Feds Eyeballed AIPAC

<snip>

"The FBI was considering expanding its investigation into AIPAC and classified information leaks in early 2005 when the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse fired two staffers already under scrutiny, according to court documents.

In a memorandum filed last Sept. 22 and unsealed last week, defense lawyers for Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, claimed for the first time that the FBI had considered expanding its criminal investigation.

AIPAC's March 2005 firing of Rosen and Weissman, and its decision several months later to stop paying their legal fees, headed off the expanded investigation, according to the sworn defense filing. The filing stems from a defense effort to force AIPAC to resume paying legal fees.

The memorandum describes a Feb. 16, 2005 conversation between Abbe Lowell, Rosen's lawyer, and Nathan Lewin, AIPAC's lawyer.

The U.S. Attorney in eastern Virginia at the time, Paul McNulty, "would like to end it with minimal damage to AIPAC," the document quotes Lewin as telling Lowell. "He is fighting with the FBI to limit the investigation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and to avoid expanding it."

more

this seriously.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. --A former Pentagon analyst was sentenced Friday to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat and members of a pro-Israel lobbying group.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said he gave Lawrence A. Franklin a sentence on the low end of federal guidelines because it appeared Franklin was trying help the United States, not hurt it.

The judge also agreed to let Franklin remain free while the government continues with the wider case. His prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting two former members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

and aipac is one of last bastions of support for Bushie foreign policy.

Everyone connected to the org would be shipped off to Gitmo!

Full title: AMCHA: Closing AIPAC trial to public may lead to 2nd Dreyfus affair

<snip>

"According to a legal memorandum filed by the Jewish organization AMCHA, the trial of two former AIPAC lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, could have an impact similar to that the Dreyfus affair had in 19th century France if it is held behind closed doors.

The document, which the organization filed with the court, claims that "The American Jewish community has a particular interest in ensuring that the trial does not lead to the same result" as the Dreyfus trial, referring to the widespread anti-Jewish sentiment in France at the time of the trial.

AMCHA claims that closing of the trial to the public could "fan anti-Jewish feeling."

"This is precisely what occurred in France during the closed trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus," the document states.

"Why did the secret trial of Alfred Dreyfus cause such widespread anti-Jewish feelings?", the document asks, answering: "Due to the fact that the evidence against Dreyfus had been shielded from the public."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848001.html

I think the comparison with Dreyfus is a stretch. The problem in the Dreyfus trial was the "evidence" was fabricated, and that's why they didn't want it examined in public, and they whipped up a storm of anti-semitism as a distraction, which was not that hard to do in France at that time.

Edit: Dreyfus was innocent, too.

intelligence that was illegally turned over to Israel is discussed, not the whole trial.

I have a feeling this is all some sort of dog-and-pony show, but one can only speculate about the object at this point.

intelligence that was illegally turned over to Israel is discussed, not the whole trial.

So turning over intelligence to a foreign country is actually illegal? For real?

Oh wait. I guess that's why they are having a trial. Anyway, good job at ferreting out yet another example of illegal Israeli activities!

government. I mean, what part of "classified" do they not understand?

actually, yes, i think most people would think it illegal.
Franklin has been sentenced to 12 years. some people do think the law was broken here, at least certainly in the case of what Franklin did.

I think they want to conflate this case with Dreyfus, that's going to be the defense. When you have no argument, you try to throw sand in the eyes of the jury. That's what's going on here. If I am correct, you will see a lot more mention of Dreyfus in connection with this case as time goes on. Perhaps some other similar cases, too, although I can't think offhand of anything that matches up to Dreyfus in this regard.

"This is precisely what occurred in France during the closed trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus," the document states.

Wow. It really is not in any way the same.

"Why did the secret trial of Alfred Dreyfus cause such widespread anti-Jewish feelings?", the document asks, answering: "Due to the fact that the evidence against Dreyfus had been shielded from the public.

Right. And the French also enthusiastically rounded them all up for deportation to concentration camps because they always closed their stores on Saturdays, which everyone found really annoying.

Neither had anything to do with intense latent anti-semitism in France.

:sarcasm: