Second Wealthiest Congressman: Jane Harman, A Pelosi Cast Off Involved In NSA Wiretap AIPAC Israeli Spy Case Scandal. Press, Problems And Pedigree.
| |
| 'CQ' says Rep. Jane Harman caught on wiretap with suspected Israeli agent discussing AIPAC espionage scandal - and that's just the beginning! Amazing report by Jeff Stein at CQ, suggesting once again that Walt and Mearsheimer barely scraped the surface, if only journalists would pick up the ball: 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 to drop espionage charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington. 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.”... “It’s the deepest kind of corruption,” said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in AIPAC investigation, “which was years in the making. “It’s a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption.” Note the most critical statement in this excerpt: that the suspected Israeli agent would lobby Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf. Pelosi's a Dem from California, Harman's another. And an Israeli agent has more influence on Pelosi than Harman... Why? Who's talking to who here, and who's leveraging who? FYI: Pelosi snubbed Harman for the intelligence job. Note that Time Magazine had this story, without the wiretap or AIPAC angle, 2 years back, and had Harman blowing off a briefing on Capitol Hill for a talk at the Saban Center, sponsored by Haim Saban--and Harman quipping that she'll blow off anything for the giant donor. Finally a little journalism about the Israel lobby? Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC By Jeff Stein, CQ SpyTalk Columnist 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. 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. (Join Jeff Stein for live Q&A about his column at 3:30 p.m., or submit a question for Jeff.) 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." Harman declined to discuss the wiretap allegations, instead issuing an angry denial through a spokesman. "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact," Harman said in a prepared statement. "I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves." It's true that allegations of pro-Israel lobbyists trying to help Harman get the chairmanship of the intelligence panel by lobbying and raising money for Pelosi aren't new. They were widely reported in 2006, along with allegations that the FBI launched an investigation of Harman that was eventually dropped for a "lack of evidence." 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. And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe. Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House. As for there being "no evidence" to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that "bull****." "I read those transcripts," said the source, who like other former national security officials familiar with the transcript discussed it only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of domestic NSA eavesdropping. "It's true," added another former national security official who was briefed on the NSA intercepts involving Harman. "She was on there." Such accounts go a long way toward explaining not only why Harman was denied the gavel of the House Intelligence Committee, but failed to land a top job at the CIA or Homeland Security Department in the Obama administration. Gonzales said through a spokesman that he would have no comment on the allegations in this story. The identity of the "suspected Israeli agent" could not be determined with certainty, and officials were extremely skittish about going beyond Harman's involvement to discuss other aspects of the NSA eavesdropping operation against Israeli targets, which remain highly classified. But according to the former officials familiar with the transcripts, 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. Rosen had been charged with two counts of conspiring to communicate, and commnicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. Weissman was charged with conspiracy. AIPAC dismissed the two in May 2005, about five months before the events here unfolded. 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. 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. And they were prepared to open a case on her, which would include electronic surveillance approved by the so-called FISA Court, the secret panel established by the 1979 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to hear government wiretap requests. First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harman's wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation. Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department's FISA application. He also decided that, under a protocol involving the separation of powers, it was time to notify then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Pelosi, of the FBI's impending national security investigation of a member of Congress — to wit, Harman. Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman's rank as the panel's top Democrat. But that's when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened. According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he "needed Jane" to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program He was right. On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities." Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing. And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead. Many people want to keep it that way. Goss declined an interview request, and the CIA did not respond to a request to interview former Director Michael V. Hayden , who was informed of the Harman transcripts but chose to take no action, two knowledgeable former officials alleged. Likewise, the first director of national intelligence, former ambassador John D. Negroponte, was opposed to an FBI investigation of Harman, according to officials familiar with his thinking, and let the matter die. (Negroponte was traveling last week and did not respond to questions relayed to him through an assistant.) Harman dodged a bullet, say disgusted former officials who have pursued the AIPAC case for years. She was protected by an administration desperate for help. "It's the deepest kind of corruption," said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in AIPAC investigation, "which was