Harman/AIPAC Part 2
By Patrick L. Lang on April 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM in AIPAC, Intelligence, Israel, Jane Harman, Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(Editor’s Note: See Part I: “Jane Harman and Rod Blagojevich.”)
"The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, (AIPAC) a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.
In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor — the media mogul Haim Saban — would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post." NY Times
—————————————–
Well, god bless the NY Times. I guess they remember the era of Judy Miller and Michael Gordon after all.
"someone?" This NY Times story makes it clear that the NY Times believes that Haim Saban was not the caller with whom Representative Harman discussed a scheme to threaten the House Minority Leader with a withholding of campaign donations if Pelosi did not appoint Harman to the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The Times states that Saban was merely the chosen instrument that the caller (someone) would launch at Pelosi to insure the desired appointment to this extremely sensitive US national security position.
Saban, himself is interesting as a person thought by (someone) to be available for such an errand. An Israeli/American, he is prominent in Hollywood film production circles and has lots of money. If I am not mistaken he is the benefactor of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. The Saban Center employs, if memory serves me, both Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack as scholars.
The question remains - Who was "someone?" It sounds to me as thought there is a good chance that "someone" was an official at the Israeli embassy in Washington. Could he have been one of the officials at the embassy who left the United States when faced with FBI investigative pressure over the case of the AIPAC men and Larry Franklin? One of those Israelis is now back in government as Natanyahu's national security adviser. Alternatively, was "someone" connected with AIPAC?
If "someone" was a foreign diplomat, then the notion of a conversation like the one discussed is significant. pl
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
this stuff reads like a robert ludlum novel…
Does anyone know if Israel has laws similar to ours that prohibit officials from interferring with the political affairs of another government?
We had a situation during the campaign when 0 was accused of urging the Iraqi leadership to not work out a certain deal with Bush.
I think someone mentioned some international rules that could be broken by this sort of action. I think these are the rules that give safe board and passage to diplomats in embassies around the world.
I only ask this because one of our own, a congressperson may take some heat and it would be only fair that the other (someone) politico get theirs too.
Answering my own questions.
This is ours:
This is international:
Harman is not “one of our own”. She is a foreign agent. One of many in our government and media.
She is one of our own, whether you like it or not.
She deserves the right to have those transcripts released, as she can’t clear anything up without them.
She is an congressperson and deserves the right to have her accusations, by her accusers out in the open and available to the public. If you have ever taken the Oath of Office you know just how dear it is, and that it isn’t something taken lightly.
I want to see the evidence as she has so requested and as I agree that it could have a ‘Chilling affect’ on the public and on public servants (those elected to serve).
Washington, DC - Following below is a copy of a letter Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) sent to Attorney General Eric Holder today:
April 21, 2009
Dear General Holder:
I am outraged to learn from reports leaked to the media over the last several days that the FBI or NSA secretly wiretapped my conversations in 2005 or 2006 while I was Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee.
This abuse of power is outrageous and 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.
I also urge you to take appropriate steps to investigate possible wiretapping of other Members of Congress and selective leaks of investigative material which can be used for political purposes. As you know, it is entirely appropriate to converse with advocacy organizations and constituent groups, and I am concerned about a chilling effect on other elected officials who may find themselves in my situation.
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. You may be aware that David Szady, the FBI’s former top counterintelligence official, is quoted in the media saying of me “…in all my dealings with her, she was always professional and never tried to intervene or get in the way of any investigation.”
Sincerely,
JANE HARMAN
…
Harman is requesting that the un-redacted transcripts be released.
Am I missing something here. The wiretaps came out of checking on spies not people in Congress. Is she trying to divert the discussion away from her contact w/ the spy? Maybe she’s intimating that many in Congress have regular contact w/ foreign agents. After listening to her bluster on NPR tonight, I think she’s trying to mislead the public. Funny things get heard when listening to conversations with law breakers.
Smokescreen. Apparently you are sympathetic to her goals, which are contrary to the interests of the vast majority of Americans. She is a traitor and has now been exposed. This goes beyond typical corrupt pay-to-play. Selling out the interests of ones country by advocating for spies is treason.
