Steve,
You have not yet linked to anything that showed "ample reason" that the surveillance was completely legit, or bothered to provide that information.

Even if the warrant had a judges approval, that doesn't mean that it is completely legit, if the information in the warrant was full of lies.

The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

She's full of crap.

I watched the Mitchell interview and found myself cringing. It seemed like Harman was denying things that weren't actually alleged, while not addressing the things that were in the CQ article.

On a more optimistic note, however, Nancy Pelosi is also calling for the release of these tapes, if they exist.

DR - From what I've read it looks like the wiretap was approved legally under FISA, and as I recall Harman wasn't the actual target of the tap - it was the person she was speaking with. I'd throw you some links, but I'm at work... sorry!

-J

So did Bill when he said "I want you to listen. I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

The congresswoman, speaking to Andrea Mitchell, reiterated her claim that she didn't intervene with anyone [...]

Sounds to me to be along the same lines as Willie Wanker's "I didn't inhale". It maybe true, but in the very narrow meaning of truth.

"a gross abuse of power."

So-ooo...Harman was for eavesdropping---until she was against eavesdropping. It was okay to eavesdrop on everybody else, but it became "a gross abuse of power" when they eavesdropped on her.

She might want to lawyer up; I doubt DoJ under Holder will make the same clusterf*ck errors as were made during the Great Bushylvanian Escapade....

Of course Harman sounds confident in demanding the release of the information, if DOJ wants to use the information in a future trial, they probably *can't* release them, which means there's very little chance they'll be released. Presumably Harman will spin this as proof that there are no transcripts.

Harmon is now on ATC insisting that since the sources of the story are anonymous, that "how can we even know if there was a phone conversation?"

Robert Siegel keeps pressing her whether or not there was a conversation, and she keeps repeating, "no one knows". She can't even muster a non-denial denial.

LMAO @ at that crazy treasonous bitch.

Brien,
What? I would imagine that if they were going to use them in the trial they would *have* to release them ahead of time. Only in the Bush world does that excuse work.

You have not yet linked to anything that showed "ample reason" that the surveillance was completely legit, or bothered to provide that information.

Nor has she, or anyone in her defense, shown that it wasn't. But it might not necessarily be that she was the one being surveilled in this situation. She was speaking with a representative of an organization that had been under investigation by both the FBI & NSA, and it may well be that she simply got caught up in the eavesdropping program for which she was so gung ho.

Anyway, somebody needs to tap her on the shoulder & get her off the "Bring it on" shtick. It's not doing her any favors.

Jamobey,
When you get home, can you post the links? Steve seems unable to do it.

I think she should confer with Ol' Ood Blagovich. I sure he has some good advice for her.

As for Harman's call for the Justice Department to release what might be incriminating evidence against her, the congresswoman's position sounds pretty confident. Then again, so did Rod Blagojevich when he said something similar a few months ago.

Yeah, maybe Harman has been infected with the Blago disease or the WH has handed her one of the "immunity from prosecution for crimes committed during the GWB admin" cards that they have been passing out recently.

S. Waybright: "Gross abuse of power. . ." Ditto.

Even if there was a legal warrant in place, if the Bush Administration used the results not to press a criminal case, but to attempt to blackmail an elected representative--and it looks like that's what they did--then there is nothing "legit" about it.If an administration is give a free hand to listen in, they will inevitably turn to blackmail

"Jane you (apparently) ignorant slut"!

DR - The original CQ (first link) article says What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington. I doubt you are going to find anything that proves the legality of the wiretap beyond that at this point - certainly not to satisfy your doubt as to whether the assertions in the request were true.

"What? I would imagine that if they were going to use them in the trial they would *have* to release them ahead of time. Only in the Bush world does that excuse work."

? If the substance of the potential evidence is made publicly available before motions in the case can be filed, that is, potential jurors have access to it before the defense has a chance to challenge it's validity, it would seem to be highly prejudicial/extra legal. Obviously it would have to be disclosed to the defense by the prosecution, and it would have to be public as part of the trial.

Posted by: S. Waybright on April 21, 2009 at 4:04 PM

That got the point that I wanted to make. It's a gross abuse of power... when it's Harman being wiretapped. The rest of us schlubs can get tapped anytime and that's just dandy.

This is absolutely delightful poetic justice.

Danp,
Yes, the only evidence that has been presented is "somebody said so". Hardly "ample reason to believe the serveillance was completely legit", particularly when the sources are all former Bushies who we know lie for sport.

You might find this story from Foreign Policy interesting. It's based on an anonymous intelligence agent, but suggests this is push-back by some in the CIA with Harmon as a convenient target. Way above my head...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/20/bush_era_cia_officials_push_back

the congresswoman's position sounds pretty confident.

Guilty people usually are.

Did Nixon ever act contrite?

Did any of the Iran-Contra convictees?

Did Clinton when caught lying about "I never had sex with that woman"?

The typical reaction is the angry cover up. See the confirmation hearings of one Thomas, Clarence for a great example. A man who spent his life kissing up to white racists and putting down people who looked like him had the audacity to claim that Anita Hill testified because he was an uppity black man who didn't know his own place.

Just what did Harman do wrong?

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 reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Nothing illegal there.

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.

Nothing illegal there.

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."

