Jane Harman Is *NOT* "Currently" Under Investigation

One of the talking points being offered in defense of Nancy Pelosi's plan to dump Jane Harman as House Intel Chair is that she is "currently under federal investigation" for her "possible illegal enlistment of AIPAC in lobbying for her committee post" (quoting Matt Yglesias); Glenn Greenwald offers this as "is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC".

From Mr. Yglesias I expect better - let me offer a steaming mug of reality to the reality based community, from the NY Times, with helpful emphasis added:

The officials, confirming a Time magazine report, said the bureau had been looking into whether she had made improper promises to the group in exchange for its efforts to lobby Ms. Pelosi on her behalf.

But the officials also said that the accusations had not been proved and that although the inquiry remained open, it was no longer being actively pursued.

[Folks who don't like the Times may prefer Dan Eggen of the WaPo, who led with this:

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group, but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

...Although the case is still considered open, officials said, the allegations have not been substantiated, and there has been no significant investigative activity on the issue in recent months. The inquiry was first reported by Time magazine.

Or let's try the AP:

Last week, the Web site time.com reported that the FBI had begun probing whether [Harman] enlisted the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's help in lobbying Pelosi to keep her job.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, told The Associated Press that Harman's ties with AIPAC have been under scrutiny since last year.

However, the inquiry has been dormant in recent months and so far has failed to turn up evidence of illegal activity, said the official, who would not detail any concerns there might be.]

It is quite rare for the Feds to formally close an investigation, because who knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of new evidence.  But neither Greenwald nor Yglesias have offered any evidence to support their contention that the investigation is current.  She was under investigation for engaging in politics, and now she is not.

As to the substance of the charge against her, my goodness - she calls the DoJ to inquire about an intel-related case (perfectly legal), AIPAC tells Pelosi she is doing a great job (perfectly legal), and that adds up to a crime?

By that standard, let me propose another criminal investigation - the Congressional Black Caucus throws their support to Pelosi in exchange for a promise that one of their own will be elevated to chair of the House Intel committee.  The quid, the pro, and the quo all seem to be there - where is the investigation?

Well, there won't be one, nor should there be, because that is absolutely politics as usual, as was Harman's phone call on behalf of AIPAC.

All that said, if the leading lights of the left could sail back to reality and correct this "current" problem, I know we would welcome them.  We'll leave the light on.

WHILE I'M PLAYING EDITOR:  Ezra Klein of TAPPED offers this bit of incomplete history in defense of Pelosi's acumen:

And Crowley should inform "Reader A. M." that the Hammer would have understood. In 1995, he ran for Majority Whip and defeated the preferred candidate of that Definer Of The Rules Of Civilization, Newt Gingrich. I don't recall anyone commenting at the time how weak Gingrich "seemed" or that he put on a "game face" after this crushing blow to his new Republican majority.

Let's go the incomparable Times archives, a compelling value as part of the Times Select package which also includes daily access to great commentary by the Times top columnists (NO, I am not paid enough for this; go with the "it's five o'clock somewhere" theory):

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 (Special to The New York Times) -- Representative Newt Gingrich announced today that he would support a longtime ally, Representative Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania, in a three-way contest for the No. 3 leadership position in the House.

Mr. Walker, who is beginning his 19th year in Congress, is running against Tom DeLay of Texas and Bill McCollum of Florida for majority whip. Representative Dick Armey of Texas faces no opposition in his pursuit of the No. 2 job, majority leader.

Mr. Gingrich's press secretary, Tony Blankley, said tonight that Mr. Gingrich, who is expected to become Speaker, would vote for Mr. Walker but not actively campaign for him.

Just a guess, but it was Ms. Pelosi's decision to actively push for Murtha that turned this into a spectacle and her into a Peloser.

CLASSIC GREENWALD:  Folks who can't endure the link will miss this old rhetorical standby from Greenwald.  Here we are in paragraphs fifteen-sixteen, learning that the cause of the Pelosi-Harman personal rift is reported but unproven:

I'd like to see proof that Pelosi's opposition to Harman is purely or even principally personal. I keep hearing this from [reporters], but what is it based on? ...

How do these all-knowing analysts know that Pelosi's opposition to Harman isn't based on these obvious and compelling substantive grounds, as opposed to the bitchy personal "cat fights" they allegedly have had?

