Harman is more than a bad Democrat - She's a criminal

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Steve covered the Harman story here but TPMMuckraker supplies a timeline that lays out the crimes of Jane Harman against the United States and the Democratic Party. 

* Around Oct 2005: An NSA wiretap picks up a phone call between Harman and a "suspected Israeli agent," discussing the quid pro quo involving Rosen, Weissman, and the intel chair job. (A different report suggests that the wiretap was carried out not by the NSA, but by the FBI, as part of the Rosen-Weissman probe.)

* Soon afterwards: Justice Department lawyers read the transcripts of the call, and decide that Harman has committed a "completed crime," meaning they thought evidence existed that Harman had tried to put the scheme into motion. The government lawyers are prepared to open a case on Harman, involving FISA-approved wiretaps.

* Soon after that: Then-CIA Director Porter Goss reviews the transcript of the call and signs off on the Justice Department's FISA application. Goss also decides he's required to notify then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Pelosi, of the impending probe, since it involves a sitting House member.

* Soon after that: Then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales short-circuits the investigation, saying he "needed Jane" to publicly support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was now, finally, about to be exposed by the Times. Gonzales told Goss that Harman had helped persuade the Times to hold the earlier story on the program (a claim Times executive editor Bill Keller today appeared to deny, though his statement was narrowly worded), and could serve as an important public defender of the program.

* Dec 16, 2005: The Times breaks the warrantless wiretapping story.

* Dec 21, 2005: Proving Gonzales right, Harman issues a statement on the wiretapping program: "I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

Nancy Pelosi and the Dems should strip her of all of here committee assignments at once and insists he resign.  The DOJ should begin an immediate investigation of Harman's activities in spite of the fact that it would be looking back and not forward. 

Update

This from commentor OneVote at The Nation

Title 18, Chapter 34 United State Code

§ 794.

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.'

Intent to harm US isn't necessary - advantage to a foreign nation is the hook. Harmon and AIPAC have clearly crossed the line and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Misprision of Treason under Title 18 and Treason may be appropriate as well.

Comments

[Peter G.]

The big problem I have with this story is that no one seems able to tell me what crime she is supposed to have committed. Even if you accept the fact that senior NSA people are turning over classified information to reporters (which is a crime itself) the supposed transcript contains nothing incriminating. Frankly I think the whole thing is a fabrication. What precisely is she supposed to have done. She has absolutely no say whatsoever in the prosecution of anyone so obstruction of justice is out. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.