You Just Don't Know Who to Trust

While I read this article I couldn't help but wonder who commited what crime on who.

Can anything here qualify as a conspiracy ?

www.justice.gov...

Does the term "intrapment" mean anything in federal cases or would that term even apply to this case.

On Sept. 3, 2009, Nozette was contacted via telephone by an individual purporting to be an Israeli intelligence officer from the Mossad, but who was, in fact, an undercover employee of the FBI. During that call, the defendant agreed to meet with the undercover employee that day on Connecticut Avenue N.W., in front of the Mayflower Hotel in downtown Washington, D.C.

I am trying hard not to seem to judgemental in my opinions, so could someone explain the correct view this case.

“Stewart Nozette was once a trusted scientist who maintained high-level government security clearances and was frequently granted access to classified information relating to our national defense. Today he is a disgraced criminal who was caught red-handed attempting to trade American secrets for personal profit. He will now have the next 13 years behind bars to contemplate his betrayal,” said U.S. Attorney Machen. “The FBI and its partners deserve tremendous credit for their outstanding work on this case. This investigation and prosecution demonstrate our commitment to identifying and punishing those who would put our national security at risk.”

I have always been told, "It is far easier to keep a good reputation, than to re-build one."

reply to post by hdutton


The second paragraph of the article you posted alleged this man tried to trade American secrets for personal profit.....thats not intrapment in my books. If they have sufficiant evidence and proof against this man then the Judicial system will take care of it.

reply to post by bluemirage5


You might be amazed what can be learned from reading the first quote or even an associated article.

I know how the U S criminal justice system works.

Whoooshh! I understand bluemirage5's post, but the rest of this thread leaves me baffled. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I read the article. I wondered a little about the fraud investigation that produced the 2007 search warrant, but if the rest of the article is true and complete I don't see the holes in the case. (If the 2007 warrant was defective, any lawyer who wasn't comatose would get the whole case tossed.) He had no business having the classified material at home. It's a crime in itself.

So, why do you think the crime was committed against him? How does this meet the test for entrapment? What associated articles are we supposed to look for? Why weren't they linked somewhere?

Help me out, guys. What are you trying to say?

reply to post by charles1952


I didn't notice my saying anything about this guy not being stupid, but it would seem to me a little "odd" when someone calls you up pretending to be an agent of a foriegn country.

Then they turn out to be FBI.

Would it not appear they were the ones who instigated the actions to be done ??

I guess this case just reminds me a little of the guy who bought "pot" from an undercover pusher, who really needed to make a sale, and was arrested for possession.

reply to post by hdutton


Ok, I can see where you would be worried about entrapment. But gee, I still think if that had happened, even a court-appointed lawyer would have gotten him off with a lot less than 13 years.

You know, something that does concern me a little, it looks like they have just about every federal agency there is involved in this investigation. Was it an especially sexy case everybody wanted to get in on for some reason? Do we have that much spare investigative capacity that we can unload so heavily on this guy?

Did you read the article? This guy threatened to sell classified information to a foreign country in 2007. So instead of letting him actually sell the information, the FBI posed as the Mossad. Then he delivered classified material to them not once but THREE times before being arrested.

Since 2007, he was under suspicion of espionage. He could have sold that information at any time. Who knows, maybe he already did and they just don't know about it. The bottom line is that he was more than willing to sell the information and is a traitor.