddy bear of a man. He seems to smile at everyone he looks at in court, as if acknowledging an old friend. He asks the prosecutors how their lunch was after the noon break in a cordial tone you might use with someone you know well.
I'm trying here to put down what I know from observing him in court and from what he says on the surveillance tapes that have been played.
The other side of the picture.
What about his sheet rock business? We know from the previous trial that Pete Kott continued to be active, when the legislature was not in session, installing hardwood floors. And his legislative bio lists him as " Owner & Associate, Kott's Hardwood Flooring: 1996 - present" though his business support was tempered by his pro-union stance.
I can't see anything in Kohring's bio that accounts for the time between his high school graduation in 1976 and his graduation from college in 1987. Was he in college for 11 years? Was this when he did sheet rock work? And there were four or five years from when he received his MBA in 1989 until he was elected to the House of Representatives. Did he start a business? What did he do? It isn't reflected on his legislative bio. Why not? Wouldn't such a pro-business candidate want to emphasize his private sector work experience?
Why does such a strongly anti-government advocate only list government work on his official bio?
What influences in his life have led him to be a staunch supporter of business on the one hand, and a state legislator who is so poor he sleeps on his couch in his legislative office? A vow of poverty may be a noble thing, but I can't recall it being part of a pro-capitalist ideology. And the ideology doesn't fit with someone taking cash handouts from lobbyists. He said in a surveillance tape when he asked Allen for a loan to cover his credit card debt that he didn't want any payments that he didn't work for. What non-legislative work did he do for Allen in exchange for the $600 to $700 we saw on the video, not to mention the other times Allen says he gave him money because he felt sorry for him?
Browne called him one of the hardest workers in the history of the Alaska legislature, ever. Surely such a hard worker with an MBA could have earned enough money when the legislature was not in session to live off his $24,000 legislative pay plus more than $150 per diem. Do Alaskans really want people managing the state's budget who can't manage their own personal budgets? Here's a staunch anti-government, no-tax zealot, who won't vote for any legislation that raises taxes, even though the oil companies being taxed support the bill. He did say he would be willing to vote for it if the assessment of 20% were called a fee instead of a tax.
This is a man, it seems to me, who has painted himself into a corner by signing a no-tax increase pledge. In the 2006 session he was faced with what he sees as legislation necessary to develop the gas pipeline, which he sees as critical for the state. But he can't vote for it because he signed the no tax increase pledge 12 years earlier, though it's ok to tell others to vote for it. It's commendable for a politician to stick to his promise. But not when it's a promise that now is going to do harm to the state and people of Alaska. It made more sense to him to stick to a principle he espoused before he had any legislative experience or apparently business experience than to say, "After 12 years in the legislature, I now realize that life is more complex than I thought. There are times when voting against a tax will do more harm than the tax will do. Since the oil producers - the people being taxed here - are saying this bill is essential to getting the gas pipeline built, I'm going to make an exception here." Nixon went to China, but Kohring couldn't vote for the PPT bill.
So we have a man of contradictions. A man with degrees in business who is too poor, despite a hefty per diem, to afford a place to stay other than his office when in Juneau. Why?
Is he simply ignoring his personal needs to earn a living in his zeal to serve his constituents?
Is he just unable to succeed in the entrepreneurial ventures he's studied and he believes in so strongly?
Are there other explanations?
He is quite unique and leaves me scratching my head trying to understand these seeming paradoxes.
[added Oct. 30 - For a similar assessment in a very different style, read Michael Carey's take on Vic Kohring.]
John H Browne Opening Argument uploaded by (audio edited from court recording posted on ADN's site today)
It's true that he's a giant teddy bear of a man. He seems to smile at everyone he looks at in court, as if acknowledging an old friend. He asks the prosecutors how their lunch was after the noon break in a cordial tone you might use with someone you know well.
I'm trying here to put down what I know from observing him in court and from what he says on the surveillance tapes that have been played.
- His legislative bio says he was born in Waukegan, Illinois in 1958.
- It also says he received a B.A. in Management Science in 1987 and an M.B.A. in 1989, both from APU.
- He's anti-government and anti-tax. (according to his attorney's opening argument and Kohring himself on some of the tapes)
- He's pro big business and certainly pro-oil development. A couple of times he called Rick Smith (all the calls that have been introduced into court are ones where Vic goes through Rick Smith to get to Bill Allen if I recall right) to tell him that he's been working on a bill that includes even more incentives than just the investment incentives for major oil companies.
The other side of the picture.
