[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: 2002 Interview with James Traficant's wife / Patricia Traficant with Greta Van Sustern http://FOXNews.com On the Record Exclusive! Patricia Traficant with Greta Van Susteren Thursday , August 22, 2002 This is a partial transcript from On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, August 21, 2002. Click here to order the entire transcript of the show. Watch On the Record every weeknight at 10 p.m. ET! GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JAMES TRAFICANT (D), FORMER OHIO CONGRESSMAN: Pack my bags! I'm not going to admit to crimes that I did not do, had no intent to ever commit a crime, and will do the time. And expect a long time to try and shut me up! But let me tell you something. There will be some smoking gun that will come out before it's over in the Traficant case. (END VIDEO CLIP) VAN SUSTEREN: Many turned against him, his colleagues expelled him, and his peers sent him to jail. But she never left his side. She's Tish to her friends, but Mrs. Traficant to the rest of the world. And her flamboyant congressman-turned-convict is doing eight years behind bars. Today I sat down with Tish and her attorney for a Fox exclusive, and I asked her how did she feel when she heard her husband's sentence. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) PATRICIA TRAFICANT, WIFE OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN JAMES TRAFICANT: I couldn't believe it. But he told me that ahead of time. Everyone was telling me three to five years. He said, "No, she is going to put time on me. She's going to put years on me." VAN SUSTEREN: How did he take that? P. TRAFICANT: He took it in stride. He just said, "This is -- this is what's happening to me." We've been preparing for this for 20 years. If I tell you that, you might think I'm crazy. But 20 years, I have been preparing myself that he might be imprisoned at a time, sometime in our life. But, when it had happened, it was awful. It was just like my breath was sucked away from me. But he said to me, "It will be a long time." That morning be -- the morning when the jury came in, he called me that morning. He said, "They've come in -- they'll come in with guilty, and, you know, I will be sentenced for a long time." He said, "I know this." VAN SUSTEREN: And his mood was what? P. TRAFICANT: "I'm worried about you. Don't worry about me. It's OK." VAN SUSTEREN: Is that an act, do you think, though? I mean... P. TRAFICANT: No. Oh, no. VAN SUSTEREN: You don't think... P. TRAFICANT: You have to know him. You have to really know him. People that are in our home -- they just -- it's like congressman was what he did. It was not who he was. That's the only way I can explain it to you. He's funny, loving, very affectionate, welcomed anyone into the home. VAN SUSTEREN: So he's not -- is he -- so he's not a broken man? Is that what the... P. TRAFICANT: No, no. VAN SUSTEREN: No. P. TRAFICANT: No no. He's not broken. Not at all. VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think he had so many people who didn't like him in Congress? P. TRAFICANT: I never found any when I would go down there. I think... VAN SUSTEREN: But they're not going to say anything to the wife. P. TRAFICANT: Right. You're right. VAN SUSTEREN: You're not going to say anything to the wife. P. TRAFICANT: I've had several contact me since. They -- they're -- they feel awful. They more or less had to do what they had to do. VAN SUSTEREN: I mean, people said -- I mean, members of Congress have called you? P. TRAFICANT: I've spoken with members of Congress, yes. VAN SUSTEREN: Are you angry with any of them in particular? P. TRAFICANT: No. Not at all, no. No. VAN SUSTEREN: You accepted their vote to expel him? P. TRAFICANT: Right. I was very proud of him that night, standing there facing those individuals. He knew his fate. We all did. But not to know the situation, the stories, not to listen to any of the tapes that he had -- I was really appalled when he was before the Ethics Committee. He gave them all the tapes to listen to. They didn't listen to them. VAN SUSTEREN: Who disappoints you the most in Congress? P. TRAFICANT: Oh, I'm not saying. VAN SUSTEREN: So you -- but you have some... P. TRAFICANT: Oh, certainly. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. VAN SUSTEREN: And you think they were dishonest to your husband. P. TRAFICANT: Yes. Maybe -- I didn't know if that -- the "dishonest" word I'm not comfortable with. I didn't like some of their action behind the scene. VAN SUSTEREN: The jury convicted him. I mean... P. TRAFICANT: How could you not? VAN SUSTEREN: I feel that... P. TRAFICANT: How could you not? VAN SUSTEREN: In... P. TRAFICANT: There was no -- he wasn't allowed to bring any evidence forward. VAN SUSTEREN: So you don't harbor any feel -- bad feelings toward the jurors? P. TRAFICANT: Oh, no. No. How could they not? I mean, when you listened to the evidence against him, it was preposterous, and they didn't know our area. They did not know these businessmen were always in trouble. VAN SUSTEREN: And he wasn't even tried in your area? P. TRAFICANT: No. HEIDI HAHNI WOLFF, MRS. TRAFICANT'S ATTORNEY: That's another basis of appeal that we're looking at under the Sixth Amendment. I mean, it says that you're supposed to be tried before a jury of your peers within the district from where you come from, and there's issues regarding the pooling -- the jury pooling in the federal system in our district that is one avenue we're looking at for a basis of appeal. He really never got to present his case, and that's the sad thing about it. I have my opinions as far as should he have had counsel. Yes, absolutely. VAN SUSTEREN: Yeah, what was with that, Tish? Why didn't he get a lawyer? I mean, he won the first time when he represented himself against all odds, but this time... P. TRAFICANT: He feared -- he didn't trust anyone. VAN SUSTEREN: Not lawyers? P. TRAFICANT: No. He was -- he just didn't trust them because... VAN SUSTEREN: Is he a know-it-all that way, though? I mean... P. TRAFICANT: No. VAN SUSTEREN: No? He's not? P. TRAFICANT: He had lawyers assisting him, telling him what to do, or, you know, helping him with issues, and what was the law. He did have some input, but he was so fearful of being sold down the river by the attorneys. And you have to understand our background and what happened to us, how many people said they would help us and then turned against us. It was one after another after another. VAN SUSTEREN: He -- the -- he had very harsh words for the federal judge. P. TRAFICANT: I don't -- I don't recall them really. VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, you sort of smile. I mean, you have -- I mean... P. TRAFICANT: I don't recall them. VAN SUSTEREN: If -- I mean, do you have any sort of -- like do you lie in bed at night thinking, "If only I could talk to that federal judge, this is what I'd say." P. TRAFICANT: Oh, I did that. Yes, I did that in the beginning. VAN SUSTEREN: And what were your thoughts? P. TRAFICANT: My thoughts were, "Why wouldn't you let him bring his testimony?" If the government had... VAN SUSTEREN: And there was just -- I mean, there was -- they didn't have more passion than that? P. TRAFICANT: My thing -- oh, no. I never felt like I wanted to hurt her or anything. No, that's just not me. But... VAN SUSTEREN: I didn't mean to hurt her. P. TRAFICANT: No, no. I never thought that. Oh, people have come up to me with those wishes, and I mean -- no, I would never think that way. I thought she was controlled by the FBI. I thought she was put there for a reason. At times, I thought, "What do they have on her?" Honestly, I did think that. I don't know if they do or not, but those are my thoughts, and you asked me, and I'm honestly telling you. I would think, "Maybe she's hiding something and she has to do with they say." I'm serious. That's how I was thinking. And I don't know if she is or she isn't. (END VIDEOTAPE) VAN SUSTEREN: Up next, more with the wife of former Congressman James Traficant. So whose idea was the hair? I'll ask her....... (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) J. TRAFICANT: Presidents Ford, Carter endorsed President Clinton's plan to grant China most favored nation trade status, now called Normal. Normal, my two pairs (ph). Beam me up, ladies and gentlemen. Ford, Carter, and Clinton won't get it until there's a Chinese missile shoved right up their assets. (END VIDEO CLIP) VAN SUSTEREN: More with the wife of former Congressman James Traficant. She never turned her back on him, but she wasn't at his trial. I asked Patricia why. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) P. TRAFICANT: Women have a way of -- everything shows on our faces. I don't know. I -- it would be me. I couldn't sit there and listen to those lies. I couldn't do that. And I didn't want to put any distractions on him. It really affects him when we are in pain or hurting. It bothers him. So I just chose -- after speaking with him about it, I chose to stay at home. VAN SUSTEREN: When he'd come home at night during the trial -- I mean, the trial must have been tough. It must... P. TRAFICANT: He didn't come home at night. He only came home on the weekends. VAN SUSTEREN: Even when he was at trial. P. TRAFICANT: Right. He stayed there. He slept there. He stayed in a hotel. I spoke with him all the time. All the time. People would come