Jack Abramoff faces sentencing tomorrow in federal court in Miami for his admitted fraud in the purchase of the Sun Cruz Casinos. 260 letters, some from prominent persons, including Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, have written letters on his behalf. The list of letter-writers is here (pdf.)

The letters, along with the filing by the defense in Miami, sought to portray Mr. Abramoff as a man devoted to his family and to his faith who, while acknowledging that he defrauded Indian tribes and other clients of millions of dollars, deserved leniency because so much of his money had been given to charity.

"Media attention regarding Mr. Abramoff, from newspaper editors to late-night comedy monologues, has made him into a caricature and has distorted a lifetime of accomplishments," the defense lawyers said in their brief. "As large a figure as he has been painted in the media, he is an even larger figure in matters of family, faith, generosity and remorse."

The Miami Herald has details of the biography his lawyers have written for him. If you want to see great, creative lawyering, read the defense sentencing memo (pdf.)

What's Tuesday, without an open thread?

Immigration, Spying Nation, Censuring the President, you decide what to talk about. But don't miss Damn Foreigner on the immigration debate.

On a blogging note, I wish people would stop bashing Jeff at Protein Wisdom for anything but his politics. Why attack him for being a stay-at-home dad? He's a Denver blogger and my friend. His wife has helped me with the coding on TalkLeft. He has the best list anywhere of great movies and his non-political posts such as his conversations with a macintosh apple and a deadbeat neighbor are creative. He also let me guest-blog and put my politics on his site when he went on vacation. Enough already.

Have fun.

Bump and Update: Two more al Qaeda members Tuesday say Moussoui had no part in 9/11:

In both cases, for security reasons, their testimony was read to the jury because the government did not want them to appear in court.

Waleed bin Attash, often known simply as Khallad, is considered the mastermind of the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole and an early planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, plot. He said he knew of no part Moussaoui was to have played in the 9/11 attacks. Another captured terrorist, identified as Sayf al-Adl, a senior member of al-Qaida's military committee, told U.S. interrogators that Moussaoui was "a confirmed jihadist but was absolutely not going to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001, mission."

It sounds more and more like Moussaoui wants death over life in prison.

Raw Story reports, and Steve Clemons of the Washington Note confirms through a source close to Karl Rove, that it was Rove who tipped off Fitzgerald to the 250 pages of deleted e-mails in Vice President Cheney's offices relevant to the Valerie Plame investigation.

According to several Pentagon sources close to Rove and others familiar with the inquiry, Bush's senior adviser tipped off Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to information that led to the recent "discovery" of 250 pages of missing email from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. According to one source close to the case, Rove is providing information on deleted emails, erased hard drives and other types of obstruction by staff and other officials in the Vice President's office. Pentagon sources close to Rove confirmed this account.

Corrected Post: The verdict form below was submitted by Moussauoi's lawyer, not issued by the Judge. It is a proposed verdict form. The Judge may or may not approve it. I have edited the post below to reflect this. Sorry for the confusion.

The proposed verdict form that the defense would like the Court to submit to the jury in the Zacarias Moussaoui case is available here. (pdf) The defense submits that the jury must find the Government has proven all of them to proceed with the death penalty. Here are the key questions (direct quotes):

• Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally participated in an act, i.e. lying to federal agents on August 16-17, 2001.

• Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in the act, i.e. lying to federal agents on August 16-17, 2001, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person, other than one of the participants in the offense.

• Do you, the jury, unanimously find that the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that victims died on September 11, 2001, as a direct result of the defendant's act, i.e. Mr. Moussaoui's lies to federal agents on August 16-17, 2001.

Zacarias Moussaoui, whom I have often referred to as his own worst enemy, is on the witness stand, testifying against his lawyers' advice. I just finished a Fox News segment on the trial, and will be back online updating this afternoon.

TChris wrote a great post Saturday on Moussaoui and other defendants who insist on taking the stand.

by TChris

Is the FBI fighting a war against terror or a war against dissent? The LA Times reports on FBI documents showing that the agency "has spent resources gathering information on antiwar and environmental protesters and on activists who feed vegetarian meals to the homeless" -- not exactly prime targets in a "war" designed to protect the country from terrorist attacks.

The FBI justifies this war against protest by defining "terrorism" to include crimes against property, at least if the crime is politically motivated (a caveat that might save shopliter Claude Allen from being labeled a terrorist). As TalkLeft argued here, that definition distracts federal law enforcement from a meaningful attack on terror. But even accepting that any politically motivated crime constitutes terror, the FBI has shown less interest in true domestic terrorists who are motivated to bomb abortion clinics and gay bars, choosing instead to spy on Americans who are merely exercising their right to protest.

by TChris

When Helen Thomas recently asked President Bush why he really wanted to go to war, the president took issue with her premise, denying that he wanted a war. A British memo makes clear (yet again) that Bush wanted nothing but war.

During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second [UN] resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

Back by demand. After watching last night's show which think was the best of the season by far, I wasn't sure anyone would want to discuss it. But, I've gotten a request, so here it is.

by TChris

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear Salim Ahmed Hamdan's plea for federal court review of his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant. TalkLeft background regarding Hamdan's case is collected in this post. Linda Greenhouse previews the arguments here.

Before the Court considers whether Hamdan is entitled to habeas corpus relief, it must decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear Hamdan's case. As TalkLeft predicted here, the Bush administration is arguing that the Detainee Treatment Act stripped the Court's ability to hear requests for relief from Guantanamo detainees -- including those, like Hamdan, who filed a petition before the DTA took effect.

Having participated in the Fourth D.C. Circuit's resolution of Hamdan's appeal, Chief Justice Roberts recused himself, raising the possibility of a 4-4 tie. Greenhouse asks an intriguing question: does a tie favor the exercise or the loss of jurisdiction?

Crooks and Liars has the video and the transcript of Markos of Daily Kos on Reliable Sources. Great job, M. He talked about the impact of political bloggers and the embroglio over Washington Post's three day blogger, Ben Domenech.

As for Domenech, the NRO has been investigating other pieces he wrote (all prior to 2002) and finds more unusual similarities.

by TChris

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel takes on Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner, who wants to take away the sentencing discretion that the Supreme Court handed to federal judges with the Booker decision:

He mustn't. The old system straitjacketed judges too much, such as Utah's U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, known as a hard-line conservative. He lamented from the bench that he had no choice but to put a first-time offender in prison for 55 years for dealing marijuana. Justice demands that judges be allowed to exercise discretion. Otherwise, you may as well replace him or her with a computer program.

The Journal Sentinel recognizes that judicial discretion is an essential balance to prosecutorial discretion.