09/02/09 – Grant F. Smith – The Scott Horton Show

All right y'all, welcome back to the show, it's Antiwar Radio, Chaos 95.9 in Austin, Texas.
We're also streaming live worldwide on the internet at chaosradioaustin.org and at antiwar.com slash radio.
And our first guest on the show today is Grant Smith, he's the author of America's Defense Line, the Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government.
He is a frequent contributor to Radio France International and Voice of America's Foro Internacional.
Smith has also appeared on BBC News, CNN, C-SPAN.
He's currently director of the Institute for Research, Middle Eastern Policy in Washington D.C.
The website there is irmep.org, I-R-M-E-P.org.
You can find what he writes for antiwar.com at original.antiwar.com slash smith-grant.
Welcome back to the show, how are you doing?
Hey Scott, it's great to be back.
It's fine, it's a little hot in Washington, but hanging in there.
Well, there's not too far, a couple of miles north of my window here, there's giant wildfires, they say the size of Chicago, so don't tell me how hot it is where you are.
I have nothing to complain about.
So welcome to the show, great article today, hilarious article actually, I love the whole premise here.
Stephen Rosen, the, I don't know what you'd call him, formerly indicted but then charges dropped, former director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, and one of the centerpieces of the entire AIPAC espionage scandal, has a lawsuit against AIPAC for throwing him under the bus, and apparently, as you write here, as these two different teams of lawyers file this paperwork back and forth, those of us critical of, I don't know, Israeli espionage in the United States and the influence of the Israeli lobby over American politics are learning more and more about what really goes on here, and I guess basically give us the outlines of what's the basis of Steve Rosen's lawsuit against AIPAC, and what have you found out here?
Well, there's a raft of documents that have been filed in the D.C.
Superior Court since March when Steve Rosen, seeing that the criminal trial that the DOJ was prosecuting was winding down after a series of rulings from Judge T.S.
Ellis, he filed his own defamation suit against the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, claiming that they had maligned him in the press and in other public forums after he was indicted on espionage charges in 2005, and although the premise of it seems humorous, and you're not the first one to poke fun at it, it's a deadly serious threat to AIPAC's ability to keep a lot of its operations under wraps, since he's an insider who's been around for decades.
He was the director of it, right?
He was the director of foreign policy, and has done a lot of some of the most nitty-gritty types of lobbying and information gathering going back to the 1980s in particular, and that's a time period I'd also like to talk about, but basically he is threatening them with this $21 million suit that also targets each one of the former and some current board members for half a million each in punitive damages, and although there's been relatively no reporting about this in establishment media, the case is heating up through a series of cross-filings that are very interesting, and we can go through some of those.
Cool, and now, in his role as director of foreign policy there, I remember, let's see, there was an article in the Forward where they called him the dynamic director, and apparently, you know, they talked about just how he was one of the real heavy movers and shakers there at the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, and then, wasn't it an interview he did, or an article with Jeffrey Goldberg for the New Yorker magazine, before all this trouble came out, I think, or no, I guess the article was written later, but the conversation reported in the article apparently took place before the scandal, and that was where he bragged that, you see this napkin?
I could have 70 senators put their signatures on this napkin by this time tomorrow.
That was the clout that he bragged about wielding in Washington, D.C., this guy.
Right, he's famous for pithy quotes, he's also one who compared the lobby to a night flower that thrives in the dark and perishes in the sun, so we've had some, you know, Shakespearean quotes from him, but most people probably aren't aware of what he actually does at AIPAC, and the chance to see him pull some information out of AIPAC, if they actually go to discovery phase, is something that's very threatening to that organization.
What they've tried to do is take this powerful figure and try to push his defamation suit out of court on the power of various technicalities, such as the fact that he filed outside what they claim is the statute of limitations for defamation, and that he wasn't actually defamed, and all sorts of other things, but yeah, there's no doubt he was one of the top, most powerful people ever since he left the Rand Corporation and went to work for AIPAC in the early 80s.
Isn't it interesting that his defense, or I guess his lawyer's argument in the press anyway, not that he ever went on trial, but his lawyer's spiel was always that, hey listen, everybody passes classified information around Washington, D.C., and they pass it to reporters, and they pass it to lobbyists, and everybody pass it around, and nobody ever gets indicted for it, and basically, now he's, that's AIPAC's defense against his lawsuit, right?
