Police Blotter Report

You really need a criminal law degree to understand the modern Republican Party. First, Abramoff's flipping.

Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under indictment for fraud in South Florida, is expected to complete a plea agreement in the Miami criminal case, setting the stage for him to become a crucial witness in a broad federal corruption investigation, people with direct knowledge of the case said.

But after a lengthy bargaining phase, Mr. Abramoff's lawyers and prosecutors in the Florida case appear closer to resolving several of the central issues in the plea deal, in which the defendant would receive a reduced prison sentence - most likely in the range of five to seven years, though that is fluid - in exchange for pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against his former associates [...]

Prosecutors in Washington have been sifting through evidence of what they believe is a corruption scheme involving at least a dozen lawmakers and their former staff members, many of whom worked closely on legislation with Mr. Abramoff and accepted gifts and favors from him. Although Mr. Abramoff is also in negotiations in that case, it is unclear whether a settlement can be reached in time for both agreements to be announced at once.

So that's 10% of the GOP caucus in the House. How's it going over at the executive branch?

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is not expected to shut down his investigation into the leak of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson when he finishes his inquiry of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's role in the leak, lawyers close to the probe said.

These sources indicated that if a grand jury returns an indictment against Rove it will include -- at the very least -- a charge that he made false statements to Justice Department and FBI investigators when he was first interviewed about his role in the case in October 2003.

The investigation is expected to shift back to top officials in the Office of the Vice President, the State Department and the National Security Council, and may even shed some light on the genesis of the Niger forgeries, lawyers close to the case say. The forged documents, cited in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, claimed Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from the African country. It may also reveal how key players in the White House decided to expose Plame's undercover status and top secret front company, Brewster Jennings.

Separately, these people said, the FBI's renewed interest in probing the Niger forgeries grew out of Fitzgerald's probe.

Then you have the domestic spying case, where judges are up in arms.

Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

"The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

Look, I'm starting a collection fund on this site. See, while I'm possessed of a keen, buttoned-down mind, I don't have a law degree. And in the brave new world of Republican politics, I apparently need one. You simply cannot follow the ups and downs of the GOP unless you're aware of the local, state and federal statutes they're breaking on a daily basis. Otherwise, you might end up like the bullshit-swallowing naifs who allow their right-wing overlords to offer them fake excuses for their criminal activity that omit key words or selectively quote court rulings. And see, I can see through a lot of those right now, but with a law degree in hand I'll be that much more equipped.

So give early and often to the "Help D-Day Follow Republican Politics" Fund! Please send $32,000 for the first year, or one lump sum of $120,000. Thank you.

P.S. I don't have to be a legal scholar to understand the bullshittery going on here:

My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This leads off what ends up being a very substantive and in-depth legal discussion, but the contradiction there at the top is glaring. If the program violated federal law, then it's unconstitutional. Statutes cannot be overcome by executive order. Simple as that.