Attorney Nathan Lewin On Anti-Semitism In Rubashkin Case

  • 0

This post has been cross-posted to DovBear: Rubashkin’s Lawyer On Claims of Anti-Semitism

I was shocked when I saw this.

If you read the frum papers you have been told that Rubashkin was singled out for being a Jew. We call this anti-Semitism.

I have gone on record saying that I don’t see the anti-Semitism here. (Is the Rubashkin Saga / Trial Anti-Semitic? and Are the goyim out to get Sholom Rubashkin?: Why he isn’t a victim of anti-Semitism).

I have been chastised by commenters on this blog and on DovBear. They maintain that Rubashkin is a victim of a modern-day blood libel and my post was irresponsible and erroneous.

What does Rubashkin’s attorney say?

Defense lawyers dismissed any notion that anti-Semitism underpinned the case. “Nobody responsible has made that allegation,” Lewin said.


Well that settles it. The frum newspapers, irate commenters and Shabbos Table (selective) ACLU members are simply not responsible.

Incredibly, I did not see a single frum news outlet report this quote from Lewin.

Case closed. <pound gavel>

HT: ThinkGood_

  • ThinkGood

    Certainly, that Rubashkin’s Defense lawyers dismissed any claim of anti-Semitism in his (Federal) case. In fact, Nathan Lewin said that “Nobody responsible has made that allegation,”.

    I was a witness in the Rubashkin’s (State) trial. In fact, a reluctant witness. I was asked to testified after I traveled several times to Postville to render an opinion for some Hispanic news networks for whom I contributed on several occasions.

    Did I find antisemitism? Perhaps, I recall John Schled, a worker for St. Bridget Catholic Church, who disclosed several antisemitic statements. Including not to disclose that the moneys donated for the families affected by the raid, was from Jews. In actuality he disclosed that over $75k dollars just in a few days.

    I was also granted an interview with the Pastor of St. Bridget’s Catholic Church in Postville, a place where AG workers found refuge during the raid. While I waited at the rectory to meet with Fr. Paul and Sister McCauley, I overheard Thomas Walsh, an employee for the Jewish Council of Urban Affairs, couching a couple on how to obtain visas in the US: only if they testify against Mr. Rubashkin, “a filthy Jew…”.

    Indeed, I proceeded to call the Archdioceses of Iowa spoke extensively with Sister Judy Callahan over what a disturbing situation at St. Bridget’s. I also called the Jewish Council of Urban Affairs in Chicago, as one of the organizations donating moneys for the families affected by the raid. I spoke to Sari Ruben, Jane Ramsey – President, two others and later to Gregory Rothman -Vice President, whom I coincidentally conversed while at Romanian Kosher Deli in Chicago.

    During trial, the Catholic Church in Postville was concern over the possibility of incriminating tapes against them, including antisemitic statement. For the first part of the morning, the prosecutor main inquiry was over such tapes. In fact, St. Bridget’s staff made several contacts in an attempt to speak to me and find such tapes. All prior to the rendering of my testimony. While in court, Judge Callahan learned of these actions and said. “This whole day started with worry [by the prosecutor], over tapes [taken by Ana McCarthy]. There may be something to all this. whatever it is doesn’t smell very good. Not enough to take this into a side trial on what’s going on at St. Bridget’s”

    While interviewing a local librarian, a patron stepped in to openly state her dislike for Jews, etc.

  • Izzy

    Saying that “nobody responsible has made that allegation” is not the same thing as saying it is not true. I would agree that the “frum papers” are not responsible. That does not preclude the possibility that the allegations are true/likely/possible – sometimes it is indeed irresponsible to make allegations of that nature (i.e. racism, anti-semitism) that are difficult to prove, regardless of whether the allegations are true.