The purchaser becomes a CIA ‘operative’ a year after he purchases the equipment to send to Iraq. Now, there’s no proof the CIA approached him, no proof he’s a CIA operative, no proof of much of anything except an affidavit saying he was such – and also stipulating that he “believes” Hanna didn’t know the equipment was going to Iraq.

There’s no protection for Hanna, there’s no “executive branch immunity”. The CIA didn’t purchase the equipment, and didn’t arrange to have it shipped. Don’t you think they’d have found a way to make it clear customs?

The jury found she knew it was going to Iraq, and continued transactions. If she had stopped the transactions, she could have been fine. She knew what she was doing was illegal, and continued, without prompting from anyone but the buyer. You can try and say this is entrapment – but you would fail. One, the transaction was initiated before the gov’t got involved. Besides that, the government didn’t need to prod her to keep sending stuff to Iraq. She did it on her own. There is no entrapment.

Now back to the affidavit – the guy admits that he’s lied in the past and covered up the CIA involvement – but now that she’s been sentenced, he felt the need to come forward. Can you honestly tell me (hah) that you’d trust someone who says “I lied before, to all levels of government, but I’m telling the truth now”. It’s no wonder the judge didn’t re-open the case to let this evidence in. It lacks credibility.

And on a final note, there’s a letter from some Army kid who somehow knew Hanna’s daddy. The letter amounts to a textbook definition of hearsay.

It’s a little sad that this is the best defense her lawyers can put forth. I think this amounts to a game that all convicted felons play with the legal system – trying to use any and all means to find a “get out of jail” card.