TPM:
We've been wondering about something on this whole Jane-Harman/AIPAC story. (For the background, go here.)
When the Justice Department heard Harman on the wiretap, and as a result started to investigate her (a probe later reportedly shut down by Alberto Gonzales), what was the underlying crime she was suspected of, and how strong does the case against her appear to have been?
On the first question, it looks like CQ's Jeff Stein, who broke the original story earlier this week, has cleared things up. He told an interviewer yesterday that, according to sources, Harman's potential crime was "to do a favor in exchange for something of value, which is to say, to get appointed to be the chair of the House intelligence committee."
In other words, a violation of the federal bribery statute, Title 18, Section 201.
By the terms of this law, it doesn't matter whether Harman followed through on her pledge to take action on the AIPAC case -- only that she said she would, in exchange for something of value.
But would the statute apply to what we know about the Harman case?
Read more »
1 comment:
Yes she broke the law. Now it will be argued but in the end she broke the law. She did her part to get what she wanted, but they tricked her. Ok thnk of it this way. You work at the bank and want the top job. A person says they can get the job for you if you leave the bank door open on thursday night. The bank is robbed but you don't get the job as promised. Are you guilty? ( get back to me)
Post a Comment