HA ha...
and the RATS take another one in the...
Posted on 10/21/2006 5:40:01 AM PDT by excludethis
Edited on 10/21/2006 6:15:49 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee
The case is a spin-off of a probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AIPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for former Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. Franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in turn are accused of passing it on to a journalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AIPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts of conspiring with government officials to receive classified information they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense information to people not entitled to receive it.
Around mid-2005, the investigation expanded to cover aspects of Harman's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intel panel. The alleged campaign to support Harman for the leadership post came amid media reports that Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, himself a major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman.
The sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Harman agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officials caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context of the situation. But the sources caution that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Harman and AIPAC acted on the idea.
AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton denies that the organization has engaged in any improper conduct. "Both Congressman Hastings and Congresswoman Harman are strong leaders on issues of importance to the pro-Israel community and would be exemplary Democratic leaders for the House intelligence committee," Dorton said. "AIPAC would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation or any federal matter and the notion that it would do so is preposterous. AIPAC is not aware that the Justice Department is looking into issues involving the intelligence committee, and has not been asked any questions or contacted by the government on this matter, but certainly would cooperate with any inquiry." Dorton added that AIPAC has previously been assured that the organization and its current employees are not being investigated.
In this same investigation, the Justice Department has previously suggested that AIPAC had questionable motives in trying to help a valued government contact remain in a sensitive national security post. The Justice Department alleges in its indictment of Franklin that he asked one of the two AIPAC lobbyists to "put in a good word" for him in seeking assignment to the National Security Council. The document says the AIPAC official noted that such a job would put Franklin "by the elbow of the President" and said he would "do what I can."
AIPAC lists praise from Pelosi among a series of quotes from world leaders on its website: "The special relationship between the United States and Israel is as strong as it is because of your [AIPAC's] fidelity to that partnership..." But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by pressure from some major donors lobbying on behalf of Harman. In a story touching on tensions between Pelosi and Harman, an alternative California publication, LA Weekly, reported in May that Harman "had some major contributors call Pelosi to impress upon her the importance of keeping Jane in place. According to these members, this tactic, too, hasn't endeared Harman to Pelosi."
A congressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment. A phone call pushing for a particular member's committee assignment might be unwelcome, but it would not normally be illegal on its own. And it is unclear whether Saban — who made much of his fortune with the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers children's franchise — knew that lobbying Pelosi might be viewed by others as part of a larger alleged plan.
Saban has donated at least $3,000 to Harman's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records, and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution, boasts Harman among its biggest fans. "When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Harman quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to "blow off" a senior intelligence official's appearance before a House committee.
But Harmon - she's doing something far worse here than abuse her office for personal enrichment. She's in bed with AIPAC! Those EEVVIIIL NEO-CON JOOS! The left will turn on her like rabid wolverines! She's DOOOMED!
The idiot left will do nothing more than dust off the Freedom of Information Act and claim that it gives them freedom to know what they want to know, and say what they want to say about it.
Most of the population believes what the leftist media tells them.
Here ya go...
If the GOP is behind this the only thing I have to say is - It's about time. The GOP should have nailed the dem every time they stepped in it. Memogate should have been the end of the dems power for generations. The GOP had proof that the dems were more interested in gaining power than protecting the country. They should have been run out of office.
A cat fight between Harmon and Pelosi???
btw .. isn't mid-2005 about the same time Harmon started to be really out spoken about intel ?
Fortunately, the majority of the VOTING population doesn't. At least up till recently they didn't. We'll soon see if that's still true, on Nov 8th.
(Shhhhhhh . . . I'm talking to our lovely Democrat friends, not to Republican FReepers, who already have election day on their calendars. We all want to make sure they vote on the correct day, y'know.)
Yes, I'm informing all my Democrat friends and associates that "W", using his penumbric powers moved election day to "Wednesday" ~ Fur Shur.
Wait.... her staff is selling secrets to the Times.... Dems sell out the country again... lets see how much of a story gets told... hmm
What a chice Harmon or Alycee Hastings.
Yeah, it's like jumping into the fire and then having someone brain you with the frying pan.
Cynthia McKinney's Dredlocks must be all a twitter-"aint nothing worse than the joos!!!!" So sayeth Cindy McCritter...
You and I are having a communication gap. I'm saying the majority of VOTERS aren't buying the MSM spin, and that is evidenced by the Republican majorities in both houses and the WH.
I agree with you that the majority of the general population accept the MBSM's version of things.
This is just the another Rat earning her badge of honor which guarantee reelection.
I wish there were some serious dirt on that butt ugly pig nosed Waxman. He will be the impeachment hatchet-man if the Rats take the house in Nov.
This is a load of horse puckey--brought to you by the loony lefties at The Nation. Time has now become a tabloid.
There is no sense at all to this piece.
Rats have a big problem. With all their squeeling about voter fraud in Florida and then Ohio, vote machines are getting computerized all over the country to eliminate fraud.
Fraud was often the deciding factor in their favor for the last 50 years. They cooked their own goose. Compare Florida 2000 to Florida 2004. They lost "RAT VOTES" big time.
"Alas Dimpled Chad, we knew thee well, If you RATS only pushed the stylus harder in that stack of 1000 behind closed doors, Chad would have fell, fell to the floor and given victory to Gore."
Every time a major city under RAT control goes to computer votes, they will lose thousands upon thousands of fraudulant RAT VOTES.
The only way they can win is to stop us from voting.
VOTE VOTE VOTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(...whispering here...I was told that Rove can reprogram all the Diebold machines from the US military satellites... kinda works the same way that the "On-Star" can unlock your car thingee...but you didn't hear this from me, OK?)
"The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman "
It is her aide that leaked to NYT, isn't it? Boy, she is just full of problems.
And ... she took the job from a black democrat!!??!!
Most of the population believes what the leftist media tells them.savedbygrace
Fortunately, the majority of the VOTING population doesn't. At least up till recently they didn't. We'll soon see if that's still true,My 2 cents:
It's undeniable that the doleful influence of journalism is what sustains the Democratic Party to the extent that it is even a strong minority, let alone a threat to gain control of Congress this year and of the WH in '08. I understand that people think that way; I yield to no one in my commitment to the idea that journalism has a leftist perspective - yet I myself was 35 years old before I became assured of the fact that journalism was slanted toward the Democrats.Yet it is pathetically easy to show, logically, that we should expect that journalism would be leftist. It is only necessary to analyze journalism's incentives and admitted behavior, and the facts are there in plain sight:
Journalism doesn't do anything but talk. Therefore for journalism, and journalists, to be prosperous and influential journalism must promote talk over action.In short journalism promotes exactly the same things that the post-LBJ Democratic Party promotes, and journalism is critical of the same things the post-LBJ Democratic Party criticizes. But since the incentives and behavior of journalism didn't change after Vietnam and the behavior of the Democratic Party did, it is the Democratic Party which is in the pocket of journalism and not the other way around.Journalism promotes talk over action when it focuses on bad news, as it admits it does. Classic example: journalists criticize the administration because the news from Iraq is bad. The administration replies that journalism only reports the bad news, and not the good, from Iraq. Journalism replies, "Nothing unusual about that. Bad news sells." Then journalism repeats its criticism of the administration because the news from Iraq is bad! Journalism will argue that it always criticizes the government no matter who is in power but that is not true. Journalism second guesses action. An administration which takes no risks avoids criticism, and the Clinton Administration is the exemplar of the post-Vietnam Democratic Party - risk aversion and symbolism rather than substantive action.
Journalism second guesses corporations for not making enough product (i.e., for the "excessive" price of the product) and for using too much resource and polluting too much, and for not hiring enough people and paying them enough money.
Journalism criticizes the police for ineffectiveness and for brutality, and criticizes the military for those sins and for spending too much money.
Journalism promotes the State Department and the UN because, like journalism, they only talk and do not act. Ditto for trade unions and plaintiff lawyers and Civil Rights activists and liberal arts professors.
Journalism defines "objectivity" as whatever is in the interests of journalism, and positively labels anyone who accepts that definition. Thus while only journalists are labeled "objective," fellow travelers are labeled "moderate" or "progressive" or - the old favorite - "liberal." Those who do not accept those definitions journalism labels "conservatives," even though such people favor progress of by and for the people, while "progressives" oppose drilling in ANWR and building refineries and genetic engineering and so forth.
That is of course the height of arrogance, but journalism considers itself to be the definition of the public interest and is supremely indifferent to the charge.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and IllegitimateI have used "journalism" as a singular noun, treating it as a single entity. This is appropriate because ABC News and NBC News are competitors only in the sense that the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox are competitors - they try to defeat each other within the white lines of the ball field, but both promote attendance at MLB ball parks. And all journalists promote journalism first and their own journalism organ second. Journalism could not maintain its unity as the Establishment in America otherwise.
