Did Jane Harman Help Persuade NY Times To Hold Wiretapping Story Until After 2004 Election?
Did Dem Rep Jane Harman help alter the course of history by helping persuade The New York Times to hold its big expose about Bush’s warrantless wiretapping until after the 2004 election, which may have helped Bush defeat John Kerry, the nominee from Harman’s party?
That potential revelation — huge, if true — is buried in the the big and most-talked about story of the morning: This blockbuster by CQ Politics, which reports Harman was overheard on an NSA wiretap some time in 2005 promising a suspected Israeli agent that she would push for reduced charges against two AIPAC officials.
In exchange, the story reports, Israelis would push Nancy Pelosi, who was soon to become House Speaker, to grant Harman the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.
Some of this has been reported before, and an earlier FBI probe of her role had been dropped. But one new piece that CQ is reporting is that then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stepped in and got that FBI probe dropped — in exchange for her voicing support for the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be disclosed to the public. Check out this nugget:
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.
This is a big deal: Gonzo reportedly said he knew he could count on Harman’s support for warrantless wiretapping because she had helped persuade the paper to hold the story on the eve of the 2004 election. If you recall, the paper’s decision to hold the story until after the election was quite controversial, with some saying it changed the election’s outcome.
Harman is angrily denying the quid pro quo alleged in the story. But if this piece of it is true, Harman helped alter the course of history.
Update: Times executive editor Bill Keller denies the whole thing.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Too many anonymous sources and too many questions around this story. I said it was fishy last night when I read the story. Now JMM is even voicing some skepticism and he points to this post on JTA
.
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/04/20/1004472/why-the-harman-leaks-smell-to-high-heaven
.
The question is why are people buying the story so whole heartedly when literally the only “evidence” in the story is anonymous sources who were former Bushies and a statement she made about the wiretapping program. Remember that she was one of the gang of 8 that was fully briefed on the program. I might disagree with her on the merits of the program but she also voiced skepticism of its legality aside from endorsing the program. I think this story needs much more vetting before we go hog wild over it. It may just be a way to smear Congresswoman Harman, knowing most people wont stand up for her, so as to get that seat.
thing is, tho, SG, there is basis for believing the nugget that I’m highlighting, about the NY Times. check this out:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/interview_with_the_new_york_ti.php
g
Greg
.
That could just as easily be explained by the fact that she was one of thte gang of 8 who were briefed on the program and that she believed in it. And remember, this supposed quid pro quo happened in 2005 well after the 2004 elections. In point of fact the revelations about the 2004 elections serve to undermine the story’s premise, that she changed her stance just to stave off the investigation. Unless of course this unnamed agent of Israel had a crystal ball and would know in 2004 that the Dems might retake the house in 2006. Besides that why don’t we know the name of the alleged agent? They had to know who it was or else how did they get the wiretap? Are we supposed to believe that they wiretapped a sitting Congresswoman legally unless it was because she was on the line with someone else they were really targeting? Again too many questions and not enough answers in the CQ story.
SG, whatever the overall merits of the story, I think this particular piece of it may be true. more coming
I tend to be skeptical about this story too. However it brings another possibility to mind. Namely, I wonder how many more conversations the former eavesdroppers have that might be construed against Dem encumbents? Could that be the reason talk of pursuing torture prosecutions/investigations aren’t going forward?
Greg
.
The central question becomes what evidence is there that Harman had changed her position since 2004? If she hadn’t what would make Gonzo think she would change her mind because of an investigation. And investigation that could have still moved forward well after she came out in defense of the administrations wire tapping program? When you think about it the only way that happens if she was the one blackmailing Gonzo and not the other way around. As in “I will turn on you unless you scuttle the investigation”. Now maybe thats exactly what she did. But the story makes it seem as if the person doing the blackmailing was Gonzo, and really Harman was the one holding the cards.
Greg/sg: is there some story behind Pelosi not giving Harman the chairmanship of the intelligence committee? While your urging caution is spot on, and Josh has scaled back something looks out of kilter. Maybe we need to know how extensively the Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee were briefed.
David
.
I am not sure but I believe that the stories about Harman working in league with the WhiteHouse to promote the wiretapping program. The thing that is new in this story is the allegation that the reason why she did this is because she was caught on a wiretap agreeing to lobby Gonzo to back off the investigation of Rosen, the AIPAC guy that was accused of being a foreign agent basically. The thought back then was that Pelosi couldn’t give her a gavel with all of that swirling around her in 2006.