Wiretap Harman Promising Intervene/AIPAC

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Wiretap Harman Promising Intervene/AIPAC

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:11 am

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 36&cpage=1


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.

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.





Image

http://tinyurl.com/czdv7c
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri May 01, 2009 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:31 am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x5495480


Did Jane Harman Help Persuade NY Times To Hold Wiretapping Story Until After 2004 Election?
Posted by babylonsister on Mon Apr-20-09 10:24 AM

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/polit ... 4-election /

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.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Postby bks » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:52 am

Her angry denial again:

“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.”


And from the first story:

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.”


Maybe it was voice-morphing, Jane. :roll:
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:16 pm

Major scandal erupts involving Rep. Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales and AIPAC


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" to repeatedly 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 the New 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," and that 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.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... 20/harman/





More on that "Suspected Israeli Agent"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... _agent.php


Let me follow up on my earlier post which asked just who that "suspected Israeli agent" was who Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was talking to. Some quick TPM staff research shows that the original Time article on this story from 2006 identified Harman's interlocutor as Haim Saban.

(See my correction at the bottom of this post. It's less clear than I originally thought that we know Saban was the person on the other end of the phone call. Time notes that Saban did lobby Pelosi on Harman's behalf and seems to suggest this as a possible part of the quid pro quo. But a closer look leaves the identity of Harman's interlocutor an open question.)

Saban is a major entertainment industry mogul, who's a big contributor to the Democratic party and a major supporter of Israel. If you're interested in some fun trivia, I think a big chunk of his fortune comes from creating the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. In any case, Saban was born in Alexandria, Egypt, was I believe raised in Israel and then became a naturalized US citizen.

The key here is that the premise of the investigation into AIPAC was precisely whether people around AIPAC were not just big boosters of Israel but in some sense acting as agents of a foreign power -- obviously, an extremely explosive question. So the intel sources appear to be referring to him as a "suspected Israeli agent."

There are obviously a lot of facts we don't know here. But if Saban is the interlocutor, it seems to me that any legal case against Harman would likely be very shaky since the claim that Saban was an agent of a foreign power would quite likely be legally unsustainable.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:39 pm

Bet there's a reason that this story is now making all of Congress remember that they are all wiretapped, perhaps to pre-empt some upcoming military actions being cooked up for the summer when the college campuses empty out.

This will also bring the anti-Israel voices on the internet out and feed the disinfo meme that 'conspiracy theorists' are all dangerous anti-semites...at a time when 9/11 is on the cyber-table due to the new nanothermite paper.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby bks » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:00 pm

I've read Marshall's article and update, and Greenwald's take. And aside from the standard rush-to-judgment caveats that are always warranted, I see no other additional justification for Greenwald's claim that "Harman's guilt shouldn't therefore be assumed".

If her voice was on that recording, then at minimum she agreed to interfere in a Justice Department investigation where she has no authority to do so. Short of an even more ridiculous claim that she was part of some sting operation, what else could that mean? Further, the reasons for her willingness to intervene speak of more serious corruption.

One thing I would need to be cleared up: Harman is allegedly caught on tape in 2005. But then what was her motive for lobbying the NYT to bury the story in October 2004? The story was eventually published in December 2005 for the first time. I get the rest: Gonzales may have intervened to get a JD probe into Harman's activities derailed in exchange for her support of warrantless wiretapping. But what was Harman's original motivation for trying to get the story buried?
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:52 pm

There's stone obviously a reason this story is breaking now. For one thing, the CQ story all but openly announces that the reporter didn't track down this info; rather, the leakers came rushing into his arms.

(Okay, yes, that's an overstatement. But in tone and substance, it gives that impression pretty clearly. Usually, investigative reporters who have worked hard to find something secret about the intel community out manage to give themselves a little quiet pat on the back somewhere within the text -- eg, "after a 3-month investigation" or whatever.)

Plus, as a rule, ex- and current spooks don't suddenly go knocking on CQ's door offering news about a member of congress who doesn't have enough inherent newsstand value for the story to get much (if any) play were they to have tried breaking it in a higher-profile venue -- by most of which it would be regarded as both too out-of-date or too "controversial" (ie, potentially annoying to Jewish readers) to be a top priority -- unless they really, really need the story breaking now, for a specific rather than a general reason and one that's urgent enough that it should be detectable, at least to some degree.

Since, on the face of it, the story doesn't appear to have any political agenda beyond punishing and discrediting Harman, my first guess is that the reason it came out now is because someone with spook associations needed to punish and discredit Harman. It might be a way of sending a general message to congress, too, of course. But there are one-million-and-one ways to do that without running the risk of letting the pesky public in on spook activities that might get them briefly agitated enough to require the spooks to make some slight extra effort to distract and confuse them. And, you know, no one regards the prospect of doing work they don't have to do as anything other than a big fucking drag.

I have two initial guesses about what triggered this, although they're just guesses. And I'll write them up in a moment, for which delay I apologize. But if I don't take a moment, the post wouldn't just be at my standard level of verbosity, it would be, like, 9,000 words long. I'm sure it will shock everyone on the forum to learn that I sometimes have trouble with that, when engaged in explication. Because I do such a good job containing it, right?

Hey! I said: RIGHT???

:)
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:26 pm

Okay. One of my two guesses is actually very straightforward.

On March 2nd, Steven Rosen, one of the two indicted AIPAC employees Harman agreed to help, sued AIPAC for defamation. The complaint is here.

He's alleging that AIPAC slandered him by going around telling the whole world that they were shocked, shocked to find out any member of their outfit would engage in such shenanigans, when if fact, they not only specifically and wittingly employed him to do exactly that, the entire top leadership did the same damn thing every day. He names names, and appears to me to be wanting revenge at any cost, because he doesn't actually have a good defamation case, and it looks like he does have a pretty good wrongful dismissal case. And the only reason I can think of for him to file the suit he did rather than the one he could win is that if he brought the latter, he'd be a lot more limited in terms of how much evidence he could legitimately introduce about the activities of his former colleagues and bosses.

Harman would almost certainly be an important fact witness in this case if it went to trial, and she'd DEFINITELY be among the people deposed in discovery -- she's gotten campaign contributions from some (if not all, I didn't check) the individuals he's suing, and she carries water for AIPAC in general. Given that he filed on March 2nd, both AIPAC and Rosen must have a pretty good indication by now about which side her testimony would help. It can't help both. And I think it's reasonable to assume that both AIPAC and Rosen have enough ex- and current spook friends to get out there and damage a witness before she damages them.

So that's one possible explanation.

Also, I should have said right upfront that as far as I'm concerned, this is great news, in that whether my guesses are correct or not, there's almost no way that either one of them or, for that matter, any other plausible explanation I can think of that doesn't strongly suggest that one or more of the leading lights of the previous administration is in very serious legal jeopardy. I can't think of a way to say why I think that without getting into a lot of tedious details wrt timing and the law, but I'll try to elaborate if anyone wants me to.

It's also more than possible that a member of the current administration -- why, that would be one Rahm Emmanuel -- would be implicated enough to need to take Harman down. And he too almost certainly has the means and connections to do it. So I'm not counting him out, that rat.

The other guess is the one I hope is true, though, and I will now go see if I can explain why I see the possible connection that I see, which I don't know if I can do clearly or concisely.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:48 pm

It's also more than possible that a member of the current administration -- why, that would be one Rahm Emmanuel -- would be implicated enough to need to take Harman down. And he too almost certainly has the means and connections to do it. So I'm not counting him out, that rat.

The other guess is the one I hope is true, though, and I will now go see if I can explain why I see the possible connection that I see, which I don't know if I can do clearly or concisely.


Not ,me--I'm rooting for it to be Emmanuel

BTW, just a reminder of this old history.....
http://tinyurl.com/585gx8
Pelosi Appoints Dusty Foggo and Jose Rodriguez’ Buddy to Ethics Committee
By: emptywheel Thursday July 24, 2008 1:17 pm


....together with this old history......
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/washi ... .html?_r=1

"....The report is another embarrassment for Congressional Republicans, who, three weeks before Election Day, are trying to contain the damage from accusations that former Representative Mark Foley, Republican of Florida, made sexually explicit remarks in e-mail messages to Congressional pages. The report on Mr. Cunningham was made public by Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

Ms. Harman’s action drew a rebuke from Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the committee, who called the release “disturbing and beyond the pale.”

In an interview, Ms. Harman said Tuesday that the public had a right to see the conclusions of the inquiry, which was led by Michael Stern, an outside special counsel, and completed in May. She said she had been pushing for months for the committee to produce an unclassified version of the report...."


Payback?
edit to flesh out link a bit
Last edited by chiggerbit on Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:11 pm

But the non-detailed version is:

First of all, I think that the entire Rosen/Weissman/Franklin investigation/indictment is and always was, right from the start, not much more than part of a much larger effort to provide various top-level Bushco players with as many rainy-day insurance policies (in the form of patsies, fall-guys, blackmail victims, etc.) as they could possibly manage to scoop up in eight years. I mean, I'm totally sure that whether the NSA was monitoring Rosen with or without a FISA warrant, technically speaking, they could have gotten one. Because it really can't be that hard to come up with evidence that someone is improperly in receipt of classified information when you're the person who's giving it to him. You just need a fall guy, and a way of keeping him quiet. (In this case, Larry Franklin.) In fact, I'd be amazed if he wasn't fully aware that he was being wiretapped by whoever was in office for every part of his whole 23-year stint at AIPAC. Because anyone in his line of work would kind of take that for granted. And have no particular reason to worry about it as long as he or she didn't intend to engage in any illegal activities other than the ones that everyone involved explicitly knew were among his or her most basic and routine job responsibilities.

Same goes double for the guy Harman is said to have spoken to. She may have known she was being taped, too, in fact. Although she also may not have. Members of congress do kind of tend to live in a dream world wrt believing that they have any power. But it's not that important, either way. Because -- btw, I haven't read Greenwald, so I don't know why he's declared her guilty or if I agree with his reasoning -- I too take it for granted that the allegations are true. Mostly because what she's alleged to have done isn't a whole lot more evil and corrupt than any of the thousands of technically totally forbidden horse-trades that every member of congress with a decent committee assignment engages in all the time. And it's probably a whole lot less evil and corrupt than the least criminal action ever committed by the most ethical member of Defense Appropriations. In short, it's not that big of a deal from an inside-baseball perspective. And it's kind of self-evident that she didn't expect to get in trouble for what the "This conversation didn't happen" comment suggests she knew was a crime, because if she had, she wouldn't have gone to the fucking Department of Justice to commit it in plain sight. Also, I really hope that whatever anonymous source gave Stein that morally outraged quote about how it was the lowest of the low had a really good laugh after he or she got off the phone.

Because it strikes me as a lot more likely that the NSA was tapping everyone at AIPAC, same as they always do, and they picked up some incriminating tape of a congressperson, as I'm sure they do on a fairly regular basis. It was just her bad luck that the show was being run by a bunch of gangsters who had so many good reasons to pocket everyone they conceivably could pocket that they were being a little more aggressive wrt observing the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense principles than your basic corrupt old warhorse of a congresswoman would be taking precautions to protect herself from. The White House must have known they couldn't keep that Risen/Lichtblau story out of print forever, and they had a nice long time to gather up all the insulation against it that they might otherwise have left in the fields. According to the reporting, pulling the plug on the case against her -- the ostensible seriousness of which I'm not so sure I believe in -- must have been among Gonzalez's first major decisions as AG; he'd practically only just gotten the gig at the time.

So. I hypothesize that Ashcroft wasn't fully in the loop wrt the scope of the warrantless wiretapping, and neither was Harman. Gonzalez obviously was, though, and it was obviously part of his job to keep the Gang of Eight quiet, because he made those after-the-fact notes and lugged them around in a briefcase after the meeting in March '04 when the administration maintains they let everyone know about everything. Which, I see on Googling to check the date, hasn't escaped Marcy Wheeler's attention, either. And she's smarter than I am. I haven't read her yet, but I'm going to, and I recommend that you do, too.

Because ultimately, I think the reason this broke now is connected to Friday's ruling in the Al Haramain case. And if I think that, I'm sure it's crossed her mind in much more concrete and persuasive terms than it has mine. She's been all over that trial. She's practically the only person who seems to realize how fucked the government appears to be by it.

So I advise you to ignore me and read her, if you're interested. That's what I'm going to do.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:42 pm

chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:31 pm

There's stone obviously a reason this story is breaking now.


So, what specifically has been happening recently that this story is being pushed so suddenly? Release of the torture memos? Has Dusty Foggo been able to delay his sentencing by providing damaging information? I'm still trying to find out what his sentence was, which still hadn't happened as of the end of February. Obama's commitment to not investigating those who participated in torture? The economy?
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:59 pm

OMG, is this an oblique way to put pressure on Israel by Obama? Kind of a "private message"?
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:19 am

Wracking my brain:
http://tinyurl.com/dksvna
Documents Reveal AIPAC Trade Secrets Leak Leading to $71 Billion Export Loss

Last update: 1:12 p.m. EST Feb. 23, 2009
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:28 am

http://in.sys-con.com/node/724363
AIPAC Parent's Demand for Secrecy

By: PR Newswire
Oct. 27, 2008 09:40 A
"...."It's unimaginable that AIPAC executives would now be under indictment for alleged violations of the Espionage Act if AIPAC and its forebears had properly registered under FARA. US courts return to this overarching question on October 29, 2008. Curiously, the AIPAC defendants now argue that such secrecy is no longer in their interest. They insist the US government must now release sensitive national security information about Iran in order to prepare their case that the Espionage Act, like FARA, can not be applied to the Israel lobby....."
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests