Comments on: Hackwatch: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)

By: Ben (the other one)

Ben (the other one) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:25:07 +0000

SJE, I don’t see your point. I was responding to the assertion (see #26) that the RELEASE of the information on Harman “has all the hallmarks of internal Jackass Party feuding” (by which I assume he/she meant Democrats). I thought that was unlikely (especially since the sources have been described as current and former intelligence officials).

I was certainly not defending Harman, if what has been reported is actually true.

By: SJE

SJE — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:20:53 +0000

Ben#28: while it is possible that disgrunted Bushies released the information on Harman, it remains that Harman created the information. If facts appearing in the media are unflattering, perhaps you shouldn’t have done those things. I wait for a full disclosure that might put things in proper perspective.

By: Ben (the other one)

Ben (the other one) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:44:54 +0000

Chsw (#26)– I think it’s more likely that the release of the information on Harman was by disgruntled Bush admin dead-enders who wanted to inflict some payback on her for not preventing the release of the torture memos.

By: SJE

SJE — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:01:10 +0000

talking of hackwatch, andrew sullivan is collecting quotes e.g. Pres Bush, National Review etc calling for prosecution up and down the line for those who approved the treatment at Abu Ghreib. That could be interesting.

By: chsw

chsw — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:33:02 +0000

I think that the release of the info on Harman has all the markings of internal Jackass Party feuding.

By: Nick T

Nick T — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:22:45 +0000

Radley,

How about a hackwatch for all those politicians who vigorously pursued the impeachment of Clinton, but now think criminal investigations would be too divisive and politically controversial to pursue now?

By: Edmund Dantes

Edmund Dantes — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:55:10 +0000

Let me clarify. She has a subcommittee chair, but not the overall Intelligence committee chair she wanted and thought she deserved.

By: Edmund Dantes

Edmund Dantes — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:53:43 +0000

No she wasn’t given the Intelligence chair. It was actually a big deal because she was technically one of the people in line for it. People had objected to her being given the chair because of her support of Bush’s policies and her membership in the Blue Dog coalition. Turns out the DFH were right again.

By: Collin

Collin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:11:48 +0000

D’oh, wrong comittee.

By: Collin

Collin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:38 +0000

“Pelosi did give Harman the chair, as instructed.”

Silvestre Reyes is the chairman, not Jane Harman.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:56:31 +0000

The scandal does not stop with Harman and Haim Saban. Pelosi did give Harman the chair, as instructed. Some have called for Harman’s ouster/resignation. Shouldn’t Pelosi at least step down as Speaker? She sold a committee chair.

The other part of the story — that Harman was needed to chair the Intel committee in order to make the case for war with Iran — seems to be getting hushed. Much louder are the hysterics over Iran’s supposed nuke weapons program.

Yeah, I know, the Republicans are just as bad. Where does that leave us?

By: Ben (the other one)

Ben (the other one) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:59:04 +0000

I suspect Michael (#18) is correct– that the government got a Wiretap Act warrant against the person she was talking to. Assuming the conversation happened (and her non-denial denial is pretty weak), it would have been minimized (i.e., the recording stopped) if the investigators believed while listening that it was innocent. In the normal, pre-9/11 world, these requirements were followed pretty well in most cases.

By: Michael Chaney

Michael Chaney — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:14:52 +0000

Just here to repeat Cornellian – they actually went to the trouble of obtaining a warrant in the Harman case. The warrant was likely for the other side of the conversation, but, regardless, she’s trying to jump on the warrantless wiretapping bandwagon when it didn’t affect her (that we know of).

That actually makes her worse, in my book, as she’s misrepresenting her case to garner sympathy that is even less deserved.

By: Congresswoman Harman: You mean they can tap my phone? « Sleepy G’s

Congresswoman Harman: You mean they can tap my phone? « Sleepy G’s — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:44:00 +0000

[...] April 22, 2009 by Garret From Radley Balko: [...]

By: Cornellian

Cornellian — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:47:11 +0000

“my understanding of warrantless surveillance is that it can’t be used for criminal trials- is this correct? if so, has she violated any civil statutes?”

The Feds actually did have a warrant to spy on Jane Harman, according to the story.

So to sum up:

Feds spying on you WITHOUT a warrant = reasonable and necessary measure in the interests of national security;

Feds spying on Jane Harman WITH a warrant = outrageous abuse of governmental power.

Thanks for clearing that up for us Rep. Harman.

By: paranoiastrksdp

paranoiastrksdp — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:10:59 +0000

@ #10

God damn it.

By: ManM

ManM — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:57:39 +0000

What committee is she on, Radley?

You said “intelligence,” but that can’t be right.

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:55:13 +0000

I love irony, but I can’t even laugh at this… my understanding of warrantless surveillance is that it can’t be used for criminal trials- is this correct? if so, has she violated any civil statutes?

By: Highway

Highway — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:22:49 +0000

I heard her on NPR, and what I kept hearing when she was talking was “How dare they do this to a member of Congress”. It took her until the very last word of the interview to say ‘Citizen’. Until that last sentence it was seemingly implied that this would all be fine if it was some normal person, it’s just beyond the pale when we do it to someone who is in the federal government.

Personally, I was thinking ‘You know, we should do this with ALL congressmen and senators, and leave the rest of us alone.’

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:17:14 +0000

Hold on a second…Israel has spies?

Aren’t they our most trusted friends and like almost married to us…oh, and the trillions in aid.