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….

“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.

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

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 . . .

“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? :-)