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 inference.

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,

Eliot Lauer
Jacques Semmelman

  • Court Case 2000 Page