years in the making. "It's a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption." Ironically, however, nothing much was gained by it. The Justice Department did not back away from charging AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman for trafficking in classified information. Gonzales was engulfed by the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal. And Jane Harman was relegated to chairing a House Homeland Security subcommittee. Jeff Stein can be reached at jstein@cq.com. LIVE ONLINE CHAT: Wiretapping Rep. Harman Read the transcript of Jeff Stein’s online discussion of Rep. Jane Harman ’s being overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee MONDAY APRIL 20, 2009 07:35 EDT Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC [updated below - Update II (Interview w/Jeff Stein)] Other obligations prevent me from writing until later today -- and I intend to focus on Rahm Emanuel's war-crimes-protecting proclamation that Obama's desire for immunity extends beyond CIA officers perpetrating torture to the "policy makers" who ordered it (watch today as the hardest-core Obama loyalists start explaining how the UN doesn't matter, international treaties are irrelevant, and war criminals need not be held accountable) -- but, until then, I wanted to highlight this extremely important and well-reported story from CQ's Jeff Stein, which involves allegations of major corruption and serious criminal activity on the part of Democratic Rep. Jane Harman. Here's one crucial prong of the story: Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, wasoverheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington. 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.” That's not even the most significant part. Back in October, 2006,Time reported that the DOJ and FBI were investigating whether Harman and AIPAC "violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee" and "the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation." So that part has been known since 2006. Stein adds today that Harman was captured on an NSA wiretap conspiring with an Israeli agent to apply pressure on DOJ officials to scale back the AIPAC prosecution. But the real crux of Stein's scoop is that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonazles intervened to kill the criminal investigation into Harman -- even though DOJ lawyers had concluded that she committed crimes -- because top Bush officials wanted Harman's credibility to be preserved so that she could publicly defend the Bush administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program: [C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe. Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to break in The New York Times and engulf the White House. . . . 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. . . . Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department’s FISA application. . . . Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman’s rank as the panel’s top Democrat. But that’s when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened. According to two officials privy to the events,Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program He was right. On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.” And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead. Indeed, as I've noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as "the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee" torepeatedly praise the NSA program as "essential to U.S. national security" and "both necessary and legal." She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even theNew York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she "deplored the leak," that "it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers," andthat the whistleblowers were "despicable." And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program. Stein's entire story should be read. It's a model of excellent reporting, as it relies on numerous sources with first-hand knowledge of the NSA transcripts (and what sweet justice it would be if Harman's guilt were established by government eavesdropping). It should be noted that Harman has issued a general denial of wrongdoing (but does not appear to deny that she had the discussion Stein reports), and the sources in Stein's story are anonymous (though because they're disclosing classified information and exposing government wrongdoing, it's a classic case of when anonymity is justifiable; and note Stein's efforts to provide as much information as possible about his sources and why they are anonymous). There are many questions that the story raises -- Josh Marshall notes just some of those vital questions here -- and Harman's guilt therefore shouldn't be assumed. But obviously, given all the very serious issues this story raises -- involving what seem to be credible allegations of very serious wrongdoing by a key member of Congress, the former Attorney General and one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country -- full-scale investigations are needed, to put it mildly. The Harman-AIPAC Story: A Timeline By Zachary Roth - April 20, 2009, 5:29PM CQ's blockbuster story, about a wiretap that picked up Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) discussing the AIPAC spying case with a "suspected Israeli agent", picks up on a sequence of complex events from several years ago, and involves several moving pieces. So we thought it would be worthwhile to put together a timeline of events laying out the major reported developments in this sprawling story. Without further ado: * November 2004: The New York Times, after intense lobbying from the Bush administration, decides to hold a planned report on the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. * A few months later: Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, tells Eric Lichtblau, one of the Times reporters on the as-yet-unpublished wiretap story: "The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story ... This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised." * May 2005 - Larry Franklin, a former employee of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, is indicted for passing to lobbyists for AIPAC information about US policy on Iran. * Around mid-2005: The Justice Department expands its investigation