Bombshell: Israel, Jane Harman, Alberto Gonzales, NSA Wiretaps
One hell of a story today from CQ Politics. I don’t even know where to begin; it’s like a perfect storm of CrossedPond bait.
Alright, to begin: the warrantless NSA wiretapping apparently extends to members of Congress who show an interest in….stopping warrantless NSA wiretapping.
Rep. Jane Harmon, the Democratic congresswoman heavily involved in intelligence matters, picked up a secret court-approved wiretap in 2004/2005.
The wiretap was approved because the FBI was launching a secret investigation into Harman and some alleged dealings between her and covert members of Israeli intelligence. The investigation was later dropped due to “lack of evidence”, but I’ll get to that in a sec.
On the wiretap, Jane Harman, who was lobbying to become chair of the Intelligence Committee (she ultimately did not succeed, but just barely, but I’ll get to that too), was caught conferring with an Israeli agent, and here I’ll defer to the direct quotes.
The identity of the “suspected Israeli agent” could not be determined with certainty, and officials were extremely skittish about going beyond Harman’s involvement to discuss other aspects of the NSA eavesdropping operation against Israeli targets, which remain highly classified.
But according to the former officials familiar with the transcripts, the alleged Israeli agent asked Harman if she could use any influence she had with Gonzales, who became attorney general in 2005, to get the charges against the AIPAC officials reduced to lesser felonies.
AIPAC official Steve Rosen had been charged with two counts of conspiring to communicate, and communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. Weissman was charged with conspiracy.
AIPAC dismissed the two in May 2005, about five months before the events here unfolded.
Harman responded that Gonzales would be a difficult task, because he “just follows White House orders,” but that she might be able to influence lesser officials, according to an official who read the transcript.
Another source:
Rep. Jane Harman … was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington. Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.
In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win. Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”
Rosen et al, remember, were charged with espionage for passing on classified Pentagon intelligence briefings directly to Israel.
Harman, it should be noted, was passed over for the Intelligence Committee by Pelosi which, at the time, struck a lot of people (including me) as a significant snub. Pelosi was also passed over for a few cabinet spots in the Obama administration (we can now guess why), and now that I think about it, since 2006 or so, when she looked set to be vaulted into party leadership somewhere, she’s been laying pretty low.
In any case, the tit-for-tat on AIPAC in exchange for help an agent of Israeli intelligence trying to get Harman into a top intelligence position is, in and of itself, pretty astounding. It seems pretty clear that Israel is conducting a thorough and aggressive spying operation on America at the highest levels, and that, because of their lobby’s curious place in the beltway pantheon, this operation is bearing enormous fruit. Think about it. In exchange for leniency on an Israeli double agent, Israel is exerting pressure to staff our intelligence committees. That’s pretty alarming and astounding on any number of levels; the fact that this appears to be common knowledge (and generally accepted) amongst all the principal actors relating to intelligence issues in the political realm even more so.
But there’s more to the story. Here’s how the investigation was proceeding:
Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said.
And they were prepared to open a case on her, which would include electronic surveillance approved by the so-called FISA Court, the secret panel established by the 1979 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to hear government wiretap requests.
First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harman’s wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation.
Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department’s FISA application. He also decided that, under a protocol involving the separation of powers, it was time to notify then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Pelosi, of the FBI’s impending national security investigation of a member of Congress — to wit, Harman.
Goss, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of Harman’s rank as the panel’s top Democrat.
So it went through the ranks, authorized at every turn as a valid national security investigation (for which, ironically, until it hit the last desk it needed to clear, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’. At that last point before the gears of investigation would really start turning, however, Gonzales ordered the investigation killed. Why?
And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.
Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.
Remember when the New York Times broke the NSA wiretapping stories, but only after sitting on it for an inordinate amount of times, choosing to not publish the story until after the 2004 election was decided? That, apparently, was Harman’s handiwork.
According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.
Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program
He was right.
On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”
Pelosi and Hastert never did get the briefing.
And thanks to grateful Bush administration officials, the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.
So, to recap.
Jane Harman was working to facilitate Israeli covertly spying on America. In exchange for that, Israel promising to help her in her intelligence career.
Concurrently, the NSA was instituting a warrantless wiretapping program, which Harman was publicly defending, even going so far as to help smother the story from breaking.
Concurrently with that, one of the warrantless wiretaps was directed at Harman for committing treason, if not in letter than certainly in spirit. Ironically, that’s actually a fairly defensible use of warrantless wiretapping. But because of the information received, American intelligence thought a further and more robust investigation was warranted. The Bush administration intervened and killed the investigation so Harman could continue her defense of the program that was spying on her.
That last point isn’t just wildly ironic, it’s actually deeply troubling. Essentially, the Bush administration had illegally procured very damning information on Harman. It chose to not use that information for political reasons. Whether Harman just happened to be a supporter of the wiretapping program, unaware of the Bush administration intervention on her behalf, or whether she was actively blackmailed into supporting the program that had gathered the blackmail material on her (which nobody is alleging or even saying out loud, but is surely a possibility) is unclear. Nobody is (yet) asking that question. But all the pieces are there for that to be true, and whether it is or not in this specific case, it could well have been.
I mean, just take a step back and look at all the pieces here and you’ll realize just how amazing it is. The executive has the power to gather damning information on congressmen without oversight. If they find it (and in Harman’s case, they did), they can then use that information to further support their power to gather information without oversight.
There are two pieces here:
One is Jane Harman’s alarmingly corrupt ties to the Israel lobby. The wiretap, illegal that it was, did indeed find very damning information in this case. She needs to be accountable for it, though whether the investigation can be reopened (and whether the evidence on the wiretap, being illegally gotten, is admissible) is a sticky question. But it sure isn’t comforting knowing that Congress is trading political favors with people for the express intend of aiding them in spying on America for foreign governments.
The other is the terrifying danger of giving the executive the power to spy on the other branches of government without checks and balances. In this case, an influential and ambitious member of Congress was caught with her pants down. However, because it could be political useful, the investigation was buried and potential charges against her nixed. Whether that was part of a direct and explicit arrangement we’ll perhaps never know, but there’s nothing preventing that from being the case here or in any other instance.
All of the pieces here, in isolation and in concert, are deeply, deeply troubling.
It is now also time to have a serious conversation in Washington about AIPAC. Lobbying is one thing, even lobbying of such success as to have become intertwined with governance. But when agents of a foreign government are calling the shots to the extent that AIPAC is, not just in terms of politics but in terms of actively using their influence for espionage, it’s time for someone somewhere to start shining the sunlight. It would be akin to the KGB opening an office on KStreet. Near as I can figure, AIPAC is not only enormously and alarmingly effective at making American officials pledge fealty to another nation, it also appears to be a barely concealed front for a foreign nation’s intelligence services, a den of spies.
For one of our closest allies, it’s remarkable how committed Israel seems to be to covert espionage against us. The greatest threat from espionage in America, right now, comes from, of all people, Israel. Of course that might not sound as bad as an overtly hostile country having that level of infiltration, but still…how much inside ammunition do we want them to have? How comfortable are we with Benjamin Netanyahu having a direct line to state secrets? And their political influence is such that they’re actively lobbying members of our government to expedite their efforts and trying to staff our intelligence superstructure with people effectively acting as double agents. And it’s working.
One doesn’t have to be an anti-Semite to start finding merit in the phrase “Zionist conspiracy”, for all its unsavory connotations.
Comment by Brad — 4/20/2009 @ 12:03 pm
Two corrections:
Two corrections:
1. It is not clear from the story whether the wiretap on Harman was with a warrant or not. It was a FISA wiretap, but whether conducted through the old methods or via the Bushian revamped and supercharged process is unclear. That’s probably worth somebody figuring out: the executive surveilling members of the opposition party in Congress is, clearly, something that needs very, very clear line defined.
2. It is also not clear that the person lobbying Harman was a covert agent (CQ’s implication, which they make explicit in their story), or just a lobbyist. Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, suggests the latter, although I’m not convinced that distinction matters much in this specific instance.
Like I said, this is a story that’s going to take a lot of unpacking.
Harman I think is only the third most important actor here. The first two are, in order:
1. An executive branch spying on members of Congress (perhaps illegally, perhaps not) and then apparently deciding how to use (or not use) that information based purely and explicitly on political advantage. What. The. Fuck.
2. And secondly, AIPAC. I know it’s very radioactive to talk about any kind of Zionist conspiracy, but at this point I don’t think you have to be anti-Semitic to recognize that AIPAC is a little more than simply an effective lobbying organization. It appears to be a direct organ of the Israeli state and, particularly, its intelligence services, not only extracting a great deal of overt, political influence, but also as a launchpad for covert espionage. Although they are a friendly country, the extent to which they’re engaging in intelligence operations against us is alarming, and I’m not sure I want Benjamin Netanyahu with a direct line to state secrets and blackmail material on enormously influential members of Congress. It’s getting ridiculous with AIPAC, like the KGB setting up shop on K-Street and being so brazen as to hang a sign over their door.
Comment by Brad — 4/20/2009 @ 12:25 pm
And everybody thought I was paranoid when I was making noise about Eliot Spitzer’s taps.
Clearly what we don’t know right now is whether Harman and Rockefeller defended the surveillance state because they were slavishly devoted to liable telecoms or because Bushies were leaning on them with NSA leverage.
But yeah, this is J Edgar Hoover territory here.
Comment by thimbles — 4/20/2009 @ 1:02 pm
AIPAC = KGB, not once, but TWICE?
Look, what happened here is clearly unacceptable, and your concern is justified, but do I really need to point out the reasons why that particular comparison is hyperbolic?
Comment by Rojas — 4/20/2009 @ 7:43 pm
Oh, I had already used that analogy. I only meant to use it once, but had forgotten I’d already typed it. Incidentally, I didn’t mean to say that Israel has as hostile aims as Russia did, which is clearly where the comparison would be hyperbolic. My comparison was on tactics and desire to use them, which at this point is starting to look more and more similar.
But I might also point out that there are other aspects of Israeli spying that have their own set of problems. For instance, I’d indicate that Israel is a keystone for much of our Middle Eastern policy (which is, in itself, a keystone for much of our foreign policy), and one which they might not have our best interests at heart. So not only do you have a nation whose lead we might follow on, say, making war with Iran, but you also have them actively stealing United States intelligence (presumably, of the kind we don’t share with them already). Imagine if, for instance, instead of reducing the sentence of two AIPAC members accused of espionage, they were asking to suppress a report casting credible doubt on the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program, or to axe a deal with Hamas, or whatever. Sound far-fetched? I don’t know why it should. Russian intelligence had the capacity to screw us over in isolated theaters, but most of their operational intelligence (not counting, say, nuclear or major weapon secrets) could not be used to push America into making war on its enemies.
The lobbying thing is for the most part above-board. I don’t like it because I don’t necessarily like their agenda (at least not lately), but I can’t begrudge them wanting to see their agenda enacted—it’s what any lobbying group does.
But actively staffing with covert operatives? Asking members of the intelligence committee to step in on their behalf in protecting their espionage operation in exchange for political favors? And members of Congress actively taking them up on that?
Again, you don’t have to even particularly dislike Israel to see this as a massive problem. I think there are bigger fucked up things about this story than the AIPAC angle, which might rank 4th or 5th, but it’s certainly in the mix.
Comment by Brad — 4/20/2009 @ 8:54 pm
Yeah, AIPAC doesn’t need to hide in the shadows to intimidate American politicians. You should be nicer to the KGB.
(I know, I’m just stirring up the shit right now, but…) The NSA story and the influence AIPAC has on politicians on both side of the aisle are both extremely important issues. I for one really desire to know why the republicans felt free enough to invent scandal from whole cloth ie: Don Seigelman and ACORN, or use their powers in unusual and extreme ways to catch dems ie: Spitzer and William Jefferson, while the democrats have proved hesitant to investigate and prosecute the most outrageous violations of the law and constitution. Before I thought it was just craven weakness – cowardice + corruption and aggressive lobbying from interested parties. It very well still could be, but the possibility exists that the Bush Administration had info that they were willing to use if the dems started acting too far out of line ie: like republicans.
PS. I’m only saying the possibility exists. What’s needed are transparent investigations to confirm whether or not oppositional government has been crippled for the last 6 or so years because the Mayberry Machiavellis used every means at their disposal, legal or not, to break it.
Comment by thimbles — 4/20/2009 @ 9:08 pm
Well, no. For one thing, AIPAC is not poisoning political dissenters with uranium.
Comment by Rojas — 4/20/2009 @ 9:34 pm
That you know of, Rojas. That you know of.
The Harman deal was with an Israeli operative. Not AIPAC. The operative wanted Harman’s help on AIPAC’s behalf. At which point, they were willing to lobby Pelosi for Harman’s promotion.
That AIPAC was doing intel work on Israel’s behalf is an important symptom of the real disease. There’s a chance that there’s too much covert Israeli tampering within the American government. On both sides of the aisle.
And then there’s the whole separate disease of the past administration abusing NSA powers.
A real Augean Stables has developed here.
Comment by thimbles — 4/20/2009 @ 10:29 pm
Damn blockquote! *puts on Starship trooper drill sarge voice* EDIT!
Comment by thimbles — 4/20/2009 @ 10:35 pm
Look at Rojas try to defend, deflect and deflate.
He just can’t get past his ethnic interests on this issue.
Remember, you are only seeing a small portion of what goes on – every time they are caught you can be sure 10 similar incidents go undetected.
And the wire taps for Harmon were FISA approved, so forget about the Herbert Hoover arguments (not to mention Harmon supported reducing or eliminating FISA requirements, not strengthning.)
Comment by daveg — 4/21/2009 @ 12:27 am
Yeah, we don’t know the background on the case presented to FISA. We don’t know how many cases or the merits of those cases involving democrats. We do know the Department of Justice and the NSA were abused, the Department of Justice in particular was used to carry out political prosecutions.
We don’t know whether the past admin was keeping dossiers on political targets, and that’s what Herbert used to do.
We don’t know, but we have reason to suspect, which is reason to investigate in a transparent and public way.
Comment by thimbles — 4/21/2009 @ 2:33 am