Another Weird Development in the AIPAC Case

Secrecy News reports that the prosecution is trying to prevent a key government witness from testifying on behalf of the defendants in the AIPAC case (on the grounds that he briefly consulted with them). The government has threatened him with prosecution if he gives this exculpatory evidence in  court, and  the witness has moved to quash the defense subpoena issued to him. Thus, he hopes to get a ruling from the court either that the subpoena is valid and he must testify or that he can  legally testify without it.
J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, said he was prepared to testify that the classified information at issue did not meet the standards for national security classification.  If so, the defendants could not have violated the law by receiving and transmitting the information without authorization.  Not only would they not be guilty, there would have been no crime. (snip)

In the normal course of events, government officials are sometimes threatened with sanctions if they refuse to testify in a judicial or congressional proceeding.  But in the topsy-turvy world of the AIPAC case, Mr. Leonard is threatened with sanctions if he does testify.

To forestall that eventuality, Mr. Leonard was formally subpoenaed by the defense on July 25.  His attorney, Mark S. Zaid, then moved to quash the subpoena on August 28, in the expectation that the court would issue an order compelling Mr. Leonard to testify.  Such an order would serve to shield him against the threatened sanctions from the prosecution.

"In filing this Motion to Quash, Mr. Leonard seeks either a ruling from the Court that there is no impediment to his testifying or, alternatively, a Court Order requiring that he testify," wrote Mr. Zaid, who frequently litigates national security and classification-related cases. "Without one or the other action, Mr. Leonard will be forced to reconsider whether he can testify for the Defendants."
The entire pleading is conveniently online at Secrecy News.
One wonders how much longer this travesty will continue before a grown up puts a halt to it?
Secrecy News reports that the prosecution is trying to prevent a key government witness from testifying on behalf of the defendants in the AIPAC case (on the grounds that he briefly consulted with them). The government has threatened him with prosecution if he gives this exculpatory evidence in  court, and  the witness has moved to quash the defense subpoena issued to him. Thus, he hopes to get a ruling from the court either that the subpoena is valid and he must testify or that he can  legally testify without it.
J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, said he was prepared to testify that the classified information at issue did not meet the standards for national security classification.  If so, the defendants could not have violated the law by receiving and transmitting the information without authorization.  Not only would they not be guilty, there would have been no crime. (snip)

In the normal course of events, government officials are sometimes threatened with sanctions if they refuse to testify in a judicial or congressional proceeding.  But in the topsy-turvy world of the AIPAC case, Mr. Leonard is threatened with sanctions if he does testify.

To forestall that eventuality, Mr. Leonard was formally subpoenaed by the defense on July 25.  His attorney, Mark S. Zaid, then moved to quash the subpoena on August 28, in the expectation that the court would issue an order compelling Mr. Leonard to testify.  Such an order would serve to shield him against the threatened sanctions from the prosecution.

"In filing this Motion to Quash, Mr. Leonard seeks either a ruling from the Court that there is no impediment to his testifying or, alternatively, a Court Order requiring that he testify," wrote Mr. Zaid, who frequently litigates national security and classification-related cases. "Without one or the other action, Mr. Leonard will be forced to reconsider whether he can testify for the Defendants."
The entire pleading is conveniently online at Secrecy News.
One wonders how much longer this travesty will continue before a grown up puts a halt to it?