If you have "no place to go," come here!

Harmon update

RL call, so quick, but BTD's on this here and here. Could be that on the CQ story, Sarah was right, and I was wrong (and not for the first time).

Nevertheless, my larger point (at least, larger for me) is that what's sauce for Harman's goose is sauce for Obama's gander, remains. Just saying, BarbinMD.

No votes yet


Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

...stuff that she was not accused of in the CQ article. For instance, the article says that Harmon promised to "waddle into" the AIPAC prosecutions, that the statement was caught as part of a (court approved) wiretap, and that an investigation of Harman was opened and subsequently shut down because Gonzales wanted Harman's help on the warrantless wiretaps "problem"....

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.

In the BTD links, what Harman is denying is going to bat for the AIPAC defendants (the article never claimed she did so, merely that her agreement to do so 'if [they] thought it'll make a difference' after noting that she would likely have little influence on that case because orders were coming "from the white house"). And Harman apparently had at least some problems with waterboarding.

But again, the CQ piece was about how Harman wound up defending the illegal warrantless wiretapping program after being caught on tape agreeing to exchange favors with an "agent of Israel.

This is an effort by Harman and her allies at misdirection....

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Seriously - I disagree with Greenwald that this is excellent reporting. To me, it still seems like a deliberate leak of untraceable information meant to serve an agenda. This time, the MSM and the left appear gullible when they are ready to give credence to a source which heard a briefing from someone who says they read a classified document. So that would make this another instance of 'the administration says something so we reporters write it down.'

For Harman, there's no way to disprove this because the evidence can't be released.

Even if it were true, what's the benefit/cost of showing us just this particular snippet of information at this particular time? Did Harman refuse to pay her blackmail on time this month?

Submitted by lambert on

And out in the open.

More like this, please. You know, like:


(AOP) -- Aboard the U.S.S. Crazy Horse: Somewhere in the Pacific (Sept. 25) -- The entire 3465-man crew of this newest American aircraft carrier is in violent mourning today, after five crewmen including the Captain were diced up like pineapple meat in a brawl with the Heroin Police at the neutral port of Hong See. Dr. Eloor, the ship's chaplain, presided over tense funeral services at dawn on the flight deck. The 4th Fleet Service Choir sang "Tom Thumb's Blues" ... and then, while the ship's bells tolled frantically, the remains of the five were set afire in a gourd and hurled into the Pacific by a hooded officer known only as "The Commander."

Shortly after the services ended, the crewmen fell to fighting among themselves and all communications with the ship were severed for an indefinite period. Official spokesmen at 4th Fleet Headquarters on Guam said the Navy had "no comment" on the situation, pending the results of a top-level investigation by a team of civilian specialists headed by former New Orleans district attorney James Garrison

I still can't get over that video Sarah posted. Maybe I've finally cleaned all the teebee out of my system, after three or four years. How could we imagine these people were normal? How could we possibly invite them into our homes?

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Regarding Bill "eating Monica's pizza". Just because they can't help themselves. It's the "fairness doctrine" thing. No politician can be accused of doing something wrong without mentioning the Clenis.