A Clash Looms on Secrecy in AIPAC Spy Case

[Purveyor]

March 14, 2007

A constitutional clash is looming in a Virginia courtroom after federal prosecutors proposed barring the public from hearing some evidence at the upcoming trial of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Defense lawyers for the two men, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, have objected vigorously to the unusual proposal to present secret evidence. Late yesterday afternoon, a consortium of news organizations filed a motion to intervene in the case to restrain any attempt by the government to give the jury access to evidence that the public will not be permitted to examine.

"If evidence is presented in this case, the public and the press should have the right to see it," an attorney for Mr. Weissman, John Nassikas III, told The New York Sun. "The government has made some proposals about how to handle government evidence that we believe would deny the public the right to see it and, in turn, deny the defendants right to a public trial." Mr. Nassikas said he could not elaborate because details of the government's proposal and of the defense's response are under seal, as are many other briefs filed in the case. The only public sign of the dispute in the court's docket is the title of a defense motion filed last week, which made mention of an effort to "strike the government's request to close the trial." A source familiar with the case said the government proposed giving jurors headphones to listen to audio recordings of intercepted and wiretapped phone conversations key to the case. While the defendants and the judge would be able to hear the audio, the press and public would not, the source said.

"It's a big deal," the executive director of the Reporters Committee, Lucy Dalglish, said. She said her group's initial research has found no case where the government was permitted to present extensive evidence that the public never saw.

---

Messrs. Rosen and Weissman were fired by Aipac before being indicted in 2005 on charges that they conspired to pass classified information to an Israeli official and to reporters. The pair allegedly solicited and obtained information from a Defense Department analyst, Lawrence Franklin, who pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors.

---END OF EXCERPT---

http://www.nysun.com/article/50392

[Greeby]

1. Didn't Jane Harman try to get the prosecutor to go easy on these two?

Heard something to that effect, and it helped spur Pelosi's decision to pass her over for chairing the Intelligence Committee :shrug:

[Malikshah]

6. After Pelosi's change of heart on Iran and her public flaying of Dean

back during the last election cycle, I don't think that follows with Pelosi's MO. As for Harman calling for the prosecutors to go easy-- I wouldn't be surprised.

[H2O Man]

2. That isn't a

"constitutional clash." As the Libby case showed, there are often disagreements on what classified evidence is made public in these types of trials, and there are laws in place that allow for judges to make fair determinations.

[Me.]

3. So Where Are We Going With This?

They have Franklin to testify against them, but the prosecutor isn't Fitzgerald and there is a lot of political pressure to let the case slide. Any prognostications?

[H2O Man]

5. Guilty X2

There is plenty of evidence to prove the two fellows are guilty as charged.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. It's ever so nice to have a "transparent government". Wish we had one.