into the AIPAC spying case to include whether Harman schemed with AIPAC to have wealthy supporters lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint Harman as the top Democrat on the House intel committee. In return, it was alleged that Harman said she'll press DOJ to go easy on Steve Rosen and Ken Weissman, two former AIPAC staffers implicated in the Franklin indictment. * Aug 2005: Rosen and Weissman are indicted (pdf) for their role in the AIPAC espionage. * Oct 2005 - Franklin pleads guilty to unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and is later sentenced to almost 13 years in prison. * Around Oct 2005: An NSA wiretap picks up a phone call between Harman and a "suspected Israeli agent," discussing the quid pro quo involving Rosen, Weissman, and the intel chair job. (A different report suggests that the wiretap was carried out not by the NSA, but by the FBI, as part of the Rosen-Weissman probe.) * Soon afterwards: Justice Department lawyers read the transcripts of the call, and decide that Harman has committed a "completed crime," meaning they thought evidence existed that Harman had tried to put the scheme into motion. The government lawyers are prepared to open a case on Harman, involving FISA-approved wiretaps. * Soon after that: Then-CIA Director Porter Goss reviews the transcript of the call and signs off on the Justice Department's FISA application. Goss also decides he's required to notify then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Pelosi, of the impending probe, since it involves a sitting House member. * Soon after that: Then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales short-circuits the investigation, saying he "needed Jane" to publicly support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was now, finally, about to be exposed by the Times. Gonzales told Goss that Harman had helped persuade the Times to hold the earlier story on the program (a claim Times executive editor Bill Keller todayappeared to deny, though his statement was narrowly worded), and could serve as an important public defender of the program. * Dec 16, 2005: The Times breaks the warrantless wiretapping story. * Dec 21, 2005: Proving Gonzales right, Harman issues a statement on the wiretapping program: "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities." * Several months before Oct 2006: Haim Saban, an AIPAC supporter and major Democratic fundraiser, calls Pelosi, lobbying her to reappoint Harman as the top Dem on the intel committee. (By this time, the Democrats appear likely to retake the House, meaning the job at issue is chair of the intel committee.) * Oct 20, 2006: Harman hires top Washington lawyer Ted Olson, in response to a report by Time magazine about the Justice Department probe of the alleged Harman-AIPAC quid pro quo, and about the Saban-Pelosi call. * The following week: Several major news outlets report that, according to DOJ sources, the Harman probe is dormant and didn't turn up evidence of wrongdoing. * Dec 2006: Pelosi announces that Rep. Silvestre Reyes will chair the House Intel committee, disappointing Harman. * April 2009: In response to the CQ story, Harman denies contacting DOJ on the AIPAC case, but not that the conversation with the "suspected Israeli agent" occurred. http://www.house.gov/harman/jane/biography.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harman_International_Industries 2. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) (2nd only to John Kerry) The wealthy Californian, who remains heavily invested in Harman International Industries, has seen her wealth increase nearly $10 million since filing her 2006 report. Harman’s report lists three accounts, including one held solely by her husband, totaling a combined minimum of $125 million in stock and options in the company. Harman’s spouse founded the company, which manufactures electronics under the brand names AKG Acoustics, Harman Kardon, Infinity and JBL, among others. In addition, Harman, who has no outstanding debts, lists a trust fund worth $1.8 million and an additional $2 million in multiple hedge fund accounts. http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?txtName=harman
FOLLOW THE MONEY http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006750&cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary2010.php?type=I&cid=N00006750&newMem=N April 1, 2009 | Harman's Intelligence Subcommittee Holds Hearing on the Future of Fusion Centers: Potential Problems and Dangers Washington, D.C. -- The Homeland Security Committee’s Intelligence Subcommittee, Chaired by Congresswoman Jane Harman (CA-36), held a hearing this Wednesday, March 30, on fusion centers. The hearing examined both the DHS Inspector General's December 2008 report on the evolution of the Department's fusion center program as well as recently adopted operational baseline capabilities for fusion centers. The hearing likewise explored the potential pitfalls that fusion centers present in light of recent reports of privacy and civil liberties abuses at several fusion centers. Witnesses: Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Robert Riegle, Director, State and Local Program Office, Office of Intelligence & Analysis, Department of Homeland Security; Russell M. Porter, Director, Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center; John E. Bateman, Assistant Commander, Bureau of Information Analysis, Texas Department of Public Safety; Bruce Fein, Principal, The Litchfield Group; Ned Norris, Jr., Chairman, Tohono O’odham Nation; David Gersten, Acting Deputy Officer for Programs and Compliance, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS. Prepared Remarks by Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing & Terrorism Risk Assessment “The Future of Fusion Centers: 10:00 A.M., Wednesday, April 1, 2009 • In my view, fusion centers hold great promise. • Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano agrees with me, and has said recently that fusion centers are “the centerpiece of state, local and federal intelligence-sharing for the future.” • They integrate information and intelligence from the Federal, State, local and tribal governments, as well as the private sector, to provide a more accurate picture of risks to people, infrastructure and communities that law enforcement can actually use.
