INTERVIEW: Spy or Scapegoat?

By Reuvain Borchardt

Baijmadajie Angwang was living what appeared to be the American dream: the Tibetan immigrant had come to America on political asylum, and was now an NYPD officer, a former Marine and a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. He owned a home on Long Island, where he lived with his wife and daughter.

Then, one morning in September 2020, all that changed when Angwang was arrested and accused of being an unregistered agent of the Chinese government.

The allegations arose from intercepted phone calls and texts Angwang had had over a period of several years with an official at the Chinese Consulate in Manhattan. The conversations, as seen in the prosecution’s Complaint and Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant, appear to show Angwang offering to help and providing information to the Consulate official, described in the Complaint only as “PRC Official-2.”

But Angwang says he had simply reached out to the Consulate to try to obtain a visa to travel back to Tibet to visit his family; that he was merely having friendly conversations with “PRC Official-2” to show that he was no threat as a political activist; that he did not give — nor was there any discussion of him giving — intelligence or sensitive information of any kind; and that the communications were misrepresented in the Complaint by prosecutors, who misleadingly pieced together parts of different discussions and mistranslated the Mandarin to paint a nefarious picture of Angwang’s activities.

Due to national security concerns, the Complaint is one of very few documents from this case that are publicly available. Angwang and his attorney, John F. Carman, say that the full conversations, properly translated, show innocent discussions in which Angwang simply speaks on friendly terms with the official from whom he had hoped to get a visa.

After his arrest, Angwang spent nearly six months in jail without bail, then almost two more years awaiting trial under heavy bail restrictions, before the charges were dismissed this January.

The government did not give a reason for the dismissal, other than stating in its motion, “As a result of our continued investigation, the government obtained additional information bearing on the charges. Having assessed the evidence as a whole in light of that information …. The government hereby moves, in the interests of justice, to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”

In court, a prosecutor simply told the judge, “The decision to file this motion was based upon an assessment of all the evidence and information that is now available to the government including information developed subsequent to charges and it’s based on an assessment of all of that information holistically that the government has determined that it’s appropriate to seek dismissal in the interest of justice.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York declined Hamodia’s request to comment further on this case.

Angwang, 36, is still suspended with pay from his NYPD job, which he is fighting to get back.

An NYPD spokesperson told Hamodia, “The individual is suspended with pay,” and declined further comment.

Hamodia met with Angwang and Carman at the latter’s law office in Garden City, overlooking the Roosevelt Field Mall.

Here, in their own words, is Angwang’s story.

Conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Tell us a little about how and when you came to the United States from Tibet.

Angwang: I came here in 2004, when I was 17.

My initial experience here was great. I thought the best way for me to give back was to join the military. So I went into the Marines and volunteered to get deployed to Afghanistan in 2013. I was there for eight months.

I also had initial great experiences with NYPD police officers while I was in New York. Imagine you are a teenager; you don’t speak the language; you look for the uniform to help you out. I took the NYPD exam before I went to Afghanistan, and when I got back I decided I want to continue, so I went to the Army Reserve, and in 2016 I went to the Police Academy.

I was a patrol cop first, assigned to the 111th Precinct [in northeastern Queens]. Because I’m a hard worker, and I really care about the community, I got promoted to the Crime Prevention Division, where I interacted with a lot of different communities, including the Jewish community. The precinct had a lot of synagogues, and I used to help them a lot, especially when the holidays came. I went to synagogues, gave them lectures, did security surveys, gave suggestions, like, “Put cameras here, cameras there, have a bulletproof window here.” After that I became a Community Affairs officer.

Tell us about how you got political asylum to come to the United States.

Angwang: When I was young, I had my beliefs, I was hot-blooded, I wanted to save the world. That’s something I believed. But there is a local code, and I violated the local code, just asking for more equality, more rights.

Were you agitating for Tibetan independence?

Angwang: Not independence. Just equality.

Tell us about that day in September 2020 when the FBI knocked on your door.

Angwang: They didn’t knock on my door.