No, AIPAC's defense against his lawsuit is that they did not defame him, that everything they've said in their statements to the press, like the New York Times, was not actually defamation, and they've also claimed, again, that he filed his suit too late.
They're not really...
They haven't gotten that far yet.
No, the only one who's trumpeting the trafficking and circulation of classified information is Rosen himself, and that seems ironic since, you know, in his criminal trial, they were going to have to prove either that the information shouldn't have been classified, or that their state of mind wasn't such that they intended to harm the U.S., but actually, during that whole process leading up to the counsel criminal trial, there's never any doubt that the sting operation with Lawrence Franklin had actually worked, and they had been passed some information, and had apparently been soliciting some of the classified information Franklin had stored up at his home.
So, the ironic thing is that Rosen himself is trying to tie CORE and some of the board members to that classified information, while also stating that there was no policy within AIPAC prohibiting the circulation of intelligence information, which, that's pretty eye-opening stuff.
I would argue that lobbies, particularly foreign lobbies, that pass things back and forth between the Israeli Embassy and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shouldn't be doing that because classified, especially national defense information, is not meant to be circulated in that way.
It's meant to serve national defense interests, and AIPAC got into a bit of a problem back in the early 80s when, during negotiations for America's first free trade agreement, they got a hold of a classified government report outlining the entire negotiating strategy for the United States trade representative, and managed to use it to pass and lobby for what has been a pretty rotten deal for the U.S., $71 billion in deficits equivalent to about 100,000 jobs a year, U.S. agriculture being locked out of the Israeli market while they have full access to ours, so, you know, this classified information trafficking has consequences.
Yeah, well, you know, from the, at least according to the indictment, if you can believe anything the FBI says, they say that the documents that he was passing to Rosen and Weissman and Neorgi on there was about the debate over Iran policy, I think in the White House, or at least on the National Security Council, which, you know, was, I guess the apparent motive anyway, maybe the proven motive there, was to put Israel in a better position to argue that America needs to have a war with Iran.
Right, as time has passed, we've seen and heard a lot more from Cheney himself saying that there was a faction within the government which, you know, whether or not anyone can prove that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, they wanted to go.
They wanted overflight rights, they wanted the U.S. to launch military strikes, and there was AIPAC in the middle of it, pushing for the interest of their foreign principal for the U.S. to launch what could have been an economically and politically devastating attack on Iran.
So, you know, again, the interesting thing in Rosen's own defamation lawsuit, he makes the case, a quite clear case, that it was normal that AIPAC has kind of this parallel bureaucracy within the organization, which filters and channels and moves classified information if they feel privileged and that there's nothing wrong with them doing that.
Their position seems to be that if the U.S. government can't, you know, keep a hold of this, and they get a hold of it, that it's their right to leverage it in any way they see fit.
And that question's still out there, Rosen is, you know, basing his entire case on saying, you defamed me by saying that I was in any way unique at AIPAC for moving this information around.
Dangerous?
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, people need to be watching AIPAC, although it's under-reported, you know, back after 9-11, when suddenly AIPAC figures like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Martin Indyk, who used to work at AIPAC, started writing articles titled, Lock and Load, It's Time to Go Into Iraq, etc., etc., you know, obviously there was a major PR campaign underway.
And since then, AIPAC has been about nothing but the U.S. confronting Iran.
Yeah, well, and they don't try to disguise it whatsoever, either.
I mean...
Well, I would say that what Rosen and Weissman were doing was disguise.
They happened to get caught, and...
Yeah, I guess I meant since then.
I mean, if you go to AIPAC.org, it's all about how to get your congressman to, you know, put a blockade on them, and all this other stuff as, you know, top priority.
Right, and they're ramping up the legislation, there's a whole host, a whole raft of things that if they pass in Congress, you know, particularly the economic blockades, it's a clear escalation.
And, of course, John Bolton has a piece in the Wall Street Journal urging the fact that economic sanctions are probably not going to be enough, he just wants to go directly to go collect 200 and start attacking.
So there is a constituency, but it's the, you know, it's the unfair advantage of going and soliciting presidential directive drafts, and shopping around through the Pentagon and through the State Department, and getting access to all of this information, which is not publicly available.
That's from the standpoint of John Q. Public, who maybe can't get his congressman to answer the phone.