I was thinking the same thing. Someone is out to get her...
pro-Israel group / democrat
Isn't this a contradiction in terms? Seriously.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/1/pub1936.html
Brookings Announces New Saban Center for Middle East Policy
5/9/2002
From: Colin Johnson, 202-797-6310 Martin Indyk, 202-797-6010 both of the Brookings Institution
WASHINGTON, May 9 --The president of the Brookings Institution, Michael H. Armacost, announced today the establishment of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. The launching event for the Center will take place on Monday, May 13, 2002, when His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan will make a special address to a select audience of policymakers in Washington, D.C.
Made possible by a generous founding grant from Mr. Haim Saban of Los Angeles, the Saban Center will permit the Brookings Institution to dramatically expand its research and analysis of Middle East policy issues at a time when the region has assumed a dominant position on the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
"After September 11, American interests in countering terrorism, promoting peace, preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and preserving regional stability all converged on the Middle East," Armacost noted. "The generosity of Haim Saban will enable Brookings to expand significantly its circle of experts who will conduct original research and develop innovative programs to promote a better understanding of the policy choices facing American decision-makers."
Saban, who heads the Saban Capital Group, will chair the bipartisan International Advisory Council of the new Center. The Council will comprise senior statesmen, former government officials, business and media executives, and academics from both the United States and the Middle East.
"As someone who has an abiding interest in promoting Arab-Israeli peace and preserving American interests in the Middle East, I am delighted to have an opportunity to help expand the work of the Brookings Institution in these areas," Saban declared. "The Brookings Institution's credibility and reputation for rigorous, policy-relevant scholarship makes it the ideal institution to house this vital work."
The Center will be directed by Brookings Senior Fellow Martin Indyk, a two-term U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Presidents Clinton and Bush who also served as assistant secretary of State for the Near East and Special Assistant to President Clinton on the National Security Council. In addition to his distinguished public service career, Ambassador Indyk has made substantial contributions to the understanding of U.S. policy in the Middle East as a scholar and as the founding executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Indyk noted, "The Middle East is a region of vital interest to the United States. At a time of prolonged crises there, Washington policymakers need balanced and objective research and policy analysis from experienced and knowledgeable people who can bring fresh perspectives to the critical problems of the day. The Saban Center will do just that."
The Saban Center will be part of the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, which is led by James B. Steinberg. Joining Ambassador Indyk in the work of the center will be Professor Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, and Dr. Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings who also directs the Brookings Center on the United States and France. The Center will have a core group of full-time Middle East specialists complemented by visiting fellows from the Arab world and Israel.
The geographic scope of the Saban Center's work will extend from Morocco to the Gulf and from Turkey to Egypt. It will cover the critical issues that affect U.S. interests in this vital but volatile region, including promoting Arab-Israeli peace, regional prosperity and good governance, as well as countering terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Initially, the Saban Center will undertake original research in four areas: constructing the future Palestinian state; lessons from Camp David for U.S. peace diplomacy; the implications of regime change in Iraq; and the dynamics of the Iranian reformation.
The Saban Center will house the ongoing Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World whose Task Force and other work is being funded by Brookings, the Ford Foundation, and the Government of Qatar. The Center will also develop a special project on the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship.
Educational programs at the Center will include monthly Policy Forums with leading policymakers and experts from the Middle East as well as conferences and symposiums.
One unique element of the Center's work will be the development of educational programs for mid-level government officials, congressional staffers, and corporate executives. Produced in conjunction with the Brookings Center for Public Policy Education, the courses will provide future policymakers with a better understanding of the complexities of the Middle East and the process of developing effective policies to deal with them.
In keeping with the Brookings commitment to communicate its scholarly work to a wide American and international audience, the Saban Center will develop a Middle East Web site that will make the Center's research, analysis, and activities available on the Internet.
which is exactly what the DUmmies will believe when, on the evening of Nov 7, (AFTER republicans vote, the DEMS vote on Nov 8 to guarantee shorter voting lines)..they begin to cry after believing all those CBS/MSNBC/ABC polls showing them way ahead..they absolutely refuse to believe anything else..
Did you catch the article over at The American Thinker?
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5966
"Coincidence in this Town (D.C.) is rare."
There seems to be a dynamic going on here that is very intricate.
Makes me think of the Weldon story too . . .
Yep
To: Fedora
Reportedly there is a link between Valerie Plame and Judith Miller in the AIPAC scandal.
That prosecution is separate from Fitz' case so he may not have juridiction over all the Plame/Miller stuff.
Judith Miller is Unnamed Woman in AIPAC Spy Ring Indictment http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Judith_Miller_Naor_Gilon_Franklin_AIPAC.htm158 posted on 11/04/2005 3:07:52 PM PST by MilleniumBug
Thanks for that bit of information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.