Dem Rep Harman DID Urge Times Not To Publish Wiretapping Expose

[babylonsister]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/dem-rep-harman-did-urge-times-not-to-publish-wiretapping-expose/

Dem Rep Harman Did Urge Times Not To Publish Wiretapping Expose!

Whoa. Dem Rep Jane Harman did in fact urge The New York Times not to publish its big expose of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping, apparently before the 2004 election, potentially changing the election’s outcome and the course of history, according to a statement from the paper.

As I noted here yesterday, one key revelation in that big CQ Politics scoop is that Harman may have privately tried to kill the story in 2004. Yesterday Times executive editor Bill Keller said that Harman hadn’t spoken to him or influenced his decision.

But now Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis sends over a more detailed statement from Keller explaining what really happened:

Congresswoman Harman spoke to Washington Bureau Chief Phil Taubman in late October or early November, 2004, apparently at the request of General Hayden. She urged that The Times not publish the story. She did not speak to me, and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision. In 2005, when we were getting ready to publish, Phil met with a group of congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish. The Times published the story a few days later.

So Harman did urge the paper’s Washington bureau chief not to publish. While the timing is slightly fuzzy, it seems fair to assume in light of the CQ story that it was in fact before the election.

Wow. So Dem Rep Harman appears to have worked behind the scenes to dissuade publication of a blockbuster expose about Bush that could have put her own party’s nominee in the White House and changed the history of the last four years. And, according to Keller, she apparently did this at the request of Michael Hayden, Bush’s National Security Agency chief.

[Lugnut]

1. K&R

Let the light shine in.

[Spazito]

2. Whoa! Verification for at least one aspect of CQ's article....

I did note in her so-called denial (seemed more like a non-denial denial to me) there was nothing in it at all re the issue of her involvement in the successful attempt to stop the NYT from publishing their expose before the 2004 election.

Thanks for posting this, it is very interesting!

[babylonsister]

3. I wonder if this really did sabotage Kerry's chances. That, if so,

seems criminal to me. Imagine what 4 years of Kerry vs. idiot son might have changed. :(

[Spazito]

4. It is impossible to know whether the revelation of warrentless wiretapping...

had happened prior to the 2004 election would have caused the defeat of the republicans but, imo, there is little question it would have had SOME effect on it. The NYT deciding to postpone publishing their expose until AFTER the election is despicable, especially as they did eventually publish it when the political fallout for the bush admin was negligible. There is NO question the decision was STRICTLY political.

[mod mom]

5. Come on Sis, that election was rigged. Even if this story had broken, the fix was in.

They just would have upped the margin they needed. There were some Dems (cough, cough, DLC cough) that were making the way for one of their own (or so they thought)

CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[babylonsister]

6. I know, mod mom, but this didn't help. Kerry got a really raw

deal all the way around.

[derby378]

7. Doesn't matter - investigate Harman anyway, and here's why

If you hatch a plot to rob the Third National Bank, and you show up with your pistol and burlap sack in hand only to discover that someone else has just robbed the Third National Bank, and the cops find you standing inside the bank like a jackass with a pistol and an empty burlap sack, guess what? You still face charges for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, if not the robbery itself.

Harman is looking prosecutable.

[mod mom]

9. ABSOLUTELY INVESTIGATE HER! Working with elements of a foreign government

to interfere with a foreign spying is very serious:

"Harman agreed to take action in the AIPAC case in return for helping her get the House intel chair job was indeed picked up by the NSA"

not to mention a quid pro quo.

IF ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE-SHE MUST BE PROSECUTED!

[Fireweed247]

8. of course it would have sunk Bush

It is criminal :grr:

[babylonsister]

11. I don't know. I have a r/w friend who has categorically stated

that she's not doing anything wrong, so she doesn't care if she's wiretapped. I think there are a lot of people out there with that mindset.

[Fireweed247]

12. I know there are some crazy people out there

But I remember backlash from both parties when the story finally came out. There were many irate people on the Republican side. (probably from Utah(the internet porn capital) and others in the same situation)

[KharmaTrain]

10. Is This Really A Surprise?

Many of us who were observing the FISA battles saw where Harmon stood on this and many wondered what her problem was. Now we know.

Just keep in mind, Sis, in 2006 the Democrats were still in a perilous political situation. They were faced with veto proof rushpublican majorities if they lost the mid terms. Harmon, like others, were easily bullied by the boooshies...worried about getting trashed by the Mighty Wurlitzer (like a John Murtha) and smelling opportunity.

IMHO, she had bigger things in mind. Had the Democrats been wiped out in 2006, Nancy Pelosi would have taken a lot of heat for that and I always felt Harmon was positioning herself for bigger and better.

By trying to play games in 2006, it may cost her all she has in 2010.