That's a problem, because that gives them material inside information that if this were just stock trading and trading on inside information, would be a disadvantage to everybody else.
So the question that was never answered when the DOJ threw the criminal trial was, why should any organization, especially AIPAC, with its foreign ties, be trafficking in this classified information, and advantaging itself in this way?
I mean, they're at a level they shouldn't be.
They're not a quasi-governmental organization.
They are just a not-for-profit corporation.
But again, getting back to the documents that have been divulged within...
Well, actually, put that on hold for a second.
I hope I don't make you forget it, but I want to ask you about that, because in a way, you know, it seems like we're just singling out the Israel lobby.
And what makes them any different, really, than the Russian lobby, or the Turkish lobby, or the Mexican lobby, or the Irish lobby, or anybody else?
I mean, if America is a world empire, then any state that even has any kind of functioning intelligence agency is trying to use it to influence the United States as much as they can.
What makes Israel different?
Just that they're better at it?
No, they're in the top five.
You mentioned Russia, you should mention China, you should mention a couple of others.
More recently, Turkey.
The fact that they want to influence the U.S., they have two ways of doing that.
Number one, they can use their diplomatic corps, and they can use, you know, the full weight of all of their non-governmental organizations, or they can try and engage in covert actions to force an outcome that might not be advantageous to the U.S.
The fact that we're focusing on Israel in this case is probably relevant, because in no case have we seen a nation or a constituency so willing and so able to launch major initiatives and get the U.S. to move in ways that are harmful, whether it was going back to the very first false flag attack on the United States, Operation Susanna, where Israeli agents bombed a bunch of U.S. information agency outlets in Egypt, trying to dissuade the U.S. and Great Britain from withdrawing from the canal zone by framing the Egyptians.
That was the Levant Affair?
That was the Levant Affair.
The operation was called Operation Susanna.
To outstanding questions about the Liberty incident, to outstanding questions about recirculating money into grassroots lobby startups that Senator Fulbright investigated, to all sorts of shenanigans with stealth political action committees coordinating their donations to candidates to push them out of office, to the free trade agreements, to this recent thing.
I mean, there is no other nation that has been engaged in so many covert activities in coordination with a large domestic constituency that could lead to such drastic economic and political impacts for the United States.
So that's why we're focusing on it.
Yeah.
Well, and I'll go ahead and tell you, for my part, the chip on my shoulder is the Iraq War because the Israel lobby played such an important role.
I mean, I'm not saying they're the ones who made Bush decide or whatever, but they're the ones who, well, I'll put it this way, without the influence of the Israel lobby, Bush couldn't have got it done.
Yeah, that's fairly obvious.
I mean, if you look at foreign policymaking as a system in the crucial areas of the Middle East, they're typically the driver in that system, or rather, whether they're going forward or not will determine how the system moves.
So from just that systems dynamic outlook, you have to study them.
You can't not study them in order to understand where the nation's moving or avoid some future calamity, which I think is the challenge right now.
Clearly.
Well, and we've talked with all kinds of different guests over the years about the dangers of war with Iran and the kinds of consequences that we could face from that.
I guess it should go without saying, economic catastrophe, disaster for our soldiers stationed in Iraq, et cetera, et cetera.
But let me let you go ahead and get back to the thought you were going to finish there about more that you found in these documents here.
Again, we're talking with Grant Smith about the lawsuit.
Steve Rosen, his lawsuit against the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee for throwing him under the bus.
Right.
Well, one of the most interesting things that Steve Rosen filed was a copy of APEC's bylaws.
And if you look at APEC's bylaws, it's a corporate document.
It kind of explains how the organization is chartered and how it's supposed to run.
I've never run across them before, and I found it interesting that he was using them as evidence that APEC had no policy about circulating classified information.
But if you look at the bylaws, the interesting thing is that APEC as an organization is really defining itself by a series of statements about what it isn't.
It states that it's not a political action committee.
And that's interesting because there's still a court case that's scheduled to finally come to an end this year from back in the 1980s, if you can believe that, over APEC's role in coordinating political action committees that led to the ouster of several people in Congress, including Paul Findley, who is the founder of the organization.
Gene Byrd, who you had on, I believe, last week, created the Council for the National Interest.
So relatively speaking, the APEC criminal case moved through court relatively quickly.