She hears the illegal offer from the suspected Israeli agent and hangs up. If she did it straight away then did she do anything illegal? Was she under any legal obligation to report the conversation?

As to her denial:

The congresswoman, speaking to Andrea Mitchell, reiterated her claim that she didn't intervene with anyone -- not the Justice Department, or the White House -- in the AIPAC case.

It is almost certainly true and correct but disingenuous - she is not denying having the conversation, she is only denying that she lobbied on AIPACs behalf. All that is obvious is that she understood the implications of the offer from the Israeli agent and decided to have nothing to do with it.

Just listened to NRP Q&A with Rep Harman over her "problem". She made Fmr Att Gen Gonzales seem like Harry Truman. I think she is "troubled" to say the least. Sounded like a lying weasel.

All that is obvious is that she understood the implications of the offer ... and decided to have nothing to do with it.

Yeah. Just like Blago.

On a second listening of the ATC interview with Harman, it's quite apparent that she had the conversation as reported. She says that it "may or may not have happened" and even concedes of the "alleged conversation" that "maybe [it was] taken out of context".

As a Chicagolander, I'd like to offer DC our USAtty's services. I'm sure Fitz's team can handle the Blago trial without him, and at this point it looks like DC is in greater need of his expertise.

"Nothing illegal there."

...except for obstruction of justice in exchange for personal political gain. You don't "lobby" the DoJ, particularly not regarding how they do or do not charge people. And particularly not in exchange for help getting a cushy committee appointment.

Disputo - the difference is that Blago went round touting for campaign contibutions while the Israeli agent made an offer to Harman that she declined.

Shade Tail - What personal political gain? She seems to have dropped the call as soon as the Israeli agent mentioned lobbying Pelosi for the chair of the Intelligence Committee. And who says you can't lobby the DoJ - after all lobbying is key to the American way of doing politics.

We don't really know enough about the details yet to know if this was a legitimate investigation or an attempt to nail a Democrat.

However, if the conversation with the Israeli agent was really as described, "This conversation doesn't exist" would make a highly damaging sound bite.

The comment "This conversation doesn't exist" might make a damaging sound bite if taken out of context.

For example, if a friend of yours called up and in the midst of the conversation asked you something illegal, you might say "This conversation doesn't exist" and hang up as a way of saying "I'll excuse your error this once. Don't do it again."

The more important question is what she said beforehand. I never particularly liked Harmon, but I don't trust any part of the (former) Bush administration.

I do like the "She must be guilty because she said she was innocent" line being pushed around in the comment threads here.

Nothing new about Jewish spying, AIPAC influence, and Washington cover up.

http://www.counterpunch.org/green09032004.html

The comment "This conversation doesn't exist" might make a damaging sound bite if taken out of context.

Reminds me of a classic Doonesbury from the Watergate era.

Nixon: I'm worried that some of what is on these tapes, if taken out of context, could give people the wrong impression.

Dean: Yes sir, I see one example right here on page 2.

Nixon: What's that?

Dean: "How's the cover-up going, John?"

Nixon: Great! That's a great example!

It would certainly be entertaining for former Veep Cheney and Rep. Harmon to (figuratively) team up to call for release of records.

Both say they have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. It is amazing that Cheney (dunno about Harmon) would be the ONE to call for transparency after his reputation of being secretive.

I'd still prefer such things be done one step away from the Executive branch to avoid any appearance of partisanship and to avoid distractions away from the agenda.

I think it's suspicious, such a biggish story wouldn't be on Drudge (searched.) Is he covering for AIPAC?

the difference is that Blago went round touting for campaign contibutions while the Israeli agent made an offer to Harman that she declined.

You are, of course, just making up that little last part. We don't yet know what Harman did in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched with the Power Rangers dude. All it takes is a single act, and she's toast.

And for all the apologists who insist that Harman did nothing wrong, there's this excerpt from the original CQ article that you have to explain away:

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.

That sounds pretty well sourced. You're going to need to come up with someone better than insisting that everyone working for the gvmt during the GWB admin is a liar while Harman is the lone person telling the truth. We already know that Harman is a liar.

You are, of course, just making up that little last part. We don't yet know what Harman did in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy hatched with the Power Rangers dude. All it takes is a single act, and she's toast.

"This conversation doesn't exist" sounds like a pretty strong declination to me.

"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 (????Bush????) officials said."

Well, they would say that wouldn't they - we are most likely talking about Bush DoJ attorneys here and we are beginning to see what they were up to and it was not good.

BTW, while I have nothing against Harman personally, I don't like her policies but I think this accusation is a classic misdirection meant to divert public interest from the real issue which is the OLC shit.

If Harman goes down "If there are tapes out there, bring it on!" will be her downfall.

"This conversation doesn't exist" sounds like a pretty strong declination to me.

Really? To everyone else it sounds like an admission that she'd be in deep shit if this conversation ever came to light.

BTW, if one wants to decline something, actually employing the two-letter "No" is generally considered the simplest and straightest means to that end.

To everyone else it sounds like an admission that she'd be in deep shit if this conversation ever came to light.

Why should she evenly remotely suspect that the conversation would come to light?

Now that she has said "bring it on" about this conversation, I hope that the authorities will oblige her.

We all do, blowback. We all do.