My slam on the supposedly great, creative lawyering of Abramoff's attorneys is this:
By arguing that a devout Jackoff was offended 25 years ago by the profanity in Red Scorpion, the prosecution can point to Jackoff's more recent obscenity- and racial slur-filled e-mails.
By arguing that a 5-year old Jackoff expressed compassion for the elderly, you bring in the fact that the present-day Jackoff lobbied in favor of sweatshops and sexual exploitation in the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands.
By deploying a platoon of Rabbis to vouch for Jackoff, you call to mind Jackoff's impassioned defense of anti-Semitic dictators ("they pay their bills on time") and his alleged tax fraud in claiming deductions for non-existent charitiable donations.
Perhaps the prosecution has already covered that territory, or the defense is anticipating that it will. And if Jackoff wants to pay for a fantasy testimonial rather than a defense, it's his stolen money. But no sane judge is going to buy remorse from a defendant who keeps telling him/her what a great guy he is.