Right now, fusion centers are serving as a critical tool in fighting the violence along the Southwest border. • They serve as clearing-houses of sorts for all the intelligence that law enforcement agencies are gathering on the ground regarding the smuggling of guns and drugs. • And they support law enforcement after investigations like the one in Northern Mexico, in which a group of hitmen kidnapped nine police officers based on the orders of a cartel and then murdered and tortured six of them. • Thankfully, some good came of this tragedy. One of the Mexican military officers involved reached out to an American colleague, asking him to inspect the weapons taken from the cartel’s kidnappers. American law enforcement was able to trace the weapon back to its origin and locate the dealer. • Fusion centers near the Southwest border, like the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Center (ACTIC), are doing just that. • ACTIC – in partnership with the El Paso Intelligence Center – is providing information to first preventers in the field about the southbound smuggling patterns of guns. ACTIC is also developing analytical products to inform law enforcement about the spike in kidnapping in Phoenix. • But it’s more than analysis. Fusion centers also identify intelligence gaps in order to help law enforcement “connect the dots.” • States developed fusion centers after 9/11 because the federal government was too slow to improve information sharing – not only vertically, with state and local law enforcement, but also horizontally across its own Departments and Agencies. • We all know that it won’t be a bureaucrat in Washington who will thwart the next terrorist attack. • Instead, it will be a cop-on-the-beat – familiar with the rhythms and nuances of her neighborhood – who will notice something suspicious and be best positioned to do something about it. • Fusion centers are uniquely local for this reason. One size cannot fit all because communities and their populations are diverse – and so are their geographies. • But steps need to be taken to get this effort “right.” This Subcommittee held two hearings in the last Congress to address efforts underway to provide fusion centers with the mission focus, structure, and privacy and civil liberties resources they need to protect the homeland while preserving the Constitution that protects each and every one of us. • Today’s hearing is intended to examine the challenges that fusion centers continue to face and to dispel some of the myths that may exist. • In an op-ed in today’s Washington Times, Bruce Fein, a witness on our second panel, lays out an Orwellian view of fusion centers. • In it, he uses phrases like “French Bourbon monarchy disease,” and “any dissidents or political dissident is suspect to fusion centers” – and he claims the unfortunate situation in Texas, which DHS rectified, could have occurred in East Germany’s Stasi. • I’m pleased that Mr. Fein is here and I welcome him as a witness, and I urge our other witnesses to address what by my lights are alarmist and over-the-top claims directly • Welcome again to all of you this morning. The Harman story CQ has an advance on a big, fuzzy story from 2006: The report that Rep. Jane Harman -- according to NSA wiretaps -- allegedly told a "suspected Israeli agent" that she'd lobby against the prosecution of two AIPAC officials. The piece of the story I don't quite understand, though, is whether Harman is alleged to have known the person she was speaking to was "an Israeli agent." The allegation is that in exchange for help on that matter, the "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." Are the Harman leaks fueled by her dissent on waterboarding? By Ron Kampeas · April 20, 2009 Laura Rozen has a superb post up at Foreign Policy's The Cable dealing with yesterday's revelations about U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and allegations that she agreed to intervene in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers. It introduces a fascinating new wrinkle: animosity between Harman and Porter Goss, the former CIA director, might have been informed in part by Harman's dissent on the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Laura casts the leaks in part as pushback from spooked spooks - former and current spies who are concerned that, despite Obama administration pledges to the contrary, the Democratic White House and Congress might yet take law enforcement steps against officials who carried out the Bush era expansions of eavesdropping and of "enhanced" interrogation techniques. She appears to confirm my speculation earlier that these folks are telling Democrats newly in charge: Come after us, and we'll make life difficult for you too. Now, there are those in the blogosphere who are already casting the usual good guys-bad guys narrative. At Salon, Glenn Greenwald emphasizes Harman's statements favoring the eavesdropping expansions - the original CQ story suggests that this was in part quid pro quo for the Bush administration quashing the investigation into her AIPAC dealings. But It's Never That Simple. |
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment