Wiretapping Rep Harman

Jeff Stein is an investigative reporter of long standing, specializing in U.S. intelligence, defense and foreign policy. In Sept. 2002, he launched CQ/Homeland Security. An Army Intelligence case officer in Vietnam, he is now CQ.com National Security Editor and writes the weekly SpyTalk column. An occasional contributor to the New York Times and Washington Post, Jeff was deputy foreign editor for UPI during the 1980s. He appears frequently on CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the BBC and NPR as a commentator on national security issues.

This discussion is over, but please read the transcript below.

• Michael Clark from New Tripoli, PA:

  Jeff, you say nothing much was gained by the alleged ethical corruption. How do you know that?

   

  Congress failed to expose most details of the NSA wiretapping scandal. Indeed, Congress eventually swept the details from sight and virtually legalized the programs after the fact. It was widely suspected that their failure to act properly was related to the taint of Harman and several other key Democrats in the politics of the NSA - that caving on illegal wiretapping was seen as the only way to avoid scrutiny of Harman et alii in various unsavory but still secret episodes involving intelligence agencies.

   

  If the reported details are accurate, this story would seem to bolster that interpretation of the Democratic cave-in. Michael Clark aka 'smintheus' unbossed.com

• Jeff Stein:

  Well, I meant nothing was gained in regard to this particular transaction.

   

  I have no idea of whether what transpired in the events I'm reporting had any effect whatsover on Domocratic responses to the warrantless wiretapping disclosures.

   

  The tap that my sources say caught Harman was court-approved.

• Dane from Chicago: You report that the wiretapping took place "5 months after May, 2005", and imply that this was a time when the "Democrats were heavily favored to win." But this was a full year before the elections. Use of the phrase "heavily favored to win" strengthens the argument for a quid pro quo, but is simply not true. Why did you use this phrase?
• Jeff Stein:

  Well, it's was my judgment that the Democrats were heavily favored to win even then.  But if you have polls from then that contradict my judgment, I'll accept that.

   

   

• Mark Regan from Fairbanks: If it's a gross invasion of privacy for the Government to wiretap Rep. Harman, isn't it an even grosser invasion of privacy for you to publicize the results, even if the results have news value?
• Jeff Stein: She was not the object of the tap.
• Laura in DC: Great scoop. How does one know it was an NSA wiretap versus an FBI wiretap?
• Jeff Stein: Good question. I'm told it was a court-approved NSA tap. 
• Bill from Virginia:

   If the episode happened exactly as you laid it out, did that violate any U.S. laws?

• Jeff Stein: The FBI was on the verge of opening an investigation to determine just that.
• Adam from Philadelphia: What is the current state of that case against Rosen and Weissman? What effect do you think this revelation will have on that case moving forward?
• Jeff Stein: A trial is scheduled for June. 
• Mary from Kentucky:

  Your piece refers to a lot of action vis a vis the CIA re: the FBI investigation with no mention of Mueller and his role.

   

  Since when would Goss be the "go to" on signing off on an FBI application to FISCt for an ongoing FBI investigation? IOW, why is the CIA the spider in the center of the web for the decisions on the FBI investigation, with Gonzales going to Goss to spike the investigation?

   

  {I'll have to say, I'm also confused as to how minimization would have allowed Harman to be in captured in toto in any event and also the identity of the AIPAC agent can be so fuzzy and yet there be a FISCt order that allowed the interceptions and also why Harman would have believed that the Israeli agent would have had the necessary connections with Pelosi to pull off what was being promised.

• Jeff Stein: Very good question. Mueller is the first "go-to," and in his absence, his deputy. But I was told they were out of town when DoJ came looking for sign-offs on the renewal of the FISA tap. Thus Goss was the first to see the new info about Harman, and was intending to act upon it.
• Claire from Washington DC: Why are your sources coming forward now? There must be some reason why they have waited almost three years.
• Jeff Stein:

  Thanks. I've seen a lot of speculation about that online.

   

  The fact is, there is no "timing" to any "leak."

   

  No sources "came forward," so to speak.

   

  I learned about this quite a while ago and was just recently able to turn my full attention to it. Total coincidence. 

• Tim from NYC:

  The rest of the House Democratic caucus has to be livid about this story.

  Do you think Speaker Pelosi will use it to finally bury Jane Harman? What will she do?

• Jeff Stein: I have no idea how the Democrats on the Hill are reacting, sorry. But I don't think there's anything she can do to Harman beyond what she's already done, ie, pass her over for the chairmanship. 
• Josh from Boston:

  Today, NY Times editor Bill Keller denied that Rep. Jane Harman had any role in persuading him to hold wiretap story in the leadup to the 2004 presidential elections.

   

  Do you have evidence to refute his denial?

   

  Even if Keller's statement is true, is there still sufficient evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement between Harman and DOJ, exchanging her 2005 public support of the wiretapping program for the dropping of the criminal investigation against her?

• Jeff Stein:

  If that's Keller's statement, I'll take it on face value. According to my sources, it was Gonzales who told Goss that she had helped to quash the NYT story.

   

  On your second question, the FBI was going to investigate whether there was a quid pro quo. As I reported, that investigation never happened. 

• Robert - Seattle: Is this Illegal and can any legal remedies be brought to bear? Thank you.
• Jeff Stein: Thx. The FBI was called in to investigate that very question, but never got a chance. We must remember that, from a legal standpoint, she is innocent until proven guilty.
• bob from Carefeee, Arizona:

  Why doesn't someone tell the public ALL about this issue?

