Defense in AIPAC trial subpoenaing Condi, Marc Grossman, Hadley, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc., etc.!

[cascadiance]

Hmm... If they can actually get these guys to show up at this trial this one might be worth trying to keep tabs on! Since this is a criminal and not a civil court case, they won't be able to get away with using the State Secrets Privilege card to more simply throw out the case as they have done with others.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/does_israel_have_a_mole_in_the.html

February 03, 2008
Defense team in AIPAC trail will call government bigwigs to testify

Clarice Feldman

The defense team in the coming trial of former AIPAC employees Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman plan to demonstrate that the conduct of the two former AIPAC employees was no different that what occurs routinely in Washington DC with journalist and lobbyists- that the US government uses their contacts to get messages out. And they plan to call many government officials to make this case.

According to this report, the defense intends to show argue that the defendants had no way to know this was an unauthorized disclosure of classified material; that it was the sort of back channel revelation that top officials use with lobbyists and newsmen.

Lowell plans to paint what he calls "the big picture" - the way the market of information and ideas, public and secret, works in Washington. In order to show how the process works, the defense has subpoenaed a number of present and former high-level officials, among them Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; National Security Adviser Steven Hadley; former deputy secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage; William Burns, U.S. ambassador to Russia; Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of State for political affairs; David Satterfield, now the State Department's coordinator for Iraq; Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser; and Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of Defense. Lowell will argue that all of them have at one point or another discussed sensitive information with Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, in order to promote an American interest, such as informally testing an idea with the Israeli government.

...

[KoKo]

1. Getting them to show up....that's the trick.... K&R!

[Hardrada]

2. Perhaps God is just after all.

[Richard Steele]

3. These people ignore subpoenas from CONGRESS; you think they'll bother showing up for this?

I kinda doubt it.

[cascadiance]

4. Probably not, but it could serve as one more item for contempt charges...

that collectively might be used to help fuel a contempt of congress ruling against them if congress eventually gets a few and issues subpoenas for them as well.

[blogslut]

8. They might for this

Remember, they're being called for the defendants - AIPAC. Not saying it's a for sure thing but it's more likely than them coming before Congress.

[BeHereNow]

14. That was my reaction too DickSteele ...

Cheney had the server sent to subpoena the Energy Task Force meeting minutes
thrown off the White House grounds. That was years ago and not a fucking
whimper from the public then, or since, about it.
I've lost count of how many have been ignored by bushites since then.
BHN

[bluesmail]

5. yes, getting them to show, KICK

I just had a vision in my head of ALL these criminals scurrying to get legal advice, and it felt good.

[cascadiance]

6. You put an image in my head too!

:)

[leveymg]

7. In a federal criminal trial, they have to appear. But, what's the point of this?

Is the defense attempting to show that AIPAC was merely carrying water for the Administration? If it could be established that it was the policy of the Bush Administration to secretly leak these documents to Israel, and to salt DoD files with false information provided by Israeli intelligence officers about alleged Iran WMD -- and, then to lie about the whole scheme, allowing designated patsies to take the fall -- that might be exculpatory for the defendants.

And, very revealing about the Administration's M.O. in the Iraq WMD deception.

This trial could still get very interesting.

[cascadiance]

9. With all of these other subpoenas, I wonder if they could be persuaded to subpoena Sibel?

Or are they afraid that Sibel would hurt their defense as well as those in the administration!

If there is some common ground, perhaps THIS trial might be the avenue for her to get heard?

Thoughts?

[leveymg]

11. Federal Judge unlikely to call Sibel knowing she's subject to another Judge's gag order

Even if the defense put her on the witness list, a government motion to strike her is almost guaranteed to be granted.

I like the idea, but not going to happen. :think:

[cascadiance]

12. It would have to be something other than State Secrets Privilege though...

... which has been the easiest for the likes of Walton, etc. to use and throw out civil cases, since this is a criminal case.

Recall when they were wrestling with all kinds of efforts by the defense of Libby to try and similarly "gray mail" the evidence to get the case thrown out, but it wouldn't fly (even though Bush's pardon later "saved the day"). I think it would be harder to shut down Sibel if the defense made a good case that she had material evidence for this trial. She might have some of her testimony stricken, etc., and perhaps made in closed session, but it still would be giving her a shot to be heard.

The big question is if the defense lawyers would view her testimony as more harmful or helpful to their clients' cases. My guess is that if they can avoid getting Sibel on the stand, and through so doing not get the Justice Department leaning on them heavily trying to keep her from testifying, and still defend their client and try to get them off the hook, they'll try doing that if they can. Not knowing the details behind what their involvement was vs. those they wish to subpoena, and what Sibel might know about them, that would make it hard to say.

[leveymg]

13. Knowing Sibel, her testimony would condemn them all as the criminals they are

She's be the last person the defense would want to call, I'm sure.

[seemslikeadream]

10. very interesting.

:hi:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. Excellent. Can I drive them to the hearing?