# Law, Justice & Politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 3, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265 "2006-01-03T19:25:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/1 "2006-01-03T19:25:52Z")
As is common news by now, Jack Abramoff has plead [guilty](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300474_pf.html) 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](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007341.php) was put up: > [@](#): > > 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. [Abscam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam) @ Wikipedia. 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? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/2 "2006-01-03T19:34:29Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > 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? No, I don’t agree. If they are corrupt, then the political balance probably needs to be shaken up. > [@](#): > > Does it make a difference that Abscam didn’t involve pre-existing crimes? Yes. Otherwise, we could have the DOJ going setting up sting operations along political lines. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/3 "2006-01-03T19:57:28Z")
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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/4 "2006-01-03T20:07:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/5 "2006-01-03T20:21:58Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/6 "2006-01-03T20:56:20Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/7 "2006-01-03T21:16:41Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > SO, assuming the DOJ doesn’t frame its targets, why are the political implications a valid DOJ concern? 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. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/8 "2006-01-03T22:15:32Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/9 "2006-01-04T03:06:03Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-justice-politics/338265/10 "2006-01-04T07:12:51Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Do Dopers agree with the assessment? 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). > [@Il Gyan II](#): > > 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? 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. > [@Il Gyan II](#): > > Does it make a difference that Abscam didn’t involve pre-existing crimes? 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.