|
AIPAC trial ruling: Bring on the top government officials
If you're a government official and met with Steve Rosen or Keith Weissman, the two former AIPAC employees that have been charged with conspiracy to communicate information relating to national defense, you should expect to be called to the witness stand. If you met with other AIPAC people, but not with these two - you might be off the hook, but probably not. Even if you didn't talk with AIPAC officials, but rather with other officials who talked about AIPAC, there's a reason to let the defendants ask for your testimony.
That is, in short, what Judge Ellis has decided in his ruling on the requested list of witnesses that includes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns, former undersecretary of state for political affairs Marc Grossman, senior advisor to the secretary of state David Satterfield, Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams, former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, former undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith and others.
The reasoning behind the subpoena of each official is sealed, but the ruling is clearly in favor of the defense. The defense will probably try to make sure that even those who were not aproved today for some reason, will be eventualy part of the list (they include general Anthony Zinni, ambassador Dennis Ross, former National Security Council official Bruce Reidel, ambassador to Turkey, Mark Parris - they met with the defendants in person, so why they were denied is quite hard to understand).
(I wrote about the AIPAC trial quite a lot. For background you can read:
Did the government pressure AIPAC to stop paying Rosen's and Weissman's legal fees?
Is it possible to support both AIPAC and its former lobbyists?
The AIPAC case and the humble pie)
The "defendants are entitled to show," writes the judge, "that, to them, there was simply no difference between the meetings for which they are not charged and those for which they are charged, and that they believed the meetings charged in the Indictment were simply further examples of the government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic back channel."
Rosen and Weissman claim that "the testimony of these persons will negate the government's contention that the information defendants obtained and disclosed was NDI [National Defense Information] by showing that this information was neither closely held by the U.S. government, nor were the disclosures of this information damaging to the U.S." They also claim that the meetings with the requested officials will demonstrate that they "did not have the requisite mental states necessary for convictions." They said that the U.S. government's use of AIPAC for "back channel" purposes "may serve to exculpate defendants by negating the criminal states of mind the government must prove to convict defendants of the charged offenses".
The government, explains Judge Ellis, was reluctant to let its officials testify in this case for three principal reasons:
First, "conversations with current or former government officials not listed as overt acts in the Indictment are irrelevant to the defense" - an argument he rejects on the basis that "circumstantial evidence can be probative of the lack of criminal intent."
Second, "conversations to which neither defendant was a party cannot be relevant to defendants' states of mind" - an argument the judge partially accepts because "this testimony may be presented by the AIPAC employee who had the conversation with the government official and relayed the contents to defendants." However, even in such cases, the official's account might be necessary for "corroboration or to rebut any government evidence attacking the AIPAC employee's testimony."
Third, "where a current or former official would testify concerning meetings other government officials [other than the testifying witness] had with AIPAC, such testimony would be inadmissible hearsay." Judge Ellis does not accept this argument, writing that "such testimony may not be hearsay" and that "if a hearsay objection might be appropriate, it is premature at this stage in the proceedings."
This, in sum, is a very good day for the defendants, and also for journalists hoping for an interesting showdown between the defense and the government.
It is not as good for the prosecution or for AIPAC. The testimonies of these officials will shed light on AIPAC's practices, and since lobbying is not a pretty business, AIPAC can't benefit from such confrontational trial.
Today on Rosner's Domain:
What To Read:
The genes that make Jews smart
Previous blog:
The Democratic debate: When politics and policy collide
Rosner's Guest:
So, was Churchill a Zionist?
Updated: The Israel Factor:
Does John McCain love Israel enough?
Updated: The Iran Time Saver:
Features, opinion, interviews, studies
|
