As is common news by now, Jack Abramoff has plead guilty to three federal felony charges, with more (Florida state) expected. However, that is not the subject of this debate.
Talking Points Memo has been covering this case, and last night an interesting post was put up:
Do Dopers agree with the assessment? That if law enforcement officials believe that certain public officials are corrupt but also that catching and removing them could have serious political conequences, then such investigations should be avoided? Does it make a difference that Abscam didn’t involve pre-existing crimes?
I say the policy should be, “Nail every last crook and Devil take the hindmost!”
But then, I’ve often argued in this forum that the U.S. needs a separately elected fourth branch of government, a “Tribunate,” charged with constantly and relentlessly investigating/policing the other three, regardless of political consequences. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462
I think there’s a valid point being made. There is a point where you go beyond the legitimate need to apprehend criminals who happen to be politicians into the realm of using law enforcement to overthrow the elected government.
But the government can only be overthrown if enough politicians are crooked. SO, assuming the DOJ doesn’t frame its targets, why are the political implications a valid DOJ concern?
Say to the voters, in effect, “You remain free to replace these crooks with honest persons of the same political views.” That’s what’s important about voting anyway.
Framing isn’t necessary; I would not put it past the current Justice Department to target only Democrats so the GOP could point out how corrupt liberals are.
I’m arguing about general principle, not a specific instance. Judging by the concern illustrated by your scenario, no politician should be targeted because it may be politically motivated.
No cite, but I remember some commentators saying at the time that the real reason the Abscam program was cut short was because of pressure from the Reagan WH – after it turned out too many prominent Pubs were getting nailed.
I’d never heard that Abscam was halted because of a concern over the political ramifications. (That could just be ignorance on my part.) But I was taught in college that Abscam was halted after a suspect got off using an entrapment defense. Your Wikipedia cite supports the idea that someone got off using an entrapment defense (as always, apply liberal doses of salt to Wikepedia’s recitation of events). In fact, Wikipedia says that the individual in question – Richard Kelly – had his conviction overturned after he’d been videotaped shoving $25,000 into his pockets.
My understanding is that Abscam used pretty much the same tactics for everyone it caught, and because the appellate court found that this tactic was entrapment for Kelly, it would probably be entrapment for everyone. So the investigation was halted because it was a) illegal; and b) served no legal purpose (becuase everyone caught by it would get off on the same entrapment defense).
I disagree with this. All investigations and convictions of public officials have political consequences (or at least they should). So it becomes just a matter of degree – Is convicting this politician this too severe a political consequence?
Because convicting the more powerful and important politicians would probably give rise to greater political consequences, the most powerful politicians would have free reign to be corrupt with impunity. The most powerful politicians are the ones that we most need to be free of corruption.
It does insofar as an entrapment defense goes. So it seems to make a legal difference. But to my mind, it wouldn’t make a political difference. In other words, even if my representative got off on an entrapment defense, I wouldn’t vote for him because I wouldn’t want someone in office who gives in to temptation so easily.