U.S. Might Not Try Pro-Israel Lobbyists

The U.S. government may abandon espionage-law charges against two former lobbyists for a pro-Israel advocacy group, officials said yesterday, as a prominent House lawmaker denied new allegations that she offered to use her influence on their behalf.

With the trial set to begin June 2, the Justice Department is reviewing whether to proceed as planned or withdraw the indictments after a series of adverse court rulings, according to law enforcement sources and lawyers close to the case.

Defense attorneys recently subpoenaed a number of senior Bush administration officials, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, former national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, and former high-level Defense Department officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith.

The Justice Department's decision to review the case against the former lobbyists was triggered by recent court rulings that make it harder for the government to win such convictions, according to the law enforcement sources and lawyers close to the case. Those decisions included an appeals court ruling that allowed the defense to use classified information at trial. A lower court judge also said prosecutors must show that the two men knew that the information they allegedly disclosed would harm the United States or aid a foreign government and that they knew what they were doing was illegal.

The review is a legal analysis examining the recent court rulings and whether prosecutors can meet their burden of proof, the sources said. They said the review was not begun by political appointees from the Obama administration and would have been undertaken even if Republicans had retained the presidency. They also said it is unrelated to the revelations about Harman.

Any decision to seek to drop the charges would require approval from a federal judge.

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

A bit surprising, the prosecution was clearly selective, but any embarassment would belong to the Bush administration. And even though hundreds, probably thousands, of similar violations occur each year, a first conviction under the nearly hundred year old law would provide the government with a powerful weapon to use selectively against political opponents.

A bit surprising, the prosecution was clearly selective, but any embarassment would belong to the Bush administration.

The charges in this case, clearly, didn't come from "above" so they could not really blame the "Bush administration", especially since DoJ likes to pride itself on being "independent" of political influence. At least that's what we have been repeatedly told by Democrats during hounding of Alberto Gonzales for replacing eight US Attorneys.

And even though hundreds, probably thousands, of similar violations occur each year, a first conviction under the nearly hundred year old law would provide the government with a powerful weapon to use selectively against political opponents.

Let's look at it from another angle. Maybe, in light of the fubared case of Sen. Stevens (R-AK), DOJ cannot afford to lose a ridiculous and high profile case of selective prosecution of two lobbyists who were the beneficiaries of information which was selectively semi-classified or semi-declassified but always understood to be authorized for selective distribution. The person who provided this unauthorized information was already sentenced and punished, but tried to get leniency by pointing fingers on others.

Had this case been lost or thrown / laughed out of court, THAT would endanger DoJ ability of selectively prosecuting such cases or have the power to intimidate with prosecution in the future. Right now they have a "club" they can selectively use; if this case is lost, they lose the "club.

And SCOTUS is now looking at the case of having prosecutors personally responsible and subject to civil suits in cases of prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of power and malicious prosecution. Not good to get something like that on their personal records.

That wasn’t my thought. Three calls were made with the information, to the White House, the Israeli Embassy, and the Washington Post. I believe in that order. Obviously what the White House told Rosen could be important. Additionally they’ve subpoenaed about 2 dozen administration officials, the highest Condi Rice. There’s no was of knowing for what, but the assumption is establish that the Bush administration was routinely using intermediaries to leak classified information. Which every administration and their enemies do, but an embarrassing revelation. The leakers would be guilty of a far more serious crime, and it would pretty clearly establish the very selective prosecution of these individuals. Of course Obama may not want to impair his ability to leak, but the potential for embarrassment is there for the Bush administration.

That wasn’t my thought.

To clarify, I meant that the DoJ's charges in this case weren't originated on the behalf of "Bush administration" officials, or anyone who was sympathetic to administration's [at the very least, widely perceived] pro-Israel policy. So blaming "administration" for starting the case just because it was filed by DoJ "on Bush's watch" would be transparently duplicitous and easily dismissed... not that Dems would not try that excuse, but I think they would prefer this to go away quietly.

Additionally they’ve subpoenaed about 2 dozen administration officials, the highest Condi Rice. There’s no was of knowing for what, but the assumption is establish that the Bush administration was routinely using intermediaries to leak classified information. Which every administration and their enemies do, but an embarrassing revelation.

That would have been anticipated by Dems and was, probably, a big factor behind the political reason for the suit - using the defense side itself to "embarrass" or "scandalize" high administration officials, for what is usual "back channels" practice - during the process of the defending the AIPAC lobbyists.

Just like in State Department, overwhelming majority of [career] employees at Justice are Democrats. Democrats routinely ~~use~~ abuse the legal system to either criminalize policy differences or as a tool to embarrass political opponents in public opinion (through selective information about the case dispensed by media) even if nothing even remotely criminal or embarrassing happened. That's what these subpoenas are / were designed to serve. Think back to Libby's case, same MO. It's always been a political case, designed to impugn the policy, nothing more nothing less about it.

Combined with Rosen and Weissman winning some court rulings recently ( Ex-AIPAC lobbyists win court ruling in U.S. espionage case , Defense for AIPAC spy suspects: Data at core of case was not really 'top secret') and Rosen have recently filed lawsuit against federal prosecutor in the case (Former pro-Israel lobbyist sues federal prosecutor for defamation

FTA: "We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under all of us," McNulty was quoted by Rosen's suit as saying.
FTA: Although AIPAC denied government pressure, presiding Judge T.S. Ellis said the defense claim was credible.

The political benefits of the case for Democrats now irrelevant (as a means to cause discomfort and potential political embarrassment for a Republican administration) the criminal case against Rosen and Weissman was not going well at all. Primary purpose of charges having been served, the prosecutors might as well drop it, and keep the "club" over lobbying groups unadjudicated and thus ready to be used in the future.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.