Dem Rep Harman Did Urge Times Not To Publish Wiretapping Expose!
Whoa. Dem Rep Jane Harman did in fact urge The New York Times not to publish its big expose of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping, apparently before the 2004 election, potentially changing the election’s outcome and the course of history, according to a statement from the paper.
As I noted here yesterday, one key revelation in that big CQ Politics scoop is that Harman may have privately tried to kill the story in 2004. Yesterday Times executive editor Bill Keller said that Harman hadn’t spoken to him or influenced his decision.
But now Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis sends over a more detailed statement from Keller explaining what really happened:
Congresswoman Harman spoke to Washington Bureau Chief Phil Taubman in late October or early November, 2004, apparently at the request of General Hayden. She urged that The Times not publish the story. She did not speak to me, and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision. In 2005, when we were getting ready to publish, Phil met with a group of congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish. The Times published the story a few days later.
So Harman did urge the paper’s Washington bureau chief not to publish. While the timing is slightly fuzzy, it seems fair to assume in light of the CQ story that it was in fact before the election.
Wow. So Dem Rep Harman appears to have worked behind the scenes to dissuade publication of a blockbuster expose about Bush that could have put her own party’s nominee in the White House and changed the history of the last four years. And, according to Keller, she apparently did this at the request of Michael Hayden, Bush’s National Security Agency chief.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Harman is underlining her reputation for being shifty. Yesterday’s denial by Keller and the subsequent unravelling of the details shows how this story is unfolding according to Washington ways.
So, will Glenn Close be playing Harman in the movie version? I mean, this is just like something out of a movie. The implications are just mind numbing.
Harman is under fire here, but let’s face it. More than one of our Democratic representatives let this thing go on for a long time, including Pelosi. Cowardice everywhere.
But really, it’s a huge stretch to believe that that story would have “altered history.” Perhaps you don’t recall 2004 and our candidate. I respect Kerry, but the likelihood that he would have expressed definitive outrage and really used the story is nil. Meanwhile the administration would have raised a terror threat, reminding us all that we have to do anything-anything-anything to be “safe.”
So she didn’t speak to Keller in Oct/Nov ‘04, she spoke to Taubman. Did Taubman talk to Keller? What was the significant factor in Keller’s decision if it wasn’t Harman’s urging?
Biden was pretty high ranking on the Senate side of things – what did he know and when?
It must have seemed like a “lose-lose” proposition, on both sides of the aisle: Democrats would be outed for allowing it in the first place (the warrantless wiretapping) and Republicans would have been blamed for exposing a “national security” program.
But it all ends up looking like the usual lust for power in Washington, and reminds us of two things: Nobody goes there to be “powerless,” and no government EVER gives up power, once it’s got it.
I’m a little dubious, though, about the story’s ability to have worked as a game-changer. The election was close, and the story’s appearance at the end of October might have been one the media dealt with in a way that asked whether it could be seen as a “game-changer” (you know how they do), but when the story actually broke it only caused a ripple or two, as far as I can recall.
*
Look, if Abu Ghraib didn’t sink Bush in ‘04, I’m not sure anything could have.
To correct the record a little bit about Democratic leaders “allowing it”
.
I posted the link the other day from when Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Rachel Maddow but it bears repeating because if you go back and look at what was said back then by Harman they echo each other. The Democratic leaders were briefed on torture and on wiretapping. Briefed meaning they were told what was going on but they were not consulted nor were they asked for permission. Harman even goes in greater detail in her description that they weren’t even allowed to bring in paper or pencils/pens and no aides were allowed in. The catch 22 was that it was such a top secret briefing that they weren’t allowed to tell anyone about it. Not their Congressional colleagues and certainly not their aides. Therefore Bush could do whatever the hell he wanted to and then when the sh*t hit the fan say “Well the Dems were briefed on this”. But the problem is what could they do with that briefing? Absolutely nothing.
.
Now I again repeat what I said yesterday, if Harman had already gone to bat for the Bush administration to keep the wiretapping story from being published in 2004 then why did Gonzo feel like she would change her mind in 2005? There is one more question, lets say this all played out exactly like the story in CQ said. Is there a chance that Gonzo killed the investigation without ever telling Harman that she was even under investigation or had been in a wiretap? Isn’t there a chance that he decided that as long as he killed the investigation that she would continue to support the program publicly as she had all along?
The Rosen/Weissman trial ought to be rather interesting.
OK, I think -just personally – that one of the major problems in this situation is that Democrats in Congress apparently did know some of what was going on. My perception is that the Democrats were scared after 9/11. They were scared personally, scared for the country and terrified that if something else happened, they would look like they were trying to hurt our security.
Plus, the biggest stumbling block of all to prosecuting the Bush Administration is the AUMF. Congress handed Bush almost a carte blanche with that authorization.
“Being in the bag for AIPAC” may not be a defensible excuse for faithfully carrying water for the Bush administration, but at least it’s some sort of excuse. Most Congressional Democrats in 2004 didn’t even have that.
Trevor J. wrote, “Look, if Abu Ghraib didn’t sink Bush in ‘04, I’m not sure anything could have.”
I think the lack of WMD was much more significant than Abu Ghraib.
Tena wrote, “Plus, the biggest stumbling block of all to prosecuting the Bush Administration is the AUMF. Congress handed Bush almost a carte blanche with that authorization.”
Right.
The interesting thing is that some pretty liberal Congress people voted for the AUMF because they’re Israel “supporters”. E.g. Waxman, IIRC.
AIPAC may also soon face some consequences for its behavior.
#1 The criminal prosecution of former staffers Rosen and Weissman appears to be on.
#2 The AIPAC sponsored trade pact, that was also a product of creepy behavior, and has cost the US $71 billion, is under legal challenge as an intellectual property violation.
Could it be that the US could again find itself under rule of law?
http://tinyurl.com/ustrfile
And bill richardson did nothing to prevent voter fraud in the 2004 election in New Mexico, and quashed any investigation thereof. The will of the voters is way down the priority list for these folks; it’s all about the will of the contributors.
I don’t disagree, liberal, but in terms of media exposure and its related outrage, Abu Ghraib seems to me the biggest hit Bush took in the months before the election. I doubt the warrantless wiretap story would have generated the same amount of buzz that the prison did. There were no horrifying pictures of Americans getting their civil liberties violated.
It seems pretty easy to say that these revelations would not have affected the election. But how can that glib analysis bear up under analysis? Have we forgotten just how close the 2004 election was?
And yes, there is a big difference between torturing Iraqi prisoners and spying on Americans. Believe it or not, a lot of people would be offended by the second who weren’t offended by the first.
Either Ohio or Florida could have easily flipped.
Matt Yglesias points to this “fishy” complexity to the Harman story… http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article-ambush/2009/04/20/1004472/why-the-harman-leaks-smell-to-high-heaven
A member of Congress, having taken the oath of office (similar to the one I took enlisting in the Air Force) would have been obligated to contact the relavent inspector(s) general and blow the goddamn proverbial whistle. It isn’t rocket science!
Anyone being briefed about criminal behavior being effectively covered up by making it classified becomes complicit in the crime or crimes if they do not report it.
I’m pretty darn sure I remember reading the regulation regarding proper classification and the management of classification authority, that it clearly detailed what can and cannot be made classified. I’m damn sure criminal behavior is not a legitimate reason to classify any information or program. Call me naive, I guess.
I think Harman shouldn’t have tried to intervene to get this story squashed, but doing so is not a scandal, it’s a difference of opinion, if she acted in good faith. I would have liked to see Kerry win as much as everybody else, but I give Harman the benefit of the doubt that in her view disclosing the program would not be in the national security interest, by effectively ending the program. I strongly disagree with that judgment, but I believe she acted based on her own conscience. So what if she was contacted by Hayden; I would expect him to reach out for Democratic advocates of the program to support him.
The thing I don’t get is that this blog is the only place I’ve seen this story anyplace on the WashPost. I want the Washington Post to remain relevant. If it’s going to do so, it should publish reports on the most important stories…
Unless I am way off base, members of Congress who are briefed about ongoing actions under the rubric of National Security are forbidden to discuss or make public information that they were privy to during the briefing. So, yes, the Bush administration did notify members of Congress about the actions they were taking, under the guise and protection of ‘National Security’ so that they could cover their asses by saying that congressional Democrats knew about the programs. However, if the NYT had information through whatever sources that these programs were taking place it is the obligation of the NYT to publish that information whether or not they are approached by politicians asking that the information be withheld, that is, if the Pentagon Papers is any precedent.
Aside from that, to say that this action or any other action taken by any Democrat, including John Kerry, ‘cost them the election’ is to live in denial of Stephen Spoonamore’s testimony regarding election fraud. If Michael Connell would have lived to testify about the fraudulent Ohio election results you would see that this discussion about Harman is moot.
So now we’re finally finding out why the Dems have been so impotent.
This goes to show how pervasive the influence of Israel’s agents has become in both parties, and the commanding heights of the media. It’s the elephant in the living room that no one wants to discuss in any direct way.
With regard to some of the mental gymnastics above trying to find a way to interpret Harman as squeaky clean in this whole tangled saga, one thing still missing is some way to understand her final comment in the original report of the wiretapped call, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”
Perhaps she would like to clear the air on this bit in particular?
If we had gotten Kerry in, we wouldn’t have gotten Obama.
Everyone paying attention to what had been taking place in our country ought to have known that the Bush criminals had something over the heads of some highly placed Democrats. Jane Harman is one those highly placed individuals who was forever giving in to whatever the criminals wanted. I hope that one day the Democratic Party will be cleansed of people like Harman, Pelosi, Reid, Nelson (both of them), and the other conservatives masquerading as Democrats. Guess the Antrax attack on Leahy and Daschle was a warning shot across the bows of anyone who resisted the implementation of the (un)Patriot Act. Both Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for the evils they’ve visited on this nation. Also, we have not had an unimpeded investigation of the World Trade Center demolition. My opinion does not matter, but there were too many unresolved questions surrounding the various events of September 11. Far from being a clarion cry for the Repugs, September 11, 2001 should be a day of disgrace for them. I hope the DOJ will vigorously prosecute the torture memo collaborators, and in so doing uncover other criminal activities those bozos initiated.
Further proof that so-called “moderate” Democrats are only moderate about representing their constituents but are fanatical about being corrupt.
Booyah!
That was me, yesterday commenting on the Keller “denial” reported here that Yglesias played up. Get that weak-*** **** outta here, Keller!
Talk about your ‘buried leads’ !!
A 2004 reminder: 50,000 votes in OHIO was the difference folks. Ya think illegal surveillance would have made a diff ?!
With ‘friends’ like this, we (the (dem) people’) don’t need enemies (to ‘hang’).
We can start by hoisting her on her own (NSA wiretap) petard now and finishing her off with a primary challenge in ‘10 and replacing her traitorous *** in NOV ‘10.
She sold out the country and her party for a committee chair…
Big unanswered question: why is Ms. Harman still the only one in the spotlight when there were a bunch of them together in a group?
“Phil met with a group of congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish.”
Who were the others in the group?
Rosen/Weissman probably won’t make it to trial. I really hope, though, that the fog of Israeli-influence in America is lifted soon.
Love reading about politics. Democracy works like this, no democracy works like this, etc and forever. There is no democracy so stop slobbering all over it.
Jane and her hubby are the filty rich. Possibly the richest political organization in the world. Now take your democracy down to the city square, buy a beer in a sack and enjoy your share of the rewards of democracy. But don’t hold your breath waitin for democracy to break out.
Greg, your post seems ahead of the story.
* What was the date Harman talked to Taubman?
* Even if the conversation was before the election, could the article have appeared before the election, or was it still in preparation?
* Would NYT policy forbid publishing an expose that close to an election?
* Harman talked to Taubman. Did Taubman talk to Keller?
These are just some of the questions that would need to be answered before talking about “changing history.”
How great! beloved evidence.
what’s really cool, however, is that if Harman was running for Prez, then Kerry would have done the same thing to her.
Repugnantcans and Dumbercrats.
How can Harman remain in congress after this. she should resign and hpe for the best. i can only guess what Rove would do if this was all reversed. Add to the carnage, Senator Feinstein long overdue comeuppance. The Dubers have to clean hose even tho’ their majority is fragile.
They have more, worse, and nastier in the wings. Wanna bet on Harry Reid going down, anyone?
* years of mush turns out to be 8 years of selfishness rivalling any Ayn Randian honkie capitalist lobbyist.
I can’t wait to see the movie where harmon, reid, abromoff, feinstein, and madoff are sitting ’round the pocer table at Lompoc. DiFi is asking anyone who’ll listen in her dizzy Miss Losingit way, “All those trips to Korea! and all i thought was he was only ripping off the banking system!”
wonder whose kissing him now.
Frigging billionaires got no moral code….
Hi, jane harman should move over to the conservative republican side. she doesn’t fit well with the Democrats. Besides do we need an Israelie lobbist as one of our representatives? Barb
Wake up call: Congressional Democrats are just as corrupt as anti-populist as Republicans.
There are many, many Democrats in Congress who refuse to stand against the war and who aided in the erosion of our civil liberties, going right to the top. You can lump Harmon in with Pelosi, the Blue Dogs and so many others including my Congressman Eliot Engel.