The outstanding question before a judge in a D.C. court from a group of individuals who sued the federal election committees to regulate APEC as a political action committee is just that, should it not be disclosing its donors and showing all of the myriad ways that it's actually trying to influence election.
APEC is claiming it's this sort of strange creature that's not a political action committee, that does not have any direct lobbying interest for a foreign principal, Israel.
It states that it only lobbies for U.S. interests, which just happened to be the same as those of Israel.
So it's an interesting mix.
Now, that came out of a 1960s showdown with the Department of Justice, in which APEC's predecessor, the American Zionist Council, was found receiving the equivalent of $35 million to lobby Congress from funds laundered into the U.S. from tax exempt donations around the world and recycled from the U.S. to set up different think tanks, to publish articles, to liaise with religious organizations and the press.
And so the fact that its bylaws state that it's also not in any way really doing doing service for a foreign master is interesting because it's obviously not true, but it's also a direct result of this showdown that it had previously.
So there are interesting things like that in the court documents that have been filed, which kind of, you know, they show that Rosen is willing, if he doesn't get what he wants, he's willing to really kind of burn down some APEC mythology just by what he's been submitting to the court and perhaps go back to some of these core issues.
Now, it's all pure bluff.
If they would give him his $21 million, he would probably just walk away.
And I think, you know, everyone would be probably happier if that happened.
But it does stand the chance that if this thing stays in court and moves to discovery, that a lot of these unresolved issues will suddenly be resolved.
APEC's history is really a history of showdowns with the Department of Justice, whether it was the Eisenhower administration back in the 50s when they were found to be using tax exempt donations to lobby Congress, which even back then was a no-no, you can only use non-taxable deductible contributions, whether it was the Fulbright hearings and the DOJ order of APEC's predecessors registered as a foreign agent.
All of these usually result in the Department of Justice throwing in the towel and the mechanism for that that you see in DOJ documents.
If you read them, they're tremendously boring.
But if you read them, it's usually a political manipulation.
It's usually there have been delays until an election is coming up.
And then, as I think Philip Giroldi said on one of your other shows, suddenly there's political pressure and suddenly the executive doesn't want to move forward anymore.
The DOJ is pressured and suddenly there's no more case against the Israel lobby.
Well, and in particular against the neocons, against Wolfowitz and Pearl and Fyfe, who've been under investigation, what, three or four different times since the 1970s for giving classified information.
Right.
Well, they've all been found in various FBI investigations trafficking information to the Israeli embassy or mishandling things.
I mean, one of the interesting things, if you study this long enough and if you look at it comprehensively, history begins to repeat itself.
One of the recent tidbits that came out of the entire Lawrence Franklin indictment was the fact that he was offered by some mysterious lobbyist the chance to jump out of the United States, fake his own suicide and disappear.
Well, that's not the first time that would have happened if he'd taken him up on that offer.
That also happened back in the 1980s to another Smith, not related to me out in California, who was working to traffic different nuclear technologies to a front company and was also, as soon as he was caught and thought he faced the prospect of 104 years in prison for violating export controls, skipped the United States, disappeared for 10 years until he was found in Costa del Sol, Spain, opening up a bank account and Interpol sent him back to the United States where he had to face trial.
Well, according to Franklin, he thought immediately of the Sopranos and that, yeah, I'll be a lot easier to murder for real if you had me fake my death.
Forget that, pal.
And he told, which I guess he was also knowing and assuming that the FBI was recording his every phone call anyway.
So, well, that just shows that he hadn't done his homework.
He could have probably, if he'd taken whoever this person was up on the offer, and I'd like to know who that person was, probably could have had a life on Costa del Sol.
It's impossible to know.
The only thing that is clear is that at the time the offer was made, things didn't look so good for Weissman and Rosen and somebody, some operative in the lobby wanted to get him out of the United States.
And it's happened before.
So, well, now let me ask you about this, too, because he's also claimed since the charges were dropped against him or, I don't know, dropped, but since the sentence was reduced to time served like night court, he's also claimed that basically the indictment is a lie, that they didn't catch him and flip him, that they asked him, hey, will you work for us, please?
And he said, yeah, sure.
And so he, everything that he did that was illegal was only because he was serving as an FBI informant.
And then they double-crossed him.
What do you make of that?
Well, he said conflicting things.
He's also said that he thought it was some sort of anti-Semitic pogrom and that he was only asked to target, you know, certain people.
So he's, I don't know that that's conflicting, but if he didn't believe in what they were doing and thought it was anti-Semitic, but he was also, as he's claimed, you know, an undercover agent, you know, it's either one or the other, probably, because he seemed to be a person of high principle.
So, you know, it seems more like an informant than an agent.
Yeah, right, right.
An informant.
But, you know, I like to believe the part, I mean, aside from the ridiculous smear that the FBI is just loaded with a bunch of Klansmen or whatever he's trying to imply there.
But the part about they were asking him all about information on Douglas Fythe and Paul Wolfowitz.
And why wouldn't they have?
I mean, this, of course, is the period in time when there was supposedly an investigation into the Niger forgeries.
And who leaked to Chalabi.
Right.
The leaks to the Iranians via Chalabi that the U.S. had broken the Iranian diplomatic codes.
So I hope they were trying to find that out.
And I hope the Iraqi National Congress and Fythe and Pearl and Wolfowitz were all being questioned because they were the ones who were probably the biggest sponsors of those groups.
So it would stand to reason.
I mean, the FBI has it's not the first time they've tried a counterintelligence type operation to find out how precious U.S. intelligence and secrets like that were leaked to a great harm to the United States.
Well, now, so what do you make of I forget you say something about this in the article, but I forget exactly what it was.
Flesh out the context, but something about I guess Rosen was saying that APAC is just trying to keep the entire corporation from being indicted, the entire thing from being indicted.
And that's why they threw me under the bus.
And so then that goes to the question of whether the FBI and I think this is something that he said in one of his interviews that the FBI wanted to indict all of APAC and they had to settle.
Somehow this thing got short circuited and they had to settle for the Franklin Rosen Weissman case when it should have been, you know, the Richard Perle, APAC and everybody case.
Well, for sure, APAC, because, you know, what he's referring to directly was when Paul McNulty sat down with APAC's legal counsel and executive director on February 15th, 2005, and said the famous statement, quote, We could make real progress and get APAC out from under all this, unquote, if APAC showed more cooperation with the government.
And then his other statement from APAC's counsel said that the lead federal prosecutor, and that would have been McNulty again, quote, is fighting with the FBI to limit the investigation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and avoid expanding it, unquote.
So this is also a fairly common theme that I've seen in other declassified documents regarding FBI investigations.
You know, you'd think that they had free reign to follow a case wherever it went.
And if they were convinced that APAC as a corporation was guilty after their raids, well, that they just put all that out to a grand jury and see if they couldn't get an indictment of the corporation, which has typically meant in the past, in the case of Arthur Anderson and other corporations that are criminally indicted, that it would immediately implode and disappear and you'd never hear from it again.
So, you know, indicting a corporation in many cases means the end of the corporation.
But, you know, he's got a point.
Throwing these two guys over the transom was certainly a more attractive position.
And under prosecution guidelines at the time, there was a whole series of memorandums governing why a corporation shouldn't be indicted.
And one of the reasons they shouldn't be indicted was if they showed some contrition and showed that they were working to resolve the problem and showed that, you know, they weren't supporting the wrongdoers in any way.
And that's precisely his point.
Those memorandums at the DOJ have subsequently been revised due to a lot of corporate lobbying from other types of corporations.
But basically, Rosen feels, and with some justification, that he was thrown over the transom so that AIPAC could go raise some more money and keep doing what it does.
And he's got a point.
Now, in the larger sense, do you think that this FBI pursuit, to whatever degree, of these people represents a faction fight within the establishment?
Or is it just, you know, some FBI agents doing their job, counterintelligence?
Hey, look what we found.
Because, you know, people assume and speculate and wonder about, you know, larger politics between, you know, this group of people who used to be dominant in the think tanks and represent, you know, I don't know, oil and banking versus the new guys who represent Lockheed or, you know, whatever, CFR versus AEI and that kind of stuff.
No, I don't think it's that at all.
I really think that the FBI expressed, the Washington field office expressed its outrage that this thing was dropped.
There's a really good New York Times article.
I think it's by David K. Johnston, in which Pershashini talks to the press saying, you know, they're just shocked this whole thing was taken apart so quickly.
I think they're guys who pursue, you know, counterintelligence.
They go after whatever sort of foreign wrongdoing they see occurring on U.S. shores, and whether it's the Russians, the Chinese, the Mexicans.
