Why do people care more about adultery than treason?

[nimue77]

Doesn't anyone care that Jane Harman is a traitor?

What’s that smell? Alberto Gonzalez, Jane Harman, Israel and AIPAC

<small>April 21, 2009 at 11:43 am by Wayne Garcia</small> It’s a tangled web, so maybe that is why it is not exactly evening news material. But the revelations this weekend that former AG Alberto “I know nooooo-thing” Gonzalez blocked a criminal investigation into a member of Congress as a political favor is explosive stuff. Here’s a recap from Mother Jones:

Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence–at least in a courtroom–but it is certainly suspicious that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not denied the most recent allegations against him. My CQ colleague Jeff Stein reported late Sunday night that Gonzales had blocked a preliminary FBI investigation into Democratic Representative Jane Harman, who had been captured by NSA eavesdroppers telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would try to use her clout to lessen espionage-related charges filed against two AIPAC officials. In return for her assistance, the suspected Israeli agent reportedly offered to help Harman become chair of the House intelligence committee. On Tuesday, The New York Times confirmed much of the story–including the piece about Gonzales: that the then-AG killed the inquiry because Harman, then the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, could help the Bush administration defend its use of warrantless wiretaps.
So there are two lines of inquiry that official investigators ought to follow. First, whether Harman broke the law by offering to lean on the criminal investigation of AIPAC for help in advancing her career. (The Times reports that the suspected Israeli agent promised that media mogul Haim Saban would threaten to hold back donations to Rep. Nancy Pelosi if she did not award Harman the top slot on the intelligence committee; Saban’s spokesperson did not respond to the Times’ request for comment.) Second, whether Gonzales stopped a criminal investigation because the target (Harman) could help the Bush administration. Harman has put out a very carefully-worded denial that’s full of holes. Gonzales, though, hasn’t said anything. That’s not very reassuring. Shouldn’t a former attorney general be able to declare that he never halted an investigation as a favor to a lawmaker who was doing the administration a favor? If not, there’s a problem–and a problem (no matter Barack Obama’s penchant for leaving the past behind) deserving a thorough examination by someone with subpoena power.
​

 

[gtc08]

i dont even know who that person is. plus its fun to make fun of republicans. especially guys liek this one, the bible thumper type.

 

[ElTaino]

Doesn't anyone care that Jane Harman is a traitor?

Democratic Representative Jane Harman, who had been captured by NSA eavesdroppers telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would try to use her clout to lessen espionage-related charges filed against two AIPAC officials.

In return for her assistance, the suspected Israeli agent reportedly offered to help Harman become chair of the House intelligence committee.

media mogul Haim Saban would threaten to hold back donations to Rep. Nancy Pelosi if she did not award Harman the top slot on the intelligence committee

find it a coincidence that all 3 people in this story are jewish?
(the agent, harman, saban)

 

[ElTaino]

i dont even know who that person is. plus its fun to make fun of republicans. especially guys liek this one, the bible thumper type.

all the people in this story are dems. do you even know what you are typing or do you just blurt out the first stupid thing that comes to mind?

 

[nimue77]

Don't forget part of the quid pro quo of notprosecuting her was her helping with W's spy program.

Alberto is a Dem? Or does he not count as one of the "all t he people in this story"?

 

[ElTaino]

Alberto is a Dem? Or does he not count as one of the "all t he people in this story"?

find it a coincidence that all 3 people in thisstory are jewish?
(the agent, harman, saban)

and nimue is correct, alberto owed harman for her assitance in the wiretapping.

 

[ScottL]

Harman says "Where's the Recording?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman

In October 2006, Time magazine, quoting anonymous sources, asserted that an FBI and US Department of Justice investigation of Harman was underway. The magazine alleged that Harman had agreed to lobby the Department of Justice to reduce espionage charges against Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two officials at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In exchange, Time said there was a quid pro quo in which AIPAC would lobby then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman as chair of the House Intelligence Committee if the Democrats captured the House after the 2006 elections.

Harman, the FBI, the Justice Department and Pelosi's office have all denied knowledge of or involvement with any investigation.[12] AIPAC denied it had engaged in a quid pro quo with Harman. "AIPAC would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation or any federal matter and the notion that it would do so is preposterous," a spokesperson said at the time.[12]

In April 2009, CQ Politics, also quoting anonymous sources, said Harman had been captured on a National Security Agency wiretap prior to the 2006 elections, telling an "Israeli agent" that she would "waddle into" lobbying the Department of Justice on the AIPAC case. Harman ended the phone call, according to CQ, by saying, "This conversation doesn’t exist."[13] Harman denied the allegations, saying: "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves."[14]

According to CQ, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pressed CIA Director Porter Goss to drop the agency's investigation of Harman, because he wanted Harman's support during the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, about to break in The New York Times.[12] Harman called The New York Times and urged them not to publish details on the program.[15] Gonzales and Goss declined to comment.[13]

Here's another article on Gonzales/Harman:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/04/did-alberto-gonzales-blackmail-jane-harman.html

 

[nimue77]

Just because the recording was never released does not mean this didn't happen.
Do you think it didn't happen?

Harman says "Where's the Recording?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman

In October 2006, Time magazine, quoting anonymous sources, asserted that an FBI and US Department of Justice investigation of Harman was underway. The magazine alleged that Harman had agreed to lobby the Department of Justice to reduce espionage charges against Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two officials at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In exchange, Time said there was a quid pro quo in which AIPAC would lobby then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman as chair of the House Intelligence Committee if the Democrats captured the House after the 2006 elections.

Harman, the FBI, the Justice Department and Pelosi's office have all denied knowledge of or involvement with any investigation.[12] AIPAC denied it had engaged in a quid pro quo with Harman. "AIPAC would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation or any federal matter and the notion that it would do so is preposterous," a spokesperson said at the time.[12]

In April 2009, CQ Politics, also quoting anonymous sources, said Harman had been captured on a National Security Agency wiretap prior to the 2006 elections, telling an "Israeli agent" that she would "waddle into" lobbying the Department of Justice on the AIPAC case. Harman ended the phone call, according to CQ, by saying, "This conversation doesn’t exist."[13] Harman denied the allegations, saying: "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves."[14]

According to CQ, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pressed CIA Director Porter Goss to drop the agency's investigation of Harman, because he wanted Harman's support during the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, about to break in The New York Times.[12] Harman called The New York Times and urged them not to publish details on the program.[15] Gonzales and Goss declined to comment.[13]

Here's another article on Gonzales/Harman:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/04/did-alberto-gonzales-blackmail-jane-harman.html

 

[ScottL]

I don't know.

Now I'll ask you a question -- Why are Jane Harman and Alberto Gonzales more guilty of treason than you?

 

[nimue77]

I am loyal to the Constitution of the United States of America.
I do not believe they are.

I don't know.

Now I'll ask you a question -- Why are Jane Harman and Alberto Gonzales more guilty of treason than you?

 

[ScottL]

Well the evidence against them is flimsy at best.

The evidence that you are anti-American is overwhelming.

You've repeatedly accused your own government of planning and executing the hijacking of multiple jetliners and ramming them into buildings filled with innocent Americans in order to murder as many as possible, which is patently false.

Therefore, you are guilty of treason.

 

[gtc08]

scott l, you are guilty of treason. lol just messin.

 

[nimue77]

Notwithstanding that you are wrong about 9/11, you clearly don't know what treason is.
I never claim to know who planned and executed 9/11, but I do know there were explosives in the WTC.
I aim to protect the Constitution from all enemies.

Well the evidence against them is flimsy at best.

The evidence that you are anti-American is overwhelming.

You've repeatedly accused your own government of planning and executing the hijacking of multiple jetliners and ramming them into buildings filled with innocent Americans in order to murder as many as possible, which is patently false.

Therefore, you are guilty of treason.

 

[ScottL]

Then based on your assinine statement above, include yourself......

 

[mamatried]

but I do know there were explosives in the WTC.

Maybe not a traitor, but definitely a fruitcake.

 

[steaktartar]

Maybe not a traitor, but definitely a fruitcake.

amen

 

[nimue77]

You who can't see this for the demolition it was are the fruitcakes.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LD06SAf0p9A&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LD06SAf0p9A&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[mamatried]

You who can't see this for the demolition it was are the fruitcakes.

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/LD06SAf0p9A&hl=en&fs=1& width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

If you mean WTC7, then say WTC7. Don't make even more of an idiot out of yourself by implying that all three buildings were the result of controlled demolition.

 

[ScottL]

Don't make even more of an idiot out of yourself

That ship, the SS Treason has long sailed.

 

[quantumleap]

Well the evidence against them is flimsy at best.

The evidence that you are anti-American is overwhelming.

You've repeatedly accused your own government of planning and executing the hijacking of multiple jetliners and ramming them into buildings filled with innocent Americans in order to murder as many as possible, which is patently false.

Therefore, you are guilty of treason.

Being against certain members of the government is being anti-government, not anti-American. In fact, if the government is working against the good of the American people then being against that government would be pro-American. It would be patriotic.

This is specifically why freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms was written into the Constitution so that we may have protection from a government that is against the American people.