What a day for the South Bay's representatives in Congress.
First, Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson were referred for full Ethics Committee investigations.
Now comes word that ethics investigators also looked into the wiretapping of Rep. Jane Harman. Due to a file-sharing error, the Washington Post today got its hands on a secret Ethics Committee memo that detailed investigations into more than 30 members.
Here's the part of the Post story about that document that deals with Harman:
The Harman wiretap story is complicated enough to make the allegations against Richardson and Waters look simple and straightforward by comparison.
First, Reps. Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson were referred for full Ethics Committee investigations.
Now comes word that ethics investigators also looked into the wiretapping of Rep. Jane Harman. Due to a file-sharing error, the Washington Post today got its hands on a secret Ethics Committee memo that detailed investigations into more than 30 members.
Here's the part of the Post story about that document that deals with Harman:
The committee on June 9 authorized issuance of subpoenas to the Justice Department, the National Security Agency and the FBI for "certain intercepted communications" regarding Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). As was reported earlier this year, Harman was heard in a 2005 conversation agreeing to an Israeli operative's request to try to obtain leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists in exchange for the agent's help in lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to name her chairman of the intelligence committee. The department, a former U.S. official said, declined to respond to the subpoena.
Harman also requested transcripts of her intercepted phone call, but did not receive a response from the Justice Department. She was informed that she was not a target of a criminal investigation.Harman said that the ethics committee has not contacted her and that she has no knowledge that the subpoena was ever issued. "I don't believe that's true," she said. "As far as I'm concerned, this smear has been over for three years."
The Harman wiretap story is complicated enough to make the allegations against Richardson and Waters look simple and straightforward by comparison.
As a refresher, the claim is that Harman agreed in 2005 to a quid
pro quo with an alleged "Israeli agent," whereby she would press for leniency
in the espionage case against two former AIPAC employees. In exchange, this "agent" would lobby Pelosi to make Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee. This conversation was wiretapped and turned over to CIA Director Porter Goss, who wanted to launch an investigation of Harman. As the story goes, he was thwarted by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who invoked Harman's support for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program in her defense.
The leak of this account back in April has been widely attributed to Goss.
Why would he do that?
Well, less than a week later, Goss published an op/ed in the Washington Post expressing anger at Harman and Pelosi over the torture issue. Similarly, the original story about Harman's conversation first broke in 2006, three days after Harman unilaterally released a report on disgraced Rep. Duke Cunningham which also didn't make Goss look good.
It certainly looks like a two-step process: 1) Harman does something that angers Goss; 2) a story appears about Harman's wiretapped call.
Returning to the narrative for a moment, there are some holes. Such as: 1) Is there a crime there? 2) If not, what would Goss have been investigating? 3) Whatever it was, why would the CIA director have jurisdiction over it?
For her part, Harman says she doesn't remember the specifics of a four-year-old phone call, which is why she'd like to have the transcript and make it public.
The leak of this account back in April has been widely attributed to Goss.
Why would he do that?
Well, less than a week later, Goss published an op/ed in the Washington Post expressing anger at Harman and Pelosi over the torture issue. Similarly, the original story about Harman's conversation first broke in 2006, three days after Harman unilaterally released a report on disgraced Rep. Duke Cunningham which also didn't make Goss look good.
It certainly looks like a two-step process: 1) Harman does something that angers Goss; 2) a story appears about Harman's wiretapped call.
Returning to the narrative for a moment, there are some holes. Such as: 1) Is there a crime there? 2) If not, what would Goss have been investigating? 3) Whatever it was, why would the CIA director have jurisdiction over it?
For her part, Harman says she doesn't remember the specifics of a four-year-old phone call, which is why she'd like to have the transcript and make it public.
Leave a comment