Story of the day...."dealing" with your privacy...

The big news surprise over the weekend is the charge that Democratic Representative Jane Harman of California was secretly taped by the NSA (yes, the guys who were only supposed to be acting on court orders) allegedly attempting to make a quid pro quo deal with an Israeli agent to help to reduce charges of espionage by Israeli officials if they would lobby Speaker Pelosi to get her the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee.

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.

Wow. That's pretty incriminating stuff. But it supposedly gets worse. These allegations first came out in 2006, but were supposedly not followed for "lack of evidence". Well, now it is accused that weasel-dick ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales helped whisk away any hounds at Harman's door, in exchange for her support to defend their illegal warrantless wiretapping program.


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****.”

Well, Gonzales must have wanted something big to defend a Democrat in an election year. Well apparently there was. Harman helped convince the New York Times to suppress a story about the wiretapping, which was supposed to have come out right before the Bush/Kerry election of 2004. There is debate whether the publishing of that article would have affected the outcome of the race.

Of course, the administration got its way, with the article dampened, but Harman's end of the deal fell through, with her not getting the chair, possibly due to Pelosi being tipped off on the investigation (though its claim Pelosi never was briefed on it).

It seems totally apt that this is coming out on the heels of Obama releasing some of the CIA files regarding torture and wiretapping. Someone's po'd and willing to throw Harman under the bus (which in my opinion, is where she belongs). However, the current Obama/Emmanuel stance to "let bygones be bygones" bullshit, which is basically "I'm a fucking pussy, bend me over while you're fucking the Constitution", will possibly prevent any further action. And Harman's response?

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."

Ashamed? Don't sound that convincing to me. If you really thought you were scot-free, come on the air yourself and ask for proof, bitch.

File this in the "developing story" folder...