Lately I have been writing fairly often in defense of Trita Parsi and NIAC, so I was bothered when I saw allegations of legal violations by the organization. Then I read the report and found that there wasn’t much to it. The allegations are a slightly more elaborate version of the attacks various writers have been making against Parsi and NIAC in recent weeks, but there seems to be little to support these charges. Probably the most damning evidence, such as it is, comes in this section of the story:

However, in a July 2008 memo obtained by The Times, Mr. Disney quoted the Lobbying Disclosure Act – a law that says even the preparation of materials aimed at influencing legislation or policy must be disclosed to the public – and said he and a colleague should register as lobbyists.

“Under this expansive view of ‘lobbying,’ I find it hard to believe Emily, and I devote less than 20 percent of our time to lobbying activity. I believe we fall under this definition of ‘lobbyist,’ ” he wrote, referring to NIAC’s legislative director at the time, Emily Blout.

The tax code allows nonprofits to devote less than 20 percent of their activities to lobbying if they declare the activity in a special section on their taxes. NIAC’s latest tax form shows that the group has declared that it spends none of its time lobbying.

When asked about his policy director’s memo, Mr. Parsi said that Mr. Disney is not a lawyer and that when he wrote the memo, he was new to the organization.

When reached Thursday for the story, Mr. Disney said, “You are using an e-mail from very early in my time at NIAC to demonstrate that the organization is not following the rules. When I wrote the e-mail in question, I was a 22 year old with no legal education, but was asked to research and give an opinion about a complex legal matter.

“The opinion I expressed in the email was erroneous, and has since been clarified by legal professionals who have found NIAC is in full compliance with the law[bold mine-DL]. The practice of using out of context and partial e-mails is poor journalism; and it is one of the reasons Americans are losing faith in the media.”

Lake does not produce anything that clearly puts NIAC in violation of any laws. Everyone who seems to be in a position to judge such matters appears to have concluded that there are no violations. Indeed, the documents used as sources for the article come from the defendant in a defamation suit that NIAC initiated against him because he made this same claim of lobbying for Tehran. It would be very strange behavior for an organization engaged in lobbying for Tehran to invite legal scrutiny of whether or not it was lobbying for Tehran. So the story doesn’t really show that NIAC lobbies for the Iranian government, and it doesn’t really show any evidence of lawbreaking, but other than that it’s definitely “groundbreaking.”

Update: NIAC’s official response to the Times’ story is here. I found this part quite illuminating:

Mr. Lake has selectively focused on emails and documents that fit with his pre-determined verdict against NIAC. Though the basis of Lake’s article is misinformation about NIAC provided by Hassan Dai, Lake did not ask a single question about our lawsuit, why it was filed, our understanding of Dai’s political motivations and Dai’s connections to the Iranian terrorist organization, the Mujahedin-e Khalq [bold mine-DL]. NIAC encouraged Lake to investigate the evidence of Dai’s role in the Mujahedin-e Khalq [bold mine-DL]. However, Lake declined to investigate his own sources.

Indeed, Lake made a passing reference to some of NIAC’s critics being accused of supporting Mujahideen-e-Khalq, but left out the crucial information that the defendant in the defamation suit may have connections to that group, which is still listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization. So what we seem to have is a possible sympathizer with an anti-Tehran terrorist organization accusing a legitimate advocacy group of working on behalf of Tehran, and The Washington Times is trying to lend credibility to the accuser.