.
.
In my view one of the most important recent revelations regarding the memo is the fact that Ms Gorelick in probability lied when she stated in her op-ed piece that it was written to protect the prosecution in the two anti-terrorist trials at the time.
In a rebuttal former chief assistant U.S. attorney in NY Andrew C. McCarthy wrote (The Wall Truth: Gorelick provides the clearest proof yet that she should resign., Posted on 04/19/2004 9:57:46 AM EDT by xsysmgr):
By the time she penned her March 1995 memo, the first World Trade Center bombing prosecution had been over for a year and my case was in its third month of trial.
The only conceivable threat to eventual convictions would have been (a) if the prosecutors and agents in my case had learned information about defense strategy by virtue of the government's continuing investigation of some of our indicted defendants for possible new crimes; or (b) if the continuing investigation had turned up exculpatory information about the defendants in my case and I had not been told about it so I could disclose it. Far from being unique to national-security matters, that situation is a commonplace when the government deals with violent organizations (which tend to obstruct justice and routinely plot to kill or influence witnesses, prosecutors, and/or jurors, thus requiring continuing investigations even as already indicted cases proceed).
To avoid constitutional problems in such a situation, the government regularly assigns a prosecutor and agent who are not involved in the already indicted case to vet information from the continuing investigation before it is permitted to be communicated to agents and prosecutors on the indicted case. This way, the team on the indicted case learns only what it is allowed to know (viz., evidence of new crimes the defendants have committed), but not what it should not know (viz., defense strategy information and incriminating admissions about the indicted case made without the consent of counsel); and the government maintains the ability to reveal any exculpatory information (as federal law requires). As Gorelick's 1995 memorandum recounts, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York had already made sure that was done in my case long before Gorelick's memo.
What remains is the very important question why she penned the memo at that time? That question Ms Gorelick should have to answer under oath.
Haha! Expecting anything was expecting too much.
The whole charade has been utterly worthless. Expensive, in fact.
