Source: Wiretap Caught Harman Discussing Pelosi Fundraising Flap

[Duer 157099]

Source: Jeff Stein, CQPolitics

In the wiretapped conversation, the target was heard telling Harman that "Pelosi went ballistic" when Saban allegedly warned her that if Harman were not made chairman of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections "'you'll get no more contributions from me,'" according to the former official's paraphrase of the conversation.

Read more: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/04/source-wiretap-caught-harman-d.html

---

Tsk tsk Nancy. Was this before or after you knew that Harman was being tapped?

[bemildred]

1. +1

:popcorn:

[aquart]

2. Wait. "A vocal supporter of Israel" equals "Israeli agent"?

I'm confused. Is this ANOTHER taped transcript? Or the only one they have? In which case Harmon is absolutely right and the quid pro quo is utterly out of context.

When do we get to read it instead of being told what it says? Because so far I'm thinking an American citizen has the right to tell a Congressman the conditions under which one is willing to donate money. For instance, no gay marriage, no money.

[Truth2Tell]

8. The other party on the call is referred to as

"an Israeli agent" because they were under active investigation for spying for Israel. If it was Rosen or Wasserman (which is a safe bet) then they have since been indicted, so calling them Israeli agents is simply a factual description of what they are.

No one is suggesting that Saban didn't have the right to lobby Pelosi on behalf of Harmon under normal circumstances. It only becomes a problem if he did it, as alleged, in order to secure Harmon's interference in the DOJ investigation. If that accusation is true (and that's what these sources are saying) then the the lobbying, which would otherwise be fine, IS part of a quid pro quo for illegal actions on Harmon's part, and therefore a furtherance of the conspiracy to interfere with the spying investigation.

But something tells me you already know this and are simply tossing dust into the air.

[Orangepeel]

3. How is this a "tsk tsk" to Nancy?

A donor tried to coerce her into making Harman chair (which she didn't do, right?) and then Harman supposedly talked about her negative reaction to that on tape?

Sounds like a tsk tsk to Harmon.

[Duer 157099]

4. Well, since we know that Pelosi was informed about the Harman taps

and we might presume that she was informed in some detail, perhaps even who the other end of the conversation(s) were with... we might also presume that Nancy was "on guard" when having subsequent conversations with those same folks.

Which might result in some faux "ballistic" outrage on Pelosi's part.

Just speculating, of course.

[Orangepeel]

6. but... this doesn't allege a conversation of Pelosi and Harmon

(and even if it did, I'm not sure of the tsk worthy aspect of it). The report describes what Harmon supposedly said to someone else about Pelosi (who probably should have gone ballistic under the reported circumstances). There are certainly things to fault Pelosi for, but I'm still not getting why this is one of them.

[Duer 157099]

7. What I'm saying is

if Pelosi knew that Harman was being tapped, meaning Pelosi had been briefed on it, then presumably Pelosi also knew who was on the other end of the conversations (namely AIPAC-related people; or at least, people who were discussing AIPAC issues and connecting them with trying to get Harman named as the chair of the Intel committee).

So, her outrage could have been, um, *theatrically* enhanced for the benefit of any listener.

All I'm saying is that, either way you look at it, her decision about who to hand the gavel to is tainted. Similar to the situation in Chicago.

[Frank Booth]

9. I don't get it.

She was supposed to be happy that one of her fellow representatives was caught conspiring for the benefit of foreign spies, and they thought that they could involve Pelosi as well?

To me, "going ballistic" sounds like the perfect reaction (well, plus I hope she alerted the authorities).

[bemildred]

5. FWIW, I don't have any trouble understanding why Pelosi would go ballistic.

She knows about "quid pro quo" and all that.

[struggle4progress]

10. Why no bribery attempt charge against the person who made the threat?