King Rat Jumps Ship

Oh, for joy! Jack Abramoff, the indicted super lobbyist, has cut a deal with federal prosecutors under which he will plead guilty to several felony counts in return for squealing on congressfolk, their wives and former associates -- perhaps as many as 20 in all -- in what has shaped up to be the biggest political corruption scandal in many moons.

Under the plea bargain, Abramoff will do jail time, but far less than had he not cut a deal. Sentencing will be deferred, possibly for years. This is because the length of imprisonment will be left open until prosecutors ascertain how many people Abramoff is willing to rat out on the witness stand -- and how good a job he does.

(Reality Check: KikoKimba's more cynical friends note that the devil is in the details, and the plea bargain may actually be a way for the feds to protect the high and mighty. Hmm . . . See also an interesting take from a Talking Points Memo visitor at the bottom of this post.)

The New York Times offers this summary of what Abramoff hath wrought:

Official Washington has been on edge for months awaiting word of Mr. Abramoff's legal future. Once a masterful Republican lobbyist with close ties to the former House majority leader, Rep. Tom DeLay, he earned tens of millions of dollars representing Indian casino interests and farflung entities like the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Through a complicated web of financial arrangements, he helped funnel donations to his lawmaker friends' and their campaigns, and took members of Congress, mainly the Republicans in power, on lavish trips.

Now, after more than two years of investigations, prosecutors have developed a list of at least a dozen lawmakers, congressional aides and lobbyists whose work appears suspect and who are now at the core of the case. With Mr. Abramoff's cooperation, the Justice Department will have a potentially critical witness to alleged patterns of corruption or bribery within the Republican leadership ranks, which in some cases they believe also took the form of campaign donations and free meals at Mr. Abramoff's downtown restaurant, Signatures.

For his part, Abramoff said that

Words will not be able to express my sorrow for this and other actions. For all my remaining days, I'll feel tremendous sorrow.

Under most circumstances, Abramoff's religious beliefs would be incidental. In this case, they are not.

He is an avowed Zionist who funneled some of his ill-gotten gains to Israeli settlers in the West Bank, possibly for military equipment and training, through a fake charity group.

That is against the law.

Abramoff has been contemptious of Palestinians, whom he referred to as "dirty rats" in email files confiscated by prosecutors, as well as the Native Americans whose casino lobbying money he skimmed with such abandon, calling them "monkeys,” “morons” and “troglodytes.”

These slurs are not against the law, but they do suggest that while Abramoff may be a Zionist, he is a morally bankrupty one.

* * * *

Meanwhile, over at Talking Points Memo, "LH" considers the Abramoff scandal vector and a not dissimilar blast from the past -- Abscam.

There is a lesson to be learned from the "Abscam" investigations that should be applied to any examination of that constellation of events that fall under the heading of "The Abramoff Matter." (hereafter TAM). That lesson is that TAM exceeds the scope of the legal system and, specifically, the Justice Department. This is what "Abscam" taught us. If you recall "Abscam" was a DOJ sting operation that offered bribes to congressmen. It turned out that it was a very successful sting and several members of Congress were prosecuted. But then the operation was terminated although if anything was learned it was that there were more opportunities for success. It was terminated precisely because of its success. The DOJ determined that they might be able to unseat as much as a third of the sitting Congress if they continued. DOJ determined that if they did continue then what began as a law enforcement project could alter the political balance within the Legislative branch. The DOJ decided, rightly I believe, that it was not their place to fundamentally alter that political balance.

And so it will be with TAM. At some point TAM will become a potent enough matter to be profoundly political in nature and those involved in the legal system will have to withdraw. To do otherwise would be to improperly engage the legal system in a political contest and undermine the foundational premise of an independent judiciary. This is the tightrope that Fitzgerald is walking in the Plame matter. So long as he is pursuing the violation of a particular Federal statute he is on solid ground. But were he to find himself standing on the threshold of something that, if pursued, could alter the political balance of power then he would have to retreat. Otherwise he would fall into that political contest and improperly involve DOJ in the public arena of political combat.

It would be wise of those of us who are offended by the realities of TAM to resist the temptation to view TAM as a fundamentally legal matter. Rather we should debate it within the arena of political and social ethics. If we cannot win the contest on the basis of these ethical principles then no legal system can save us from ourselves.