- He's a humble sheet rocker, when he's not in the legislature. (Defense attorney Browne)
- He lives in a trailer in Wasilla and sleeps on a couch in his legislative office in Juneau. (Browne)
- He did not have enough money to eat. (Browne quoting Bill Allen)
- The only employment his legislative bio lists was government related - such as his legislative work and membership on the Wasilla Planning and Utilities Commission and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
- The only heading his legislative bio lists related to business is "Business and Professional Memberships" which include just: Palmer Chamber of Commerce and Wasilla Chamber of Commerce.
What about his sheet rock business? We know from the previous trial that Pete Kott continued to be active, when the legislature was not in session, installing hardwood floors. And his legislative bio lists him as " Owner & Associate, Kott's Hardwood Flooring: 1996 - present" though his business support was tempered by his pro-union stance.
I can't see anything in Kohring's bio that accounts for the time between his high school graduation in 1976 and his graduation from college in 1987. Was he in college for 11 years? Was this when he did sheet rock work? And there were four or five years from when he received his MBA in 1989 until he was elected to the House of Representatives. Did he start a business? What did he do? It isn't reflected on his legislative bio. Why not? Wouldn't such a pro-business candidate want to emphasize his private sector work experience?
Why does such a strongly anti-government advocate only list government work on his official bio?
What influences in his life have led him to be a staunch supporter of business on the one hand, and a state legislator who is so poor he sleeps on his couch in his legislative office? A vow of poverty may be a noble thing, but I can't recall it being part of a pro-capitalist ideology. And the ideology doesn't fit with someone taking cash handouts from lobbyists. He said in a surveillance tape when he asked Allen for a loan to cover his credit card debt that he didn't want any payments that he didn't work for. What non-legislative work did he do for Allen in exchange for the $600 to $700 we saw on the video, not to mention the other times Allen says he gave him money because he felt sorry for him?
Browne called him one of the hardest workers in the history of the Alaska legislature, ever. Surely such a hard worker with an MBA could have earned enough money when the legislature was not in session to live off his $24,000 legislative pay plus more than $150 per diem. Do Alaskans really want people managing the state's budget who can't manage their own personal budgets? Here's a staunch anti-government, no-tax zealot, who won't vote for any legislation that raises taxes, even though the oil companies being taxed support the bill. He did say he would be willing to vote for it if the assessment of 20% were called a fee instead of a tax.
This is a man, it seems to me, who has painted himself into a corner by signing a no-tax increase pledge. In the 2006 session he was faced with what he sees as legislation necessary to develop the gas pipeline, which he sees as critical for the state. But he can't vote for it because he signed the no tax increase pledge 12 years earlier, though it's ok to tell others to vote for it. It's commendable for a politician to stick to his promise. But not when it's a promise that now is going to do harm to the state and people of Alaska. It made more sense to him to stick to a principle he espoused before he had any legislative experience or apparently business experience than to say, "After 12 years in the legislature, I now realize that life is more complex than I thought. There are times when voting against a tax will do more harm than the tax will do. Since the oil producers - the people being taxed here - are saying this bill is essential to getting the gas pipeline built, I'm going to make an exception here." Nixon went to China, but Kohring couldn't vote for the PPT bill.
So we have a man of contradictions. A man with degrees in business who is too poor, despite a hefty per diem, to afford a place to stay other than his office when in Juneau. Why?
Is he simply ignoring his personal needs to earn a living in his zeal to serve his constituents?
Is he just unable to succeed in the entrepreneurial ventures he's studied and he believes in so strongly?
Are there other explanations?
He is quite unique and leaves me scratching my head trying to understand these seeming paradoxes.
[added Oct. 30 - For a similar assessment in a very different style, read Michael Carey's take on Vic Kohring.]
Kohring Trial - Opening Arguments Available
The ADN has posted the audio for the opening arguments in the Kohring Trial. Now you can see how much I left out in my post that day.
It starts with Prosecutor Joe Bottini. If you want to hear the government's case against Kohring, this is the government's story.
Bottini is followed by Defense Attorney John Henry Browne. The two opening arguments took about 80 minutes altogether. Now you can compare what Browne sounds like to the newspaper man described in today's ADN article by Lisa Demer. What does it mean when the paper writes about the defense attorney instead of about the defendant?
It starts with Prosecutor Joe Bottini. If you want to hear the government's case against Kohring, this is the government's story.
Bottini is followed by Defense Attorney John Henry Browne. The two opening arguments took about 80 minutes altogether. Now you can compare what Browne sounds like to the newspaper man described in today's ADN article by Lisa Demer. What does it mean when the paper writes about the defense attorney instead of about the defendant?