My sympathy lies in allowing every person the right to have their day in court and to allow them to face their accusers, which in her case are the government and their wiretaps. It would serve everyone to know what was in those transcripts and it would also be interesting to know what the basis for the wiretaps was and or is (have they stopped, are any still going on).
Do you think Jane Harman has any rights, or should we just say an some one said she did it and let it go at that.
Jane Harman said today she has asked the Attorney General to release the transcripts with all the names in tact as to who said what. That sounds like the much tauted “transparency” that we have been promised but not delivered. Let’s hope for Harman’s sake that happens.
I, too, am not assuming her guilt. But I am not assuming her to be clean. If she is clean then the govt owes her a big sorry. If she is not.. Well I think the U.S. should try to buy some land in Somalia and build a big dirt-floor white-collar prison for people who act like she has been accused.
If these reports are true then she is either too stupid to be in office or too dangerous to remain on U.S. soil.
Slightly OT, but I have GOT to ask this question: What in the hell is Nancy Pelosi’s problem with elevating other women to positions of power? I’m not saying, at this point, that Jane Harman should have gotten the leadership of the House Select Committee, but it WAS hers for the taking. Yet, Pelosi went out of her way to make sure Harman didn’t get the position.
Many suspect that Pelosi similarly fought Hillary’s candidacy because she wants to be the undeniably top female in D.C.
Throughout the primaries, Nancy urged Hillary to drop out of the race, and to back Obama. Many of us felt she did so because she knew she could control the ignorant, inexperienced Obama far more easily than the highly experienced Clinton who is savvy re the ways of D.C.
Pelosi comes from ‘ULTRA Wealth’ and they have issues with promoting the commoners, plain and simple. Hillary was more like the average person as was Bill and that has irritated all powers on both sides.
Harman should have had the position, but Socialite Nancy couldn’t have that, now could she.
Jane Harman is the #1 or #2 wealthiest US representative, so Pelosi doesn’t have anything on Harman in that regard. But my first inkling that Pelosi did not support women was that appointment, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission). Rep. Harman was in line for it, but Pelosi passed over her and gave it to FL Rep. Alcee Hastings that had his own set of troubles but was nevertheless confirmed for the appointment.
I recall reading at the time that there was bad blood between the two women and that Harman would NOT get the appointment. I wondered when I first heard about this today if Pelosi had anything to do with this latest issue.
The same thing went through my head too. Wondering if Pelosi had anything to do with this with that past epidsode in mind.
Pelosi looks like she is the type to hold grudges and plot revenge.
There was some talk in 2006 about a problem between Pelosi and Harman. Someone said then Harman was the logical choice for the chair position on that committee. I have this question about the law: If information is leaked which is classified, can a representative demand the entire document be declassified and released? I suppose it depends on whether or not the rep in question has enough influence or the person who leaked the information deliberately has motives and influence enough to keep it classified if they want to. I think it should all be released unless it would interfere with an ongoing investigation, but that excuse has been used so many times to hide things from the public, it’s impossible to tell what’s behind it. Harman wasn’t the target was she?
Yes, it’s about the money. The people with the gold make the rules. The parties are the same… exactly the same. That is why Obama=Bush II. Because they are politicians. Congress and the Senate are politicians. The rest of us little people be damned. Rev. Wright said it himself about Obama… he does what politicians do. Yes he does. Yes they do. There is no ideology, no cause just perpetuation of the status quo… and raising enough money to not have to go home and be one of us again.
Unlikely. The leaker would have said so. Likely it was a person at the lobby asking for help for his mates. She said, I’ll look into it. Meaningless. He said thanks and I’ll tell Saban not to give his $2000 to Pelosi. Could have just been big talk and someone like Saban wouldn’t do whatever. What did she say about it? We don’t get that leak.
The leak is too parsed to be bigger, I predict.
Bigger interest, why the leak, and now? Is the congresswoman looking to make spending cuts unpopular with the spies?
Are you kidding? This is the standard MO for these traitors. Saban is bundling $100Ks, maybe millions, not his measly personal limits. This is a glimpse inside the insidious world of US politics. It’ll be quickly buried by the MSM.