back into town, tell me what was going on. And then I became frightened when I learned what was going on in the courtroom. I became frightened. VAN SUSTEREN: Frightened about what? P. TRAFICANT: He was not allowed to bring any of his witnesses forward. She would excuse the jury, the judge. Then he had to question them in front of a prosecution, prosecutors, and the judge, and then they'd dismiss the testimony. So his witnesses were not allowed to testify in front of the jury. So, consequently, they didn't hear the whole trial. VAN SUSTEREN: Tish, you know, what do you do while your husband's in prison? I mean, how do you go on with your life? P. TRAFICANT: Oh, I work. Contrary to what people think, I've worked for 41 years, and I love my profession. VAN SUSTEREN: What do you do? P. TRAFICANT: I'm a hair stylist. Mainly, I -- I'm more comfortable with hair coloring. That's... VAN SUSTEREN: Which raises an interesting question. P. TRAFICANT: Yes, I knew... VAN SUSTEREN: Speaking of hair stylists, I bring up that -- you brought it up. Your husband's hair has been this... P. TRAFICANT: Oh, it's a nightmare. VAN SUSTEREN: It's a nightmare? What's with his hair? P. TRAFICANT: I don't know. I guess he was just comfortable like that. I don't know. We used to discuss it at great lengths. Finally, I said, "Listen, one of us looks good, and, apparently, it's not you," and so be it. And it was something that, after a while, that was it. It was done. I just don't even discuss it. VAN SUSTEREN: Did he like his hair? P. TRAFICANT: I think he must have. VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it certainly has caused a lot of discussion. P. TRAFICANT: Oh, I know. It was just always in the paper, on the news. Who cares? VAN SUSTEREN: What about his... P. TRAFICANT: He didn't care. VAN SUSTEREN: What about his style? I mean, he was quite proud of his style. He would boast about his style. P. TRAFICANT: Well, you know, that was just who he was, and I think it never even bothered him before. It didn't bother me until people started coming on about, "What's with the ties? Why -- why are you wearing those outdated suits?" And I have to tell you something. He never liked to shop. He just didn't like to do that. Clothes were of no interest to him. Never. VAN SUSTEREN: He boasted about his blue jean suit. P. TRAFICANT: Oh, he -- I tried get rid of those things. I mean, I used to hide them, dispose of some of them. He'd ask me where things were. I'd go, "I don't know." I'd get rid of them, put them out to the trash. Honestly, I did many things that he didn't know about, and if he's listening to this program -- I don't think he will be able to -- he'll find out. You know, he might be angry for a second. It was just how he was. It never bothered him. Clothes didn't interest him. What interests him was what came out of people's mouths, what came out of their heart, their soul. He -- that's what interests him the most. VAN SUSTEREN: How do you -- how do you intend to spend the next years, you know, with him in prison? I mean, are you going to go visit him in... P. TRAFICANT: Oh, yes. Oh, sure. I am. It's five hours. It's a five-hour drive. I'm doing everything I can, cooperating with attorneys, to see what we could do about his situation, to get him a new trial, a fair trial, anything. VAN SUSTEREN: Are you optimistic he's going to get a new trial? P. TRAFICANT: I don't think they'll allow it. I don't think they'll allow it. VAN SUSTEREN: In prison, has he described, I mean, what prison life is like. P. TRAFICANT: Yes, he writes letters. He writes me letters, and... VAN SUSTEREN: What does he write? P. TRAFICANT: They're humorous, and then they're honest. And this last incident, he's -- they call it -- he's in the hole or... VAN SUSTEREN: Isolation. P. TRAFICANT: ... isolation. VAN SUSTEREN: Why is he in isolation? P. TRAFICANT: Well, he was offered -- he was given the job of a cook, which is paid $60 a month. He has met other inmates in prison that are poor, and they don't have families that can support him. So he requested that he take a less-paying job. "I'll take a $5-a-month job. Give it to these people who need the spending money that can't get it." Well, they said to him, "No. You have a choice. You either take the job, or you're in the hole." Well, he wouldn't take the job, you know, and that's so common for me. I thought, "Oh, yeah, that's exactly what he would do, give the money to someone else." He really always thinks that way. VAN SUSTEREN: So how do you deal with the fact? Your husband's going to miss your daughter's wedding. P. TRAFICANT: Right. VAN SUSTEREN: Congressman to a cage, in essence. P. TRAFICANT: Right, and that's exactly it. I don't know, but, for every action, there's a reaction. For everything that happens to you, there's a reason. He has said it. Both of us have said it. He said, "Something positive is going to come out of this. I don't know what it is today, but something will come out of it." My daughter said to me the other day, "You know, Mom," she said, "There's a beginning and an end to everything. Dad's the beginning. We don't know who the end will be, when it will be, but, sometime down the road, someone might say 'Remember that congressman that went to jail? He started this.'" And that's how I look at life. That's how I look at it. It's something you move through. (END VIDEOTAPE) Click here to order the entire transcript of the August 21 edition of On the Record. Content and Programming Copyright 2002 Fox News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, Inc.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61054,00.html Traficant's famous one-minute speeches lashed out as such things as open borders, the IRS, the sell-out of America and American jobs, and "the undo influence that Israel and its friends enjoy in the US Congress". "Traficant Case Gives Glimpse of Corrupt Legal Process Rep. James Traficant (D - Ohio) is a colorful, maverick Congressman from the Youngstown area. He formerly served as a Sheriff and had extensive dealings with both the mob and the FBI. He is known for his earthy humor (some say bathroom humor) and his memorable one minute speeches on the House floor. Traficant's specialty was speaking truth to power. He criticized the IRS for its high handed way of taking people's assets before they were found guilty of anything; he also pointed out the undo influence that Israel and its friends enjoy in the US Congress. The last time Congress organized itself, Traficant was the only Democrat to vote for the Republican Dennis Hastert for Speaker. The Republicans naturally expected that Traficant would soon be switching to the Republican party, but he stayed a Democrat. This maneuver left Traficant in no man's land. The Democrats refused to give him any committee assignments. The Republicans couldn't. But back in Ohio things were even more interesting. In the spring of 2002, James Traficant was convicted in Federal Court on ten criminal counts, these included such things as taking bribes from constituents, using his office to solicit favors, and forcing a couple of his office employees to kick back part of their salaries to him. Traficant handled his own defense and this combined with his maverick personality put him at odds with the trial court judge on several occassions. The jury found him guilty, and he will be sentenced in late July 2002. Traficant's guilt is impossible to determine from the "reliable" facts on the record. Traficant vehemently denies doing anything wrong, and there is a complete lack of hard evidence against him. Traficant was convicted exclusively on the testimony of others. All the key witnesses had their own problems with the government, in each case they (or a close relative) was in trouble with the government on other charges. There were no video or audio tapes catching the Representative in any illegal act, there were no documents pointing to his guilt, and there were no Traficant fingerprints on anything. In recent Congressional bribery cases the FBI has relied on video and audio tapes which have documented the crime(s), but in this case there are no such tapes even though the FBI built their case over a long, six year period. Prior to the trial Traficant asked to have the case tried in his district at the Federal Courthouse in Youngstown OH. This courthouse serves the area where the crimes were supposed to have been committed. The judge denied this request and moved the trial to Cleveland OH. Further the judge refused to allow any prospective jurors from the Youngstown district to be considered for inclusion in the jury pool. Later, after the trial ended, it came out that the judge's husband's law firm was representing one of the chief witnesses against Traficant, a fellow named J J Cafaro. The judge should have recussed herself from the case but failed to do so. In opposition to this, Traficant produced nine telephone tape recordings which he had made while speaking with various witnesses against him (or people close to these witnesses). Traficant also obtained affidavits from various parties saying they had first hand knowledge that the prosecutor, a lawyer named Morford, had pressured witnesses to lie. These tapes and affidavits revealed that the US Prosecutor had threatened the witnesses with personal prosecution for various federal crimes unless they told a tale created for them by the prosecutor. The Congressman attempted to play these audio tapes and present these affidavits at his trial, but the judge denied his request. Additionally he wanted to call witnesses that would counter the testimony of the prosecutor's witnesses, the judge generally denied these requests as well. The judge allowed Traficant to cross examine the witnesses against him but without the tapes, affidavits, and/or countering witnesses, Traficant was unable to break the witnesses away from their stories. Traficant asked to question the FBI agents who had done the leg work building the case from 1996 to 2001. The judge refused to allow him to question these law officers. Not surprisingly the jury convicted Traficant. Once the conviction was in place, the House of Representatives' Ethics Committee took up the question of whether or not to expel Rep. Traficant from the House of Representative. Even though the House of Representatives is less than 50% lawyers, this investigating committee was nearly 80% lawyers. This Committee did allow Traficant to present witnesses, and they allowed him to enter his nine audio tapes into the record. However, there was no attempt to play these tapes and/or question Traficant about them. One of the witnesses that had not testified in Cleveland did testify in Washington. This witness, named Richard DeTore, said he had for years worked for and reported directly to J J Cafaro, one of the people who had testified against Traficant in Cleveland. DeTore, said that Traficant had behaved properly during his many encounters with Traficant. DeTore further said Prosecutor Morford had detained DeTore for nine hours a year ago and put pressure on him to give false testimony against Traficant. DeTore's attorneys had also been threatened. Mr. DeTore also testified that Cafaro had given false testimony against Traficant because Cafaro had been caught giving false testimony in a earlier Federal trial on a different matter and wanted to avoid prosecution on that charge. Traficant produced letters from DeTore's attorneys saying they were outraged by the prosecutor's behavior. Mr. DeTore noted that Prosecutor Morford; was so mad at him that he had brought a frivolous Federal Prosecution against him. The case so far has cost DeTore several $100,000 in legal fees. The lawyers letters also supported DeTore's statement about the Federal case being frivolous. At this point it was clear that the US Prosecutor had played "hard ball" to get the testimony he wanted against Traficant. The week of July 22, 2002 was the time when the Ethics Committee should have stepped in, put a hold on the Traficant expulsion, and take a hard look at the legal processes being employed back in Ohio. But the Committee decided on a different course. They chose to recommend expulsion and scheduled no additional investigations. Evidently the lawyers on this committee did not believe the evidence before their eyes, or more probably they felt it was not the job of the legislature to bring the judiciary and Justice Dept. to heel. In America lawyers are taught that it is the judiciary and the Justice Dept. that brings the legislature to heel, not vice versa. These lawyers on the Ethics Committee had been thoroughly socialized into the law by their law school professors. Late in evening on Wed. July 24th, the whole House of Representatives voted to expell Traficant. Over four hundred voted to expell, eight Representatives voted "present", there was only one vote against the motion. Be clear about this current situation. Traficant's guilt or innocence is yet to be properly determined. The corrupt processes of at least one US Prosecutor has been exposed, and the Federal District Court in Cleveland has at least one judge that needs to be removed. Take Me To: ...The Next Page... The Prior Page....The Home Page" www.legalethicsandreform.com/hm_pg26.html I looked up Traficant on Bureau of Prisons Locator, and was surprised to find him at FMC Rochester: 1. JAMES A TRAFICANT 31213-060 66 White M 09-02-2009 ROCHESTER FMC "The Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Rochester is an administrative facility providing specialized medical and mental health services to male offenders FMC Rochester is located in southeastern Minnesota, two miles east of downtown Rochester." www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/rch/index.jsp He's only 66 years old, seemed to be in good health when he went to prison 5 years ago. I wonder what happened to land him at the Federal Medical Center. Solitary confinement, torture, perhaps? This is very disturbing. Does anyone have any information on this?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#0)
bttt
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||