That morning, I was going to work, and my daughter, who was 2 years old, was strangely crying. She’s not a crybaby, but she was crying a lot. So I went to hold her, comfort her, kiss her, and then I said, “I’ll be back.” It was a little after nine in the morning.

As I went to my car, five or six modified pickup trucks aggressively drove to the front of my car, blocking my entrance. You’ve got like five, six angry FBI SWAT team agents with all the tactical gear and helmets. They held M4 rifles maybe a couple of inches from my face.

Two agents took me, searched me, handcuffed me and everything, and told me I was under arrest. I said, “For what?” They said they’d tell me later. But I said, “Is this necessary?”

So at the time of the arrest, they didn’t give you any indication what it was for?

Angwang: No. They told me, “We didn’t want to do it this way, but our boss wants it this way.”

They put me in the car. They took my family members out, tossed my house, destroyed everything, took a lot of stuff, like my daughter’s birth certificate, our hospital documentations, family pictures, things that have nothing to do with the charge.

We have a little park a couple blocks from my house. They took me to the park, and that’s where the FBI supervisor showed up in a Jeep. He rolled the window down as I’m handcuffed in the backseat. He said, “Hey, listen, you know, just work with my guys. Just be nice to them. They’ll take good care of you.”

We were lucky to have my lifesaver, Mr. Carman. My wife had connected with him.

Had you ever met before?

John F. Carman: No. She knew a lawyer that I had worked with and stayed in very limited contact with for 30 years. And he said, “Why don’t you call John, he’s somebody that might jump into some crazy case like this!”

The prosecutors’ Complaint and Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant describes your calls and texts with two officials at the PRC (People’s Republic of China) Consulate in Manhattan. One is described as “PRC Official-1,” whom you allegedly called and texted at least 53 times between 2014 and 2017; the other is “PRC Official-2,” whom you allegedly called and texted at least 55 times between 2018 and 2020. The Complaint centers around the conversations with “PRC Official-2.” Firstly, do you want to reveal the names of “PRC Official-1” and “PRC Official-2”?

Angwang: No.

Tell us about why you first reached out to the consulate.

Angwang: The U.S. government manipulated the situation to fit their agenda. That’s the very unfortunate part — because I went to war for America.

Every Tibetan who’s holding an American passport, in order to go visit China — because Tibet is currently part of China — and visit their family, they need to go through this process at the Chinese Consulate, which is a normal routine process for us, where there is a Tibetan person working over there to accept our application process. It’s been going on like this for years.

At some point, did PRC Official-2 suggest that it would be easier for you to get this visa if you helped them out in some way?

Angwang: No. And it was never in the transcript.

At some point in these conversations — whatever your intentions were — it seems that you at least indicated maybe you would help them. How did that come about?

Angwang: Well, if you really examine the recording, fully, the whole recording —

Carman: — which we have in Mandarin

[Ed. At this point, I ask Carman whether he would release the full recording to Hamodia, so that Hamodia can obtain our own translation of the Mandarin conversations, to determine whether the government was indeed misrepresenting or mistranslating the conversations. Carman responds that he and Angwang would discuss privately whether they would release the recording to Hamodia, but ultimately they declined to release it.

Our conversation continued, with Angwang discussing his allegation of prosecutors distorting his conversations with PRC Official-2. Angwang says that prosecutors wanted to “manufacture something” and had their “narrative already pre-written.” He says that in the Complaint, prosecutors took bits of different conversations and pasted them together, to “regroup, re-manufacture a new paragraph, to fit [their] narrative.”]

Carman: Here’s an example: They accuse him, on behalf of the Consulate officials, of going out into the Queens community in his capacity as a police officer, gathering information about what the Tibetan diaspora is doing. And one of the things they cite is the fact that he goes back and he tells them that the Tibetans are opening a new community center.

And he suggests that he and PRC Official-2 visit the center together.

Carman: Yeah, it’s like, okay, so their top secret, there’s a new community center for the Tibetans in Queens which is like three times the size of this building. It’s not a big secret, but they pass that off to the court as Angwang giving information about what the Tibetans are up to. It’s kind of silly. But, you know, when you stack six of those things together, it starts to sound like he’s doing stuff. There’s another example of him talking about a Tibetan elected official in Ohio. In essence, they’re like, “See, he’s giving information about a Tibetan who might be an interesting information source,” which was a complete mischaracterization of why he was talking about that person, why he raised that person’s identity as a Tibetan with the Consulate official.

Those are the kinds of things [the prosecutors did,] putting something in a suspicious light that doesn’t belong there.

What about this quote, in the Complaint, of you inviting PRC Official-2 to NYPD events, and saying:

“The Consulate does not know too clearly the workings and operations within the police department. And then because of the sensitivity of a diplomat’s position . . . then this, now, if it’s like this, I’m thinking of how to, how to use this opportunity, to use our er . . . one is to let the consulate to feel like us before . . . the wishes are the same as my wishes.”

The prosecutors say that you were essentially offering the Chinese Consulate access to the NYPD. Can you explain that conversation?

Angwang: First, go back to what John was saying: Put yourself in my shoes. It doesn’t matter which government you work for. [PRC Official-2 is] a Tibetan, I’m a Tibetan. Two Tibetans having a normal conversation.

We are very proud of our heritage. So some of that also plays in the conversation. But they take it out, they regroup it into something else.

But he wasn’t working as a Tibetan; he was working as a Chinese official.

Angwang: Yeah, but his main job is to vet all Tibetan applicants [for a] visa.

And to try to bring Tibetans to the Chinese side?

Angwang: No. His only job is to vet visas. Because he speaks the language.

Carman: That’s what the government would have you believe, Reuvain — that he was an asset handler.

The reality is that if you have an American passport, and you want to go back to China, and you’re Tibetan, and you’re in the Northeast of the United States, there’s one door [through PRC Official-2]. And if you can’t go through that door, you can’t go [to China].

So people who want to get those passports need to offer this official something?

Carman: Or at least not anger him.

Is it basically understood that if you want to go, you have to offer him something?

Angwang: No, you don’t have to offer him anything. The only thing you want [is for] him to be comfortable that if you ever get the visa, you’re not going to be a troublemaker.

You mean, once you are back in Tibet.

Angwang: Yes.

Carman: That’s what this is all about.

What about when you mentioned to PRC Official-2 that there are certain religious minorities [i.e., non-Buddhists] among the Tibetans, who have been “discriminated against and neglected in the Tibetan community” and that they may be useful to “develop” them to the Chinese side? What did you mean there?

Angwang: That’s also a mistranslation.

First go back to the NYPD one.

In the 1980s, we had a Deputy Commissioner of Trials, the first Asian high NYPD official. He started building the relationship between the NYPD and the Chinese police force.

You mean the PRC police force?

Angwang: Yeah.

And also, there [was lots of] cooperation, because we have a large Chinese immigrant population in New York. So to say, me, Angwang, as a rookie cop, low-level cop, I’m trying to build some kind of relationship, where there already existed a really good working relationship, it’s just like, taking things out of, you know, just manufacturing some new thing.

But you did say something to the effect of trying to give them access within the Police Department, right?

Angwang: No. They don’t need access.

Carman: And he doesn’t. They have 55 phone calls that are tape recorded.

The word wasn’t “access,” but that’s how the Complaint portrays it. The words quoted were: “The Consulate does not know too clearly the workings and operations within the police department. And then because of the sensitivity of a diplomat’s position . . . then this, now, if it’s like this, I’m thinking of how to, how to use this opportunity, to use our er . . . one is to let the consulate to feel like us before . . . the wishes are the same as my wishes.”

What exactly was meant by that?

Angwang: If you go into the original transcript, it’s like a few conversations in different times.

So the ellipses are in fact combined conversations?

Angwang: Yes.

Can you tell me what exactly you were trying to tell him in this conversation that [you say is] being misrepresented here?

Angwang: Pretty much I’m trying to tell him that I’m not a political activist. I have a job. I’m a cop. I’m legit. So if you ever give me the visa, I’m not going to go there to create troubles.

And at the same time they have a view that every Tibetan could be a potential troublemaker if they get the visa.

[Regarding the comment about the religious minorities, I was] saying, look, we also have Christian Tibetans, we also have Muslim Tibetans. We are forgotten. We were presumed to be troublemakers. We are not.

More than the majority-Buddhist Tibetans?

Angwang: I’m just trying to create an image for him: Don’t assume everybody is a potential troublemaker. Look at us the normal way. We’re just like normal working people.

“Us” meaning Tibetans?

Angwang: Yes.

You’re Buddhist?

Angwang: Yes.

I’m not only talking about my visa. I’m also using this opportunity to make sure he understands that there are other people you shouldn’t judge, you should give everybody a chance for the visa.

But did you say something about “developing” these religious minority Tibetans?

Angwang: That’s where, again, for the translation —

Carman: — This may help you interpret what you see there: So they investigate him basically for two years. They interview people in the Army Reserves, in the Marine Corps, at the NYPD. “Who is this guy? Is he legitimate? Did you ever see anything suspicious with him?” Almost everybody he knows. We get reports of these things. And then after they arrest him, they do the same thing. And so what the government — and trust me, they have six prosecutors on this case, an untold number of FBI agents trying to put this guy in prison for 55 years. And they’re all highly educated people; these are people that probably all of them could solve the Rubik’s cube with their eyes closed in under a minute. That kind of intellectual power is being brought to bear on his innocence — they’re very clever the way they weave arguments together, they weave snippets of text together, snippets of transcripts together, to create this aura of suspicion, when all of them know, because they’ve read the reports that they give to us, that they’ve talked to almost everybody this guy’s ever met, in the military, in the Police Department, they’ve looked through his computers, they turned his dresser upside down in his house, tore his whole house apart: There is no indication of him doing anything.

And they know he’s on his own private cellphone. He’s talking to a consular official who’s not on an encrypted phone from the consulate; he’s on his own private cellphone. They’re talking openly 55 times. He takes him to some Asian Jade [a society of Asian NYPD officers] dinner, they go there together, because he’s like, “Hey, come down to the Asian Jade dinner,” and you got all the top brass of the NYPD, all the consulate officials sitting up at the dais, these guys are in the cheap seats, but he’s wandering around like, oh, yeah, I’m some intelligence asset?

So this entire relationship and connection you had with PRC Official-2 was all in the interest of trying to get the visa?

Angwang: Yes. Two Tibetans, you know.

Carman: And more broadly, talking about Tibetans’ immigration rights back into the country, for other Tibetans to get visas: Don’t be so narrow-minded, there’s plenty of us that are good people that want to go back.

So you looked at yourself as an advocate for the Tibetan community with PRC Official-2, saying be more easygoing [about visas]?

Carman: You see it in the transcripts.

Again, what exactly did you mean when you spoke about [as alleged in the Complaint] the need to “develop” the religious minorities, and, “When the Consulate extends a helping hand to them, they will feel the warmth of the motherland. How wonderful would that be?”

Angwang: The word [in Mandarin that prosecutors translate as] “develop,” the direct translation would be “understand.”

The U.S. government made the image for the public that if you are a true Tibetan, you have to support [the] Free Tibet [movement]; if you don’t, you must be a Chinese sympathizer, something like that — which is not true, because a lot of Tibetans have no political views. They only want to go back to visit their homeland.

Now go back to PRC Official-2: Because there were incidents that happened before, they’re highly sensitive.

You mean that Tibetans in America went back to Tibet and became what you described as “troublemakers.”

Angwang: Yes. Now, because of that, the restrictions are really heavy.

So you were essentially trying to tell him, “Don’t assume all Tibetans hate China”?

Angwang: No, it has nothing to do with China. [It was,] “Don’t assume all Tibetans will be troublemakers who get visas, go to China and shout out slogans in public.” It has nothing to do with China. Nothing to do with Tibet. It’s just like, “Don’t assume everybody is a political activist.”

The Complaint quotes you as saying to PRC Official-2, “For your work, is there anything else that I can do?” and that you were willing to assist with “whatever is worth money or not worth money to your side.”

Angwang: This is, again, the same thing.

Combined different pieces of different conversations?

Angwang: Yes. Also, it’s inaccurate.

So what was the actual translation of what you said?

Angwang: I did not say, “For your work.”

It’s two Tibetans. Imagine you are the visa guy, PRC Official-2. I’m pretty much saying, “Hey, anything I can help you with?” You know, like, a goodwill gesture.

To try to get your visa?

Angwang: Or just as a friend. Here, I’m working as a friend. It has nothing to do with a visa.

Now, going back to the “whatever is worth money or not worth money to your side”: here, it’s between two Tibetans. I said, “I want to take the test, I want to work the hardest I can so I can set an example for other immigrants with Tibetan heritage.”

What does it mean about being worth money?

Angwang: As a public servant, the salary is low for me. I’m talking about me here. I’m talking between two Tibetans. [I’m saying] I want to do the best I can in my job, to do better, get promoted, so I can inspire more Tibetan immigrants.

To become police officers?

Angwang: Or do other things. Just push hard in society here.

So what were you referring to when you said “whatever is worth money or not worth money to your side”?

Angwang: Because everybody knows, as a civil servant, the pay is low. So here I’m talking about, I don’t care about the money, I just want to push the hardest I can for my career so I can inspire more people. That’s what I said. It’s a normal conversation between two Tibetans.

You never got your visa. You were talking to PRC Official-2 for two years, more or less, until the day you got arrested? At what point did you say, it’s a year, two years, I haven’t gotten my visa, this guy doesn’t really want to help me; maybe he just wants something from me and really doesn’t want to give me anything in return?

Carman: How do you give up? He’s the only way to get [the visa].

Angwang: You have no other choice. The [U.S.] government doesn’t talk about the struggle Tibetan Americans have.

Did he at any point ever ask you explicitly, or imply, “I’ll do this for you, but you have to do something for me. You have to give me some intelligence — “

Angwang: No.

All the calls are taped. There are 55 taped phone calls.

What’s also interesting, Reuvain, in none of those phone calls does he ever mention that he was in the Marine Corps or that he’s actively in the Army Reserves. He never tells this guy whom he supposedly has this intelligence-handler relationship with, that he has a military background, and that he’s presently involved with the Army Reserves.

The Complaint also says that at one point, the NYPD asked Baijmadajie to do an interview on a Chinese TV station that opposes the Chinese government, but Baijmadajie discussed this with PRC Official-2, who advised him it would not look good if he did the interview.

Carman: He is engaged in a process of dealing with an official. And the purpose of almost every one of these contacts is to persuade this guy that he is not going to be a propaganda threat if he’s allowed to go back. And that’s what this is. This is him basically impressing PRC Official-2 that he’s not a propaganda threat.

The Complaint says that you alerted PRC Official-2 about some Tibetan staffers working in the office of some Queens state legislators: You allegedly told him: “There are several young people … now working at the offices of elected government officials. … So they are rather active. Don’t know if you are aware of this. Just be aware of this … Sometimes, the community may want to go through them, to use the channel provided by their working in these offices, and say certain things to these elected officials … Things that shouldn’t have been said. … I’m saying that these may happen. I just want to let you know. Just be aware of it. There are several of them. They are mainly, mainly, mainly, in Queens, at the Queens area state legislator’s office. These offices all have our people working there, because our population is getting larger. They hire them to pull in more votes, to pull in more votes.”

Angwang: We had this conversation, [but] if you look at the original transcript, roughly it’s like a few hundred pages. It’s also a few conversations.

You’re saying these different paragraphs [set aside in ellipses above] are snipped together from different conversations?

Angwang: Yes.

Traditionally, they assume every Tibetan is a potential troublemaker, and most Tibetans, first generation, were poorly educated. They were former monks, and they worked as dishwashers or housekeepers or nannies. So I’m trying to have a conversation with [PRC Official-2] a Tibetan, and say, look, we have younger people, where everybody has different occupations. So don’t close your door, don’t change your mind to other Tibetans. That’s what the whole conversation was about.

What exactly were you trying to accomplish when you mentioned that there are some Tibetan staffers in the Queens state legislators offices?

Angwang: Well, I’m trying to tell him don’t assume all Tibetans are like the traditional first-generation workers I mentioned.

You were in jail for almost six months, and John had to present multiple bail packages and appeals before you were finally granted bail in February 2021. Did the feds ever discuss the charges with you?

Carman: I had a private meeting with Baijmadajie in the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, in a conference room, for about 20 minutes. Basically, it was, “What’s going on here? What do I need to know?” Baijmadajie says, “I don’t know anything.” I went back to them, I said, “He doesn’t need to talk to you, because he has nothing to tell you.”

So Baijmadajie never had any conversations with any prosecutors or law enforcement officials?

Angwang: No.

Carman: Their bail-application letters hinted that there was something much more nefarious going on; it bordered on spying and espionage. And they threw all of this smoke around it.

The top crime you were charged with was being an unregistered foreign agent, and a few others like committing fraud by not reporting ties to the Chinese government on your military application.

Was there any time during these past few years where you, in your mid-30s with a wife and daughter, thought, “I might spend decades in prison”?

Angwang: No. I knew it was manufactured. So I knew maybe at the moment I am suffering, but —

You never thought there was any chance you would spend a long time in prison?

Angwang: No.

You were in Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center for almost six months. That’s a pretty notorious place. What was jail like?

Angwang: Because of COVID and because of my charges, I was pretty much in lockdown, solitary confinement.

I was only able to see John one time, for one hour. Otherwise, there were only court appearances and phone calls here and there for like 15 minutes.

Carman: In January 2021, he ends up getting COVID. We’re starting to get discovery from the government, we’re starting to get the transcripts. And I’m starting to see that there isn’t a whole lot of there there, as somebody might say.

Were there a lot of redactions?

Carman: No. They gave us draft transcripts of the conversations. But I didn’t have [access to] him yet. I had the transcripts. But I don’t know Mandarin.

So you didn’t feel that you were denied access to the evidence?

Carman: That’s such a big question in a case like this.

At that point, I didn’t really understand what I didn’t know. They gave us the case, which is the phone calls and the text messages between Angwang and PRC Official-2, but I can see from that, that whatever this is, this isn’t a 55-year case [the maximum prison term on the charges], it’s not a 25-year case, and it’s not a 15-year case.

On our fourth bail application, I say to the judge, “Your Honor, if he doesn’t get bail, and in two years, G-d forbid, you have to sentence him, and you decide that you want to give him six months because you think that’s what the appropriate sentence is, you’re not going to be able to do it [because he would have already been in jail for two years]. What are you going to do then?

Baijmadajie Angwang: I don’t know if you know the background of this whole thing: why we were charged, why they came after us, why they tried to make the press propaganda so big.

Trump ordered DOJ [Department of Justice] to start a law enforcement initiative called China Initiative. The initiative said it’s going after economic espionage and intellectual theft. The DOJ in Washington pressured the 94 field offices: Grab them, make the news.

This was a political persecution.

All the bad people you were supposed to go after are laughing at you right now, because you took the easy way out, you went after [me]. As described in an MIT paper, under the China Initiative, a lot of Chinese professors, anybody who has Chinese connections or has family members over there, gets framed as a spy but never gets spy charges.

When you were arrested and charged, how did your friends react? Did they support you? Did they stop talking to you?

Baijmadajie Angwang: From family, friends, Marine Corps, NYPD, co-workers and friends, we received a tremendous amount of support. Because any common-sense guy who reads the Complaint, or anybody who knows me, logically they see there are so many problems on the paper itself.

Even strangers across the country sent letters, phone calls, emails, cards.

Tibetans?

Baijmadajie Angwang: No, Americans. Anybody. Muslims, conservatives, liberals, country, city, you name it. Because they all saw this is wrong.

Did anyone say anything nasty to you?

Baijmadajie Angwang: Of course.

You can’t please everyone; everybody’s entitled to their opinion. That’s why I joined the military: to protect that right. Obviously, you have people that believe the government’s story. I had random strangers dump trash on my front lawn, spit on my front lawn.

Back to the [China Initiative]: That’s why we became the scapegoats of the political agenda. People talking about anti-Asian hate normally refer to street crimes. But actually, this anti-Asian hate has multiple layers, and exists in our government as well.

When a politician or government official speaks to the media every day, blaming “Chinese,” “Chinese,” “Chinese” — can you be 100% clear, what are you talking about? We became the scapegoats.

And this is very dangerous, because if the U.S. government is having a bad relationship with one country, that immigrant group in America become the sacrifices.

If tomorrow, somehow, we say Israel is bad, any person who has ties to Israel or has some kind of conversation with the Israeli Consulate, they could do the same thing to you that they did to me.

The U.S. government goes around the world to preach freedom of speech, human rights. But look at what they did to me.

Did anyone turn against you and then apologize after the charges were dropped?

Baijmadajie Angwang: Yes. I also had people who reached out to me saying, “I’m sorry, I didn’t support you enough at the beginning.” I even had people cry on the phone. I told them, “Please don’t cry, it’s not your fault. I understood your situation.”

The case was dismissed without prejudice. Do you have any fear that it might be brought again?

Carman: No. It’s done.

Did the prosecutors tell you anything else about why they dropped the case, beyond the brief official statement?

Carman: What I can tell you, and this goes to your question about the classified evidence aspect of the case: The Classified Information Procedures Act governs the way that evidence is assessed by the government, and how the court decides whether it is going to be made available to the defendant for use in his criminal trial. It’s a fascinating process, and it’s something you might think would exist in Russia, or China, in an authoritarian country, but it was my first exposure to it, especially at this level. I had some passing exposure to it a long time ago. But the whole idea is that the government has evidence, and they go to the judge without us present, and they say this is what we have [Ed. Carman holds his hands far apart], and this is what we think we should give them [Ed. Carman holds his holds very close to each other].

We don’t know what they have because we were never told.

I had to undergo a background check. I wasn’t allowed to view the evidence, but after a process that lasted a year, the government distilled a summary of that evidence into one piece of paper — whose contents I wasn’t allowed to share with Angwang. This was in August of 2022, just short of two years after he was arrested.

They presented that to me in the Special Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the Brooklyn courthouse, which is a dark room with really uncomfortable chairs. It’s in a safe, and I get to pull it out, and read it. And then I have a period of time to file a brief based upon what they show me, but I can’t share it with him because it addresses what’s in there.

The thing that I wrote in the brief that I can share is that I wrote to the judge, “Now that I’ve seen this, I can’t understand why they’re not moving to dismiss the case.” So in August of 2022, it was clear to me that they knew that the case had no merit. And we were scheduled for trial in October of that year.

As the trial approached — it was kicked to February — the government starting to make noise about it, and then they finally came out and said, “We just found more classified evidence, and we have to go through this process all over again.” And it’s an eight- to ten-month process where they analyze, brief, and present the evidence to the judge to say, we don’t want the defendant to use very much of this, or he can use these parts. So they adjourn the case to July of 2023. We were basically ramping up to do the trial this summer.

They were scheduled to file their brief on a Friday six weeks ago, but they hadn’t filed and I got a phone call from the lead prosecutor in the case. He told me that they had intended to file a motion to dismiss the case. I knew that they weren’t going to tell me the reason for it, because it had to do with classified evidence, and I wouldn’t be entitled to that information. And I also knew that when the judge scheduled a conference before, with all the news media present, that they weren’t going to give an explanation there. And even to this day…

No explanation?

Carman: They could have given an explanation that we did review all of the evidence and additional evidence, and we’ve concluded that he wasn’t guilty; we couldn’t have successfully prosecuted him.