I don't think they care.
I think all they care about is following the evidence.
And a lot of times it leads to a dead end.
And a lot of times it leads to this sort of, you know, case.
And I think they were not really in any sort of political considerations at the FBI level.
Once it's thrown to the DOJ, however, once guys like McNulty, who, by the way, after he kind of put the lid on this, was promoted, people at that level, and it's happened with other DOJ people.
One famous case is Nicholas Katzenbach back in the 60s.
It's the same trajectory.
They put the damper on this.
They go on to stellar careers, and everyone walks away happy, except for the disgruntled FBI agents, who, by the way, can't talk about it, and the disgruntled people who'd like to know what actually happened, who won't for 25 years.
So if you want to know what really, really happened with all of this, including, you know, all of the things that Bill Edmonds has been raising as sort of adjuncts to this case, well, let's talk in 2034, and we'll have all the details.
Yeah, exactly.
Well, and this is the thing you mentioned kind of offhand there.
Gee, I sure would like to know who it was on the other end of the phone who told Franklin, here, we'll fake your death and sneak you out of the country.
I want to know who was the spy on the phone with Jane Harman, when the NSA legally overheard that Israeli spy and her complete a crime and make a corrupt bribe deal for, boy, oh, boy, let's not get into that whole story.
Well, this whole thing is just a big, I think, Justin Raimondo said, a big pile of loose ends, and it's just sitting there, and a lot of people are really upset about it.
Inside government, I imagine, but certainly outside government, because they see clear evidence of wrongdoing 360 degrees.
I mean, you know, you can pick up a rock here in Washington and throw it, it'll probably hit something related to this case, but you can't know about it.
And that's the frustrating thing, because, you know, governance depends a lot on the confidence of people that there is rule of law and equal treatment under the law, but you just can't see that.
That's why this goes back into the range of high theater, the fact that somebody is going to make $21 million, potentially, for telling the world that his employer is a hotbed of espionage-related activity, information trafficking, and maybe even foreign agency, and that it's, you know, a civil suit that's going to do that, as opposed to a warranted criminal prosecution.
Hmm.
Well, you know, Garrett Garrett, the great critic of American empire, said, is it security you want?
There is no security at the top of the world.
You want to be the world empire, you're going to have every intelligence agency coming for their pieces and doing the very best they can.
And there's really no way to, I mean, it's just a symptom of it.
This is the kind of thing that I think Americans used to be entertained about stories of all the palace intrigues and all these things going on in Europe.
Because they were the people who ran the world empires, and they were the ones who had all this backstabbing and all the stuff going on, all the infiltration and covert operations and so forth.
There was no interest in covert operations in America, I guess, until the British launched their exercise to get us into World War I on their behalf.
Well, yeah, I mean, it's, you know, it's normally the U.S. that's in another country pulling the strings.
And if you read Stephen Kinzer's books about overthrow and all of that, obviously, we do it far more to others than others do it to us.
But in this particular case, there is definitely been a power grab and assumption of privileges, in particular, by the Israel lobby that we've never seen in the United States, which kind of, you know, reduces us a little bit.
I remember in South Florida, seeing a delegation of, you know, elite Colombians coming in to campaign for the elections to all of the constituents on Key Biscayne and other parts.
And, you know, it kind of made me think a little bit of how that makes, you know, the elite and the expatriates look.
And then I see the same thing happening here with our congressional delegations heading over to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
It makes you wonder, you know, what's becoming of Washington, that there's so much influence in the field, we need to campaign offshore.
So I would tend to quote, though, in the case of this particular lobby, given the history of lawbreaking and just general lack of rule of law.
In the Department of Justice, Julius Caesar is a much better person to quote, when he said, if you must break the law, do it to seize power.
And in all other cases, observe it.
In this case, we're going to see, you know, something happen with AIPAC.
And it's probably, no one's probably going to be going to jail.
There'll be some money that transfers and then happily along the way, lobbying for US strikes on Iran, I suppose.
All right, everybody, that's Grant F. Smith.
His article at Antiwar.com is Steve Rosen accuses AIPAC of espionage.
The website for the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy is IRMEP, I-R-M-E-P dot org.
And the book is America's Defense Line, the Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government.
Thanks very much for your time on the show today.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, Scott.
See you later.