Harman Calls For Release Of Documents Regarding Her Involvement In AIPAC Prosecutions

More . . .

The CQ story, which quotes anonymous former government officials about a transcript they allegedly saw (the veracity of these claims seems shaky to me given the fact that these officials seem unclear as to whether it was an FBI wiretap or an NSA wiretap) has led Rep. Jane Harman to petition for the release of all documents related to the matter. She released a letter she sent to Attorney General Holder:

I call on your Department to release all transcripts and other investigative material involving me in an unredacted form. It is my intention to make this material available to the public. Let me be absolutely clear: I never contacted the Department of Justice, the White House or anyone else to seek favorable treatment regarding the national security cases on which I was briefed, or any other cases.

Given that these "former government officials" have seen fit to discuss the substance of these transcripts, while retaining their anonymity, Rep. Harman's request seems eminently reasonable. After all, her reputation is on the line.

Speaking for me only

< Judge Says "No" to Blago's Costa Rica Reality Show | Somali Pirate Arrives in New York >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Entirely Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by santarita on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:50:51 AM EST
    There is something very fishy going on and it needs to be aired in public.

    I'm sympathetic to Harman at this point (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    It's almost as if people can just scream AIPAC! and she's guilty. I don't see the quid pro quo, and I'd really like to know who she was supposedly talking to on the phone.

    Nice of Harman (none / 0) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    to help Bushco squelch the wiretapping story a week or two before the 2004 election.  As I recall that was a rather close one and had the story run we might be into John Kerry's second term.


    "Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement Monday that Ms. Harman called Philip Taubman, then the Washington bureau chief of The Times, in October or November of 2004. Mr. Keller said she spoke to Mr. Taubman -- apparently at the request of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A. director -- and urged that The Times not publish the article."

    Nice work Congresswoman.

    Keller said (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    Harman had no influence on him, which makes sense.

    BTW, suppose Harman really believed what she said - was it bad of her to act in the way she believed?

    Criticize her viewpoint of course, but these attacks, Kos has an embarrassingly error filled post up now, are bizarre.


    He seems a little quick on the trigger (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:29:56 PM EST
    but I guess he knows his audience.

    She spoke to the DC Bureau Chief (none / 0) (#6)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    "She did not speak to me," Mr. Keller said, "and I don't remember her being a significant factor in my decision."

    That's a bit different than saying she did not influence him at all, which she may well have by persuading Taubman.

    And what did she say exactly that had she really believed  would justify her working to squelch a story that could have put her party's nominee over the top?  I don't see that in the story and am not sure what you are referring to.  


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    Well now, that's different. She MAY have influence Taubman who MAY have influence Keller.

    Come now, we do not need any contortions to be against Harman. I was for Winograd in the 2006 primary.

    But I do want the BASIS of the opposition to be substantive, no irrational rants based on BS.

    Frankly, the attacks on Harman these days are simply embarrassing.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    Why would she work to have the story buried a week before the election?  What possible reason?

    This is 18 months after Iraq War begins.   No WMD, no threat at all uncovered.  It was  apparent to anyone paying attention what a bunch of liars comprised the Bush Administration.  Why would a seasoned politician ascribe any credibility to Bush officials given all that had already transpired up to that point in time?

    And whether Keller acted due to her in any way or not it does not change the fact she worked to bury it at the behest of Hayden, and she did so a week or two before the election that gave Bush his second term.  Why?


    Because she thought it was (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    a good program. Occam's razor.

    It was also an illegal program (none / 0) (#12)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 02:06:19 PM EST
    Certainly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    Harman did not agree at the time. Her position "evolved" when she faced a primary challenger.

    BTW (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    she did not act at the behest of anyone but Jane Harman.

    This is what I mean. You do not need to make things up or speculate in order to be against Jane Harman.

    Let's stick to the facts.


    Read it again (none / 0) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    I didn't make anything up.  The article quotes Keller (which I cust and pasted above) as saying she acted "apparently" at the behest of Hayden.  How do you get from the reportting to she acted on her own?  Where did you get that fact?

    Where did that "apparently" come from? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    Any quote from Harman as to why she acted?

    Sheer speculation masquerading as fact.


    huh? (none / 0) (#15)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    I thought you'd be providing me a Harman quote supporting your contention she was acting on her own.

    I never thought much about Harman one way or the other until now.  What angers me is a then leading Democrat supporting Bush's illegal program by 1) working to bury the story that would have and eventually did reveal the program to the public (not once, but again in Dec 2005), and 2) actively doing so a week or two before the election that gave Bush a second term.  

    And if she thought the illegal program was a good idea, more shame on her.  Think about it, it would have been one thing for the NY Times to have heard just from the Administration, but then also a leading Congressional Democrat (and we were painfully shy of leaders in any elected positions in Oct 2004).   Sounds like she provided just the bipartisan cover the Bush crowd needed.

    Whether she did it to stop this AIPAC investigation is beside the point.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    I am not the one speculating why she did it.

    It seems to me you re the one that needs the evidence.


    I don't care for her views (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:17:39 AM EST
    and I do find her it credible that she believes she is serving the welfare of her nation and its citizens.  Let the debate be about how we best care for ourselves and not be about mutilating the AIPAC bluedog.  It creeps me out that she's a woman and Kos has such a post up too.  I'm probably just having pie flashbacks though......or maybe I'm having Hillary hate flashbacks.....

    This lady carried the water (none / 0) (#19)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    for Bush's illegal domestic surveillance programm, to the extent of working to bury a bloackbuster press revelation a week to two before the 2004 election.  Now that she was "victimized" by legal surveillance pursuant to warrants she is outraged.  

    The heck with her.  I dont; even care about the AIPAC angle.


    Well, that part is cute (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    And often people can be real opinionated about "things" until "things" happen to THEM.  I see this as a choice time to point out what can happen when we don't have privacy......and if this is a smear it gets even better.  I say bring on the debate this inspires because that is where our life principles hide.

    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    The prosecutors are considering dropping the espionage charges.

    Federal prosecutors are considering whether to drop the charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists accused of violating the Espionage Act, law enforcement sources and lawyers close to the case said today.

    The review comes amid reports that  Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) was overheard on federal wiretaps agreeing to seek lenient treatment for the two lobbyists from the Bush administration. The sources said the prospect of dropping the charges is unrelated to the disclosures about Harman's alleged role.

    The review of the case against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman was triggered by a series of recent court rulings that make it harder for the government to win convictions, the sources said. Those included an appeals court decision allowing the defense to use classified information at trial and a judge's ruling that said prosecutors must show the two men knew the information they allegedly disclosed would harm the United States. That set a high bar for prosecutors because criminal intent can be difficult to prove.