FAS

To Evade Penalty, Key AIPAC Witness Seeks to Quash Subpoena

09.02.08 | 2 min read | Text by Steven Aftergood

In an unusual maneuver designed to evade a threat of government sanction, a key defense witness in the trial of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who are charged with mishandling classified information last week moved to quash (pdf) a subpoena summoning him to testify at their upcoming trial.

J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, indicated he was prepared to testify that the classified information at issue did not meet the standards for national security classification. If so, the defendants could not have violated the law by receiving and transmitting the information without authorization. Not only would they not be guilty, there would have been no crime.

But prosecutors objected to Mr. Leonard’s testimony, arguing that he should not be permitted to appear since he briefly consulted with prosecutors about the case while he was still a government employee in 2006. In a March 31 motion (pdf), they even suggested that he could be liable to a year in jail if he testified for the defense.

In the normal course of events, government officials are sometimes threatened with sanctions if they refuse to testify in a judicial or congressional proceeding. But in the topsy-turvy world of the AIPAC case, Mr. Leonard is threatened with sanctions if he does testify.

To forestall that eventuality, Mr. Leonard was formally subpoenaed (pdf) by the defense on July 25. His attorney, Mark S. Zaid, then moved to quash the subpoena on August 28, in the expectation that the court would issue an order compelling Mr. Leonard to testify. Such an order would serve to shield him against the threatened sanctions from the prosecution.

“In filing this Motion to Quash, Mr. Leonard seeks either a ruling from the Court that there is no impediment to his testifying or, alternatively, a Court Order requiring that he testify,” wrote Mr. Zaid, who frequently litigates national security and classification-related cases. “Without one or the other action, Mr. Leonard will be forced to reconsider whether he can testify for the Defendants.”

The August 28 motion to quash is posted here. Selected other case files from the controversial proceeding are available here.

publications
See all publications
Emerging Technology
Blog
International Collaboration to Strengthen Domestic Critical Minerals Efforts

As Congress considers broader packages to advance critical minerals production and supply chain resilience, science diplomacy vehicles must be part of that conversation, not as an afterthought, but as an intentional and foundational pillar of any strategy.

07.24.26 | 5 min read
read more
Emerging Technology
Policy Statement
Endorsement of the Strategic Technology and Resilient Alliances Act

“Structured partnerships with our allies on critical minerals innovation can ensure that the best science and the best talent are working together towards shared security and economic prosperity.”

07.24.26 | 1 min read
read more
Emerging Technology
Policy Statement
Pass S.3306/H.R.2985 – Modernizing Government Technology Reform Act

This is a bipartisan, commonsense measure to reauthorize the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) before it expires in September 2026.

07.23.26 | 1 min read
read more
Emerging Technology
New Jersey, Virginia Can Lead the Nation By Building ‘AI Resilience Cohorts’ to Develop Early-Career, State Talent Pipelines

Many states are introducing AI policies and task forces, but lack the “AI-native” personnel to build and maintain initiatives. To address this in the short term, states should establish AI Resilience Cohorts to embed early-career technologists in key offices to support state AI initiatives. Right now, Virginia and New Jersey have the opportunity to take […]

07.22.26 | 7 min read
read more