Why Did Pelosi Do Nothing About Harman?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has now acknowledged that she was told by the Bush Administration about the wiretapped phone conversation between Representative Jane Harman and an agent of the government of Israel, in which it was arranged for Representative Harman to assist members of AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying organization, in avoiding criminal charges related to alleged espionage. Pelosi knew for years that the National Security Agency had wiretapped Harman, and she knew for years that Harman might be conspiring with a foreign government in a quest for personal power. Yet, Pelosi did nothing. Why?
Nancy Pelosi‘s excuse for her inaction is that she was not allowed by the arrangements of the Bush Administration’s briefing to actually do anything with the information she was given during the briefing. That passive explanation merely suggests the question of why congressional leadership agreed to surrender their constitutionally established power of oversight of the Executive Branch. If Pelosi truly was told she could not use the information provided in the briefing, then was told that she was not free to exercise oversight, and it was her responsibility to cancel the briefing, and launch an investigation into government secrecy and Executive power. Instead, Pelosi chose to become complicit in the government secrecy and unchecked Executive power. Pelosi surrendered to George W. Bush.
If Harman is innocent, as she claims, then Pelosi’s inaction was a betrayal of Harman. If Harman is not innocent, then Pelosi’s inaction was a betrayal of national security, and the integrity of the American government.
Pelosi now says, “I have great confidence in Jane Harman. She is a patriotic American. She would never do anything to hurt her country.” That statement, given what Pelosi claims to have known all along about Jane Harman’s alleged attempt to interfere with an investigation into espionage against the United States, is mind boggling. It calls into question Pelosi’s own fitness to lead, if she believes that we can have “great confidence” in members of Congress who are making secret deals with foreign governments in order to advance their personal interests.