Richard Power's The Echo Maker
Cranes keep landing as night falls. Ribbons of them roll down, slack against the sky. They float in from all compass points, in kettles of a dozen, dropping with the dusk. Scores of Grus canadensis settle on the thawing river. They gather on the island flats, grazing, beating their wings, trumpeting: the advance wave of a mass evacuation. More birds land by the minute, the air red with calls.So opens The Echo Maker. The sandhill cranes who congregate along the Platte River near Kearney, Nebraska on their way to Alaska play an integral role in this novel about Mark Schluter whose car lands upside down in the middle of the cranes one night and who comes out of his coma with Capgras Syndrome - a cognitive dysfunction in which he believes that his sister is an imposter.
The way the birds remember the long journey to Alaska and back each year, is a metaphor for Powers' examination of the physiological basis of memory and the tricks this physiology plays with human perception.
What does a bird remember? Nothing that anything else might say. Its body is a map of where it has been, in this life and before. Arriving at these shallows once, the crane colt knows how to return. This time next year it will come back through pairing off for life. The year after next here again, feeding the map to its own new colt. Then one more bird will recall just what birds remember.
Mark's brain concludes from the signals it receives from the sensory impressions of Karin Schluter, that this lady looks, acts, and sounds like his sister, but isn't. Karin, the sister, begins to wonder if she is the same person who was Mark's sister. Gerald Weber, the famous cognitive neurologist's brain raises doubts about his whole career and marriage from his contact with Mark and Karin.
The birds also place everything into the context of time.
The yearling crane's past flows into the now of all living things. Something in its brain learns this river, a word sixty million years older than speech, older even than this flat water.Karin moves in with an old boyfriend while she cares for her brother after the accident. Daniel, the saintly idealist who lives to save the habitat of the cranes from developers, is the man she admires for his goodness, but who also makes her feel inadequate. Sexually, she can't resist Robert Karsh, another former boyfriend, the moral opposite of Daniel, who is now a wealthy developer planning the condos in the birds' sanctuary.
There is also the mystery of the note left in Mark's hospital room:
I am No OneThroughout, the book examines the mysteries of the human brain, its evolutionary functions, and the quirky ways its dysfunctions affect people. Professor Gerald Weber is fictional, yet his famous book, Wider than the Sky, is a real book about the physiology of consciousness, written by Nobel Prize winner Gerald M. Edelman, MD, PhD, some of which can be read online.
but Tonight on North Line Road
GOD led me to you
so You could Live
and bring back someone else.
Overall, this is a stunning book, that has taken me off into Nebraska, into Mark and Karin's world, into Dr. Weber's questions about academic publishing and the value of his life, into the mystery of how the brain works, and into the lives of the magnificent, prehistoric cranes who we are sometimes lucky to see as they pass through Anchorage on their way further north.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Trials - Why are we doing this?
I first went to the Anderson trial to see for myself and not have to rely on the Anchorage Daily News. I wanted to know what actually happened, and if Tom was guilty, how did he get there? Everything was pretty new to me. I don't think I'd ever been to a Federal trial before. What was the protocol? Not just for the attorneys, but for the spectators, the witnesses, the press. But beyond the courtroom, what does this tell us about how our state business gets done? Why do some legislators get caught up in private side deals and sell out the public interest? How many more are doing similar or worse things, but just didn't happen to have their numbers in the address book of a tapped phone? I have no illusions that we can stop it altogether, but we can establish and maintain rules and institutions that keep it to a minimum.
These are serious questions. I know that corruption has been part of US government from the beginning, but what factors make it more or less likely to happen? Are we in a new age where our national appetite for consumption and our shorter and shorter attention spans makes us more vulnerable?
How much is this whole investigation costing? How did Alaska get high enough on the federal priority list to become active? Particularly with a Justice Department that has been excessively partisan in favor of Republicans and in an administration that is so closely tied to big oil? I suspect there's a story there.
I'm still sorting this out, but here are some thoughts so far:
The first three defendants have been people who appear to have a strong need to please. They were easy targets for anyone who wanted some pull in the legislature. Allen was an inspiring figure for Kott and for Kohring. Bobrick and to some extent Prewitt played that role for Anderson. All three were always asking, "How can I help you?" "Just let me know what you need." None of them seems to have been consciously criminal. At most they thought they were bending the rules. Anderson was most actively involved by his complicity in laundering the money he got. Kohring tended to say things like, "I want to do this right" or "I could check with the Ethics Office" and chanting those mantras seemed all the thought he needed to do to stay ethical. None got very much money and it would be unfair if they end up serving more time than Allen and Smith. But rich criminals tend to do better than poor ones.