Yes, think PAC money… think cash donations too small to count. Does anybody think the wax museum princess cares about $2000 when she flies around in military jets like they were a loaner car? For the first time in my adult life I am ashamed to be American. We don’t need change… we need revolution. Seriously.
You and Docelder make good points.
I’ll focus on the words of the leak. The leaker had to give something that Harman actually said, and it was very little. That she will “waddle” into it does not excite much suspicion from me of strong commitment. She may have BS’d the recipient.
The leak is chock filled of description from the leaker how the contact should be interpreted, not backed by actual quotes. That’s suspicious.
Compare the opposite, the leaks of Blago’s conversations. Real words from his mouth in all their corrupt glory. Does this absolve Harmon? No, but it makes me consider the real story as less than the leaker wants to shape it.
Since there are other stories saying the underlying legal theory of the case is faulty legally, and the defendants have a viable defense of selective prosecution (victory there would be a BIG hurt on the govt) one could argue this leak was made to plant disinformation for CYA of the prosecutors. “We had our man, the politicians got in the way” etc.
I agree that this could easily be someone talking big using Haim Saban’s name.
I met Saban in the early 80s when he was just starting out here in Hollywood. Between then and now I am sure he has had contacts with thousands of people who could refer to him familiarly.
Yeah. Right.
Saban, in a 2004 New York Times interview[3], ascribed his interest in politics to his concern for Israel: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”
Sorkin, Andrew (2004-09-05). “Schlepping to Moguldom”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/business/yourmoney/05sab.html
Retrieved on 2008-05-07.
Thank you for the link SN, that’s a fascinating story. It leaves me wondering why so many big rollers have so much influence in our countries policies. Rupert Murdock, George Soros and Saban have no real loyalty to our country. At least Saban is honest about his loyalty to another country over the US. Murdock is just interested in money and Soros in power, but they’re all dangerous to my way of thinking.
The real story behind the faux Jane Harman scandal
Hmmmmm….. I think there is even more than what is in the LA Times. I am not excusing or defending Harman’s behavior in anyway. But inquiring minds want to know: Who and over what did Harman piss off in the Barky SAdministration? Timing is everything and Washington being Washington- Barky would protect her just like Bush did, if she was playing ball.
I’m with Pat; where’s the actual story?
The original CQ bit reads like the bullshit non-journalism story of the year. What if CQ’s Stein had written with acknowledgment of what he doesn’t actually know or things that can’t be verified by anyone but Stein?
“Jane…was [ALLEGEDLY] overheard on a[n]…[ALLEGED]wiretap telling a[n] [UNNAMED] suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby [DOJ] to reduce [UNSPECIFIED] espionage-related charges against two [UNNAMED] former officials of [AIPAC]”
“In return, the [UNNAMED] Israeli agent [ALLEGEDLY] pledged to help lobby for Harman to become chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.”
“Two [UNNAMED] former senior national security officials, one [UNNAMED] who has read a[n] [UNIDENTIFIED] transcript of the [ALLEGED] wiretap and a[n] [UNNAMED] second who [CLAIMS] was briefed on its contents, said Harman agreed… Their accounts were [ALLEGEDLY] confirmed by a[n] [UNNAMED] third source with [CLAIMED] knowledge…”
“Harman [ALLEGEDLY] hung up the phone after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist,” according to the [UNNAMED] former officials.”
“And then later it says, rather than “…dropped for lack of evidence, the [UNNAMED] former national security officials and a former [UNNAMED] [ALLEGEDLY] high-ranking law enforcement source [ALLEGEDLY] say that it was Gonzales” who ordered the Harman case dropped.
I’m frankly not surprised Harman says it’s a load of crap. But on the other hand I am surprised that CQ still has a reputation for publishing news, and very surprised that Stein is being published as a journalist with nothing but non-facts.
The whole “story” really belongs in a Drudge or Novak politics gossip column as hearsay.
It appears that as far as we can tell, all Stein’s sources can only be verified by Stein.