Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC

Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC

MONDAY APRIL 20, 2009 07:35 EDT
Glenn Greenwald

I wanted to highlight this extremely important and well-reported story from CQ's Jeff Stein, which involves allegations of major corruption and serious criminal activity on the part of Democratic Rep. Jane Harman. Here's one crucial prong of the story:

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.
Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.
Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

That's not even the most significant part. Back in October, 2006, Time reported that the DOJ and FBI were investigating whether Harman and AIPAC "violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee" and "the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation." So that part has been known since 2006.
Stein adds today that Harman was captured on an NSA wiretap conspiring with an Israeli agent to apply pressure on DOJ officials to scale back the AIPAC prosecution. But the real crux of Stein's scoop is that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonazles intervened to kill the criminal investigation into Harman -- even though DOJ lawyers had concluded that she committed crimes -- because top Bush officials wanted Harman's credibility to be preserved so that she could publicly defend the Bush administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program:

[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to break in The New York Times and engulf the White House. . . .
Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said. . . .
Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department’s FISA application. . . . Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman’s rank as the panel’s top Democrat.
But that’s when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened.
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
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”
And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.

Indeed, as I've noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" to repeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," and that the whistleblowers were "despicable." And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.
Stein's entire story should be read. It's a model of excellent reporting, as it relies on numerous sources with first-hand knowledge of the NSA transcripts (and what sweet justice it would be if Harman's guilt were established by government eavesdropping). It should be noted that Harman has issued a general denial of wrongdoing (but does not appear to deny that she had the discussion Stein reports), and the sources in Stein's story are anonymous (though because they're disclosing classified information and exposing government wrongdoing, it's a classic case of when anonymity is justifiable; and note Stein's efforts to provide as much information as possible about his sources and why they are anonymous).
There are many questions that the story raises -- Josh Marshall notes just some of those vital questions here -- and Harman's guilt therefore shouldn't be assumed. But obviously, given all the very serious issues this story raises -- involving what seem to be credible allegations of very serious wrongdoing by a key member of Congress, the former Attorney General and one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country -- full-scale investigations are needed, to put it mildly.

LINK

Sounds like lots of fish might get caught in that net....both sides can blush.

I'm all for reopening that investigation. A lot of questions there.

Even if greymail thwarts discovery in the prosecution of Rosen and Weissman, the FBI investigation may proceed on a different track, presenting similar challenges to the US/Israel special relationship.

One thing DC and all politicians hate is transparency.

After 8 years of abuses, lies, and crimes, lack any accountability, dubya, dickhead and their fellow-travellers have produced "outrage fatigue".

Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ Spitzer may have been one of the last effective crusaders willing to take on such cases. The Repugs and Wall Street taking Spitzer down preempts any other crusaders stepping up. All the balless assholes will keep their heads down, knowing their careers will be destroyed if they try to take on the establishment.

eg, nobody has really taken on the banker and financial sector for screwing the world's economy.

Let Freedom and Democracy Reign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

After 8 years of abuses, lies, and crimes, lack any accountability, dubya, dickhead and their fellow-travellers have produced "outrage fatigue".

---

Could be. Sure looks like it.

Quote:

---

Spitzer may have been one of the last effective crusaders willing to take on such cases. The Repugs and Wall Street taking Spitzer down preempts any other crusaders stepping up. All the balless assholes will keep their heads down, knowing their careers will be destroyed if they try to take on the establishment.

---

Probably a safe bet, but democracy is messy. One way for intelligence bureaus to recoup credibility is to reveal official corruption, but this can be dangerous for both the investigator and the public mood.

Quote:

---

eg, nobody has really taken on the banker and financial sector for screwing the world's economy.

---

Yeah, I'm still waiting for our government to start to manage what it already owns, but I'm not holding my breath.

The socialists and fascists in power are appparently cowed by the banks, and refuse to take them over. Maybe they're waiting for the first big domino to fall over all on its own, without any help. Maybe they lack the technical capacity to take over the likes of AIG or Citi. Maybe the day of default really can be postponed by contining to dance around it.

