It seems all but impossible to prove the intent based on the information so far presented.

There's nothing to your post. Both of your experts affirm that the DOJ staff was reasonable in investigating which is as far as it went. If anything, the more you pursue this, the more it gets Gonzo off the hook for dropping it. You're stuck between a rock (Harman looks bad, may have broken the law) and a hard place (Gonzo might have been justified in dropping it). The further you go from the one the closer you get to the other.

I'm willing to bet that there isn't a single Congressman who has not done something very similar to this - asked for a favor in return for a favor, with both favors being in the nature of passing on a good word or bad word about someone or some issue. These are politicians, and this is how politics works.

The question that needs to be asked is why was a sitting congressman sujected to a wiretap, and if it was coincidental, why wasn't any information learned about that congressman immediately trashed? The Justice department never has the authority to interfere with the operation of Congress. And, the CIA is forbidden to spy in this country.

Leaking this information was a purely political act aimed at putting pressure on the congressman (yes, I know Jane is not a man, but I'm lazy) to force her to do or not do something in response.

This is much more than mere bribery. What we have here is a US Rep (allegedly) engaging in a criminal conspiracy with a foreign agent which involves at the very least bribery, extortion, and wire fraud.

See the Blago indictment if you need a reminder of how politics as usual can get you busted.

We would have to hear the tapes but it does look like a prima facie case of bribery which she realized too late. That is why she said, "This conservation doesn't exist."

Not so different from Blago. After all, he only wanted a job too.

It can't be stated enough that this was a legal, FISA approved wiretap. Harman was caught talking to somebody the FBI and possibly the NSA were surveilling. The meat of the allegation is that this somebody was, at the very least, an Israeli national, and quite possibly a Mossad agent. Doesn't that change the picture?

There is one assumption which, if accepted, can explain this whole mess.

"The MOSSAD has a mole with access to the FISA court authorized wiretaps."

It follows then that:

AIPAC knew that the phone used to contact Harman was wiretapped and deliberately used it to set her up.

Harman was supportive of warrantless wiretaps, information about which MOSSAD did not have access. Compromising Harman would hurt this program.

AIPAC is a front for MOSSAD.

Gonzo's actions were an attempt to put a lid on this and salvage an investigation into a spy ring operating out of AIPAC.

The statement that it is unknown who in AIPAC contacted Harman is designed solely to mislead people. It is difficult to imagine a FISA court, or any court, authorizing a phone tap without knowing whose phone is being tapped or the target of the wiretap. Unless all AIPAC phones are authorized to be wiretapped. Even if this is true, voice recognition software should have easily identified the person talking to Harman. Also, I don't expect Harman (a US Representative) would be accepting calls from the janitor - only from a very few people in AIPAC.

The benefits of this operation are:

To compromise Harman and deal a blow to the warrantless wiretapping program.

To take attention away from the fact that foreign agents have access to FISA court rulings.

To provide protection to the spy ring operating out of AIPAC.
.

Maybe we should all be talking about the fact that Israeli agents have hi-jacked our government. That's something to talk about.