Even More Hot Water For Jane Harman? NYTimes Corroborates CQ Story

Boy, wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when Jane Harman runs into John Kerry after this choice bit from Jeff Stein:

According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.

Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program.

Kind of makes you wonder how that next Democratic caucus meeting in the House is going to go.  So far all’s quiet on the democratic front.  More interestingly, the GOP is as well.

Above and beyond questions of being a traitor to the nation by offering to give a hand to an accused spy by "waddling into" an ongoing criminal investigation in exchange for personal job favors?   Which Harman is testily denying at this point. 

Jeff Stein, however, says he has three separate sources who corroborate his piece. Having spent the last few years digging through any number of stories by a myriad of reporters, I have to say that Jeff is very careful in what he writes.  And having three sources with overlapping information?  Sounds pretty careful to me. 

Especially when Lewis & Mazzetti of NYTimes have confirmed with their own sources, who add some interesting details to the mix.  Including that Harman allegedly said she’d have more influence with an unnamed WH official.  And that the caller would have a big CA donor threaten to cut off funds to Nancy Pelosi if Harman didn’t get the intel chair. 

Note that the statement from Harman’s office fails to mention any WH or other official Bush/Cheney administration discussion, only a curt denial of DOJ contact:

Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former Aipac employees.

Curiouser and curiouser.

But Harman also stands accused of screwing over the entire Democratic party — and the country — by stifling the NSA domestic wiretapping story before the 2004 election.

Imagine what serious problems that stifled NSA story could have caused for the Bush/Cheney re-election bid.  Along with raising serious issues for GOP candidates who were rubber-stamping Bush Administration policies.

Wonder who would have asked Harman to intervene? Possibilities are endless.

Here’s the even more interesting part of the story, though:  yesterday, Bill Keller denied Harman had any role in persuading him to hold the NYTimes wiretapping story.  No mention of contact with Pinch.  Or not.  Curious.

In the Lewis & Mazzetti story this morning, Keller further clarifies that Harman DID contact Philip Taubman, then the Washington bureau chief for the Times at the request of Gen. Michael Hayden, to ask that the NSA wiretapping story not run.  This contact occurred in October or November of 2004. 

Why, that’s right before the election, isn’t it?  Funny how that dovetails into what Jeff Stein reported. 

But that raises even more questions for me. As does this "weak tea" denial from Keller:

“She did not speak to me,” Mr. Keller said, “and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision.”

Taking a page from the Alberto Gonzales school of "I don’t recall" covering all manner of sins, are we? Or does he really not recall? A bit wishy washy, isn’t it? 

Was it Harman or some unnamed WH official who led Gonzales to believe that Harman had significant NYTimes influence?  Did Gonzales tell Goss that Harman had helped out on the NSA story to keep Goss from pushing prosecution for her? Was that a lie on Gonzo’s part? Or had someone up the chain lied to him: Harman, herself, or someone else? Or did Goss have a faulty memory about this? 

Who is the mystery WH official over which Harman felt she had influence?  Or was that bluster?

Is this something wholly fabricated by sources who wanted to stab Harman in the back and, if so, why?  It sure doesn’t seem like it, but the "potential payback for what" question is especially intriguing, isn’t it?

Those are an awful lot of unanswered questions in a story that keeps getting juicier by the nugget, aren’t they?

Looking back, the whole "Harman to run Obama’s CIA" rumor is even more laughable, isn’t it?  But just imagine the joy had Harman been appointed at CIA and Kerry at State…holy hell in a handbasket, talk about dodging a bullet.

Jeff Stein has even more today, as do Laura Rozen and Glenn.


 
104 Responses to "Even More Hot Water For Jane Harman? NYTimes Corroborates CQ Story"
klynn | Tuesday April 21, 2009 05:59 am 1

I can only tie this together with one story that makes sense of all of this…a story that FOX killed irt 9-11… involving some moving guys and the telecom industry.

Harmon’s opposition to torture makes sense in a few senarios and they are not pretty ones. Especially if you overlay it with her AIPAC contact.


klynn | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:04 am 2
In response to klynn @ 1

As I think about it, Harmon’s letter makes sense in terms of her taking a stand against torture. Scratch my response at 1. Tried to edit, but the edit function is not working.

Need more coffee.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:04 am 3

If you read Laura Rozen’s piece, she connects a number of dots in that regard and points to the following making things even more curious in my mind:

“A former senior U.S. intelligence officer said he heard during work on the Hill in the 2004 time period of whispers among members of the intelligence committees and their staffs that Harman was allegedly caught up in some Israel-related case that would likely prevent her from getting the chairmanship of the committee she sought. He also said that it was clear that Goss and Harman (and their staffs) fiercely disliked each other.

But he wondered if the timing of this story was about changing the subject, from what Bush-era officials had authorized, to what the Congress was complicit in. “Is this about taking pressure off the revelations of waterboarding and the memos?” he speculated. “And the fact,” he added, “that no real intelligence came out of this whole effort?” referring to the enhanced interrogation/torture regime revealed in the memos, which he said produced no actionable intelligence.

(For his part, Stein said in an online chat Monday afternoon that he had had the story for a while, and only decided to move on it now.)

But the former intelligence official familiar with the matter noted that Goss has given only one on-the-record interview on these CIA controversies since leaving the CIA director job. In the December 2007 interview, he said that Congressional leaders including Representatives Pelosi and Harman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), had been briefed on CIA waterboarding back in 2002. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Goss told the Washington Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

Who was the lone person the article identified as objecting to the program?

Jane Harman.”


SouthernDragon | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:07 am 4

Mornin’, Christy, pups

OT – just heard on NPR headlines that Coleman filed appeal with MN supreme court this morning.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:09 am 5
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 3

And the other thing Rozen mentions which I think is really a key point: to get a FISA warrant that includes a member of Congress, leadership of the house in question has to have been notified. Meaning that Pelosi and Hastert, who would have been leading at the time, would have been notified here.

Which means that Pelosi would have known about this — and all that kabuki that Harman engaged in about wanting the Intel chair and subsequently the CIA leadership slot was likely something that Pelosi was just laughing her ass off about because she already knew it would not happen with this hanging out there.

ZOMG — the Shakespearian potential of just that little nugget when you think about it.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:09 am 6
In response to SouthernDragon @ 4

Yeah, heard he was going to do so last night. Ugh.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:11 am 7
In response to SouthernDragon @ 4

Yayyyyy! Progress! Now they can smack him down and we can get on with the world’s business. How they have tolerated that idiot so long is beyond me. I don’t have the patience.

Come’onnnnnnnnnnnnn Senator Franken!


Leen | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:13 am 8

always wondered what happenned to that investigation of Harmon. I was sure that when the recent information was released that they had wiretapped a congressperson that Harman was the target They should reopen the investigation of Harman that Gonzales closed down


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:14 am 9
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 6

Ugh, for sure, but isn’t it better news to have the process begin, rather than hang in limbo? Am I cheering prematurely? If that court gives their blessing to Coleman??? I shall take to my fainting couch. aaaaarrrrrrggghhhh!


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:17 am 10

Thanks for the good post on Harmon, Redd. I have a confession to make. I enjoy watching crooked liars who misuse their enormous power squirming uncomfortably in the glare of public scrutiny.

If that makes me a bad person, so be it. She EARNED it.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:18 am 11

oops. misspelled her name. poor thing.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:19 am 12
In response to Adie @ 10

I’d just love to know the whole of this one. Given how many open-ended questions are still hanging out there, you know there is a LOT more to be uncovered in this one. What a mess!


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:19 am 13
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

Yes, truly Shakesperian, rendered as Japanese opera, and none of us in the cheap seats have a program to follow this kabuki.

Certainly makes me want to look back at Denny Hastert’s last couple of years in office…ugh, dirty job, but I’ll bet there’s something there, too.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:21 am 14

indeed.

note to self: buy more popcorn today. ;->


bgrothus | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:23 am 15

GM Christy and all. I have started to wonder if it may be possible that Obama and Co. have issued all these statements WRT torture, etc. knowing that the Courts are not having it. After all this “talk” about no prosecutions, does this give them cover when the rabble begin to attack as prosecutions become inevitable?

It does seem as though they are genuine, but I am not convinced.


dmac | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:23 am 16

christy–gave you an update on another senator on the dawn johnsen thing.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:24 am 17
In response to Rayne @ 13

Certainly makes me want to look back at Denny Hastert’s last couple of years in office…ugh

You have strength beyond my wildest dreams.
Thank you for your service and stamina. ;->


ShotoJamf | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:25 am 18
In response to SouthernDragon @ 4

We can only hope that no Coleman groupies step up to pour good money after bad into his defense fund, and that he is finally stuck with massive legal bills that lead to his financial ruin. I, for one, would enjoy that scenario.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:26 am 19
In response to ShotoJamf @ 18

you have company ;->


barbara | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:27 am 20
In response to Adie @ 7

Franken has begun lining up staff for his years in the Senate. Now five years, eight months and counting down before he ever is seated in the Senate chamber. Norm Coleman is a carbuncle on the butt of humanity.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:27 am 21
In response to dmac @ 16

Thanks much — am planning to make some calls on that myself today. Really appreciate everyone’s efforts to make calls for Dawn to Senators. I heard from a couple of offices yesterday that had received quit a few calls. *g*


barbara | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:28 am 22
In response to ShotoJamf @ 18

Coleman groupies include the RNC and every bloated Republic org in the country. They are going to the mat for this stall.


dmac | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:29 am 23

good!


barbara | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:29 am 24

Sorry, Christy. I woke up off topic the morning.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:29 am 25
In response to ShotoJamf @ 18

I hate to pick on folks for their appearance, but does anyone else think that Franken looks more Senatorial every day, while Coleman more and more resembles a lump of badly shaped clay that was left in the kiln too long?


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:29 am 26
In response to Rayne @ 13

I’ve been wondering about some more of the backstory on this myself — and where I might dig for clues in the remnants. This whole thing is so bizarre, isn’t it?


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:30 am 27
In response to ShotoJamf @ 18

well, Norm has been doing some fundraising :D


perris | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:30 am 28

not only trying to cover up espionage to get this spy into government but abu torture is equally as guilty for allowing this accused criminal a walk into the halls of power and our national secrets

both of these people need to be prosecuted for that treachery


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:30 am 29
In response to barbara @ 20

my you do have a gift with the language *g*


barbara | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:31 am 30

RE Jane Harman, will this peculiar “don’t look back” stance of the Obama admin apply here, too? Because if it does, I think we should send all of them rear view mirrors and bumper stickers that say, “Must look back!!” There be vipers everywhere, it seems.


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:32 am 31
In response to Adie @ 17

Oh, don’t kid yourself, there will be plenty of barf bags handy as I Google through *ugh!* all things Hastert.

It’s not strength, just organization; the barf bags are conveniently in the desk drawer next to the anti-bullshit spray.

And the brain bleach, and the tequila…


OldCoastie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:32 am 32

as much as Harman gives me the creeps… I wonder, “well, did she contact the DOJ?” – if she didn’t, then is there a crime? If I sit on my couch and my buddy says, “come help me rob a bank – I’ll give you this candy bar if you.” and I think it’s a great idea… if we never get off the couch, did I commit a crime?

the timing of this really gives me pause.


perris | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:33 am 33
In response to bgrothus @ 15

GM Christy and all. I have started to wonder if it may be possible that Obama and Co. have issued all these statements WRT torture, etc. knowing that the Courts are not having it.

not possible in my mind, he is not spending progressive capitol playing some grand scheme


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:33 am 34
In response to barbara @ 30

I’m not certain it would even be up to Obama, in that there is also an ethics panel in the House that would have to look at this — for which, oddly, Porter Goss is involved in some capacity, so one would presume he’d have to recuse himself from this.

Just keeps churning out more and more questions of Village intrigue, doesn’t it?


bgrothus | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:34 am 35

oc, “conspiracy” covers a lot of ground.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:36 am 36
In response to OldCoastie @ 32

She apparently didn’t contact DOJ or FBI so far as anyone has come forward on it as yet. But did she contact someone at the WH — which has supervisory capacity over the DOJ, since it’s an executive branch agency? Dunno.

Was there some quid pro quo completed? Dunno.

I don’t like open-ended, serious questions that are far from answered by carefully worded and narrow denials. I’ve found through the years that if I have to parse something that carefully, then whatever I’m trying to balance between is likely a wee bit shark-infested somewhere.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:36 am 37

From 1st glance and continuing, it looks as if layers upon layers of side- and back-stories will need to be peeled away to figure out wtf went on. Meguess it t’was filthy mess and remains so.
Tread carefully, dear Redd.

Oh, and don’t forget to stop and smell the daffodils in your yard, and the pansies to come ;->


bgrothus | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:36 am 38

Obama is not too worried about spending progressive capital, I don’t think. He has shown in the past (FISA) that it is not his greatest concern. However, when a mere handshake with a not-to-be-named democratically elected leader gets him endless days of crap. So I wonder if this is stagecraft for that arena?


klynn | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:37 am 39
In response to Rayne @ 31

LOL!

Brave soul!

Well prepared.


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:38 am 40

Christy (26) [reply button seems to be fluky this morning] –

The hard part is timing; the longer we wait to poke around, the farther old content gets buried under new info.

The Stein piece may be well-sourced, but the timing is highly questionable, so arbitrary. It actually works against us because it pushes other content down in search engines.

Give it a shot, you’ll see what I mean; Google “hastert + harman + torture” as one example and look at what shows up in the first several pages of results. If you click on any of it, the older stuff goes even farther under as algorithms assume you want the fresh stuff.

Frustrating. I don’t even know if Lexis/Nexis would be of much help because of the overwhelming volume of content being generated right now. Unless you can think of a highly unique term to include in your query, it’s like digging for the proverbial needle in the haystack.

But dig we should.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:38 am 41
In response to Rayne @ 31

heh. we luv u for that. *g*

popcorn and tequilla, limes? anything else I can toss yer way?


oldnslow | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:39 am 42
In response to cbl2 @ 27

Good morning Christy, Cbl and pups. Thanks for the in depth Christy.


Crosstimbers | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:40 am 43
In response to bgrothus @ 15

Rachel Maddow seemed to suggest this last night with a fairly long segment to the effect that Eric Holder is saying, “not so fast.” It pointed out that decisions to investigate/prosecute fall to the AG, rather than the White House. The segement reminded me of Obama’s earlier statements emphasizing the independence of the AG.

I have no clue, but it would leave Obama relatively free to juggle all of balls related to the future, while allowing justice to take it’s course.


bgrothus | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:42 am 44

Obama has to keep the confidence of the CIA until he has a full grasp of who the team players are and who is playing for the former coach, etc.

This snake pit would not be a fun one.


barbara | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:42 am 45

More than 79 million visits to FDL, per site meter. This post is prime example of why that is so. Digg it, pups.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:43 am 46
In response to Rayne @ 40

seems to require repeated refresh, but “Reply” pops up here if I’m stubborn.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:43 am 47
In response to Crosstimbers @ 43

Which is exactly what an AG should say, btw — the potential prosecution of wrongdoing should not be directed out of the WH. DOJ has to make independent assessments on that, not political ones, based on facts, evidence and the law.


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:44 am 48
In response to Crosstimbers @ 43

Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:45 am 49

Good heavens, it’s dreary here this morning. Drizzling outside, and the birdies are fluffed out on the feeder trying to stay dry while they eat. Our radish and carrot seeds have sprouted along with a couple of sugar snap peas — much excitement for The Peanut this morning before school.


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:45 am 50
In response to oldnslow @ 42

how ya doin’ hotstuff ?


dmac | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:46 am 51
In response to barbara @ 45

‘digg’ has been placed in the ‘being punished’ corner.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/04…..g-content/


ART45 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:47 am 52

This story is a distraction.

The aim of releasing it now is to distract everyone’s attention from the torture memos and Obama’s stated intention not to prosecute, which has created a firestorm.

We the American people are being had.

Once the firestorm dies down, the shiny object will be withdrawn, the Treasury will have been thoroughly looted, shrub will be enjoying some Jack Daniels, and we’ll be left scratching our heads, saying, “WTF.”

Don’t fall for the ploy.

Oh, and by the way, urge Harmon’s constituents to give her the boot.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:48 am 53

Our radish and carrot seeds have sprouted along with a couple of sugar snap peas — much excitement for The Peanut this morning before school.

Isn’t it fun to view a-fresh through her eyes?! Enjoy. And it only gets better, mom ;->


sadlyyes | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:48 am 54

Jeff Stein does the work of Redford and Hoffman…(All the Presidents Men)..G


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:49 am 55
In response to ART45 @ 52

Did you hear someone say we can’t talk & chew gum simultaneously?

Not to worry, grasshopper. ;->


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:51 am 56
In response to Rayne @ 40

highly unique term

howz ’bout: “this conversation never happened” ??
/s


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:51 am 57
In response to cbl2 @ 56

YES! That’s a keeper. heh.


SusaninIowa | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:53 am 58

An analysis of this from the point of view that some leakers are out to get Harman can be read here , found through this diary at Daily Kos. His thesis is that the original story could have been payback from Porter Goss’ staff for a report Harman released that accused them of looking the other way while Duke Cunningham did what he did, and the leaks now may be an effort to influence the trial of the two former AIPAC staffers.

All pretty convoluted.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:53 am 59
In response to cbl2 @ 56

That was my favorite line of the whole alleged conversation, I have to say. If the call was being taped — and you had to think even a stupid person might think it would be given that the person on the other end of the phone has been identified in public news articles as a suspected spy, right? — how in the hell could any thinking human being say that?

Why not send a potential jury a telegram saying “I’m having guilty feelings about my conduct. See this flashing red flag.” Jeebus, the stupid, it burns.


Crosstimbers | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:54 am 60

I guess some of us are just slower on the uptake. If I were confident those dots connected, I probably would have been at the local tea party.


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:55 am 61
In response to SusaninIowa @ 58

Except for the fact that Jeff is the sort of reporter who would mention that conflict in his story if a source appeared to have one. From the initial read, it seemed as though he was dealing with law enforcement folks who were pissed at justice being stifled for Village sanctity — but maybe that was just my prejudices seeping into the read. Anyone else get that feel, too?


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:56 am 62
In response to Crosstimbers @ 60

pluck out the bad apple. savor the rest.


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:57 am 63

I had a different thought when I read that, “this conversation never happened.”

A very confident person fully aware of a tap might say that, too.

Not ready to believe members of Congress weren’t aware they were being wiretapped or monitored for the last eight years.

Not when Jello Jay resorts to handwritten notes delivered directly to the addressees.


barbara | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:59 am 64

Am I remembering correctly (and please be kind if I’m not) that Jane Harman’s name was among those early mentioned for a cabinet position and/or maybe even VP pick? Whatever. The Republics are laughing their asses off again. They love messing with our minds. And they’re mighty good at it.


Prairie Sunshine | Tuesday April 21, 2009 06:59 am 65

So much source material for the Daniel Baldaccis and Dan Browns, so little time….


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:00 am 66

at 1st blush of wild guess, it seems to have more substance than just petty payback, but i’m flying blind, behind the rest of the flock on this one.

fascinating, titillating possibilities tickle the mind, though, eh?


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:00 am 67

suspect I wasn’t alone when my first response to that was: Congresswoman, put down the Tom Clancy !

Admiral James Greer: Now, understand, Commander, that torpedo did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull. And I…
[showing him his identification]
Admiral James Greer: … was never here


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:00 am 68
In response to Rayne @ 63

True, that — and Rockefeller also has appeared to worry about having been tapped at one point or another in at least one interview that I can recall. And he’s not the only one.

Gee, I wonder why the Church Committee was so adamant in their recommendations against unfettered domestic spying without third party oversight. *g*


perris | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:00 am 69
In response to Rayne @ 63

A very confident person fully aware of a tap might say that, too.

I don’t think so, if you know a tap is going on you find something differant to obscure your intention

something like;

“I need to take this under advisement to see underlying implications”

that’s a pretty good disclaimer if you realize your being tapped too late


dmac | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:01 am 70
In response to ART45 @ 52

so, keep the phone calls going then.
the first half of the wh daily press conference yesterday was about torture, i don’t thnnk it’s goin ganywhere.a large segment of obama’s speech to the cia yesterday, i don’t think it’s going anywhere…every channel had it on.,.i’m more concerned that the harmon/gonzales/a!pac conspiracy to commit treason isn’t getting enough attention in the right way. and removing obstructions on the road to getting dawn johnsen in at the OLC is vital right now for all of these issues.

demi posted this the other day–katymine’s list for congressional switchboard
1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 459 – 1887
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437


klynn | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:02 am 71

Christy,

Did you see my links over at EW’s about Rosen suing AIPAC? It was filed last month. There is a quote in the filing that is interesting. I was surprised to read the quote.

I would add that to your stack of research, along with Harmon’s husband’s company being under investigation irt Abramoff.


Crosstimbers | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:05 am 72
In response to Adie @ 62

Sorry, I had meant that in reply to ART45 @52. I actually do as you say.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:05 am 73
In response to cbl2 @ 67

speaking of which…

interesting how teh clancy hisownself came out to puff and preen during the IQ blastaway party, then yanked off camera to unknown location when things turned sour after that “accomplished” do-hickey. Haven’t seen the bloke since.


TheraP | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:06 am 74
In response to ART45 @ 52

This story is NOT a distraction in my view. Look at the larger picture. It is part of unitary executive – a near dictatorship. It is part of an effort to control an important resource, oil, through subjecting a country that never attacked us to occupation, while spying on our own citizens, controlling the levers of power through that same means via blackmail and other crimes, and torturing for information to be used to further the near-dictatorship.

No, this is not a distraction. This points to the heart of what is happening, right now, between the AG and his president. Gonzo did bush’s bidding – and entered into a Faustian bargain with a legislator via blackmail – using this legislator to influence a major publication to withhold information about the degree to which We the People were being spied on. Someone caught through spying was blackmailed into hiding other spying. Someone of political stature was blackmailed into manipulating the news, into abrogation of We the People’s right to a free press.

bushco thereby controlled the executive, the judiciary, the legislature, and the press.

That is what is at stake here! And it directly relates to the current events surrounding the exposure of secret documents and the pursuit of justice against high crimes by elected and appointed officials – who violated their oaths to the Constitution, broke the law, undermined our safety and security, destroyed the personalities of helpless prisoners, and shamed us before the world.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:06 am 75
In response to Crosstimbers @ 72

;->


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:08 am 76
In response to Prairie Sunshine @ 65

left you Saberi ‘update’ at your place ’bout 5 min ago. encouraging ?


klynn | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:09 am 77

Here’s the link to my comment with the links.


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:09 am 78
In response to perris @ 69

What if you expect to use the content of the tap yourself?

What Harman didn’t know was that the NSA was tapping her under a warrant. But we cannot rule out that she knew she was being tapped by others for other purposes.

Christy — there was a dust-up in 2006 which the right-wing blew up into a major manure storm; we didn’t pay a lot of attention to it, perhaps because it smelled like the usual load of fertilizer.

Remember Harman’s staffer Larry Hanauer was suspended?

This might be another place to poke around. Hanauer has a rather interesting CV.


Watt4Bob | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:10 am 79

the stupid, it burns

The very definition of ‘Dupe’.

Or maybe Congress people have a list of spys with whom they allowed to collude?


klynn | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:10 am 80
In response to klynn @ 77

That 77 was for you Christy.


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:10 am 81

Luvs yer company Pups, but gotta go shred ancient diddly little details in our own house. Harman can take care of herself, or not, for all I care. Teh truth WILL come out. I decree it. fwiw.


Phoenix Woman | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:15 am 82
In response to Adie @ 9

Trust me, the Minnesota Supreme Court will not give its blessing to Coleman. The Election Contest Court took great pains to make this sucker bombproof.


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:15 am 83
In response to ART45 @ 52

the story failed to meet the basic criteria for shiny object-ness:

whole lotta TradMed crickets chirpin on it yesterday. including FNC. – Drudge didn’t touch it until this morning- and then just a link 4 headlines down with none of his usual mischief to accompany it


Muzzy | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:19 am 84

From the initial read, it seemed as though he was dealing with law enforcement folks who were pissed at justice being stifled for Village sanctity — but maybe that was just my prejudices seeping into the read. Anyone else get that feel, too?

Yes. We’ve got an awful lot of non-political govt employees who have been stomped on by politicians. This story envelops both sides of the political aisle for their critical action and inaction in an atmosphere that has run amok.


Waccamaw | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:20 am 85
In response to cbl2 @ 83

Drudge didn’t touch it until this morning- and then just a link 4 headlines down with none of his usual mischief to accompany it

Interesting observation, that. Very interesting. If drudge steers away, it ain’t good for the thugs.


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:22 am 86
In response to cbl2 @ 83

Yeah, that is rather puzzling, isn’t it? Dead polo ponies and Craigslist killer sucked up all the oxygen during this morning’s news programs.

Little to nothing about the Harman sitch.


cbl2 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:31 am 87
In response to Rayne @ 86

suspect it’s the AIPAC angle


Leen | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:50 am 88

If it has all ready been determined that Jane Harman “completed the crime” and Gonzales closed down the investigation. Will it be re-opened or will they begin prosecuting Harman ? Or is she ABOVE THE LAW too?

Deeply discouraged by not only Obama’s announcement that those who conducted the torture will not be investigated or prosecuted but that those who rewrote the torture laws will not be prosecuted. So Obama is a LIAR when he says that “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW” Clearly when he makes this statement it is horseshit.

I ask again at what point did holding people accountable for serious crimes start being defined as “retribution, vengeance, witch hunts, the blame game”. Hearing Rahm Emmanuel repeat Obama’s “retribution” horseshit line was infuriating. MOVE ON they say when it comes to holding these people accountable. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW ONLY APPLIES TO THE PEASANTS

I thought there was allegedly some wiretapping ((Mega” or someone on the inside that they were allegedly looking for) started way back during Clinton’s administration?


Leen | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:52 am 89

Folks Cheney’s interview on Faux News last night is a must. Some heavy breathing going on. Thought he was about to have a cardiac arrest on the program

Cheney Releast all CIA Memos
Watch the video of Cheney
http://www.foxnews.com/


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 07:54 am 90
In response to cbl2 @ 87

drational has a rec listed diary about a horse head in a bed — but I think the horse head is in the wrong bed.

As always, cui bono?


Adie | Tuesday April 21, 2009 08:32 am 91
In response to Phoenix Woman @ 82

Just checking back. Careful PW! You’re gonna make me swoon into the shredder. And my honey’s painting wall dings. This could get ugly. heh.

Seriously, your prediction on the supremes improves my mood considerably.
I figured as much, but it’s nice to have your assurances also. ;->


MrWhy | Tuesday April 21, 2009 08:43 am 92
In response to OldCoastie @ 32

Conspiracy doesn’t mean the act has to be performed. Just ask all the johns arrested for soliciting a prostitute.


earlofhuntingdon | Tuesday April 21, 2009 08:45 am 93

So much for yesterday’s official denial from the Times’ editor that Harman did not help spike the Times’ disclosure for a year.


MrWhy | Tuesday April 21, 2009 08:56 am 94
In response to dmac @ 51

Amit Agarwal explains how to disable the DiggBar from your browser. The settings page version didn’t work for me (Firefox 3.0.8), but this one did:

hover your mouse between the “close” button and the feedback button on the Digg toolbar. Click the drop-down arrow and select “Always hide the toolbar”.


cinnamonape | Tuesday April 21, 2009 08:57 am 95

“Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former Aipac employees.”

Ooookayyy! Perhaps the DOJ (i.e. AG AG) contacted Congresswoman Harmon first? :-)


cinnamonape | Tuesday April 21, 2009 08:59 am 96
In response to Rayne @ 40

There are search options that allows one to find material between specified dates or before (or after) other dates.


mui1 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 09:00 am 97
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 3

But the former intelligence official familiar with the matter noted that Goss has given only one on-the-record interview on these CIA controversies since leaving the CIA director job. In the December 2007 interview, he said that Congressional leaders including Representatives Pelosi and Harman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), had been briefed on CIA waterboarding back in 2002. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Goss told the Washington Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

Who was the lone person the article identified as objecting to the program?

Jane Harman.”

Interesting. Jane Harman objected to waterboarding. And now the 183 x waterboarding story. And now Jane Harman and alleged AIPAC.
I somehow considered Jane Harman republikanlite and Nancy Pelosi well . . .


mui1 | Tuesday April 21, 2009 09:10 am 98
In response to mui1 @ 97

But then again, that is what Goss says?


Rayne | Tuesday April 21, 2009 09:48 am 99
In response to cinnamonape @ 96

There are, but using data parameters for archival search often strips out other content which may provide analysis of events long after they happen. Been doing this for years now as a consultant, and there’s simply not a perfect search methodology without using a lot of human-based fuzzy logic. (Just look at all the analysis happening NOW based on activities which happened in 2005-2006…there must have been something well after this info about Harman first emerged.)

Hoping Wolfram’s new Alpha Search will soon provide some better competing options…


greenwarrior | Tuesday April 21, 2009 01:14 pm 100
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 5

FYI…..From Stein’s article that you link to in the beginning of your article above:

“Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing.” Apparently once Gonzalez squashed the investigation, the wheels stopped turning. Stein talks about this after he talks about Gonzalez squashing.


burqa | Tuesday April 21, 2009 02:47 pm 101

She apparently didn’t contact DOJ or FBI so far as anyone has come forward on it as yet. But did she contact someone at the WH — which has supervisory capacity over the DOJ, since it’s an executive branch agency? Dunno.

Was there some quid pro quo completed? Dunno.

I don’t like open-ended, serious questions that are far from answered by carefully worded and narrow denials. I’ve found through the years that if I have to parse something that carefully, then whatever I’m trying to balance between is likely a wee bit shark-infested somewhere.

Those are some mighty big Dunnos, there.
Convicting someone on speculation of that sort is the kind of violation of American values we see protested so vehemently elsewhere, besides this issue.

From the OP:

Above and beyond questions of being a traitor to the nation by offering to give a hand to an accused spy by “waddling into” an ongoing criminal investigation in exchange for personal job favors?

We really should be careful about using a word like “traitor” so loosely. Some words, like “holocaust” need to be carefully used lest they be drained of their meaning and “traitor” is one of them, in my view.
Even if Harmon did what is alleged, it doesn’t make her a “traitor.”

But Harman also stands accused of screwing over the entire Democratic party — and the country — by stifling the NSA domestic wiretapping story before the 2004 election.

This, I agree with.
There are too many ifs and maybes to this story so far to be drawing conclusions just yet.
It seems Harmon’s party would have gained much had the story come out then and been enough to get Kerry elected, and Harmon by extension would have gained much as well, particularly if she let it be known she had been asked to try to spike the story.
So there are parts of the allegation which are not quite adding up.
So let’s wait before concluding all the speculation is spot on….


RevBev | Tuesday April 21, 2009 03:29 pm 102
In response to burqa @ 101

This is quite late, but NPR interview Harmon this afternoon. She was outraged and strident. She couldn’t remember anything about any such conversation, so she wants to see a transcript…and the whole thing may be illegal. She added that those Congress folks talk to a lot of people…


Leen | Wednesday April 22, 2009 06:15 am 103
In response to klynn @ 1

Have been posting this four part series all over the blogosphere for five years. Great to have others posting it


Leen | Wednesday April 22, 2009 06:17 am 104
In response to cinnamonape @ 95

She just contacted Haim Saban etc and asked him to contact the DOJ


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close