Clear?  Reporters say their is a personal animosity, but they don't say why. 

Yet by paragraph twenty-one, the reporters have no foundation at all for their beliefs:

...these self-styled "serious" journalists are already trying to cripple Pelosi's ability to do anything before she has even begun, all based on giggly chit-chat and gossipy garbage that has no legitimacy other than the fact that they all repeat it in unison on television and in print.

Somewhere in those five paragraphs Greenwald made it from not knowing their proof to knowing they had no proof, reminding me yet again that I could never cut it in the reality based community.

Comments

[clarice]

I said this was a crock a long time ago.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5966

[Cecil Turner]

She was under investigation for engaging in politics, and now she is not.

Maybe they meant to say she was under investigation for leaking national intelligence information. One can only hope . . .

[Glenn Greenwald]

From the Time Magazine article linked to in my post (but not linked to, unsurprisingly, in yours - why let your readers see the evidence that contradicts the fantasies you're feeding them?) - helpful emphasis added:

The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee

Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.

The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf.

The Time article makes clear that the invesitgation *IS* ongoing, and the NYT article you quote also says that the investigation is *OPEN*. The DoJ has the ability to *CLOSE* an investigation, but it has not done so here.

Of course, you chose to highlight the NYT article, rather than TIME article (which you concealed from your readers), because you think the NYT is a more credible source, not because its article was slightly more favorable to a political figure you like.

Finally, why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager to defend Democrat Jane Harman. The answer is the same one that is driving Nancy Pelosi to choose someone else for this critical spot. Americans rejected the views that you have about wars and foreign affairs and the last thing Pelosi ought to do is install someone in such a sensitive position who thinks the way you do.

Joe Lieberman and Jane Harman - every neocon's favorite Democrats. That's why she won't be Chair of anything.

[boris]

why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager

Probably because we already know why.

Dimorats are now in a position to either claim some undeserved credit for a good result or take well deserved blame for a bad result.

For the good of the country "we" prefer the first because for "us" the country comes before politics.

[clarice]

Glenn, before we continue, please tell us what law precludes a lobying group from lobbying for a supporter to hold a chairmanship.

Then, tell us how Pelosi's lunatic notion to appoint Alcee comports with her earlier statement that she intended to give the chairs to existing members of committees to retain in place those who had more experience on the issues dealt with by those committees.

[Glenn Greenwald]

Glenn, before we continue, please tell us what law precludes a lobying group from lobbying for a supporter to hold a chairmanship.

I didn't say anyone violated any law. I only said that there is an ongoing DOJ investigation, which there is.

But what *WOULD* violate the law is if she agreed with AIPAC to a quid pro quo where she agreed to lobby for a more lenient prosecution for the accused AIPAC spies in exchange for AIPAC's lobbying on her behalf for the Committee Chair. TIME suggests that that is part of the investigation, and that would most assuredy be illegal.

But I have no idea if Harman did anything wrong and I didn't say I do. Many people are under investigation for things that end up going nowhere. That is why I didn't claim that she is guilty of any crime - because I don't know - only that there is an ongoing investigation, which is excactly what TIME reported (which you wouldn't have known had I not posted that here, because your host chose to conceal it from you to leave the impression that there is no evidence supporting the claim).

Then, tell us how Pelosi's lunatic notion to appoint Alcee comports with her earlier statement that she intended to give the chairs to existing members of committees to retain in place those who had more experience on the issues dealt with by those committees.

She doesn't have to appoint Hastings and she shouldn't. There is no seniority on the House Intelligence Committees. Appointments are purely at the discretion of the Speaker.

This issue with Harman was around well before the election when she made clear that she wouldn't appoint Harman. I have no idea if the AIPAC investigation is one of the reasons, though I strongly suspect that the fact that she shares the same views that are popular here on national security and war - the same ones the American people just resoundingly rejected -- is a strong factor, and it ought to be.

[clarice]

I didn't say anyone violated any law. I only said that there is an ongoing DOJ investigation, which there is Ah, and there's the rub. You get folks to file complaints to the FBI on non-existent violations and then smear them by saying they're under FBI investigation.

Well, the swift thinkers at the FBI figured this out and directed no more confirmation of such investigations but didn't do it until after the election for some reason.

