Charges against Israeli lobbyists in espionage case to be dropped

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Charges against Israeli lobbyists in espionage case to be dropped
By John Byrne
Published: May 1, 2009


The Justice Department will drop charges against two former lobbyists for the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the Washington Post is set to report.

“Federal prosecutors are dropping espionage-law charges against two former lobbyists for a pro-Israel advocacy group, law enforcement sources said this morning,” according to a Post early edition of the piece.

“Prosecutors said they will ask a judge to dismiss the case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman because a series of court decisions had made it unlikely they would win convictions,” the Post’s Jerry Markon writes.

“In April 2005, AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information received from Franklin on to the government of Israel,” Wikipedia notes. “They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel” — the first non-government civilians charged under the 1917 espionage statute with “verbally receiving and transmitting national defense information.”

Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/05/01/charges-against-israeli-lobbyists-to-dropped/

[ThomCat]

1. So, Israel can now spy on the US with relative impunity?

Wonderful. x(

[Tesha]

3. With a relatively-few exceptions, that's been generally true all along.

Jonathan Pollard being the obvious exception.

Tesha

[drchoice22]

32. Come on... they're our *friend* and *ally* (cough..looks around nervously)

surely they only have AMERICA'S best interests at heart! especially with bombs away benjamin in office.

[TheCoxwain]

2. wealth begets wealth and power begets power .... those are the only rules in the playing field

Nothing else matters.

[lsewpershad]

6. Again I ask why do we govt?

Seems more and more true every day that govt exist to protect the rich and powerful.

[Howardx]

4. looks like harman was successful

after all.

[The Magistrate]

22. You Do Not Have A Shred Of Evidence To Connect This To Rep. Harmon, Sir

But you knew that....

[PuraVidaDreamin]

34. and none of us ever will

It's all just a joke. Clearly, the justice system is not for the little guy.

[go west young man]

5. There she blows!

Man who couldn't see that one coming? Can our government get any more corrupt? Looks like the Octopus is gonna need more time to be brought to the surface. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5518578

[robertpaulsen]

53. Chalk up another rug-sweeping victory for the Deep State. CAN WE FINALLY LOCK UP LARRY FRANKLIN?!

Three years after being sentenced to 12.5 years in jail, LARRY FRANKLIN IS STILL A FREE MAN!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5599574

[robertpaulsen]

54. Looks like May 14 may be the date.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5619761#5620443

[Jefferson23]

7. No surprise but sickening. n/t.

[L0oniX]

8. Same as it ever was.

[seafan]

9. U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON – The Obama Justice Department moved Friday to drop all charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists who had been charged under the Espionage Act with improperly disseminating sensitive information.
The move by the government came in a motion filed with the federal court in Alexandria, Va. which was to be the site of the trial that was scheduled to begin June 2.

The prosecution’s case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman suffered several setbacks in rulings from the trial judge. At the same time, the case was fraught with deep political dimensions, as it raised delicate issue of behind-the-scenes lobbying over Middle East policy and the role played by American Jewish supporters of Israel.

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, who were lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a leading pro-Israel lobby, were charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act. The indictment said they violated the law by disseminating to journalists, fellow Aipac employees and Israeli diplomats information they had learned in conversations with senior Bush administration officials.

.....

The government’s motion to dismiss filed before Judge Ellis cited some of these reasons. The motion, filed by the acting prosecutor in Alexandria, Va. and not by any senior Obama Justice Department official, said that before proceeding with the case the government was obliged to consider “the likelihood that classified information will be revealed at trial, any damage to the national security that might result from a disclosure of classified information and the likelihood the government would prevail at trial.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html?hp

[robinlynne]

10. Jesus. But they won't even look into the Siegelman case?

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Who said that they would not look into the Siegelman case?

:shrug:

[robinlynne]

30. Obama, then Holder.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. Do have proof to back up your assertion that Obama and Holder said that

the would not look into the Siegelman case?

:shrug:

[robinlynne]

37. There were several ops about it here on DU.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. But for some reason you can't seem to find them

;)

[Kingofalldems]

39. Always good to hear the repub point of view on this.Thanks!

There were quite a few threads about this BTW.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. How is defending Obama and Holder from untrue attacks "the repub point of view?"

:shrug:

[robinlynne]

42. not attacks. not untrue. do your research before you talk...

[Kingofalldems]

46. You are not defending anyone

You are attacking another DU member. But good to read the repub/neocon slant on this.

[robinlynne]

41. I dont have the time. sorry. you're interested, you do the search. you'll find them.

[robinlynne]

43. really simple. type siegelman into the search box. her'es the first one of MANY

that come up:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3899

title: Eric Holder Says no review underway for Siegelman". April 10th, 2009.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. "no review underway" is a lot diferent that saying that he will not review it

[robinlynne]

47. READ. before you talk. Read up on the subject, tens of articles available. Read them.

Thousands of people called for a review. HOLDER SAID NO. as a response to that outcry.
otherwise you are wasting our time.

[robinlynne]

44. here's another Thom hartmann interviewing Siegelman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x301610

There has been an ongoing national campaign to get Holder to review this case, but NO.
Where have you been?

use the google baby. the info is all there. in spades.

[razors edge]

11. Heck of a job Janey. n/t

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UndertheOcean]

13. That was expected

[Boswells_Johnson]

14. Does this surprise anyone? n/t

[mule_train]

15. Govmt gives money to Israel, Israel gives money to AIPAC

and AIPAC lobbys for more money for Israel

and Israel gives more money to AIPAC

the citizen cant compete, against his own tax dollars

[question everything]

16. And let the conspiracy tale start on DU

After all, Israel and our country can do no right.

[sodom]

17. ironic

question everything except israel right?

[question everything]

26. Ironic, someone by the name of sodom, who just joined DU

and who questions others' posts, without knowing the first thing about the background of the topic.

Will be interesting to see how long you will last here.

[Jim Sagle]

31. Almost as if he's been here before.

;)

[dorkulon]

48. This is about spying and corruption, not anti-Semitism

So just drop that BS please.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. You drop the BS.

Your BS being conflating. QE made no mention of anti-Semitism...YOU DID! So drop the bullshit!

[dorkulon]

50. "Israel...can do no right"

What else am I to infer by this?

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Try again!

The ACTUAL quote: "After all, Israel and our country can do no right."

"What else am I to infer by this?"

Well, gee that's a tough one. :eyes: It means what it means, when it comes to Israel and, many times the US, the assumption by more than a few here is guilty before proved innocent. YOU are the one conflating Israel and Jews, thus anti-Semitism. You are guilty of "crying wolf."

[sabrina 1]

18. Justice Department Drops Charges in AIPAC Case

Source: The Wall St. Journal

blockquote]Mr. Rosen praised the U.S. justice system Friday for dropping the case, which he said was initially driven by people obsessed with Israel but continued by officials obsessed with government leaks.

"Thank God we live in a country where the courts can correct this kind of injustice," Mr. Rosen said in a phone interview. "In much of the world, a person like me would be railroaded despite his innocence."

Mr. Rosen said he is submitting to a publisher next Monday a book about the case, particularly the leaking of selective facts. Earlier this month, information about covert telephone wiretaps concerning the case were leaked to the media by unnamed current and former government officials. Mr. Rosen says these leaks were illegal and an attempt to undercut the Justice Department's moves to drop the charges against him.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124118611834077273.html

---

This was rumored last week, but not confirmed. I wonder what will happen to the Larry Franklin conviction now? Does he have grounds to ask that the charges against him be dismissed? Not a lawyer, so I don't know, but his conviction was based on the exchange of information between him and Rosen and Weissman. Just wondering.

[The Magistrate]

19. He May Have Grounds For Appeal, Ma'am, But This Does Not Void The Thing

There is a celebrated case from English law where a man was convicted of accepting a bribe another man was acquitted of tendering to him....

[sabrina 1]

20. The law often doesn't seem to make sense,

I'm not familiar with that case but it seems illogical if there was no bribe, that a man could remain in jail on charges that there was. Maybe he did not have very good lawyers?

I wonder though, are their similar cases, once the underlying reason for the conviction no longer exists, at least legally, which were successful?

In this case remarks made by the judge might be helpful to Larry Franklin, strange as they were, don't you think?

AIPAC Spy Case: Larry Franklin Sentenced, Former Honchos May Sue Over Legal Fees

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2006/0604014.html

Franklin was sentenced by Judge T.S. Ellis III in the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Virginia just across the Potomac River from Washington, DC. Despite Ellis’ puzzling remark that Franklin had been motivated by a desire to help the United States, Franklin’s aim was less noble when he had asked Steve Rosen, the indicted AIPAC lobbyist who was in charge of foreign policy issues, to speak a good word for him with officers on the National Security Council, which Franklin had been ambitious to join.

[The Magistrate]

21. Trials Conducted Separately Can Have Different Outcomes, Ma'am

Mr. Franklin plead guilty, and withdrawing a guilty plea is normally difficult in the extreme, as entering a guilty plea will include a statement the defendant acknowledges he or she did the crime, and is stating same voluntarily and truthfully. The best he is likely to get out of this is no sentence beyond a period of probation, since his plea was part of a bargain to turn state's evidence against those who now will not undergo trial.

[sabrina 1]

27. Yes, the guilty plea does complicate any attempt

to have the conviction overturned.

But could he not claim that his guilty plea was based on information provided in the indictments of Rosen and Weissmann forcing him to acknowledge that what he had done was not in the best interests of his country as he originally thought?

It always seemed to me that Rosen and Weissmann did have a defense based on their claims that what they were doing was not unusual nor done without the knowledge of top government officials in the Bush administration some of whom they called as witnesses. While Rosen and Weissmann could claim they were just doing 'business as usual' with approval from the government, that doesn't mean that it was right for the government to be sharing sensitive info with agents for foreign countries. For that reason, I'm sorry the trial didn't go forward as it may have been the only way to get a few of the Bush administration's most powerful members under oath.

As for Franklin, you are probably right. It will be interesting to see how his attorneys react.

[No Elephants]

25. The law usually does make sense. The outcomes of particular court cases, however, may be

puzzling sometimes.

[No Elephants]

24. The courts did not correct injustice. The case was dropped. Not the same thing AT ALL.

[sabrina 1]

29. I think your were responding to me

If not, disregard this comment.

I agree that dropping the case did not exhonerate anyone or clear up any of the other questions surrounding the case. I am really sorry that it did not go forward. There were more questions to be answered than whether or not Rosen and Weissmann were guilty as charged.

When I was following the case a few years ago, I thought their defense was a good one, in that it placed the blame on the US Government and that made it necessary to bring Condi, Hadley and Feith into the case. I really was hoping to see them on the witness stand explaining why it is alright to share sensitive information with agents from any foreign government. Iow, the trial would have put some much needed focus on exactly what the Bush administration, Cheney in particular, was doing.

I suppose they could have taken the fifth, claiming some kind of national security reasons, but it would have at least forced some discussion about Cheney's very secretive shadow government.

My comments here were only in relation to the fact, from a legal pov, that Franklin was convicted of sharing secrets with Rosen and Weissmann who can now claim there were no secrets, right or wrong, and how that would affect him now.

[No Elephants]

35. Thanks, sabrina, but I did not mean to respond to you, except in Post # 25.

[sabrina 1]

52. No problem :-) n/t

[Vidar]

28. Business as usual: AIPAC 1, Justice 0.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.