Anderson and Kohring both needed money and could be lured by people who could help them out. Kott had $30,000 in cash in his closet, so he didn't need the money. He may have had some deep insecurity about money and thus kept such a large amount in cash at home. Who knows? I think he and Kohring both liked being in the reflected glory of Allen's power and influence.
They all believed that the people who eventually sold them out were their friends. Anderson and Bobrick just hit it off and were planning joint business ventures when Tom got out of the legislature. Kott called Allen, Uncle Bill. He spent a lot of time at Uncle Bill's house. He admired this guy who'd moved up from poverty to great wealth. Kohring also believed that Allen was his friend. And it appears that they did have close relationships and they were friends. But the real question is whether those friendships would have existed if the three hadn't been state representatives. I doubt it.
It's easy to get caught up in the day to day of the courtroom and I'm still trying to figure out an appropriate role and focus. Since I'm in the courtroom and taking notes, it seems reasonable to share what I see with others who don't have the time to be there. And I don't need to worry about how large my audience is - I'm not selling advertisements. I'm concerned though that I'm slipping into areas that aren't that relevant. I'm still trying to figure out, for example, whether my speculation about the defense attorney shed light on anything important. I'm not interested in saying anything that pops into my head, simply because I can. I have no interest in idle chit chat, just in things that help explain what is happening. I'm not as concerned about what the jury eventually decides as I am with the structure and mechanics of government and how to minimize the likelihood that politicians serve special interests instead of the public at large.
Several of us who have been at the trials will be talking on this subject Thursday at noon in the federal building cafeteria. The event is sponsored by the local chapter of the American Society for Public Administration. So some of these thoughts are warm up for that session.
These are serious questions. I know that corruption has been part of US government from the beginning, but what factors make it more or less likely to happen? Are we in a new age where our national appetite for consumption and our shorter and shorter attention spans makes us more vulnerable?
How much is this whole investigation costing? How did Alaska get high enough on the federal priority list to become active? Particularly with a Justice Department that has been excessively partisan in favor of Republicans and in an administration that is so closely tied to big oil? I suspect there's a story there.
I'm still sorting this out, but here are some thoughts so far:
The first three defendants have been people who appear to have a strong need to please. They were easy targets for anyone who wanted some pull in the legislature. Allen was an inspiring figure for Kott and for Kohring. Bobrick and to some extent Prewitt played that role for Anderson. All three were always asking, "How can I help you?" "Just let me know what you need." None of them seems to have been consciously criminal. At most they thought they were bending the rules. Anderson was most actively involved by his complicity in laundering the money he got. Kohring tended to say things like, "I want to do this right" or "I could check with the Ethics Office" and chanting those mantras seemed all the thought he needed to do to stay ethical. None got very much money and it would be unfair if they end up serving more time than Allen and Smith. But rich criminals tend to do better than poor ones.
Anderson and Kohring both needed money and could be lured by people who could help them out. Kott had $30,000 in cash in his closet, so he didn't need the money. He may have had some deep insecurity about money and thus kept such a large amount in cash at home. Who knows? I think he and Kohring both liked being in the reflected glory of Allen's power and influence.
They all believed that the people who eventually sold them out were their friends. Anderson and Bobrick just hit it off and were planning joint business ventures when Tom got out of the legislature. Kott called Allen, Uncle Bill. He spent a lot of time at Uncle Bill's house. He admired this guy who'd moved up from poverty to great wealth. Kohring also believed that Allen was his friend. And it appears that they did have close relationships and they were friends. But the real question is whether those friendships would have existed if the three hadn't been state representatives. I doubt it.
It's easy to get caught up in the day to day of the courtroom and I'm still trying to figure out an appropriate role and focus. Since I'm in the courtroom and taking notes, it seems reasonable to share what I see with others who don't have the time to be there. And I don't need to worry about how large my audience is - I'm not selling advertisements. I'm concerned though that I'm slipping into areas that aren't that relevant. I'm still trying to figure out, for example, whether my speculation about the defense attorney shed light on anything important. I'm not interested in saying anything that pops into my head, simply because I can. I have no interest in idle chit chat, just in things that help explain what is happening. I'm not as concerned about what the jury eventually decides as I am with the structure and mechanics of government and how to minimize the likelihood that politicians serve special interests instead of the public at large.
Several of us who have been at the trials will be talking on this subject Thursday at noon in the federal building cafeteria. The event is sponsored by the local chapter of the American Society for Public Administration. So some of these thoughts are warm up for that session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)