Saturday, April 25, 2009


There was an odd article on March 5 titled "The ‘AIPAC Two’ aren’t the only ones on trial" by Douglas M. Bloomfield. Bloomfield "spent nine years as the legislative director and chief lobbyist for AIPAC."

Bloomfield's lede was:
"Trials can be dangerous things. And not just for the accused. They can make or break prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges. And even a vaunted lobby.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its leaders could be the biggest losers in a case that threatens to expose the group’s inner secrets."
Bloomfield closed with this:
"Will the organization want to go through discovery, depositions, interrogatories, subpoenas, and compelled testimony under oath about all the elements of this case? That could be the key to very generous out-of-court settlements for Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.

That will leave unanswered the biggest question of all: Why was this case brought in the first place?"
Grant F. Smith, who has done great work on this case, calls these "not-so-subtle public threats." He adds, in an article titled "Why Steve Rosen is Suing AIPAC" (from April 8):
"The seemingly defeatist maneuvers of this circular firing squad partially mask Rosen’s real strategy. Millions of dollars would do him little good behind bars or preserve AIPAC’s reputation if he prevails. What Rosen needs most is for AIPAC to pull him ‘out from under all this’ as soon as possible. Otherwise AIPAC and the rest of the lobby will face the full wrath of Rosen’s accumulated arsenal: access to damning AIPAC internal information and a multitude of allies who follow the credo that “divided we fall.” "
On April 22, (with the Jane Harman/AIPAC story in the near-background) the Washington Post published "U.S. Might Not Try Pro-Israel Lobbyists":
"The U.S. government may abandon espionage-law charges against two former lobbyists for a pro-Israel advocacy group, officials said yesterday, as a prominent House lawmaker denied new allegations that she offered to use her influence in their behalf."
Was Bloomfield's threat effective?

(By the way - Grant Smith has apparently been alone, for months, in noting that Larry Franklin is not currently in jail.)

For the record, at the end of that second video, Sibel says:
"Other operations were shut down in 2000 and 2001 because they ended up going to higher levels and involving way too many people. I’m talking about individuals who are breaking the law, misusing the trust and abusing their power, and in some cases I would even say engaging in treason."
Interestingly, I just tested that youtube in two different browsers and on two different computers, and the audio goes silent when Sibel says "engaging in treason." I've never noticed that before. I can only presume that was an error on my part when I uploaded the interview.

No comments: