Sunday, May 29, 2005

The Non-Prosecution of AIPAC

AIPAC has been trying to portray its relationship with Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman as very strained, in an effort to make it appear that the two acted outside the scope of their authority. This position suffered a body blow when it was revealed that AIPAC had spent considerable money paying for the lawyers for the two supposedly fired employees. Here is the knock out (my emphasis in bold):

"AIPAC leaders have taken a series of steps to cut themselves off from the two former officials suspected in the case. Sources close to the case say the prosecution posed four conditions to AIPAC, which would guarantee that it would not be involved in the indictments: a change of working methods to ensure that such incidents don't happen again; the firing of the two officials and public disassociation from them; no offers of high compensation or anything else to make it appear the two quit of their own volition; and no financing of their defenses.

AIPAC has abided by the first three conditions - and the severance pay offered the two was considered very low, considering the many years they worked for the lobby. But it is said to be helping with their legal fees, indirectly, through its own law firm."


My comments:

  1. Have you ever heard of prosecutors agreeing not to prosecute a crime based on a condition that the prospective defendant agree not to appear to be helping its ex-employees who are already being charged? This is purely political, with the prosecutors simply not wanting to be embarrassed if they let AIPAC off the hook and it should be revealed that the firing was a sham.

  2. If AIPAC is funding the defenses of the employees by providing its own legal firm for free, this proves that there cannot possibly be a conflict between the defense of the employees and AIPAC, which is impossible unless the firing is a sham. If there was any possible conflict, including a conflict derived from information that the firm had in its normal course of dealing with AIPAC, the law firm couldn't take the case (I suppose they might take the risk if they had a waiver from both the employees and AIPAC, but that just proves further collusion, as AIPAC wouldn't give the waiver if there really was a conflict).


The prosecution appears to be bending over backwards to keep AIPAC out of court, and AIPAC is doing all it can to help its supposedly rogue employees - employees who had to be fired because their unauthorized actions so embarrassed AIPAC - while appearing not to. Far from being anti-Semitic, the prosecution is bending itself into pretzels, in a way it would never do for any other defendant, to keep AIPAC out of court.

0 comments: