Pollard Attorneys Respond to DiGenova’s Lies in Washington Times

Justice4JPnews – January 15, 2011

Jonathan Pollard’s attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman submitted
the following op-ed to the Washington Times in response to incendiary lies
published by the paper and attributed to Joseph DiGenova, the former U.S.
Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Pollard.

Although the essay below is consistent with the number of words and other
limitations that The Washington Times sets for a right of reply response,
the newspaper—apparently in keeping with its own egregious editorial
position on the Pollard case – pared the essay down with wanton abandon. The
truncated version, eviscerated by the Washington Times, follows the original
below.
==

As pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard since 2000, we never cease to be
amazed at how those who are hostile to Mr. Pollard feel compelled to make up
facts. Evidently these adversaries recognize that the real facts are not
sufficient to justify keeping Mr. Pollard in prison any longer, as he has
already served more than 25 years for delivering classified information to
the State of Israel.

The most recent manifestation of this phenomenon appears in an article in
the Washington Times titled "Netanyahu Seeks Pardon for Imprisoned Spy
Pollard" (Wash. Times Jan. 4, 2011). In the article, Joseph DiGenova, the
former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Pollard, makes a series of false and
inflammatory allegations that are directly contradicted by the public court
record. Since Mr. DiGenova would be committing a crime were he to reveal
anything contained in the non-public, classified portion of the court
record, it is fair to presume that he is not doing so. Since his assertions
are nowhere to be found in the public court record, the only possible
conclusion is that his allegations are false.

For example, Mr. DiGenova now claims that Mr. Pollard was given more than
$500,000 per year for his services to the State of Israel. But this
allegation is nowhere to be found in the court documents filed by Mr.
DiGenova in 1986 -1987, while the case was ongoing. Indeed, the sentencing
judge did not even impose a fine on Mr. Pollard. Twenty-five years after
the fact, Mr. DiGenova has now invented this extravagant claim, evidently
for the purpose of trying to halt the powerful wave of support for Mr.
Pollard's release.

Mr. DiGenova's insistence that Mr. Pollard be denied clemency after 25 years
is also inconsistent with the fact that in 1986, after conducting an
extremely thorough six-month investigation, Mr. DiGenova, as U.S. Attorney,
signed a plea agreement with Mr. Pollard in which the U.S. Government
(represented by Mr. DiGenova) agreed not to ask the sentencing judge to
impose the maximum sentence of life in prison. Mr. DiGenova cannot point to
a single fact that he knows now but did not know at the time he signed that
plea agreement.

Mr. DiGenova's statement to the Washington Times is also incompatible with
the Victim Impact Statement submitted by Mr. DiGenova to the sentencing
judge in 1987. While Mr. DiGenova's statement to the Washington Times
alleges that it cost the U.S. Government between $3 and $5 billion to repair
the damage, the Victim Impact Statement - the court document in which the
victim of a crime (in this case, the United States itself) submits a
description of the damage it has suffered to the sentencing judge - makes no
such reference, but instead describes the actual damage to the U.S. as
follows:

"Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. [sic]
relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the
extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have
skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr.
Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by
Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo
routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges
with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far
in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The
obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage
with the Israeli government in any further intelligence exchanges has been
undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard's activities have adversely affected U.S.
relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of
Israel."

These are Mr. DiGenova's words. The Victim Impact Statement says nothing
about billions of dollars in damage, which - if true - would surely have
constituted harm and impact to the victim. The Victim Impact Statement
reflects - at worst - short-term friction between the U.S. and unnamed Arab
countries, and temporary reduction in bargaining leverage by the U.S.,
rather than the severe monetary damage now described by Mr. DiGenova.

Mr. DiGenova is not the only person who has knowledge of Mr. Pollard's case.
A distinguished and growing roster of former high-ranking U.S. Government
officials with extensive knowledge of the case have come forward and have
called for Mr. Pollard's release. These include former Attorney General
Michael Mukasey; former Senator Dennis DeConcini, who served as head of the
Senate Intelligence Committee; former CIA Director James Woolsey; and
Lawrence Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under Caspar
Weinberger at the time of the case. Mr. Korb was instrumental in convincing
Mr. Netanyahu to request clemency for Mr. Pollard. It was Secretary of
Defense Weinberger who had demanded in 1987 that the sentencing judge impose
a life sentence. Decades later, in an interview with prominent journalist
Edwin Black, Mr. Weinberger described the case as “a very minor matter, but
made very important. . . . It was made far bigger than its actual
importance.” Those words cannot be reconciled with Mr. DiGenova's
inflammatory statements to the Washington Times.

In the face of this groundswell of support for a belated measure of justice
for Mr. Pollard, Mr. DiGenova apparently feels he needs to make his opposing
view heard. Mr. DiGenova is entitled to his opinion. But he is not
entitled to invent facts in order to support it. That he has felt a need to
do so, only underscores that the actual facts can no longer justify keeping
Jonathan Pollard in jail after more than a quarter century behind bars.

==

Here is the eviscerated version that was published by the Washington Times:

Obscuring facts in Pollard case
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/obscuring-facts-in-pollard-case/
The Washington Times - Friday, January 14, 2011

As pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard, we never cease to be amazed at
how those hostile to Pollard feel compelled to invent facts. Evidently,
these adversaries recognize that the actual facts are not sufficient to
justify keepingPollard in prison any longer. Most recently, in the Jan. 5
issue of The Washington Times, Joseph DiGenova, the U.S. attorney who
prosecuted Pollard, made false and inflammatory allegations inconsistent
with, and in some respects directly contradicted by, the public court record
("Netanyahu seeks pardon for Pollard," Page 1).

For example, Mr. DiGenova claims that Pollard received about $500,000 per
year from Israel. However, this allegation is nowhere to be found in the
court documents signed and publicly filed by
Mr. DiGenova while the case was ongoing. Indeed, the sentencing judge did
not even impose a fine on Pollard. Twenty-five years after the fact, Mr.
DiGenova seems to have invented this claim for the purpose of trying to
impede the powerful wave of support for Pollard's release.

Mr. DiGenova's insistence that Pollard remain in prison for life is likewise
inconsistent with the fact that in 1986, after conducting an extremely
thorough six-month investigation, Mr. DiGenova signed a plea agreement in
which he agreed not to ask the sentencing judge to impose the maximum
sentence of life in prison.

Mr. DiGenova is not the only person with knowledge of Pollard's case. A
growing roster of distinguished former government officials have called for
his release. These include George Shultz, who served as secretary of state
at the time of the case; former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey; former
Sen. Dennis DeConcini; former CIA Director James Woolsey; and Lawrence J.
Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense under Caspar Weinberger
at the time of the case. In 1987, Weinberger demanded that the judge impose
a life sentence. Years later, however, he described the case as "a very
minor matter, but made very important. ... It was made far bigger than its
actual importance."

In the face of growing support for Pollard's release, Mr. DiGenova
apparently feels the need to make his opposing views heard. He is entitled
to his opinion, but not to invent facts. That he feels a need to do so
underscores that the actual facts can no longer justify keeping Jonathan
Pollard behind bars.

ELIOT LAUER
JACQUES SEMMELMAN
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP

==
Click here to view the January 5th article to which the attorneys are
responding :
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/4/netanyahu-seeks-pardon-for-imprisoned-spy-pollard/