Let’s put Traficant’s return in the proper perspective

For his family and friends, James A. Traficant Jr.’s release from the federal penitentiary is a time for celebration. For the rest of the residents of the Mahoning Valley, the former congressman’s return after a prison stay of seven years and one month is an intriguing topic of conversation over a cup of coffee or around the office water cooler, but nothing more.

Many years ago, Traficant was the face of the Valley — literally and figuratively. As the sheriff of Mahoning County who successfully defended himself against federal criminal charges of racketeering, bribery and tax evasion and then as a member of Congress who drew attention to himself by his obnoxious behavior, he grabbed the media spotlight.

He was a favorite of the radio and cable television talking heads, not because of his great political insights or his impressive legislative record, but because he was willing to say the most ridiculous things.

He pushed the envelope — too far, in the end. After 17 years in Congress, he was indicted, convicted and handed an eight-year prison sentence in 2002 for the 10 federal criminal charges filed against him, including racketeering and bribery, He also was expelled from the House of Representatives. Through it all, he accused the federal government of a grand conspiracy to silence him. He said the FBI, IRS, Justice Department and even the White House were out to get him.

The notion that he was singled out by the feds strains credulity. After Traficant went to prison, there were three other high profile cases of members of Congress nabbed for criminal activity: Randy Cunningham, a Republican from California, who resigned in 2005 after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and is serving an eight-year and four-month prison sentence; Bob Ney, R-Ohio, who resigned after pleading guilty to bribery charges and served a 27-month prison sentence; and, William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, who faces 20 years in prison after being convicted of 11 counts, including racketeering and money laundering.

The difference between Traficant and the others is that they resigned before being expelled. He, on the other hand, forced colleagues in the House to kick him out.

In a 10-day period in July 2002, we published three editorials with the following headlines: “If Traficant thought they were out to get him, he should have behaved”; “Traficant’s expulsion brings shame, hope to the Valley”; “Federal convict Traficant has shamed the Valley and must be rejected.”

The question

Now, with his return home after being away for seven years and a month, this question looms: What will he do with the rest of his life?

He might be inclined to give serious thought to running for Congress again, which he can do, because of the 1,000 or so people who have bought tickets for a party on Sunday to celebrate his release from prison. We would point out to Traficant that 1,000 supporters are an inconsequential number in the overall population of the Valley and that most residents today view him as nothing more than a curiosity.

Traficant has given up the right to politically represent this region.

Indeed, his successor in Congress, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Niles, D-17th, is viewed as one of the rising stars on Capitol Hill. His membership on the powerful House Appropriations Committee has benefitted the area greatly and is a testament to his hard work and willingness to be a team member.

The Valley has also earned national recognition for becoming a player in the high technology sweepstakes and positioning itself to compete in the global economy.

There is no public role that Traficant, a convicted felon, can play in the Mahoning Valley without reminding us of the region’s putrid political past.

His family and friends need him more than we do.

But we aren’t under any illusion that he will go quietly into the sunset. Indeed, it has become clear that the former disgraced congressman intends to pick up where he left off in 2002: Arguing that he was the target of a grand federal government conspiracy to not only get him out of Congress but to put him behind bars.

We repeat what we said in an editorial in July 2002: “A person who believes the government is out to get him avoids even the appearance of breaking the law. He doesn’t take loans from his staff, he doesn’t rent office space from an entity set up to circumvent the law, he doesn’t accept welding equipment and cars from constituents he helped, he doesn’t allow his staff to work on his boat or his farm, he doesn’t allow contractors for whom he interceded as a congressman to do work on his farm.”

As for the trial itself, Traficant’s supporters should disabuse themselves of the notion that the outcome of the case was a foregone conclusion. The defendant looked at the evidence compiled against him and the witness list, concluded he was toast, and that the only chance he had of spitting the hook was by defending himself. Making a mockery of the proceedings worked for him in his 1983 criminal trial.

But this time, the judge and prosecutors were ready for his misbehavior and shut him down every time he tried turn the trial into a circus. That is now being used by Traficant and his supporters to bolster their contention that he was railroaded.

James A. Traficant Jr. gamed the system on many levels and lost. Now, he has a chance to rebuild his life — away from the public spotlight. He should take it.