Wiretap: Rep. Jane Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC(Israeli Lobby):

21. Apr, 2009 Print This Article! 0 Comments

Comment: I have always stated in earlier posts that the powerful Israeli Lobby Aipac has a strangle hold on House members in Capital Hill and the U.S. Senate, and it is leading the U.S. into a Dangerous Path! Two Members of Aipac are now on trail for receiving Sensitive information from a source in the Pentagon and passing the information to the Israeli Embassey. This article clearly shows Jane Harman, a member of Congress offering to lobby the Justice Dept for reduced sentences for the two Spy’s. In return for her help Aipac would help lobby to get Harman appointed Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. This is one more example of how powerfull is Aipac. They lobbied for the Disastrous War in Iraq, and now they are lobbying for a War with Iran. More Information on Aipac http://www.stopaipac.org/index.htm, Administrador.

Another classis example of disloyalty & illegality of these AIPAC fifth columnists who place Israel’s interests above America.

Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Jane Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC

By Jeff Stein
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 to 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 itll make a difference, according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harmans 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 doesnt exist.
Source: War without End

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.

Its 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 arent 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 Bushs 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 administrations 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.

Its 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 Harmans 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.

AIPAC official Steve Rosen had been charged with two counts of conspiring to communicate, and communicating 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 Harmans wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation.

Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Departments 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 FBIs 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 Harmans rank as the panels top Democrat.

But thats 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 administrations 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.

Its 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.

Its 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 Rosen and fellow AIPAC official Keith Weissman with espionage (for allegedly giving classified Pentagon documents to Israeli officials).

Gonzales was engulfed by the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal.

And Jane Harman was relegated to chairing a House Homeland Security subcommittee.

Jeff Stein can be reached at jstein@cq.com.

Jane Harman and Haim Saban—Their Treason May Not Be What You Think

April 22nd, 2009

April 21, 2009 – an article in today’s New York Times implicates Congresswoman Jane Harman and Zionist media mogul Haim Saban in treason. Reporting on a Jeff Stein article in Congressional Quarterly, the Times notes that Saban offered in 2005 to withhold campaign contributions to Nancy Pelosi, an aspirant for House Speaker, unless Pelosi would help Harman become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The quid pro quo? Harman agreed to intervene in an espionage case in which two executives for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were indicted for transferring to the Israeli embassy classified Defense Department intelligence on Iran with the help of a Pentagon analyst (already convicted) who worked for Bush-era war-planners Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. AIPAC is the most visible component of a transnational network known as the Israel lobby.

The articles report that the National Security Agency “inadvertently” monitored Harman’s phone call with Saban. Harman’s concluding comment in their discussion concedes her apparent criminal intent: “This conversation doesn’t exist.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21harman.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

The reported facts suggest not only political corruption but also outright treason. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declined to pursue Harman, allegedly because the Bush Administration needed her support for a domestic eavesdropping initiative. If the facts are correct, the criminality is clear, including treason proposed by Saban and advanced by Harman with Saban’s help.

There may be more at work here. Why did Jeff Stein report this four-year old story NOW? Why did the New York Times consider this account newsworthy NOW?

With the oft-delayed AIPAC spy trial soon to begin, President Obama is being lobbied to dismiss the case by the same network of pro-Israelis that funded his career, influence his schedule and inform his political priorities. Why release top-secret memos revealing CIA torture techniques NOW? Why report them NOW in New York Times Review of Books?

While Stein reported the Harman-Saban treason in Congressional Quarterly, Obama visited the CIA. Why would Obama claim NOW that the release of top-secret torture memos may not result in liabilities for CIA employees? What “associative” strategy is at work here? What’s the intended correspondence? For those adept at waging war by way of deception, what is the strategic goal?

The best defense is a good offense. The timing suggests that pressure is being applied to the intelligence agencies and the FBI to support dismissal of an espionage case that implicates the Israel lobby. A Federal District Court gave clearance for the former AIPAC executives to subpoena in their defense testimony from senior national security personnel.

The Harman/Saban/AIPAC affair increased the perception that even more sensitive intelligence may yet be exposed if this spy case proceeds. The cumulative impact signals “the mark” that a dismissal may be preferred if the case: (a) exposes “sources and methods” that could damage national security, (b) hampers relationships with foreign intelligence services, and (c) creates potential liabilities—such as for those who “inadvertently” monitored Harman’s phones.

The “mark” is the Office of the President. The commander-in-chief must be persuaded that dismissal of an espionage case is in the interest of the United States. Those pro-Israelis around Obama may be assuring him that, with dismissal, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be persuaded to support a two-state solution, enabling Obama to be perceived as the president who brought peace to the Middle East.

Jeff Stein is also the reporter who claimed that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was “getting tough” with Netanyahu. The son of an Irgun terrorist who twice volunteered to serve in the Israel Defense Forces, Emanuel and chief White House strategist David Axelrod could lose their jobs if, as expected, this case confirms espionage by pro-Israelis collaborating with Iraq war planners Wolfowitz and Feith in an alliance with Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff.

The timing requires that one also question the purpose of last week’s announcement by Homeland Security that our Iraq war veterans are a threat to national security due to their susceptibility to right-wing extremism. Why was this report, a product of the Bush administration, released NOW?

If, as anticipated, the spy case were to result in convictions for two senior officials of the Israel lobby, will veterans have a court-confirmed reason for their concerns about just which nation’s interests were served by their fighting in this war? If veterans resort to their Second Amendment rights to express their grievances, would that make them extremists or patriots?

Is what we now see unfolding another case of misdirection by those masterful at waging war by way of deception? Is the Harman/Saban duplicity obscuring a more systemic treason imbedded in the U.S.-Israeli relationship?

Is another president being deceived to make decisions not in the national interest but in the interest of those who helped make him president? If the case is dismissed against spies working for the Israel lobby, will that decision show how treason can proceed in plain sight and, to date, with impunity?

Source:

http://criminalstate.com/blog/