   

  Spying on the US, from whomever, should be among the most serious crimes which we pursue. It is time the nation knows the power and the abuse of AIPAC and its operatives.

   

  It is already disgraceful that the case against Rosen and Wiseman has not yet come to trial. The charade must stop.

• Jeff Stein: In this particular case, the NSA was not "spying on the U.S." It was a court-approved tap directed at foreign agents.
• Abben from Vermont: What stopped the intelligence officials from mentioning the existence of wiretaps on Rep. Harman when the story originally broke?
• Jeff Stein:

  Good question -- but I don't have an answer.

   

  Could have been because it was a very, very sensitive ongoing operation. People feel freer to talk after the passage of time.

• Charles from Easley, SC:

  Is this treason?

   

  If treason is "actions against a nation by one of its citizens," isn't this it? To intervene in the legal system to advance the interests of foreign spies seems unwise, at least, and treasonable, at worst.

   

  Tie in the political "horse-trading" aspect with the Bush Administration and you have the full spectrum of corruption, influence-peddling, and treason.

   

  Maybe Harman should resign. Any chance? Unfortunately, this kind of behavior in endemic to our corrupt political system. As long as money rules, the national interest will come second.

• Jeff Stein:

  Treason is much, much too heavy a term for what is alleged here. The acts described in my story may not have even been illegal. That was for the FBI and DoJ to decide.

• John fron San Francisco: Jeff: Do you mean that when it comes to AIPAC and Israel,there is not distinction between Democrat and Republicans? Or when it matter of Washington corruption politicians embrace Libby/Abramoff type of philosophy?
• Jeff Stein: For any lobbying organization, there is no distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Lobbying groups want to influence officials and members of Congress who have juice.
• Sandy from Brooklyn: Why is all this stuff coming out now?
• Jeff Stein:

  No special reason.

   

  The story was not "planted" on me to influence any other events -- in particular the looming AIPAC trial or things related to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. I've known about it for some time but just not been able to pull it together until now for various reasons.   

• Alfonso from Houston, TX: Why hasn't Israel signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty?
• Jeff Stein: There's been lots written on that. Not my topic today, but thanks for writing.
• Brent Sanders from Alexandria, LA: How can we the people get a fair investigation into this matter if the indicted is the government and the investigative body is also the government?
• Jeff Stein:

  Democracy is not perfect, I guess is my answer.

  It's up to citizens to demand -- and demand again -- honest government. Thx for writing.

• mommadona-Ben Lomond, CA:

  Is the intelligence apparatus holding Congress hostage with the "don't ask, don't tell" cover of 'national security' for operations that are ideologically/personally motivated by the people in charge?

   

  Who's makin' the big bucks off this security gig?

   

  Why not dismantle the apparatus and build from bottom to top?

   

  Who REALLY IS IN CHARGE OF THESE PEOPLE? 

• Jeff Stein: You have to remember that the events I described involve a tap sanctioned by the so-called FISA Court, established by an act of Congress in 1978. 
• Chritopher from La Mesa: How does this wiretap play into the case against Rosen and Weissman? Will it be part of the government's case, and be released to the public during testimony?
• Jeff Stein: I really don't know what, if any, effect it will have..
• J.D. from D.C.: But if you take the Times at face value, somebody lied - either Harman lied to Gonzales, Gonzales lied to Goss, or your sources - for this part, clearly close to Gonzales and/or Goss - lied to you. Aren't you worried that your sources lied to you about this especially given the bad history that Goss and Harman have?
• Jeff Stein:

  I guess the shortest way to answer this question is to say that that if I thought my sources were lying to me, I wouldn't have written the story.

  For sure, sources bring various motivations to the table, but in this case I really think they were all disturbed about the system not being able to take its course, and that that the available public record was not complete. Thx for writing.  

• Mary from Bethesda: Why won't your sources give any more details about the alleged Israeli agent?
• Jeff Stein:

  National security wiretaps are about the most sensitive item the government has.

• Boss from LA: Jeff, thanks for writing this story. What happens next? Will the DOJ re-start their investigation and look at this matter seriously, or will this just be one bad news cycle day for Harman?
• Jeff Stein: That's a good question. I'd like to know what DoJ will do, too, but it's too soon to tell. 
• Jayne from Seattle:

  Do you think the investigation of [possible foreign agent involvement in Congress] is still ongoing?

  Do you think the wiretap was/is anything to do with a possible [even parallel] FBI investigation into the Rosen case?

  My understanding is that the DoJ still hasn't decided whether they will pursue the case? With the obvious fact that AIPAC do not wanting Rosen on the stand. Have you heard anything, is there any connection?

• Jeff Stein:

  In 2006 various news organzations reported that the FBI had "opened" an investigation and then "closed it...for lack of evidence."

  I'm reporting that the investigation was never really opened. Harman was not questioned.  But again, as far as I know, there is NO connection between my story and the trial of Rosen and Weissman.

• Frank from Kansas: I think most participants in this discussion are missing the point. Half of this story involves Gonzales obstructing justice. The other half, which certainly passes the "treason" duck test, is that Harman "completed" a deal with apparent foreign agents to stop the investigation into spying by and consequences for a foreign country. Am I missing something here?
• Jeff Stein:

  No, as I understand it, Harmon did not ever attempt to "stop the investigation." According to my sources, she agreed to try to help get the charges against Rosen and Wesssman reduced. That's a very different thing.

• Steve New Hampshire: Was there an ongoing investigation of Israeli spying that she was picked up on tape?
• Jeff Stein: Yes.