Politics | 04/22/2009 3:05 pm
Nancy Pelosi Knew About Harman Wiretaps, But Kept Secret to Herself

Nancy Pelosi today admitted that she knew the National Security Agency had wiretaps of Rep. Jane Harman.
Speaking at a reporter roundtable, Pelosi said that though she had been informed, she was not in a position to tell Harman the truth. "Even if I wanted to share it with her I would not have had the liberty to share it with her," said the House Speaker, according to Newsweek. The remark contradicts Pelosi’s comments yesterday, when she said she didn’t know anything about possible NSA wiretaps of Harman offering assistance in disrupting a Justice Department investigation of two pro-Israeli lobbyists accused of espionage. Said Pelosi yesterday, "I do think that I don’t know that Congressman Harman was wiretapped, I mean somebody was wiretapped and there may have been a conversation."
The person Harman was speaking with, Haim Saban, said that if the Democrat helped him, he would urge Pelosi to make her chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. Pelosi said Saban had approached her about Harman, but insisted the wiretaps had nothing to do with Harman not getting the position. Via The New York Times:
The only reason Jane is not the chairman is because she already served the two terms. It had nothing to do with her position on Iraq. It had nothing to do with donors, nothing to do with eavesdropping, wiretapping. It had nothing to do with anything. It had only to do with the fact that this extraordinarily talented member of Congress had served her two terms.
Whatever the reason, this story — and who knew what when — will only get more complicated as the weeks go on. Harman spoke out yesterday and demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder release the transcripts.























90 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Time for her and Harry to go…
I agree. I think Harry is just useless …
oh my. Now I knew why I had that gut feeling earlier on today.
But how soon the troops on the left turn on their leaders!!!!! NO loyalty. Nice…let’s see this be blamed on the Big Three: 1. Conservatives 2)George W. Bush or 3)FOX news. I don’t that you can do that this time..
Agan, we don’t goosestep in lockstep after our leaders like conservatives do. We can also criticize our leaders and still support them.
We are simply wired differently. You will never understand it.
Sure I will! I just wouldn’t want to a part of it… you guys change opinions more than you change your undies!
If you voted for her or her party, why do you now think she’s bad!? Doesn’t that reflect poorly on your own judgement? In my book it does.
oh nanchun….let’s pretend you decide to buy a new car…..so off you go to dealership and, voila’, you found THE car—perfect color, matches your lipstick, and you WANT it! The dealer preps it for you, and while out to dinner, you learn from your table mate, that the car is really a lemon…now….what do you do? Chane your mind now that you have more information? Or do you insist that you are going to follow thru with keeping the lemon car?
And educated person, has no problem ‘adjusting’ a decision, when more facts are known….
the Republicans, however….ooops…sorry…
Man! that’s quite an analogy!
First of all, I never buy a car to match my lipstick! I wear a different color lipstick depending on the situation: I wear red with my crushed velvet black opera gown, carmex with the clothes I wear to walk the dog, pink with my tennis whites… you catch my drift. So I always, ALWAYS buy a car based on it’s performance, not on it’s color, no matter how cute it looks with my tennis whites.
And I would trade it in based on the opinions of my table mate? No, honey. I would NOT. I would not have bought that car based on his/her opinion, I WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT OUT BEFORE I BOUGHT THE CAR!
But thanks for a great analogy!
Not exactly——but if they do NOT buy the lemon, and choose another car—it is equivalent to ‘flip-flopping’ on a position once more information becomes available….THAT was my point—-I tried to keep it close to everday experience, and I see it worked…why do I say that? Because the rhetoric about ‘flip-flopping’ as an EVIL thing, when one thinks about it…suggests that despite receipt of additional information—one must act on the original decision—-or else be known as a ‘flip-flopper’.
That was a Rove tactic…and it allowed those who knew enough to be dangerous, but not enough to know better, the opportunity to feel safe for their decision—without concern as to whether they were ‘right or wrong’…as long as they held onto the original decision, they were OK!