Pollard stated that while his motives "may have been well meaning, they cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, excuse or justify the violation of the law, particularly one that involves the trust of government... I broke trust, ruined and brought disgrace to my family."[28] He admitted and apologized for taking money from the Israeli government in exchange for classified information.[28]
He also blabbed to Wolf Blitzer:
Three weeks before Pollard's sentencing, Wolf Blitzer, at the time a Jerusalem Post correspondent, conducted a jail-cell interview with Pollard and penned an article which also ran in The Washington Post headlined, "Pollard: Not A Bumbler, but Israel's Master Spy." published on February 15, 1987.[26] Pollard told Blitzer about some of the information he provided the Israelis: reconnaissance satellite photography of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) headquarters in Tunisia, specific capabilities of Libya's air defenses, and "the pick of U.S. intelligence about Arab and Islamic conventional and unconventional military activity, from Morocco to Pakistan and every country in between. This included both 'friendly' and 'unfriendly' Arab countries." Some commentators identified this interview as a blatant violation of the plea agreement.[27]
I agree that Pollard shouldn't be in prison. He should already be dead.
“Some commentators identified this interview as a blatant violation of the plea agreement.[27]”
I guess your quote of otherwise irrelevant information was to get to the quote above. Is the fact that he admitted taking money and apologizing for it supposed to support your point?
Some commentators did not include the prosecution which did not argue that point on appeal and the judges who heard the appeal and made no mention of it. Hmmmmmm.
I’m still waiting for a source for the accusation that Pollard broke the plea deal, which is why he should die in your opinion.
One note for accuracy: the government did make a claim that Pollard breached his agreement in his interview with Wolf Blitzer, then a Jerusalem Post correspondent. But this claim was “mentioned” in “extensive presentencing submissions” the government made to the court. (quotes from the decision.
It does not appear that the issue was the basis for the ruling by the trial court and it was not a factor in the decision on appeal.