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.