Six links, and a couple thoughts on the Harman case

This is fascinating stuff...

"...Don't you think some of the allies' help he sought was Republican? Were their FISA warrants signed off on when they were intercepted talking to Mr. X discussing the case and how they might help? And if so, by whom? And if not, why not?)..."

Good question... maybe because Mueller definitely didn't want to go there? With Goss, I believe you said he had a major thing going on with Harman [and maybe he's not the only one]? Goss was more than happy to give the NSA and FBA [in Harman's case] all the necessary dotted i's, and crossed t's? Also, maybe she thought she was invincible, like the republicans because of her loyality to the administration and in the end she got a little careless?

With Pelosi's senior moment -- maybe she needed to get a little background on what was going on before throwing herself to the wolves? Yesterday, having not been given the full rundown of who 'might' be really running this "faux Harman Scandal"?

Another question: do we know if these selected portions of a tapped transcript(s) are still unclassified? It's not like it's top secret Iranian national security type material. Roth at TPM seems to think this might be a "...classic public corruption case -- a public official using his or her influence to obtain a thing of value..."? Could there be a loophole here that would have allowed these national security officials to drop some portions of the transcript in the public domain? I don't know -- but I would love to find out.

Sands, Per y0ur question, a former senior gov't national security lawyer tells me no, it would still be a felony: "Unauthorized release of the transcript would be a felony, independent of the classified information disclosure. The purpose of that provision is to protect the people who are under surveillance and those they talk to."

Ok -- So I want to ask a stupid question...

I keep thinking about the Blago case. Is your 'former' gov source sure then it was actually an "unauthorized" release of the transcript? Has that been confirmed? Also, regarding protecting those under surveillance -- the person under surveillance is still unknown -- and Harman it has been reported has apparently committed a 'completed crime'. Where does the felony come in?

You're wading into a legal discussion with someone who is not a lawyer. But - on the first question - am I or anyone i talked to sure this release was "unauthorized." No, I am not sure, but it seems highly unlikely that it was authorized. On the contrary, it would seem to put a lot of pressure on the Justice Department to either release information it would be highly problematic to release (which lawmakers did it snap up in wiretaps, authorized by whom, the other parties targeted on the taps, etc. etc. etc., cases it mostly inherited, against people who were not indicted, cases it did not oversee, and have probably not had much time to review); secondly, it would seem to me to add pressure on the DOJ to drop the very case the presumed leakers want to proceed against the former AIPAC officials by highlighting suggested irregularites/politicization in the investigation amd its aftermath. If the indictees in the case were accused of the same or similar crime as frustrated ex investigators leaking evidence from a case they fear is going to be dumped, what's a jury going to think? Everybody leaks sensitive information for an agenda when it suits them, the prosecutors and the prosecuted, and it's all fair game? Doesn't seem like a fair system. If Harman completed a crime, then presumably the DOJ should review the evidence and decide if it has evidence to indict her, which it has not done. Hard for her to prove she's innocent if she's not been charged with a crime. Even if you're unsympathetic with Harman, how is this case supposed to proceed, if it's all happening outside of the legal system? Who is not vulnerable to slander by such allegations that don't ever get officially charged? Did the leakers here commit a heroic act by taking a risk to expose what they thought was a politicized effort to suppress investigation of a crime? Or did they commit the same behavior of the people they are investigating, for different motives? And who gets to decide?

given that voice calls are being tapped, I wonder if all DC Blackberry messages were also captured and recorded? This unauthorized release of transcripts may be a public indication of what records are extant.

Nothing about the legality of the wiretap determines whether the leak of the information would constitute an unlawful disclosure of classified information. Classified information could be derived from a legal wiretap; it would be equally illegal to disclose it. Do you have a reason to believe the information leaked was classified, other than idle speculation that the wiretap was illegal, which would not be relevant to that question anyway? Why do you speculate on such legal questions when you simultaneously profess your non-lawyer caveat? Why not just refrain?

Re (1) aren't you being a little overdramatic? Did not Jeff Stein indicate that the reason the story broke now is because he finally followed up on a lead that he has had laying around for quite some time?:

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.

and

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.

So is it your contention that Jeff Stein is a liar and/or a witless dupe?

Ockam's razor would suggest that what we have here is a whistle blower who is blowing the whistle on a criminal conspiracy involving a US Rep, the investigation of which was dropped by the AG in exchange for favors from the US Rep.

The reports on Harman came out this week. But the motive of whoever gave the information is what I was speculatively describing - whenever that occurred. I take Jeff at his word that he had this for a while. Even though it only reached big headlines this week, the Jewish press has extensively covered going back months the fact that the case in question against the former lobbyists has suffered several pre-trial setbacks, and there has long been speculation that the case may not get to trial. Until this week, that speculation seemed mostly based on what the defense lawyers were saying. But this week, the Post said the Holder DOJ was actually reviewing whether the case should go forward or not. For the people deeply invested in the case who feel there is undue or illegal Israeli influence on the US government and have spent a lot of their careers investigating such cases, it's got to be incredibly frustrating. Those cases, they feel, are always shut down for political reasons. This leak seemed design to give it another leg. We'll see. Maybe it will work. CQ reports today that House intel committee chairman (the guy who got the job instead of Harman) Silvestre Reyes said he is going to investigate.

Incidentally, I love how the Wall Street Journal tries to re-write the facts about the charges against the former AIPAC officials: supposedly, they "are charged with passing on classified information they received from the Bush administration to journalists and other officials."

Ummm...yeah, ISRAELI officials.

See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124033042420239451.html