Nothing to trade?

In his local politics year-in-review column for this week's Gambit, Clancy Dubos writes the following in regard to Bill Jefferson's legal standing.

Now that he has lost his congressional seat, Dollar Bill has nothing to offer in trade to prosecutors. 2009 is not going to be a good year for him.

Clancy has been making this argument in various venues ever since Jefferson lost the election. Maybe there's some validity to it, but if there is, what does that say about the nature of this case in the first place? If prosecutors would have been willing to accept Jefferson's seat in lieu of prison or.. whatever, doesn't that give weight to the argument that the case against Dollar Bill was politically motivated in the first place?