ABRAMOFF GOES UP THE RIVER WITH A DEMOCRAT PADDLE

 The Jack Abramoff story that emerges is far more interesting and revealing than the simple cartoon-like political morality fable the press has indulged in. As Jack Abramoff said : "In a different era I'd be killed on the street or have poison poured in my coffee. ... This whole thing is one bizarre movie about some guy named Jack Abramoff." A major change in the status of Jack Abramoff will occur this Wednesday as Jack Abramoff is sentenced in the SunCruz mafia case.

When the SunCruz crimes became public, Jack Abramoff needed a lawyer to represent him in Florida. In The Abramoff Mystery [1] we learned about Jack Abramoff's absurd and strange choice of Democrat insider and operative Abbe Lowell as a lawyer. What are the odds that Jack Abramoff would have picked a hyper liberal Democrat lawyer of his own free will? As unlikely as that would seem, he did that twice! He did not get two such lawyers by chance.

Jack Abramoff's lawyer in Florida is Neal R. Sonnett, and he is also a hard core liberal: He has given almost $24,000 in political donations, all to Democrats including John Kerry. [2] He also has an audio tape which is currently sold entitled "Enemy combatants, The Patriot Act, Ashcroft and other Threats to Liberty."[3] Sonnett was the American Bar Association's Chair on Terrorism [4]. He has publicly criticized military tribunals of enemy combatants as "unfair". [5] Thus he has shown himself to be a public legal ally of those against the war on Islamoterrorism, and against the Bush Administration.

Once again, Abramoff's lawyer forbade him to speak out or defend himself: "I have advised my client not to speak, except in court" [6] Sonnett also advised Jack Abramoff to plead guilty, which he did. He advised this even though he said publicly that he thought his client was just a victim: "Miami attorney Neal Sonnett, who represents Abramoff, said the longtime Republican lobbyist ... was a "victim."

"He only signed documents that were faxed to him with assurances that everything was in proper order," Sonnett said. "So I think Jack was as much as victim as anybody else in this case, perhaps more because now he has to defend himself against criminal charges for something that he did not do."" [7] Nevertheless, Sonnett advised his client to plea guilty.

Thus both of the lawyers assigned to Jack Abramoff's case were hard core lefties: One with ties to mafia organized crime and highly placed Democrats (as in Abbe Lowell) and one having fought publicly for the rights of terrorists, and against the Bush Administration (as in Neal Sonnett).

Similarly, both lawyers are long term and high profile Democrat operatives. Both did not allow their client to speak in his own defense, and both advised him to plead guilty.

The implications go far beyond the simplistic bad-guy depiction of Abramoff represented in the press - involving national security, organized crime, witness tampering and intimidation, with multiple people involved. As for the fate of Jack Abramoff, this man who has supposedly raked in millions, and had assets of many more millions, has told his lawyers he has no money [8]. He has been selling off assets.

Jack Abramoff still lives in the Washington DC area, as does Adam Kidan who is at large. Kidan moved back to Washington DC, and is running an "executive security company" which reportedly deals in armored cars - a business of obvious value to mafia. [9] Thus Jack Abramoff still lives under the Damocles' sword of organized crime, even as he waits for sentencing in this massive political and criminal scam.

The sentencing was recently requested to be delayed because, according to lawyer Abbe Lowell, if it went ahead on schedule it would be "upsetting to what's going on behind the scenes". [10] In the meantime, the Democrats capitalized on the ‘Culture of Corruption" theme and are enthusiastically looking forward to the elections only 8 months away.

However, some help has arrived in the form of Jack Abramoff's Florida Judge. Judge Paul C. Huck was a George W. Bush appointee. Furthermore, he is familiar with mafia cases. He has experience in both terrorism matters and organized crime. He is the ideal judge for this case. [11]

He has a history of having challenged the legal status quo on some occasions - particularly ones where national security was involved. Judge Huck made use of "supersealed" trials. These little known procedures involved locking up a person associated with the 9/11 hijackers in a secret trial. Even the fact that the suspect was being charged was a secret event, and the suspect's name was withheld.

This ruling was called "an egregious departure from well settled law" and challenged in the Supreme Court in a highly censored filing. Judge Huck also ordered force-feeding performed on a Cuban spy that was on hunger-strike. When national security is involved, he uses his power beyond what most judges would do. [12]

Thus when the sentencing delay was jointly petitioned by both the prosecutors and the defense (Leftist) lawyers, he did not grant them anywhere near the time they wanted. This is highly unusual. They had proposed a delay of months, and Judge Huck gave them a delay of less than a month - putting the sentencing on this Wednesday, the 29th of March.

Perhaps he sensed a Democrat gambit to have Abramoff's sentencing be delayed until just before the November elections. In any case, he may have Jack Abramoff safely behind bars in less than a week. Meanwhile, Jack Abramoff is indicating that he thinks he will still be free after the sentencing [13], saying "...the judge is unlikely to incarcerate me while I am still cooperating..."

When the lengthy delay was denied, the Democrat lawyers knew they had little time to make use of Jack Abramoff for political damage. There was an immediate change of tactic. Instead of hushing up Jack Abramoff as they had for months, they had him do a Vanity Fair article [14] where he stuck like toxic glue to every major Republican.

The fact that his imminent departure triggered the Vanity Fair article tells us that Jack Abramoff was doing all he could to hurt the Republicans in a political move. If there had been a private deal made for prosecution of people, he would have remained quiet. Courtroom deals are private ones. In contrast, he went public, thereby revealing the political nature of the gambit.

Abramoff was lying his head off in the Vanity Fair article. An examination of the evidence referenced in these reports and in the public domain shows this conclusively. The article says "Anything politically uncongenial he simply would not do." - but then why did he take on "moron monkey" Indians, Russian spooks, Islamic terrorist bankers, Tyco mafiosi, and Malaysian anti-Semites as clients? That he did is established public fact.

Furthermore, he paints the "Culture of Corruption" picture that the Democrats have found so useful: He says he wasn't doing anything different - just more of it: "We'd outwork everyone in the media. ... If its worth doing, its worth overdoing. ... I didn't stop and smell the dung heap."

The evidence shows otherwise. It is not standard behavior to be associated with and working for mafia, Russian spooks, and to run protection rackets on gambling casinos. It is not normal for a devout Orthodox Jew to work for anti-Semites and Islamic banks that fund terrorists.

Apparently, he is still working vigorously and unwillingly for the other side. However, as soon as he is locked up, there will be less opportunity for him to be used and abused by the organized crime and Democrat operatives. It is ironic: by locking him up, perhaps he is finally freed.

[One week after the election, Jack Abramoff finally reported to prison. Now that they had the election, his usefulness was gone. Not coincidentally, As Abramoff headed to prison, he finally started implicating corrupt Democrat senators and Karl Rove. Just as I said, he was freed when he headed to the security of prison. -added by Dagny 20 Nov. 2006]

[1] http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/2111/87/ [2] http://www.fec.gov [3] http://nacdltapes.com/index.html?loadfile=item2430-02.html [4] http://w3.usf.edu/~uff/AlArian/Termination.html   http://www.law.miami.edu/alumni/classnotes/ [5] http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0307nn/030704nn.htm [6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/ AR2005122801588_pf.html  http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/03/D8ETCJ7G0.html   [7] http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011869.html [8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/ AR2005122801588_5.html?sub=AR [9] http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20021015-051033-4044r [10] http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/214938.shtml?s=icp http://www.americanmafia.com/Mob_Report/5-6-02_Mob_Report.html http://www.senate.gov/comm/judiciary/general/oldsite/ wl6152000.htm   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/ AR2006030601437.html?nav=rss_nation [11] http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/6/131837.shtml?s=ic http://tim.timlytle.net/archive/blog/1113098689-1113669493/ http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/a/a7/ USA_v._Kidan_et_al_05cr60204_%28abramoff_docket%29.pdf http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm [12] http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/AwardStories/WhyDidHeDoIt.html [13] http://wonkette.com/politics/jack-abramoff/index.php [14] http://www.vanityfair.com/pdf/pressroom/advance_Abramoff.pdf