Three years after being sentenced to 12.5 years in jail, LARRY FRANKLIN IS STILL A FREE MAN!

[robertpaulsen]

Forgotten in the brouhaha over Jane Harman/Dennis Hastert/Porter Goss he said-she said-he said is the fall guy in the center of this very real scandal: Larry Franklin. A brief review:


Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a former U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department. He claims this was an attempt to get the information to the United States National Security Council, which he was not able to do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of that organization (Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman) are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified national defense information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Franklin


H2O Man addressed many of the important issues in the many dimensions of this great scandal a couple weeks ago in his thread Six Dimensions of Scandal. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5518578 While investigating the revelations that Sibel Edmonds has provided on this scandal, I came across this shocking detail reported by Luke Ryland: LARRY FRANKLIN IS NOT IN JAIL!

One other interesting part of the interview, highlighted by Mizgin, is that indicted spy Larry Franklin was working with Richard Perle and Douglas Feith at the ATC way back in 1994. According to Sibel, Franklin was "one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001." Despite many media reports to the contrary, Larry Franklin is not currently in jail, and it is not clear what will happen to him if the trial of Rosen & Weissman from AIPAC doesn't proceed as planned in June.

http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-merchant-bank-exposed.html

I clicked on the link where I boldprinted and this came up:

Inmate Locator - Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present
Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date
Location
1. LAWRENCE ANTHONY FRANKLIN 70425-083 62-White-M UNKNOWN NOT IN BOP CUSTODY(emphasis added)

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Lawrence&Middle=Anthony&LastName=Franklin&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=68&y=14


Where the hell could he have disappeared to?! I kept investigating and today I came across this revelation: LARRY FRANKLIN IS STILL A FREE MAN!


In this interview at antiwar.com, CQ's Jeff Stein - who broke the new allegations about U.S. Rep. Jane Harman's alleged involvement in seeking leniency for Rosen and Weissman - says that the Pentagon leaker at the heart of the affair, Larry Franklin, is in jail, doing 12.5 years and moreover, the sentence is relatively lenient, only because Franklin is expected to cooperate at trial.

That might have come as a surprise to Franklin, who was seen last week hanging around the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, sporting camouflage pants and boots (the weather has been very weird in DC of late. And he is a former Air Force colonel.) I mean, the Ronald Reagan Building is less than inspiring, it's true, but a prison it's not.

(Jeff's not the only one who's made this mistake - just the latest. I keep hearing references to Franklin being in jail.)

Franklin was sentenced to just over 12.5 years, it is true - and that was by all accounts not a lenient sentence - but his time was deferred until after he testifies at the Rosen and Weissman trial. I heard from sources at the time that prosecutors would recommend a reduction to three years should he cooperate, and that Judge T.S. Ellis was likely to take the deal.

But that was over three years ago. And now the case might not even go to trial. And if it does, I've heard that prosecutors are reluctant to use him.

This, I've heard, is remarkable; prosecutors pull key witnesses only if they've done serious damage to their credibility while awaiting trial (for instance, a repentant mob hitman who just can't break the habit.) Franklin's abided by the conditions of his sentencing, including avoiding reporters like the plague.

So why not use him? His outbursts during his allocution when he pleaded guilty might be illustrative: The promise of the crux of the government case shouting out "it wasn't classified and isn't classified" when he's on the stand must be giving prosecutors the willies.

So what does this mean for Franklin? His crimes are not unserious: He swore to keep the secrets he leaked not only to Rosen and Weissman, but to Naor Gilon (the Israeli diplomat coming soon to an international incident near you.) Franklin's unhappy profile as a prosecution witness might not necessarily mean he isn't "helpful" - just truthful.

But 12.5 years, especially after being held in limbo for more than three years?

And a deal's a deal, right?

We'll soon find out.

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/04/22/1004577/maybe-jane-harman-slipped-larry-franklin-a-file-in-a-cappucino


Now I understand why Bush never pardoned Franklin.

[TwilightZone]

1. He could be free on bail pending an appeal.

That wouldn't be terribly unusual.

[robertpaulsen]

2. The article said his time was deferred until he testifies at the Rosen/Weissman trial.

I've never heard of a bail being set after sentencing. Indictment, yes, but not sentencing after being convicted.

[TwilightZone]

5. It's at the discretion of the court.

The judge can stay imposition of sentence on appeal. The stay will often have conditions - bail, house arrest, electronic monitoring, etc.

In this case, as the other poster noted, he plead guilty, so an appeal (and bail) wouldn't be relevant. The other terms, however, would still be at the discretion of the court.

[robertpaulsen]

6. I see. What shocks me is how ignorant the media is regarding Franklin's conditions.

I mean, I understand MSM sweeping the details of Franklin's conditions - deferred sentence pending his testimony at the Rosen/Weissman trial - under the rug. But even alternative media sources have been in a fog of confusion regarding Franklin's current status. Very eerie, everything on the hush-hush.

[mmonk]

9. According to documents I provided below, his right to appeal was waived.

[TwilightZone]

13. It was in the original post.

He plead guilty. I just missed it the first time through.

[Blue Meany]

3. You don't usually appeal when you plead guilty n/t

[TwilightZone]

4. True.

Missed that the first time.

[hootinholler]

7. This is a real WTF moment.

Is there precedence for stuff like this?

:shrug:

-Hoot

[robertpaulsen]

11. Outraged and bewildered.

1. Why is this allowed?

2. Why is the media either unaware or sweeping this under the rug?

:wtf:

[mmonk]

8. Here are his sentencing and plea agreements (Court Documents)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/franklin012006.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/franklin_plea.pdf

[robertpaulsen]

14. Thanks for those links.

Especially the sentencing link, the judge was very eloquent about why this crime was so important to take seriously.

[mmonk]

15. You're welcome.

Yeah, he pretty much said meaning no harm or being a "patriot" didn't matter, the law is what it is.

[mmonk]

10. According to the sentencing document, he was to serve 3 years

for each count consecutively of supervised release and a stay preceeding it on cooperation.

[robertpaulsen]

12. That adds a third question to the two I asked in post 11.

1. Why is this allowed?

2. Why is the media either unaware or sweeping this under the rug?

3. Will the three years Franklin has roamed free pending his testimony at the Rosen/Weissman trials be considered part of his supervised release, resulting in his immediate imprisonment after testifying?

[mmonk]

16. Can't answer those questions.

Maybe in question 2, they let reporters know access would be limited if they dwelled on it. In question 3, they probably counted it if he was cooperative.

[robertpaulsen]

17. This whole situation is shrouded in mystery.

There just better be a trial for Rosen and Weissman. I don't want to see that swept under the rug!

[mmonk]

18. Swept.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html

WASHINGTON — A case that began four years ago with the tantalizing and volatile premise that officials of a major pro-Israel lobbying organization were illegally trafficking in sensitive national security information collapsed on Friday as prosecutors asked that all charges be withdrawn.

-snip-

The investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman also surfaced recently in news reports that Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence matters, was overheard on a government wiretap discussing the case. As reported by Congressional Quarterly, which covers Capitol Hill, and The New York Times, Ms. Harman was overheard agreeing with an Israeli intelligence operative to try to intercede with Bush administration officials to obtain leniency for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman in exchange for help in persuading Democratic leaders to make her chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.

-snip-

Ms. Harman has denied interceding for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, and has expressed anger that she was wiretapped. She is to be among the featured speakers at the Aipac conference next week.

-snip-

Over government objections, Judge Ellis had also ruled that the defense could call as witnesses several senior Bush administration foreign policy officials to demonstrate that what occurred was part of the continuing process of information trading and did not involve anything nefarious. The defense lawyers were planning to call as witnesses former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Stephen J. Hadley, the former national security adviser; and several others. Government policy makers indicated they were clearly uncomfortable with senior officials’ testifying in open court over policy deliberations.

-snip-

[robertpaulsen]

19. Jesus Fucking Christ! WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!

Here's the paragraph that really infuriated me:

While Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman trafficked in facts, ideas and rumor, they had done so with the full awareness of officials in the United States and Israel, who found they often helped lubricate the wheels of decision-making between two close, but sometimes quarrelsome, friends.

That defense is no different than the bullshit Franklin tried to lay on Ellis! It's not any fucking justification, it's an admission of conspiracy! And if I infer correctly, that conspiracy includes Stephen Hadley and Condoleeza Rice in this particular dimension of the Deep State Conspiracy!

Oh well, time to move forward. No sense looking back. :sarcasm:

[mmonk]

20. I've heard a whole lot of excuses.

There is the one where they say the prosecution had to prove they intended to bring harm to our security. What a load of horse hockey. When has that been a determinate over turning over classified information to a foreign government? Then they are claiming that AIPAC is a normal backchannel between the US and Israel. I thought they were a lobbying group, not an official entity of government.

[robertpaulsen]

21. Counterpunch and antiwar.com have done a good job shredding those excuses.

But both sites have neglected to publicize the fact that Larry Franklin has been a free man. I have yet to see any media outlet, mainstream or alternative internet site, investigate whether Larry Franklin has been thrown in the slammer yet. The sentence has been passed but not served.

[mmonk]

22. Maybe no one checked into it and made assumptions.

[robertpaulsen]

23. As far as I'm aware, only Luke Ryland has checked into it.

Here's his latest on it. Franklin's current whereabouts are a mystery to him too:


Saturday, May 2, 2009
AIPAC case dismissed. What happens to Larry Franklin?
So the long-expected dismissal of the AIPAC/Rosen/Weissman case has arrived - in a Friday news dump. Great.

Greenwald response is typical:

(D)espite being as vigorous a critic of AIPAC as can be, I absolutely believe the Obama DOJ did the right thing.
[]
No matter how harmful one might believe AIPAC to be, the end of this prosecution is something everyone who cares about press freedoms and even free speech should cheer.

There is a problem with that, though, as JTA's Ron Kampeas writes:

But Boente (acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia) made it clear that while Rosen and Weissman are free, the government likes the tool it unearthed in an obscure section of the 1917 Espionage Act -- the ability to charge civilians with dealing in classified information -- and it's going to keep it.

Phil Giraldi adds:

"If you pass information that you know to be classified to a foreign Embassy, that should be considered espionage, shouldn’t it?
[]
Is there something wrong here? Yes, something terribly wrong, though for the life of me I don’t know how we will ever take our government back. Nothing changes. AIPAC always wins. Depressing."

One other point: None of the coverage today mentions the fact that Larry Franklin is currently a free man, and that his eventual sentence was supposed to be dependent on him co-operating. What happens to Franklin now? And what happens to all of the other evidence he has given FBI counter-intelligence in the meantime? Will that ever be acted upon?

http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/05/aipac-case-dismissed-what-happens-to.html


Does anyone else out there know?!

[mmonk]

24. Yes, I've commented.

I may do a blog piece on the question real soon. Currently I'm busy with my son's graduation at NC State and I'll be at the Stanley Cup Playoffs tomorrow between the Canes and Bruins as well as trying to work my regular job so to speak. I'll let you know about it.

[robertpaulsen]

25. Great!

I noticed your comment as I was writing my own blog piece! Thanks for staying on top of this too!