Harman: I Never Contacted The DOJ About AIPAC Prosecutions

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:37:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From TPM, Representative Jane Harman's office responds to the CQ story:

Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former AIPAC employees and the Department has never informed her that she was or is the subject of or involved in an investigation. If there is anything about this story that should arouse concern, it is that the Bush Administration may have been engaged in electronic surveillance of members of the congressional Intelligence Committees.

Assuming this is true, Harman has a strong point. I also find it incredibly ironic that some folks who have been quiet as church mouses on the Obama Administration's policies on Bush Administration abuses (or even before, see Senator Obama's cave in on FISA) have been on the attack against Harman.

For the record, my previous view of Rep. Harman on FISA, warrantless wiretapping and the value of primaries. See also this and this. Harman was converted on FISA long before this story broke, due to pressure from the Left flank and a primary challenge from Marcy Winograd. It did not come today. Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court to Decide If Prosecutors Can Be Sued For Wrongful Conviction | Cheney Asks For Further Declassification Of Torture Memos >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Harman: I Never Contacted The DOJ About AIPAC Prosecutions | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I dont think that was meant for me but (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:46:48 PM EST

just in case and for the record I did not mean to attack her.

: having said that (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:59:41 PM EST

it seems there are lots of interesting unanswered questions about that whole deal.

Well, seem like even if BushCo is guilty (none / 0) (#2)
by NJDem on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:46:49 PM EST

of 'engaging in electronic surveillance' of Harman (or any other member of Congress), there would be no repercussions anyway.

Wait, that's it! Obama is acting like he won't do anything so they'll admit to taping Harman--oh forget it...

Interesting timing of this story on top of the release last week, though.

: The story may be coming from (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:23:56 PM EST

someone who wants to put a fine point on how out of control the wiretapping progam is; and their target audience in that case would be Congress since they are the only people in a position to really do something to stop the program.
It is pretty clear to me at least that the members of Congress were fool enough and arrogant enough to think that they would not be subjected to these intrusions.

small quibble... (none / 0) (#4)
by Turkana on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:59:41 PM EST

they're not being quiet as church mice on obama's policies regarding bush abuses- they're stomping and screaming, and rending their garments and tearing their hair that anyone would dare criticize obama for his policies regarding bush abuses!

I thought this one (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by lilburro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:10:53 PM EST

was rather mindblowing...

Esp as IIRC 69% of Democrats and a majority of Indies favor an investigation of some sort.


not mindblowing (none / 0) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:16:28 PM EST

unless you consider logic mind blowing:

"I'm not saying that it's impossible or unworthy to seek torture prosecutions. But I am concerned about how it will affect the political climate for other incredibly important issues. Liberals have waited a very long time for an advocate with real power (given not just by liberals); we've come out of the political wilderness. It's not an either/or argument: either we pursue torture or healthcare. But, if there are torture prosecutions for potentially dozens of Americans, that will be a distraction, and could at the very least delay progress on healthcare, education and entitlement reforms. Let's not pretend otherwise."

it may be the orange place but I agree completely.


Well, I guess if we are going to (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:30:02 PM EST

continue the torture program, we'll need access to healthcare more than ever huh.

Frankly, I think that this makes Obama look extremely weak and esily manipulated; and that the Republicans will mine that as the mother lode it is. And they'll never go along with any meaningful reforms on healthcare or anything else no matter how accomodating he is to them.

The fact that people are saying that we have to choose between our Constitution and healthcare is just stunning on so many levels that I am not even going to bother to get into them.


Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by lilburro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:46:59 PM EST

Whose vote on a healthcare bill are we going to lose by appointing a special prosecutor? John Cornyn's?

I think Edger was here in Dec/Jan, plugging his Appoint a Special Prosecutor petition. Now FDL and others have their own going. I don't know if that counts as "things happening"...but its now or never I think.


you think Obama will respond (none / 0) (#28)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 05:27:33 PM EST

to a petition?


: Obama only responds to the CIA (5.00 / 0) (#30)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:53:53 PM EST

it seems. Headline on the NYT story:

Obama Urges CIA Not to Be Discouraged by Memos
It doesn't matter that polls show that the majority of Americans are discouraged by the memos -- and may be even more discouraged that Obama is going to do nothing about it.
But the CIA must be kept happy. That's what a Washington insider would put as his priority. Yeh, remember all that campaign malarkey about Obama not being an insider, promising not to become an insider, blah blah blah.

: Eh. (none / 0) (#29)
by lilburro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 05:43:44 PM EST

I think of them more as an expression of increased interest than anything else. For example, an FDL petition may get mentioned on Maddow or Olbermann's show. Will that make a difference? I dunno.

So we sacrifice our conscience? (none / 0) (#18)
by lilburro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:23:04 PM EST

Also that was an updated CYA. The original diary suggests that Republicans, Moderates and Independents are not on board. That just isn't borne out by polling.

Is this issue RIGHT NOW more important than health care reform? Is it more important than education and entitlement reform? Because to engage in this torture prosecution fight right now may very well mean sacrificing those issues. That's reality.

I am not convinced it is reality at all. If it is reality it is so in part because Obama and Rahmbo are creating it.

The diary is basically saying STFU and let Obama do what he wants - which is healthcare and HAHA - "entitlement reform" (seriously the wording here is priceless).


more at the left coaster (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:01:39 PM EST

than here. hes not the american idol he was a few months ago here.


he was never an idol (none / 0) (#7)
by Turkana on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:04:05 PM EST

here or at tlc. he does have his worshippers at the big orange place, however...


ah (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:06:20 PM EST

they are as alien to me as FOX news. and as rarely noticed.


Den of the unprincipled. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:07:03 PM EST

also I would disagree (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:09:19 PM EST

a few months ago he was, for many here, as much an idol as for the cult at the orange place.


For many? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by andgarden on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:10:48 PM EST

I don't think so.


Heh (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:12:32 PM EST

That's pretty funny. Not too many would agree with that description of this site.


no interest in fighting old battles (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:19:42 PM EST

but you should probably ask some of the many people who left this site and either found others or made up their own because they could no longer take it.

I have not been chatting with myself for the last several months.


: Well (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:23:53 PM EST

Everyone can find a place they are comfortable.
But, as I said, not too many would agree with your description.

: Exactly (none / 0) (#33)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:56:15 AM EST

Don't forget those who were banned for not jumping on the "support Obama" bandwagon.

Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:02:58 PM EST

BTD - appreciate some expansion on this: (none / 0) (#10)
by DFLer on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:08:26 PM EST

Do you mean in the blogs, by the press, in the Congress, or the Admin. ?

thanks

Left Blogs (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:11:30 PM EST

specifically.


Could you give some specific blogs (none / 0) (#26)
by jussumbody on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:49:38 PM EST

and some specific examples? Not trying to start an argument. I just wasn't aware that anyone on the left trusted Harman, even after she shaped up a little bit. Not in the half dozen or so political blogs I read. And that denial of hers can be read as a carefully parsed nondenial.

How does she know she was the primary target of the wiretap and not the other party? Does she deny the substance of the conversations that were reported? Would the conversation be less criminal if her actual subsequent "non-contacts" with DoJ were more circumspect than the reported quid pro quo of the phone call?


: Hmmm (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:56:05 PM EST

Do you read blogs generally? Try reading them and see if you see what I see.

I just saw on another site that (none / 0) (#21)
by NJDem on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:26:01 PM EST

Drudge (G-d help me) has this:

"Cheney Calls for Legal Memos to be Declassified"

Apparently, he's on Fox tonight. I'm not going to link to that site, but there some interesting quotes...

: Someone really should tell him (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:32:12 PM EST

that he isn't the Vice President anymore.

: saw that (none / 0) (#22)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:28:45 PM EST

aparrently he wants some declassified that will bolster the argument that they were "effective".
I saw declassify them all. and be done with it.

Does "I never contacted Justice' mean (none / 0) (#31)
by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:27:57 PM EST

that she never contacted the Bush White House on behalf of the AIPAC lobbyists? An inconclusive denial.

Remember "I could have gone to jail?" (none / 0) (#32)
by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:34:23 PM EST

She never backed away from this specious claim, even after I, in her kos diary, and then her Primary opponent, confronted her with the precedent from Mike Gravel's Pentagon Papers Case.

United States v. Gravel, No. 71-1026

In recognition, no doubt, of the force of this part of 6, Senator Gravel disavows any assertion of general immunity from the criminal law. But he points out that the last portion of 6 affords Members of Congress another vital privilege - they may not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in either House. The claim is not that while one part of 6 generally permits prosecutions for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, another part nevertheless broadly forbids them. Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause at the very least protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible. [408 U.S. 606, 616] The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer - either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution - for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting. Our decision is made easier by the fact that the United States appears to have abandoned whatever position it took to the contrary in the lower courts.

Had she, even at that late date, told what she knew of "the program,' she'd have faced only sjuch discipline as her fellow Representatives decided to mete out, either censure or removal from Committee by majority, or removal from the House by a much less likely 2/3.

Given her failure to spill the beans, any late conversion seems hollow.