Posted on 04/21/2009 3:34:20 AM PDT by FromLori
Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC [updated below - Update II (Interview w/Jeff Stein)] Other obligations prevent me from writing until later today -- and I intend to focus on Rahm Emanuel's war-crimes-protecting proclamation that Obama's desire for immunity extends beyond CIA officers perpetrating torture to the "policy makers" who ordered it (watch today as the hardest-core Obama loyalists start explaining how the UN doesn't matter, international treaties are irrelevant, and war criminals need not be held accountable) -- but, until then, 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
ping
The expression drives me nuts also.
Great chart! This is one of my pet peeves, too. As with “irregardless,” it doesn’t really make sense when broken down. Even my immigrant relatives from China have finally picked up on these two items and started politely correcting their American-born co-workers.
I think Doc Savage’s ire above was misdirected but I could be wrong.
Thanks for the heads up on the book. I’ll check out the library today...
I've actually had people look at me funny when I say "I couldn't care less". It always makes me chuckle. People use "could" because it's used everywhere by everyone. They simply don't give time to the meaning. It's become an accepted phrase, unfortunately.
We don't actually have proof this happened, and it is the basis for the entire story.
Harmon denies it. Of course, she would deny it. Except that if the transcripts actually exist, you would think that rather than denying she said something that is on tape, she would instead have given an explanation for why what she said doesn't mean what they say.
But all we have is a reporter's word about two anonymous former NSA employees who claim they read the transcript.
Now, if this transcript was classified, as it should have been, it seems there should be a record of who at the NSA read the transcript, so it should be easy to find out who is leaking classified information.
So the first question is, why isn't there an outcry to find out who is leaking classified information, like there was about "Valerie Plame". Second, why leak the information ABOUT the transcript, rather than leaking the actual transcript?
Note that the entire story is a setup just to get to another "scandal", the claim (by these same two sources?) that Gonzales used this tape to blackmail a congresswoman.
If it is the same two sources, how would they know what is happening in the FBI? They would have been NSA, right?
There has been no paper released yet. No transcript, no Goss-signed requests for FISA, no justice department memo.
and officials were extremely skittish about going beyond Harman’s involvement to discuss other aspects of the NSA eavesdropping operation against Israeli targets, which remain highly classified.
It is telling clue when someone is willing to divulge secrets, but only enough to implicate one person, and then they refuse to talk about anybody else. If the story is false, this makes sense, because while the denial of one person can be explained as them lying to protect themselves, the more people you implicate in the false story, the more people might have proof you are lying and come out to show you to be a liar.
Salon is not a trustworthy news source. They love to run with anonymous sources if those sources attack their enemies. This is the group that ran as fact the unproven and illogical charges that then-Senator George Allen regularly used the N-word at College, and killed a deer and stuck it's head in the mailbox of a poor black family.
I don’t know that it is “unfortunate”. A lot of language just comes about because that’s how it’s used. Sure, “I could care less” doesn’t make logical sense, but as a phrase, people know EXACTLY what you mean by it, which means it works.
Well, it is if solely from the standpoint of misspeak. It works, yes, but it reflects the unthinking nature of public discourse today. I agree with your premise of how it comes about. And that's why I don't make a big deal of it when I see or hear it (beyond that chuckle...). This thread is simply an opportunity to discuss the term.
As Caring approaches zero.....
Ah...Carculus.
Took me twice but verrrry clever!
So we do not have the 'tape' or transcript but descriptions from two former nsa officials 'familiar' with said transcript?
Is this about getting Jane or limiting who gets wiretapped in the future to those that have been labeled as 'right-winged' extremists by HLS? I am sure not getting out of this story that the tapping authority is what is going to be ended.
Like I said before. ALL FOREIGN lobby groups should be banned from access to OUR government. Also, it is well know that the MOSSAD has more spies in the US than China.
Why? Why is questioning Israel motivations out of the question? Friends don’t spy on friends. There is no trust, only dependence upon US dominance and money.
Of course but foreign trade and war interests have your reps by the ball$ and that won't change.
That would be sweet!...
The Left isn't planning to let us "win power back".
As I said just after the election: "Politics is over."
In today's WSJ. Political Diary
Jane's Intelligence Failure
In Harman's Way
News that a National Security Agency wiretap back in October, 2005 picked up a conversation in which a leading Democratic congresswoman appeared to agree to seek lenient treatment for two pro-Israeli lobbyists being probed for espionage activity has Washington buzzing.
Rep. Jane Harman of California was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee from 2003 through 2007. During that time she had great ambitions to become chairman of the committee if Democrats took back control of the House. But she and Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had long been rivals in California politics, and she eventually was dumped from the committee altogether when Democrats took over after the 2006 elections.
But in 2005, Ms. Harman was a queen bee of U.S. intelligence, which is why NSA officials were startled by her phone conversation with a suspected Israeli agent seeking help for two employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who were under investigation by the Justice Department as potential spies. Transcripts of the call reviewed by officials interviewed by Congressional Quarterly and the New York Times indicate that Ms. Harman said she would have more influence with an unnamed White House official than with Justice. She told her caller that she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference." In exchange for Ms. Harman's help, the suspected Israeli contact allegedly pledged to help lobby Ms. Pelosi to appoint Ms. Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman clearly sensed the sensitivity of the call because she ended it with these words: "This conversation doesn't exist."
No one knows if Ms. Harman acted on her statements offering to help. If she did, they didn't work. The Justice Department continued its probe and charged AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman with trafficking in classified information. They go on trial in a few weeks.
Longstanding guidelines at the time called for any intelligence concerns involving a member of Congress to be reported to then-GOP House Speaker Denny Hastert and then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It may well be that Ms. Pelosi needed no excuse to exercise her discretion in blocking Ms. Harman's ambitions to chair the Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman issued a statement yesterday in which she said: "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves."
Does the story go anywhere from here? The left-wing blogosphere will spin claims that Ms. Harman provided key support for the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program in exchange for not pursuing her. I doubt that's the case given Ms. Harman's longstanding support of U.S. intelligence programs in the wake of 9/11. Many journalists will be hot to know the identity of the White House official that Ms. Harman is alleged to have had clout with, but that's likely a dead end.
As for any kind of official investigation of Ms. Harman, it's unlikely to occur four years after the alleged incident. Jeff Stein, the Congressional Quarterly reporter who broke the story, says he doubts there will be any probe. "Last time I checked, the White House and Congress were in the hands of the Democrats," he writes. He also notes that Republicans may not be eager to make too much of the scandal given the controversial role Bush administration officials such as former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez played in the warrantless wiretap debate.
Despite her denials, Ms. Harman's reputation will suffer some damage and she may have to worry about a primary challenge come 2010. As for Republicans taking political advantage of the situation, it's unlikely any GOPer could gain traction against her in a district that Barack Obama carried with some 70% of the vote.
-- John Fund
.
Sadly toooo few truly understood the gravity of those words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.