When he allows his client to go to court looking like this…
What was with this? No one else in that picture seems to think it was cold enough to wear an overcoat. Look at the woman. If a man thinks he needs a coat and a hat, you can bet the woman in the group will be cold and will wearing a coat. She’s not.
What is with that hat? Google him. You will not find him wearing a fedora in any other picture. The above picture was taken when he pled out on the Indian Casino Charges.
The next was taken when he pled out on the SunCruz charges…

Any attorney acting in the interest of his client would have yanked the hats and trench coat off his client. Why didn’t hyper-combative Abbe Lowell do that? After all, presentation was still important. His client was pleading out, not being sentenced. That comes later.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Jack Abramoff’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, should suffer for allowing this. I keep wondering if Abramoff was trying to telegraph something in these photos. Or, if he was forced to wear an uneeded coat that doesn’t fit him and a gangster hat for some sinister reason.
I’m going to study the plea agreements again. I agree with Jack Wheeler and D’Anconia regarding the Abramoff case.When one is talking about white collar crimes and fraud–there is always two sides of the story. Prosecutors sometimes prosecute in that area based on their interpretation of the “spirit of the law” or what the law “intended” as opposed to the black letter law.
Why have we never heard the other side of the story from Abbe Lowell, Abramoff’s hyper-liberal Democrat lawyer?
Consider those so-called “fake” corporations that Abramoff set up when consulting and lobbying for the Indian tribes. Is it possible those were set up for tax avoidance (entirely legal) as opposed to tax evasion (illegal)? Did they satisfy election regulations?
Corporate law is very complex and arcane. I do not accept the indictment on face value–nor the plea agreement. This is not like some guy who bashes somebody to death and has the victim’s blood all over his clothes.
How do I explain the conservative and Republican abandonment of Abramoff? Pure, self-interested fear. The Democrats believed they had a cudgel to wield against Republicans–and the latter ran like hell.
I want you to remember something. Clinton fired all of the Assistant Attorney Generals in the U.S. and replaced them with his people when he came in power. (Actually, as noted below, he fired 93 U.S. Attorneys–all except Michael Chertoff in New Jersey) Bush didn’t do that. We have Clinton people populating our Federal Prosecutorial offices.
I don’t trust them. And neither should you.
Update:
Look at this article. Here is a friend of Jack Abramoff’s backpedaling like mad. Cut through the fear and look at this part…
I am terribly saddened by the tragic turn of events in Jack Abramoff’s life and by the impact his actions have had and will have on the lives of many people including his own wife and children. Could I have foreseen the calamity and its peripheral but distracting impact on Toward Tradition? I don’t really think so. Many shrewd lawyers and business professionals as well as experienced politicians in Jack Abramoff’s orbit failed to sense any peril.
Had Abramoff’s lifestyle been dissolute; replete with women, drugs, yachts, and fast cars, I along with many others would certainly have recognized the unwholesome warning signs and been uncomfortable. However, from what I observed, Jack’s life revolved around his work, his family, and his faith. He spent money on subsidizing a kosher restaurant, a religious high school, Israeli causes, and helping poor relatives. These don’t excuse illegal acts but neither were they warning signs to his friends and associates.
(my emphasis)
I remain skeptical.
Update:
Borderman, who comments on this post, is correct. (I know who you are Borderman–
) I wrote that the U.S. Assistant Attorney Generals were fired by Clinton. It was 93 out of 94 U.S. Attorneys that were fired by Janet Reno. I mispoke.
Upon further research, the post of U.S. Attorney in Washington has been held by two Bush appointees since 2001.
Hillman, Abramoff’s prosecutor, served in the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s office, during the Clinton years, serving under then U.S. Attorney Michael Chertoff. Chertoff was the only U.S. Attorney who wasn’t replaced by Clinton. Hillman is now with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington. Bush has just appointed him to the Federal Bench, an appointment that has been pending since last summer.
Even if I am incorrect, I don’t trust Federal Prosecutors–and I haven’t since the Martha Stewart case.