Attorneys' Response to diGenova
September 21, 2000
Joseph diGenova, Esq.
diGenova & Toensing
901 15th Street, N.W. Suite 430
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Jonathan Pollard
Dear Mr. diGenova:
Thank you for your letter of September 20, 2000.
We appreciate your acknowledgement that your statement to Mr. Russert
is one of "professional opinion."
We were, of course, familiar with the section of the government's
sentencing memorandum you quote in your letter. We do not read it the
way you do. Mr. Russert said on the air that "agents in the field were
identified." (Emphasis added.) The sentencing memorandum alleges that
identities "could be inferred by a reasonably competent intelligence
analyst." In sum, the sentencing memorandum effectively concedes that no
one was actually identified, but argues that an intelligence analyst could
have pieced together information and drawn a conclusion about the sources
of the information.
The sentencing memorandum then states that the "identity of the authors of
these classified publications were included in the unredacted copies which
defendant compromised." (Emphasis added.) The fairest reading is that
this is a reference to analysts, not to agents in the field. Finally, the
sentencing memorandum even concedes that "no one can predict with
certainty that these human sources and analysts will be themselves
pressured . . ."
A fair reading of the government's allegations (and without at all getting
into the question of what is the actual truth) is that (a) no agent in the field
was identified in any document; (b) the government argued that someone
might be able to figure out from the documents who may have been
providing information to the U.S.; (c) as of the date of the memorandum,
more than a year after Mr. Pollard's arrest, no source of information had
been pressured, strongly suggesting that no one had been detected through
In all fairness, we do not believe that this amounts to agents in the field
having been identified.
We also welcome your suggestion that the entire record be declassified,
and at a minimum should be made available for our review. We intend to
seek that relief.
Very truly yours,
Court Case 2000 Page