Why the Harman leaks smell to high heaven by Ron Kampeas
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/04/20/1004472/why-the-harman-leaks-smell-to-high-heavenexcerpt:
Okay, now why this smells. * The selected quotes from the alleged transcript do not necessarily add up to a quid pro quo:
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.”
(snip)
The alleged Israeli agent asked Harman if she could use any influence she had with Gonzales, who became attorney general in 2005, to get the charges against the AIPAC officials reduced to lesser felonies.
(snip)
Harman responded that Gonzales would be a difficult task, because he “just follows White House orders,” but that she might be able to influence lesser officials, according to an official who read the transcript.
So, an interlocutor - and, if it was Saban, a major donor - asks Harman to see what she can do to intervene on behalf of Rosen and Weissman. She says she doesn't think she can do much, but she'll do what she can. So far, congressional business as usual - not pretty, but not illegal. What happens then is not clear: According to the narrative peddled by the former national security officials, it had been agreed that this would be in exchange for the Israeli agent lobbying Pelosi. She hangs up abruptly saying, "This conversation doesn't exist," "seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to." But had she agreed to a deal? What if her interlocutor suggested a quid pro quo after she agreed to look into the case? Harman realizes the "agent" is crossing over into illegal territory and hangs up, and says something -- "This conversation doesn't exist" - that could just as easily be understood as "all bets are off m-----f------, and don't call back."
What quotes are missing? Could they be vindicative? Interestingly, Saban cuts his backing for Harman by more than half -- from $2,100 to $1,000 - between the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. And I don't think it's because he was hurting -- financially, that is. It also seems notable that nothing in the reporting -- in 2006 or now -- suggests that Harman actually made any calls to Justice.
* The presumption that Harman, the ranking Democrat on intel in the summer or fall of 2005 (Stein says its five months after May, when he says Weissman and Rosen were fired, although that was March; the original October 2006 Time Magazine story places it in the middle of 2005) was preoccupied with finally assuming the chairmanship of the House intel committee when the Democrats would retake Congress. The reporting in October 2006 (when it was clear that the Democrats were indeed on the verge of a sweep) implies that; CQ says it outright in its story this week. But in the summer-fall of 2005, a Democratic victory was anything but certain. I don't recall confident predictions about a Democratic sweep until March 2006 at the earliest.
* Why would Harman risk her career and her freedom for a lost cause? The federal government does not mysteriously reverse an indictment within months of winning it. This is where the timeline matters; if Time is right and this occurred in mid-2005, it's conceivable Harman had the conversation before Aug. 4 of that year, when the indictment came down; she might have had time to influence an outcome. If CQ is right, and it happens a few months later, Harman was either humoring a stunningly gullible interlocutor, or she understood the request as "do what you can, even though we both know its hopeless" -- and windmill-tilting doesn't usually achieve the level of "conspiracy."
* There seems to be doubt among even the spooks about whether the allegations amounted to a crime. CQ quotes its sources as saying she had "committed a 'completed crime,' a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it." Then, toward the end of the story, CQ quotes a "recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in the AIPAC investigation" as saying it was "not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption."
Okay, those were the why-it-smells, now for the why-nows:
* With the Rosen-Weissman case finally set for trial in June, the government's case suffered two major blows in recent months: An appeals court upheld trial judge T.S. Ellis' tough constitutional restrictions on making their case, and Ellis upheld the right of the defense to call William Leonard - the man who ran classification policy for the government from 2002-2007 -- to testify that the case is classic intelligence community overreach. The Obama administration is sweeping Bush era secrecy policies clean and is probably wondering how it inherited this likely fiasco of a case.
On the other hand, as the story's former official who was involved in the AIPAC case puts it, it "was years in the making." I won't beat around the bush: The increasingly likelihood of a loss has got to hurt. One or two more puzzle pieces in place and this rehash could add up to an 11th hour attempt to a) taint the jury pool, b) spook a Democratic administration ("We can make your people hurt") or c) both.
Marcy Wheeler:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/20/what-does-a-house-intelligence-chairmanship-cost/excerpt:
Now, there are couple of interesting details about this news. First, as it happens the AIPAC trial is in a very active stage right now, with both sides submitting schedules in preparation for a May 6 and 7 CIPA hearing that may end up giving the AIPAC defendants access to classified material with which to defend themselves; if the government faces setbacks in that CIPA hearing, I think it likely that the government gives up the case. If I were a law enforcement guy whose case was crumbling, I might gin up some press attention to convince people of the value of the case.
So I find it interesting that the three sources for this story want to talk about Harman, but not the AIPAC guy on the other end of the call.
Transcript from CQ Politics Live Online with Jeff Stein
http://innovation.cq.com/liveonline/54/landingSandy from Brooklyn: Why is all this stuff coming out now? Jeff Stein:
No special reason.
The story was not "planted" on me to influence any other events -- in particular the looming AIPAC trial or things related to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. I've known about it for some time but just not been able to pull it together until now for various reasons.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
