Although Congresswoman Jane Harman's bold challenge to the Department of Justice to "bring on the tapes" is getting most of the attention from this interview, another thing that stands out is her defense that she didn't need to cut a deal with AIPAC because they were already such good friends. This segment from the MSNBC transcript starts at 2:46 on the video:
ANDREA MITCHELL: … so a well-known and very strong and very politically powerful pro-Israel lobby, and that you were either offering to intervene on behalf of these AIPAC lobbyists who were under investigations for espionage, in exchange for their help in getting you the chairmanship.
HARMAN: Well, I’ve had a long friendship with AIPAC. I didn’t need to cut some deal with AIPAC for any reason. I talk to them, I talk to lots of advocacy groups and constituency groups all the time, about a range of issues.
And it was certainly no secret in 2005 and 2006 that I hoped to be named chair of the House Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections. I believed that I had been promised that in writing by the Democratic leadership. And I was disappointed not to get it.
But lots of groups contacted me and asked whether they could be helpful in some way. But no deals were cut with any groups for any reason, ever.
MITCHELL: Did you recall a conversation where you offered to intervene on behalf of these AIPAC lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage?
HARMAN: Well, I — I’m not sure what the chronology is, Andrea, but I think all these allegations occurred after these AIPAC people were indicted. I read in the newspaper that they were indicted in March of 2005, and I don’t think anyone is claiming that I somehow did any of this stuff before that.
So I really don’t know what I might have said to good friends. If there are tapes out there, bring it on.
Harman's first answer backs up the reporting by F.E. Felson on this site. It also seems to intimate that she was already so close to AIPAC that she had no reason to cut a deal with them – their quid pro quo was already set.
Related posts:
- Harman primary opponent: ‘Let us remind Harman and the rest of Congress that they represent the people of the United States of America.’
- Jeff Stein gets the Harman deal he revealed slightly wrong
- Jeff Stein gets the Harman deal he revealed slightly wrong
- Harman backscratching deal is how lobbies work
- ‘CQ’ says Rep. Jane Harman caught on wiretap with suspected Israeli agent discussing AIPAC espionage scandal – and that’s just the beginning!
{ 20 comments }
Thanks, Adam and FEF.
Harman's going to be on NPR in a few moments.
This is the slip-up remark: I believed that I had been promised that in writing by the Democratic leadership.
(1) Produce it.
(2) The why did she THEN decide to interfere in an espionage case?
She calls it a gross abuse of her rights yet she supported Bush's policy of illegal wire-tapping? Eh?
On the NPR interview, she screwed up. She kept saying that she had no record of the conversation, repeated that over and over. But, when Bob Siegel asked her about talking with an Israel agent, she said he was American. Siegel caught her, and asked how could she say with certainty the agent was American, if she cannot remember the conversation in question. She then tried to backtrack, Siegel tried to press the issue, but then she changed the topic to how she deserved to know that she was the subject of a conversation. Memo to Harman – no one knows they are being investigated until they are charged. Watch some Law & Order.
I wish Andrea Mitchell had said, in response to Harman's protestations of abuse of power, "But YOU were never being wire-tapped; the wire-tap was on a suspected Israeli foreign agent. You were just caught up as the person on the other end."
She claims that the wiretap against her was a "gross abuse of power."
The NSA had a warrant for the tap on her, they were investigating Haim Saban (Mighty Morphin Power Rangers creator and apparently an Israeli agent). She wasn't the object of the NSA wiretap, Saban was. The only reason she didn't get investigated was because Alberto Gonzales wanted her to continue promoting Bush's warrantless wiretap program. Now she's complaining about an abuse of power on a legal wiretap? It appears this woman is a scummy hypocrite and a liar. Can we please take her down?
"She calls it a gross abuse of her rights yet she supported Bush's policy of illegal wire-tapping? Eh?"
Yes, and this is her reward. Ironic, if you ask me.
"So I really don’t know what I might have said to good friends."
Hehe.
KXB – is there a link to the NPR interview?
She actually makes herself look damn guilty in this interview.
The most astonishing aspect of this MSNBC interview (top of page) is that at 1:22, she admits she was advocating the Bush policy to make warrantless wiretaps legal for the purpose of national security. At 4:15 she says, "I hope he [Holder] will investigate whether other members of congress or other INNOCENT Americans might have been subject to this type of treatment. I call it an abuse of power." The treatment she is referring to is a LEGAL wiretap. The NSA/FBI obtained a warrant for the tap on her conversation, therefore making the tap LEGAL.
How can you advocate warrantless taps on one hand but say that the NSA abused its power through a legal wiretap? The jig is up Harman.
Glenn Greenwald has a deliciously snarky take-down of Harmon's interview here:
Jane Harman: angry, partisan, civil liberties extremist
This is hot oil, a real chocolate mess. Here's what stands out in the MSNBC interview:
1) Harman claims she was already a "good friend of AIPAC." Yikes! It's creepy that Harman was the Chair of the Intelligence Committee and was such butt-buddies with the neo-cons at AIPAC. Makes me wonder about her motives in supporting Bush's wiretap program.
2) AIPAC offered to help in any way to convince Pelosi to keep her on the Intelligence Committee. Double-yikes! This is far worse than what the neo-cons were saying about Freeman's political views disqualifying him from a role in the NIC. AIPAC is lobbying to put a pro-Israel congresswoman in a senstivie position? Any quid-pro-quo there?
3) Her office was deluged with phone calls from other congressional people fretting over whether their calls with AIPAC were wiretapped. Whoa. Is the Obama administration sending a message to Congress and Senate to not f— with the two-state solution? There is fear and loathing in Congress that Justice, FBI and NSA may have the goods on them for quid-pro-quos with AIPAC.
The chilling effect will be stupendous. Perhaps that's precisely what is intended in the Harman scandal. Everyone has to love the irony that warrantless wiretaps are permissible for the hoi polloi, but not for members of Congress, especially those who have "special relationships" or "close friendships" with AIPAC.
PS — she has to resign.
Joel,
NPR usually puts an audio up later, but here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103330280
- KXB
I checked. There's no office for AIPAC in the 36th District, Harman's district. AIPAC has offices in the 45th, 48th, and 50th. AIPAC is not a constituent.
Many are wondering whether the Harmon revalations are payback for the AIPAC inspired campaign that derailed Chas Freeman.
Electrocute her and be done with it.
Crimson, I agree. Maybe Obama speaks softly, carries a big stick.
MRW, I wondered about the same thing. If you go to a Congressman's website, only geographically relevant constituents are permitted to send email missives through the website. What is this malarky about our House Intelligence Committee Chair being "good friends" AIPAC?? This is scandalous.
Also, check out the Dianne Feinstein support of Harman. She's the Senate rep chairing Intelligence Committee. Man, how many Israel-firsters have to be in these sensitive positions??
My guess is the FBI has a fat file on Harman and her relationships with AIPAC and various Israeli agents. My guess is the FBI asked Pelosi to remove Harman from Intel due to security concerns, but which they did not wish to disclose, nor let Pelosi disclose, due to ongoing investigations. My guess is some in the Likud Lobby are prepared to go down in flames, yelling Anti-Semitism all the way, daring anyone to use "canards" like dual loyalty and conspiracy, when they believe they are just being exceptionally good at politics, and more realistic about the existential threats we all face. From their perspective, they should be awarded the Medal of Freedom, not asked to register as foreign lobbyists, and you're an Anti-Semite if you cannot see that what is good for the Settlers is good for the USA. It's pathologically similar to Rush Limbaugh believing that it will be good for America if Obama fails.
The Washington Post (aka Neocon Daily) rides to the rescue:
"Prosecutors Considering Dropping Espionage Charges Against Former AIPAC Lobbyists"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042102602.html?hpid=topnews
Of course, the Post cannot get anyone to go on record, but something had to be done to change the subject.
Oscar:
I am not sure where Obama stands on ths issue, but many in the FBI and intelligence communities STILL PUT AMERICA FIRST.
And that is a very good thing IMHO.
Especailly coinsidering that many American lives are likely to be lost if the Israeli madmen carry through on their threat to attack Iran.
BTW, she keeps bringing up David Szady as a character reference. But Szady's involvement in the Rosen/Weissman case ended in the fall of 2004, when he was replaced by Paul McNulty.
Comments on this entry are closed.