on Thursday, District Court Judge T.S. Ellis rejected the government's plan to handle classified information in the Espionage Act case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Wessman, former lobbyists for AIPAC. Rosen and Weissman are charged with receiving classified information from Lawrence Franklin, formerly of Douglas Feith's Pentagon Office of Special Plans, and transmitting it to officials at the Israeli Consulate. This decision will force the prosecution to come up with a better plan, or drop the case.
The government is in a bind. More below the fold
The Justice Department yesterday was given until May 2 to determine how it wants to proceed in the controversial prosecution of two former pro-Israel lobbyists charged with violating the 1917 Espionage Act after the federal judge in the case turned down prosecutors' attempt to close from public scrutiny a substantial portion of the trial in order to protect classified information.
Faced with the decision made Monday by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III and delivered in written form yesterday, the prosecutors want time to determine whether they will appeal, suggest another way to handle classified material or drop the case altogether
Basically, the prosecution proposed to disclose the information to the jury in secret, then require the jurors to keep it secret. This is fairly standard practice. Ellis ruled that this procedure would weaken the defense's ability to show that the disclosure did not not represent possible harm to national security.
The defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, is very, very good at what he does. By failing to agree to procedures for handling of classified information, he is basically grey-mailing the case in an attempt to place the government in a position where it must either declassify and disclose the information in open court, or drop the the case.
Under methods established by the Classified Information Procedures Act, the government and the defense normally agree on summary language when classified information is key to a case. If they do not and a judge rules that the information is necessary to the defense, specific charges can be dropped or the government can drop the prosecution rather than expose the information
WashPost
This case and investigation, which began in 199, has been a headache to the administration and to AIPAC.
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."
Defense: Feds Forced AIPAC to Fire Indicted Analysts to Save Itself