Smarmy leftist punks.Stupid media. And even dumber FBI officials.

[Glenn Greenwald]

Ah, and there's the rub. You get folks to file complaints to the FBI on non-existent violations and then smear them by saying they're under FBI investigation.
. . . Smarmy leftist punks.Stupid media. And even dumber FBI officials.

Yeah, that was the Left's strategy for the election - to get as many criminal investigations as possible started against Democratic elected officials like Harman, so that there would be pending criminal investigations against Democrats.

Very sharp of you to detect that. No sly Leftist plot will go undetected here, I see.

[Tom Maguire]

The Time article makes clear that the invesitgation *IS* ongoing, and the NYT article you quote also says that the investigation is *OPEN*. The DoJ has the ability to *CLOSE* an investigation, but it has not done so here.

Please - the TIME article broke the story and the Times followed up.

As to the notion that I have not been covering the Alcee Hastings watch, guess again - I discussed the TIME piece the day it came out, thanks.

However, I am coming up dry at Greenwald - gee, this only became important after the election; I wonder why.

Sorry, did I forget to add, "weasel"?

[Anonymous]

Nancy Pelosi told us that she planned to drain the Congressional swamp of corruption.

She just left off the fact that she planned to find leadership positions for everyone she finds in the swamp once it is drained!

[Glenn Greenwald]

Please - the TIME article broke the story and the Times followed up.

. . . . and reported the investigation still "open," not closed.

And of course, a NYT article written a few days after a TIME article is much more reliable because it was written a few days later.

The Tom Maguire Method of determining who is right: whoever speaks last is correct. That's a very insightful metric you've developed, which I'm sure is applied very consistently, even when it reflects poorly on political figures you love less than Harman.

And just by the way, this sentence in your post -- "She was under investigation for engaging in politics" - is a lie, unless you think that it's just "politics" for a politician to agree to pressure the DOJ for relaxed prosecution of the lobbying group's alleged spies in exchange for favors from the lobbying group -- which is what TIME said the investigation entails.

Gven the political leaders whom you admire, it's not all that surprising that you consider such slimy corruption to be nothing other than mere just "politics." Under the law, though, that's called a "felony."

[billy missle]

As to the notion that I have not been covering the Alcee Hastings watch, guess again - I discussed the TIME piece the day it came out, thanks.

Very Compelling reporting Tom..excellant insight

[billy missle]

yes, I know I misspelled Excellent..
I meant to say ' most excellent 'reporting..
Good Blog over here.......

[Syl]

I strongly suspect that the fact that she shares the same views that are popular here on national security and war - the same ones the American people just resoundingly rejected -- is a strong factor, and it ought to be.

If you have to make sh*t up to make your case, don't be surprised when you step in it.

[Cecil Turner]

And of course, a NYT article written a few days after a TIME article is much more reliable because it was written a few days later.

If it says "no longer being actively pursued" and there's no contradictory evidence . . . I'm having a hard Times ™ [<-- subliminal plug] seeing why we shouldn't consider it the "last word." ™

[clarice]

Because the boy from Brazil says so, Cecil?

[Cecil Turner]

Glad to see we're all takin' this seriously.

[Foo Bar]

Here's another data point from Fox News, published Oct. 25 (a day after the NYT piece).

On the one hand, paragraph 6 says:

Sources confirmed that the case is still considered open but no significant activity has taken place recently.

On the other hand, the headline is:

FBI Investigating Whether Harman Made Improper Promises to Pro-Israel Group

So shame on Fox for using that active-tense "Investigating" in the headline, I guess (?).

[Tom Maguire]

Finally, why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager to defend Democrat Jane Harman. The answer is the same one that is driving Nancy Pelosi to choose someone else for this critical spot. Americans rejected the views that you have about wars and foreign affairs and the last thing Pelosi ought to do is install someone in such a sensitive position who thinks the way you do.

Gee, now tell me why the LA Times and NY Times back Harman. The NY Times:

She can send a good signal, for instance, by appointing Representative Jane Harman of California as head of the Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman has been the ranking Democrat, and she has, in general, done her job well. But some of her fellow members regard her as insufficiently aggressive when it comes to criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Pelosi, who does not get along well with Ms. Harman, is said to be considering Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, a former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges and removed from the bench. If she wanted to put her wrong foot forward, that would be a good way to do it.

The research/embarrassment tradeoff was not wisely made, here.

[Don]

Why do you always mess with Greenwald when you continually get stuffed?

It's like he's Lucy and you're Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. Get a clue already.

[topsecretk9]

Shouldn't the "Pelosi backs Murtha" despite Abscam and muscling contractor's "crap" - standard be applied here? If not and Harmon is a 'horrendous" choice for chair than it certainly reflects "horrendous-ly" on Pelosi for choosing Murtha's "crap" over the majority preference and then Hastings.

[Ranger]

Glenn,

If you have to choose between someone who has been accused of wrong doing and someone who has been convicted, I would chose the lesser of two evils, and take the person only accused. But that's just me, Democrats may see it differently, because a guy who sold his office as a Federal Judge for what, $150,000.00 can be trusted to oversee all U.S. intel efforts in the war on terror. No problem there. Ok, he was only convicted by a Democratic Senate of that, he skated on the Federal charge.

[clarice]

HEH! Glenn isn't even in the same Planetary system as TM, and that is not praise of Glenn --something I must note to a person as clueless as you.

[Glenn Greenwald]

If you have to choose between someone who has been accused of wrong doing and someone who has been convicted, I would chose the lesser of two evils, and take the person only accused.

I already said I'd choose Harman over Hastings, but the point is (overlooked by the NYT) is that she can choose anyone she wants for that position. It's not a Harman-Hastings either-or.

The problem with Harman isn't the AIPAC investigation. It's that she is a reflexive supporter of the administration on national security/intelligence and war matters (which is not unrelated to the AIPAC love affair she has), and the voters clearly want (and the country needs) aggressive intelligence oversight, not an administration cheerleader. We've had enough of those, especially in the Congress. That's why we're in the predicament we're in.

[Glenn Greenwald]

HEH! Glenn isn't even in the same Planetary system as TM, and that is not praise of Glenn --something I must note to a person as clueless as you.

CLARICE - Seriously, will you explain again how the criminal investigation against Harman was a plot by the left? Honestly, that was one of my favorite comments ever and I'd be really interested in hearing you elaborate on that theory.

[Anonymous]

You know, alot of us left winger wacko types are assuming and stating as fact that America voted to give Congress to the Democrats because they oppose the war in Iraq.

But there were 435 Congressional candidates
and 1/3 of the Senate up. I have not seen any evidence that the Congress is now made up of cut and runners. Maybe the leadership is, but I doubt a majority will vote to cut off funding for the troops, or the war effort. I doubt they will pass any law requiring a draw down.

I think you will basically have a stay the course Congress that hopes for the best.

[clarice]

Who filed the complaint with the FBI, Glann? Another of the Nationists?

[Anonymous]

Come on now, Jane Harman is going to have to commit some serious criminal offenses before Pelosi even considers her for a high ranking position.

She needs to take a bribe to through a case or take a bribe to allow some Islamists into the country illegally to even have a chance with Pelosi.

[topsecretk9]

Jane Harmon is the new Joe Lieberman...maybe she could just go independent?

[Ellison]

How dare you dispute with the great Glenn ye mortal fools.

Don't you know that Greenwald’s book has been on the N.Y. Times Best Seller List for 6 weeks now or more. He is a graduate of a top 5 law school and worked at the most prestigious law firm in the country. In 9 months, he’s managed to become one of the most cited and heavily-trafficked bloggers on the internets. His posts have led to front page news articles and are read by U.S. Senators during Senate hearings.

Fie on your sirs.

[Semanticleo]

"Who filed the complaint with the FBI, Glann? Another of the Nationists?"

Providing a question is not an answer to the question. >unresponsive>

[boris]

already said I'd choose Harman ... she is a reflexive supporter of the administration ... that's why we're in the predicament we're in

So (slight discontinuity problem here) let's get this straight ...

... You prefer more of the same reflexive support for the adminstration and you like the predicament we're in ...

... O R ...

You mitght instead be a smarmy lying butt weasel who knows your true position has fecal bouquet so pretends to be on one side while supporting the other.

[Semanticleo]

Conservatives might want to soft-pedal this issue. Investigations, notwithstanding, will no doubt leave some game trails between AIPAC and the run up to war, heavily scented with influence.

[Terrye]

"Finally, why don't you ask yourself why you are so eager to defend Democrat Jane Harman. The answer is the same one that is driving Nancy Pelosi to choose someone else for this critical spot. Americans rejected the views that you have about wars and foreign affairs and the last thing Pelosi ought to do is install someone in such a sensitive position who thinks the way you do."

Silly me, I prefer Harman because she is competent. But who cares about that? Not Glenn it seems. He thinks we had a referendum on the war and the people have spoken, let the retreat begin.

I know that in my district Ellsworth [the Democrat] made a point of telling us Hoosiers that he "did not even know Pelosi" and that he was not about to vote for cut and run. In fact the exit polls from that election indicated that only 30% of the voters actually supported bugging out of Iraq.

Maybe the Democrats need some alone time so that they can figure all this out for themselves because if it turns out that some of these new Democrats were lying to people just so that they would vote for them, it might back fire on them.

[Jim in Chicago]

Well that didn't take long:

Why don't you leftoids just say that it was the Jews all along.

Yep, there's a gamey smell in here all right.

Semi yearning for a new Dreyfus Affair.

[Terrye]

cleo:

If Pelosi had come up with an alternative to Harman that was even sort of qualified I doubt that conservatives would really give a damn.

And if it turns out that nothing comes of the investigation and it is just another smear campaign and Harman is damaged for no other reason than the fact that Pelosi does not like her will she get her reputation back?

This is like high school and Nancy is head cheerleader.

[Semanticleo]

Dreyfus?

Got a baler for all that straw, stickman?

That matter revolved around a poorly forged document that was not properly vetted by the French officers until sentencing had been carried out. I just love sweeping generalizations that turn the search for the truth into antisemitism. That dog won't hunt
junior all-star.

[clarice]

So who filed this baseless charge? I suggest whoever leaked it to Time.

[Terrye]

Conservatives might want to soft-pedal this issue. Investigations, notwithstanding, will no doubt leave some game trails between AIPAC and the run up to war, heavily scented with influence.

Posted by: Semanticleo | November 17, 2006 at 04:17 PM

Oh yes the Joooos did it. It had nothing to do with that innocent lamb Saddam and more than a decade of noncompliance and shooting at planes and killing his own people and trying to kill a president and terrorizing his neighbors and gassing people and aiding international terrorism and all the rest of it...the war happened because of the Joooooos.

[Jim in Chicago]

Thanks for clearing that up.

So it was the Jews after all.

[Semanticleo]

"Oh yes the Joooos did it."

Syllogistic fallacy.

[Sue]

not an administration cheerleader.

Why is it the person who has actually seen the intelligence is the one who is wrong? Could it be, never having seen what Ms. Harman has seen, you are the one that is playing cheerleader for the anti-Bush crowd?

[Wilson]

Lets see, a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority. Breaks a story on his blog about wiretapping that leads to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. Russ Feingold reads from his blog during the Censure hearings.

Any conservative bloggers with credentials like that? All compiled in 9 months or however long its been since he started blogging?

Face it, I'm er, I mean Greenwald's a friggin genius.

[Specter]

LOL. Love seeing the Dems feeding on their own. And famous sock-puppet master GG, with all his degrees and wisdom, helps to throw his choice under the bus. Does that make sense?

Tic - you never answered my question about why 57% of Americans feel that the Dems have no plan for Iraq....LOL. Now that's funny.

[PeterUK]

Despite the sycophancy of the clacque bobbing in the wake of "Our Man in Cabana",I have never heard of Mr Greenwood outside this board.

[happyfeet]

It seems pretty clear that Jane is an enemy of all that is good, while Alcee is a guiding light who can lead us through the coming dark days. Get with the program people.

[Terrye]

Oh yeah, he is a genius all right. I wonder why a guy like that would come down here and mix it up with the Bushbots?

I think Tom is pretty smart myself and so it Clarice and Sara. And Cecil and Syl and boris and all the little people.

[Terrye]

Peter:

You just don't hang with right people.

[Specter]

WooHooo....I finally made it to "little people". LOL. ::grin::

[Terrye]

Specter:

Yes, but you are very special little people.

Did the super duper smart man Glenn explain to us dummies just how it is the majority of Americans are going to get behind the Democrat's plan for the war when the majority of Americans don't think the Democrats have a plan?