Do you think this whole thing was an honest mistake by the prosecution? What do you think was going on here? Whether the government at large or the individual prosecutors, what do you think were their motivations?

John Carman: You know, Reuvain, the expression that comes to my mind is where a person stands depends upon where they sit. All six of these prosecutors — I don’t mean to suggest that they’re incompetent or inexperienced. These are very, very smart people, supervised by very smart people. You have, in the chain of command on this case, probably 20 federal prosecutors with hundreds of years of experience who are looking at the very same stuff that we’re looking at, and even a whole lot of other stuff, which really should have been informative to them. And based upon what we saw, they should have known a lot sooner. And we could tell, actually, because they started to ease up on his bail conditions. So, all throughout 2022, we were making requests to modify his curfew. And we didn’t get the ankle bracelet off until just before December of 2022.

What were the final conditions that the court eventually agreed to?

Carman: They agreed to $2 million bond — 13 people co-signed — three homes including his, electronic monitoring, home detention, and a curfew. They wouldn’t allow him into Manhattan for two years. The government was worried he might get to the Chinese Consulate and then do a WikiLeaks maneuver and hang out in the consulate for five years or get spirited back to China somehow.

Angwang: Initially, I could only leave my home for attorney visits and doctors’ appointments.

What about your NYPD job?

Angwang: I was suspended without pay for a year. Since then, I have been suspended with pay.

How did you get the pay back?

Carman: I reached out to the PBA [Police Benevolent Association] lawyers. The union was helpful in talking to the administration. And eventually we worked it out.

You’re trying to get your job back now; what can you tell us about your conversations with the NYPD?

Carman: We’re working on it. But right now, it’s a very slow process.

You never got that visa. When was the last time you’ve seen your family in Tibet?

Angwang: Nine years ago. They’ve never seen my daughter.

Going back to what you asked earlier: I believe they knew I’m not the guy since the beginning. That’s why they fought my bail so hard. It’s one of their tactics. Keep me in jail for two, three years, destroy me mentally, come back with a plea offer so they can win.

Carman: That’s very standard strategy in federal cases. You don’t really see it much in state cases. But in federal cases where the investigations go on, and they finally come to get you, it’s like, get this guy in jail on remand, no access to his attorney, [make it] difficult to prepare for trial. It generally induces people to take pleas.

What kind of pleas did they offer?

Carman: They offered him a Foreign Agent Registration Act plea which has a range of zero to 10 years and has no guideline in it. So the judge basically would throw a dart at the dartboard between zero and 10 years.

In November or December of 2022, around the time we were talking about going to trial and then it was getting adjourned, they asked me if he would take a plea just on the charge of making a false statement [i.e., representing on his military application for a security clearance that he had no contact with members of a foreign government]. It would be zero to six months in jail — which he had already served, so he wouldn’t go back to jail, but the case would be over. It would be a felony, and he’d lose his job.

Did you think that maybe you should take that deal?

Baijmadajie Angwang: No, because he explained to me that if you did something wrong, that’s a really good offer, but for my principle, I just can’t say yes for something I didn’t do.

Do you feel exonerated? Or do you feel that there’s some stain on your reputation that will be hard to get rid of?

Baijmadajie Angwang: Even let’s say I’m 100% exonerated, I can’t go back to the time that I lost — six months in jail, two years detention, reputation damage, family and friends’ stress.

But I don’t feel our government did what they’re supposed to do, because they owe me an explanation: Why did you start the investigation? Why did you end it?

I also have a question: If I was not an immigrant, if I didn’t look Asian, would this have this happened to me? I want to know. Is it because of my birth origin? Is it because of my race? Those are the questions that I want to find out, because in New York City, you have all the consulates here. Just for a person trying to get a visa, somehow, you frame him as a spy but bring no spy charges, you tell the public [that the maximum sentence is] 55 years, and in the end, you just drop it.

You have to have responsibility and accountability. How could you propagandize in this way without an explanation?

—

rborchardt@hamodia.com

This interview originally appeared in Hamodia’s Prime Magazine.