After all, you're not really bankrupt unless your creditors know it too.

Problem is, the lack of financial transparency necessary to maintain the illusion that our banking sector is healthy, undermines trust in the market and makes risk unpriceable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Yeah, I'm still waiting for our government to start to manage what it already owns, but I'm not holding my breath.

---

True. It's not as though the federal gov't was not culpable in this instance.

Quote:

---

The socialists and fascists in power are appparently cowed by the banks, and refuse to take them over. Maybe they're waiting for the first big domino to fall over all on its own, without any help.

---

Could be. Still, Goldman's ass gets in a jam and suddenly Congress faces a request for a $700 billion blank check to be filled out by its former Chairman and CEO.

Quote:

---

Maybe they lack the technical capacity to take over the likes of AIG or Citi. Maybe the day of default really can be postponed by contining to dance around it.

After all, you're not really bankrupt unless your creditors know it too.

---

Most likely, both. Is Geithner's staff at least official now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Most likely, both. Is Geithner's staff at least official now?

---

I don't know, but I would guess not. Candidates keep withdrawing, and advice and consent is far from being a rubber stamp.

It used to be fashionable to say that the President is *entitled to have his nominees*. Unfortunately, Obama's pattern of failure to present adequately vetted candidates has aroused the Senate's vigilance. It will be slow going.

"The socialists and fascists in power are appparently cowed by the banks"

no, they are OWNED/CAPTURED by banks and financial sector, the single sector that contributed the most Congressmen since the mid-90s. Is how they "bought" the destruction of Glass-Steagal, and made illegal any regulation of derivatives and CDS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I don't know, but I would guess not. Candidates keep withdrawing, and advice and consent is far from being a rubber stamp.

It used to be fashionable to say that the President is *entitled to have his nominees*. Unfortunately, Obama's pattern of failure to present adequately vetted candidates has aroused the Senate's vigilance. It will be slow going.

---

One can imagine that it might be somewhat difficult attracting the best talent for those spots given the personal scrutiny from the Congress and the press, not to mention the relatively low remuneration.

Then again, has this country benefited from the revolving door between Wall Street and DC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

no, they are OWNED/CAPTURED by banks and financial sector, the single sector that contributed the most Congressmen since the mid-90s. Is how they "bought" the destruction of Glass-Steagal, and made illegal any regulation of derivatives and CDS.

---

There's very little doubt the interests of finance and banking have been overrepresented in policy, and that this influence has been at its greatest in the last 25 years or so. You seem to construe this as proof of an already existing oligarchy.

I disagree. I see the bailout of the shadow banking system as being the crucial transfer of wealth and power to financial institutions, as well as being our definitive transition to oligarchy, directly and without further mediation.

The US is taking liens out on our collective future prosperity and giving it to the banks.

Let's send them all to jail!

We all know warrantless wiretaps were never abused... :rolleyes
You can see why Dems were quick to sign off on the immunity for telecoms. You have to wonder what else you could find by digging on that shit.

If discovery happens, the al Haramain lawyers may gain standing for their suit. There are odd little threads poking out here and there in the ongoing legal striptease.

Once you start pulling the threads though, you run the risk of seeing the truth bare: an unfortunate occurrance all decent people meekly seek to avoid.

Winehole

The current robbery of US Treasury by Tim Goldman Geithner, and Hank Goldman Paulsen earlier, to save the bankers, maybe some banks (but no bank nationalization which nearly all economists agree is the real solution, aka like RTC and Sweden), without saving the taxpayers' real economy as distant 3rd, are ABSOLUTE PROOF that the kleptocratic oligarchy is in full operation, and has been going back to robber barons, and was institutionalized as the secretive capitalists' club (we don't know who the members are) aka The Federal Reserve.

Goldman Paulsen paid off/bailed out AIG, who then paid off $13B to Paulsen's Goldman, the single biggest payout by AIG. The main reason Paulsen saved AIG while letting Goldman competitor Lehman die.

etc, etc, etc.

btw, had McLiar and pitbull bitch won, TARP, etc, would be EXACTLY the same as under The Magik Negro.

Offensive and succinct, like your namesake. Bravo!

I guess where you and I differ is that you think a clubby cabal was already running the show; I think one soon will be.

She is going down.

Did everyone miss the obvious?

We have a leak of what was said by someone committing an illegal act. Telling us secret information. On top of that, phrases with no full quotes in context.

Now this may or may not be as the article frames it. However, if she was already under investigation, it is less likely the terrorist surveillance part of tha patriot act that caught the conversation, but measures already in place.

I see this as an attempt to undermine legal activity. You should all keep an open mind to all possibilities, includiong a fabricated story.

Can we all say UNNAMED SOURCES...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Let's send them all to jail!

---

Not enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see this as an attempt to undermine legal activity. You should all keep an open mind to all possibilities, includiong a fabricated story.

---

I don't think anyone has really jumped to conclusions here (seriously anyway). There seems to be enough smoke to justify investigating whether there is/was a fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I don't think anyone has really jumped to conclusions here. There seems to be enough smoke to justify investigating whether there is/was a fire.

---

If that's true, then we can assume there really is a security leak, and that mofo needs to be jailed as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see this as an attempt to undermine legal activity. You should all keep an open mind to all possibilities, includiong a fabricated story.

Can we all say UNNAMED SOURCES...

---

I think you missed the point entirely. Youre choosing to protect criminals only because they hold office. Fuck the sources. Look at what and who it implicates.

Then try and tie the loose ends together and kick some tires. Joe Public has always assumed power was buyable, that political office had little to do with acumen or idealism and our leaders are robbing us blind in someone else's interest.

Leaks like this only confirm it. Some of our most important foreign policies are crafted on the back of the Intelligence Committee....and to think its power and influence was a commodity that could be traded by a foreign lobbyist group is sickening even for a jaded prick like myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If that's true, then we can assume there really is a security leak, and that mofo needs to be jailed as well.

---

Eh, there are all kinds of reasons for leaks. The legal case may have been stalled or maybe even on the way to being quashed. Leaking some details ensures it won't easily go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

I think you missed the point entirely. Youre choosing to protect criminals only because they hold office. Fuck the sources. Look at what and who it implicates.

---

Who it implicates depends on the spin of the known shaky facts. It is not my intent at all to protect criminals. If what is reported is true, throw the bitch in jail. Remember, to tap her phone, we already had cause to investigate her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Then try and tie the loose ends together and kick some tires. Joe Public has always assumed power was buyable, that political office had little to do with acumen or idealism and our leaders are robbing us blind in someone else's interest.

---

This is true, and one reason why I support an element from the Articles of Confederation. It states:

Quote:

---

no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

---

It isn't term limits, but in this case prevents consecutive terms. That would help putting a stop on people gaining personal power in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Leaks like this only confirm it. Some of our most important foreign policies are crafted on the back of the Intelligence Committee....and to think its power and influence was a commodity that could be traded by a foreign lobbyist group is sickening even for a jaded prick like myself.

---

I agree, but you still don't report leaks, without really knowing the facts for certain. Now I would say this is unlikely, but what if she was working on the inside to find others. We now have a blown investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Eh, there are all kinds of reasons for leaks. The legal case may have been stalled or maybe even on the way to being quashed. Leaking some details ensures it won't easily go away.

---

Are you in personal knowledge of what the leaker knows?

What if it's a 100% fabrication?

UNNAMMED SOURCE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you in personal knowledge of what the leaker knows?

---

If what he said was true, I am now.

Quote:

---

What if it's a 100% fabrication?

---

Then nothing is going to happen.

Quote:

---

UNNAMMED SOURCE!

---

No shit. Deep Throat was unnamed as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Who it implicates depends on the spin of the known shaky facts. It is not my intent at all to protect criminals. If what is reported is true, throw the bitch in jail. Remember, to tap her phone, we already had cause to investigate her.

---

I'm not sure it was her phone that was being tapped.

Quote:

---

I agree, but you still don't report leaks, without really knowing the facts for certain. Now I would say this is unlikely, but what if she was working on the inside to find others. We now have a blown investigation.

---

I am sure whoever was in a position to leak this information was better qualified than you to make that determination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I am sure whoever was in a position to leak this information was better qualified than you to make that determination.

---

I thought that was WC's line.

He was always apologizing for the government until a few months ago. Hell, he still does sometimes. I don't think he's quite shaken the habit, despite his insane antipathy for Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I thought that was WC's line.

He was always apologizing for the government until a few months ago. Hell, he still does sometimes. I don't think he's quite shaken the habit, despite his insane antipathy for Obama.

---

I just try not to jump to conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I thought that was WC's line.

He was always apologizing for the government until a few months ago. Hell, he still does sometimes. I don't think he's quite shaken the habit, despite his insane antipathy for Obama.

---

:lol

Like I said, I can't divine the leakers' motivations. If the blackmail story is true, Harman and her contacts already knew about the wiretaps long ago.

I think all the article is pointing at, is that there should be a serious investigation in the matter. Unnamed sources or not. The NSA wiretaps were originally reported by the New York Times using unnamed sources, and they ended up being confirmed by the government. So, let's launch an investigation. If this is hubris, then nothing will be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

UNNAMMED SOURCE!

---

blago?

Update on this story...

U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON – The Obama Justice Department moved Friday to drop all charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists who had been charged under the Espionage Act with improperly disseminating sensitive information.

The move by the government came in a motion filed with the federal court in Alexandria, Va. which was to be the site of the trial that was scheduled to begin June 2.

The prosecution’s case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman suffered several setbacks in rulings from the trial judge. At the same time, the case was fraught with deep political dimensions, as it raised delicate issue of behind-the-scenes lobbying over Middle East policy and the role played by American Jewish supporters of Israel.

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, who were lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a leading pro-Israel lobby, were charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act. The indictment said they violated the law by disseminating to journalists, fellow Aipac employees and Israeli diplomats information they had learned in conversations with senior Bush administration officials.

Judge T.S. Ellis 3d, who was to preside over the trial rejected several government efforts to conceal classified information if the case went to trial. Moreover, he ruled that the government could only prevail if it met a high standard; he said prosecutors would have to demonstrate that Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman knew that their distribution of the information would harm U.S. national security.

Over government objections, Judge Ellis said that the defense could call as witnesses several senior Bush administration foreign policy officials to demonstrate that what occurred was part of the ongoing process of information trading and did not involve anything nefarious. The defense lawyers were to call as witnesses Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, Stephen J. Hadley, the former national security advisers and several others. Government policymakers indicated they were clearly uncomfortable with senior officials testifying in open court over policy deliberations.

The government’s motion to dismiss filed before Judge Ellis cited some of these reasons. The motion, filed by the acting prosecutor in Alexandria, Va. and not by any senior Obama Justice Department official, said that before proceeding with the case the government was obliged to consider “the likelihood that classified information will be revealed at trial, any damage to the national security that might result from a disclosure of classified information and the likelihood the government would prevail at trial.”

Noting that the prosecutors disagreed with some of Judge Ellis’s ruling, the motion said that, “the landscape of this case has changed significantly since it was first brought.”

The motion said that, “We have re-evaluated the case based on the present context and circumstances and determined that it is in the public interest to dismiss the pending superseding indictment.”

The investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman also surfaced recently in news reports that Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence matters, was overheard on a government wiretap discussing the case. Ms. Harman was overheard agreeing with an Israeli intelligence operative to try and intercede with Bush administration officials to obtain leniency for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman in exchange for help in persuading Democratic leaders to name her the chairman of the House intelligence Committee.

Ms. Harman has denied interceding for the Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman and objected to her being wiretapped.

LINK

Boy, that's a surprise.

For anyone that's interested, the daily show had an hilarious segment about this a few days ago.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...nt-not-at-work