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.

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.

Pelosi looks like she is the type to hold grudges and plot revenge.

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.

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.

If these reports are true then she is either too stupid to be in office or too dangerous to remain on U.S. soil.