« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Parsing Goss's Role In The Harman Story
It's worth trying to clear up some of the confusion on a key point that came out of yesterday's post.
We wrote that, after reading the transcript of Jane Harman's wiretapped conversation with the suspected Israeli agent, then-CIA director Porter Goss signed off on the Justice Department's application for a FISA warrant to wiretap Harman herself.
That was a paraphrase of what CQ's Jeff Stein reported in his original story on the subject:
The Justice Department attorneys were prepared to pursue a case against Harman, which would include electronic surveillance approved by the so-called FISA Court, the secret panel established by the 1979 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to hear government wiretap requests. First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harman's wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation.Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department's FISA application, two sources said.
But, as we noted in an update this morning, Stein told us that he had worded that passage poorly. He said that Goss did not in fact sign off on a Justice Department application for a FISA warrant to wiretap Harman herself. Rather, his sources tell him that Goss signed off on DOJ's application to renew its tap on the suspected Israeli agent, merely certifying that, from CIA's viewpoint, it was a legitimate national security tap.
Stein added:
I could have been more precise on this point. I did not mean to imply that Goss had approved of a Justice Department investigation of Harman. He would have no role to play in that. At this point I do not know for sure what DOJ did specifically about Harman, beyond the fact that the FBI wanted to question her about her conversation with the wiretap target. The main point, which I could have made clearer, is that Goss was obligated to notify Hastert and Pelosi that the FBI intended to question her about the conversation.
That seems like an important clarification, and one that significantly affects our understanding of Goss's role. If he merely signed off on DOJ's application to continue their wiretapping of the suspected agent (and then followed protocol by attempting to inform Congressional leaders that Harman had been picked up on a wiretap, and that the FBI planned to talk to her about it), then he appears less central to the story than if he authorized (or even, as some have speculated, initiated) an investigation into Harman herself.
But clearly, there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

















As our 'We the People' access to our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government have seemingly disappeared, at best, lets hope our US Congressional Hearings have not also disappeared and/or as soon as they are announced!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 5, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM, 5/5/2009
Hopefully this is of further assistance to your concern of, 'But clearly, there are still a lot of unanswered questions'.
I am unpleasantly surprised that many seem not be be aware that of the 'CIA Secret Experiments on Humans' and to my recollection, our own US Military Troops in the 1950's and the subsequent Rockefeller Commission on these exect matters in the 1970's.
It was widely reported that the Rockefeller Commission had and has to this day many factual errors, many ommissions and ambiguious and also alleged then that Dick Cheney (CIA?) and Rumsfeld (CIA?) also withheld relevant facts and information and that then President Gerald Ford (seemingly un-constitutional and un-timely pardons, Nixon) blocked all further attempts at hearings, Adjudication ecetra.
Therefore, as seemingly could esaily be surmised that Cheney and Rumsfeld could and/or should (or could be today) have been held in US Congressional Contempt of witholding of at least Congressional Documents, ecetra? and most likely have been successfully prosecuted and therefore at least would not have been available to ever serve in any sworn position our US Government and/or would have been in jail, prison, or appropriate confinement today, if alive. Also with a proper and forthright Transparency and with the mandated US Constitutional, Bill of Rights 'Oversight and Accountability' our Country would have had the availability and ability to also achieved a more proper substantiated US Constitutional course of direction.
Please, US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Leaders and all, please today allow for at least 'Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Restoration Act and for all prior cases to be opened and/or re-opened, as applicable.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 5, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If he merely signed off on DOJ's application to continue their wiretapping of the suspected agent (and then followed protocol by attempting to inform Congressional leaders that Harman had been picked up on a wiretap, and that the FBI planned to talk to her about it), then he appears less central to the story than if he authorized (or even, as some have speculated, initiated) an investigation into Harman herself."
So, when did the DOJ decide to start wiretapping said "suspected agent"? There are a lot of reasons that Alberto Gonzalez and the neocons would want to set up Harman, since in February 2003, she had released the following letter:
"Representative Jane Harman, Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, released this letter to then CIA General Counsel Scott Muller on January 3, 2008. It is dated February 10, 2003 and exhorts the CIA to not destroy evidence from the interrogation of al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah. The interrogation videotapes were destroyed in December 2007; Harman then requested that her letter and the subsequent response be declassified."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15164/representative_jane_harmans_letter_to_cia_general_counsel_muller.html
This does fit the general pattern of partisan political blackmail at the DOJ, as also evidenced by the U.S. attorney firing scandal, doesn't it?
If the pressure worked, than we have to conclude that Alberto Gonzales used the wiretap to blackmail Harman into supporting the domestic spying program - exactly the kind of thing that slimy consiglieri would pull, with Cheney's support. I mean, he tried to get Ashcroft to sign off on the domestic spy program on his deathbed, as well - with the support of Andrew Card, another greasy pig if there ever was one - or how about Karen Hughes and Condi Rice? Want to know what smug sleazeballs look like?
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/06/08/PH2008060801919.jpg
All part of the Rovian effort to create a "permanent Republican majority". Good job, Karl - you destroyed your own party instead. What a dumbass.
May 6, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All part of the Rovian effort to create a "permanent Republican majority". Good job, Karl - you destroyed your own party instead. What a dumbass."
Why is it that politicians and political parties pay more attention to getting re-elected and staying in power than they do in providing good government?
The Republicans attempts to stay in power were totally misguided. "We the People" are smart enough to see whether or not we are getting good government or not.
It is to bad that the Democrats are now making the same mistakes which caused the Republicans to be voted out of the US Government.
If the Democrats want to remain in power in Washington, all they have to do is give good effective government.
Is that so hard to see and understand?
May 6, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink