He is pleading to only single counts because that's what you do in a plea "agreement," the federal term for what most of us call a plea "bargain."  You provide assistance to the prosecution and don't make the prosecution go to the burden of proving its case in open court, and in return, you get to plead guilty to charges that are reduced from those you would have faced if you'd gone to trial.

As to the independence of career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia,  I'm not overly concerned.  What I do worry about is the potential for reversal of their decisions by their higher-ups in the Criminal Division.  I've worked with the AUSAs in D.C. many times, and I've found each to be zealous, committed professionals.

The good news is that U.S. Attorney's Offices have a great deal of independent authority.  The U.S. Attorney him/herself serves at the pleasure of the AG, but the career prosecutors in the office have latitude.

However, the U.S. Attorney does indeed make policy decisions which his underlings have to carry out (I say "his" because the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is Kenneth Wainstein).  Some of these are unpopular.

As to whether Wainstein himself would be susceptible to political pressure from Gonzales, I don't know.  He's the former general counsel of the FBI under Mueller and former director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.  He clerked for Thomas Penfield Jackson, former judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia most noted for deciding the Microsoft case.  Jackson himself was a Reagan appointee but actually ordered the breakup of Microsoft.

From his background, Wainstein doesn't seem like the political sort.  He seems more the career prosecutor sort.  Whether Gonzales, et al., could get to him or not, I don't know.

What I do know is that Leahy and Co. will be keeping the pressure on in the Judiciary Committee.  It was Leahy, Durbin, and Schumer who made Ashcroft recuse himself in the Plame/Wilson matter and forced the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald.  I have no doubt that they will be following this matter closely and that if any hijinks come to their attention, they will raise a similar stink.

Abramoff, 46, faces up to 30 years in jail for the Washington-based charges, but prosecutors said that could be cut to 9 1/2 years under sentencing guidelines, with a possible further reduction for cooperating with the government in cases against others. He is expected to pay $25 million in fines to his victims and $1.7 million in evaded federal taxes. Prison time from his Miami charges could be served concurrently with his Washington-based charges, a Justice official said.

This is a classic Bushco limited hangout coverup, imo, and Mary Butler probably does not want her name associated in any way with it, in contradistinction  to the apparent thrust of Mary Julia's comment above.

We aren't speaking of just Abramoff, we are speaking of the whole country.

BUshco, mikey, made alot of enemies themselves, don't forget.

So much is at stake here, the very future of the United States.

We have to fight for the right to live peacefully, andd free.

We aren't in Kansas, any more Toto-Wizard of Oz

All we are is dust in the wind Kansas

Fart Blazzing Saddles

Butler has managed to get Abramoff to plead.  Usually, before a DOJ attorney will be willing to even consider a plea, the defendant is debriefed before hand.  I imagine that Abramoff has already demonstrated that he will be valuable to the Government, and in all likelihood, he will be testifying against the big fish that Butler will catch.

If Fisher was trying to protect the big fish, why have Abramoff plead? Why not ignore the whole thing?

It is standard prosecutor's 101 to turn the guy with the most info, and use him against the big fish.  Undoubtedly, Abramoff will cooperate. Moreover, I have always told clients before a debriefing not to lie to the Government for two reasons - it is a crime to lie to federal law enforcement, and also because the Government usually knows more than the defendant thinks they do.

Fisher can't meddle in the case because any DOJ attorney worth his or her salt will resign.  Secondly, this is just too big a "media case" - any meddling will eventually make its way to the media.

My experience with plea agreements and 5K motions is that if your client comes through for the government, he or she will gain the benefits of the agreement. One thing that prosecutors do is, if your guy comes through, they hold up their end of the bargain.  The last thing any prosecutor wants is a reputation in the defense community (and with the judges)for not keeping their word.  The ONLY way to tag everyone is getting someone like Abramoff to roll.

We have no evidence that Fisher is meddling in the case. It is common to have the top boss at your press conference (the trial prosecutors line up behind her). So, until something weird happens, I think we should give DOJ a break.

Interesting, how something is legal when it's important to Bush, but illegal when it catches up to him.

Like foreign intelligence intercepts being used to spy domestically, say.

I don't know why this White House thought they could get away with harming others, turning America from Bedford Falls to Pottersville.

get that, mikey?