Jane said:,

"The Gang of Eight was not told – nor did it occur to me – that the Administration was violating FISA, despite Congress’ clear legislative intent when FISA was passed that it was the “exclusive means” for monitoring the communications of Americans connected to foreign intelligence."

So Jane, the Bush gang snookered you just as they snookered Hillary on the war vote?

So when faced with being stonewalled by those violating the law and keeping you in the dark what did you do?

The CIA Videotapes situation is more of the same. You wrote a letter that did nothing and couldn't be seen by anyone. When the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee is totally powerless and in the dark about what goes on with the NSA, CIA, FBI etc what do we lowly citizens do as our rights get trampled? What is powerless blind oversight? Call it undersight, maybe hindsight is a better description of what you provide.

The system was not created by you so I'm not blaming you for its existence. I just feel that the system is horribly broken and even with a Democratic Congress and President you won't change the rules to prevent this gaming of the oversight process. I hope I am wrong. I appreciate you coming to TPM to explain your side of it. I hope you would also read some responses.

Shorter Harman:

"I didn't change my mind about it. I was fine with it while it was a secret and because it was secret I couldn't ask anyone what might have been wrong with it, so I didn't. Then it wasn't secret and I was like: WTF?"

Is there any reason we netroots shouldn't be looking for a candidate who can send Harman packing?

This is absurd.

• Congress agrees to some system where only eight of them can get briefed on what's going on in the executive branch
• The eight can't talk to anyone about what they hear or seek any outside advice from experts
• The eight apparently can't independently check anything they hear from the President and so are completely dependent on the President's willingness to reveal information
• The President only tells the eight what he wants to tell them--no surprise he fails to mention he's breaking the law

Then Harmon has the audacity to explain that "the premise of strong congressional intelligence oversight is that Members will guard sensitive information." How does anything in the above process qualify even as "oversight," never mind "strong" oversight.

It is outrageous that congresspeople like Harmon would agree to this legislative equivalent of a kangaroo court. That Harmon now makes excuses because the process was flawed is simply unacceptable. Why didn't she protest the process then? How gullible is she? Worse, how gullible does she think we are. No--this isn't anything more than laziness, incompetence, and gross shirking of responsibility. No excuses Jane Harmon--if the system doesn't work, change the system. That's your job. Get off your ass and do it!

Hum, I seem to recall a brohaha over Harmens appointment. Something about Hillary playing favorites. and Pelosi being homocidal...

This is the type of politics America has come to reject.

Thus, Obama. Although, I for one, just see a repackage of the same ol same ol.

But that's just me.

:)

The Dem Congress has been less than lackluster. That is obviously something we ALL agree on.

. . . . if the terrorists found out about our capability [using unique access points inside the US telecommunications infrastructure], they would stop using those communications channels and valuable intelligence would dry up (which had happened before).

I see she's up to her old tricks again.

It's with great shame that I confess that, when all this went down, Jane Harman was my congressperson. The woman who represented me (and all of Venice, CA) rolled over while the Bush Administration violated our constitutional rights with impunity.

Just to pick out a couple of the lowlights:

"I was assured that (the wiretapping program) complied with the law..."

Only in Jane Harman's world does "oversight" consist of allowing the Executive Branch check on the Executive Branch and affirm to the Legislative Branch that the Executive Branch is obeying the law because the Executive Branch said so. That's not what CA-36 elected you for, Jane!

"The premise of strong congressional intelligence oversight is that Members will guard sensitive information."

No, Jane. The premise of strong congressional oversight is that Congress will attempt to prevent the administration from violating American law, and that Congress will hold the administration accountable when it does so. You're 0 for 2, Jane.

"The New York Times story ran on December 16, 2005. The next day, President Bush publicly confirmed the program’s existence in his weekend radio address. That day, a Saturday, I did two things: I tried to get our full Committee briefed and I consulted experts on the law."

And yet on February 12th, 2006--two full months after you now say that you (finally) consulted experts on the law--you went on Meet the Press and declared: "I support the program, I’ve never flinched from that... It’s not the leak to The New York Times that triggered things—and by the way, I deplore that leak... I think it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11272634/page/2/

Yes, Jane, it was not the Bush Administration's illegal spying on Americans that bothered you. It was the fact that the New York Times had the temerity to inform Americans that the Bush Administration was illegally spying on them.

CA-36 deserved so much better from you, Jane Harman, and it still does.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA (i.e., newly relocated to CA-33... thank God)

Jane,

You should have verified that the Bush gang wasn't violating FISA. It turned out they were and you took it on faith that they weren't. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Could you make amends by encouraging Nancy Pelosi to get impeachment of the criminals Cheney and Bush back on the table?

How is having you in an oversight position any better than having no one at all? You didn't provide oversight; you let the Bush administration use you for cover.

If you really believe the White House has been breaking the law and is lawless, you shouldn't be condemning them. You should be doing your sworn duty to protect the Constitution and initiating impeachment proceedings.

You know, it's way past time to clean house of these worthless,incompetent, spineless Democrats we've been supporting for years, but they don't seem to return the favor.

Find someone to run against Mrs. Harman and I'll help raise the money to send her packing.

Yes, I remember Rep. Harmon's "Meet the Press" appearance very well - I was so angry I called and ranted to the DCCC that I would not be sending any more money to major Democratic fundraising organizations until Democrats acted like Democrats. And I haven't, although I'm rethinking it now since the House Democrats finally handled FISA as it should have been handled. For sure, she was a Bush enabler until her seat was put in jeopardy.

Rep Harman,

Thank you for your comments, which I reviewed here and respectfully stand by this. Thank you for considering my views.

"The premise of strong congressional intelligence oversight is that Members will guard sensitive information."

Really Jane? You actually believe this? This is why we're doomed.

Senator Harman,

With all due respect, you deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt. Notwithstanding I have problems with the oversight committee's duties, the Constitutional powers and accountability. Understandably the threat of national security would be reason to keep quiet under certain circumstances, but the particular circumstances did not fall into that category considering the WH pattern of secrecy, obfuscation and fabrication had already been established!

Restrictions on conferring with intelligence committee members and/or lawyers should have raised a red flag. Long ago the public recognized Bush was abusing "national security" as a way to circumvent the law and/or avoid accountability and oversight. So it is difficult to accept no one harboured suspicion, question or doubt as to the veracity of their claims. Wasn't anyone in the least bit worried or even curious?

Presumably an oversight committee requires proof, as opposed to "trust us". Surely the committee has access to the FISA courts or other means to substantiate and verify the administration was adhering to the rule of law. Otherwise why even bother with oversight committees.

As many times as Bush, Cheney & WH officials have been caught "exaggerating", embellishing, overstating, hiding facts, even lying time after time it is incomprehensible and unacceptable they have not been held accountable. The democrats were voted into office on promises to leash "unitary" executive power with assurances of effective oversight and use of subpoena power. Bush says no and viola that was that! They broke the law, plain and simple.

Equally disturbing despite promises to the contrary our elected officials miserably failed to protect and preserve our Constitutional Rights.

The right to exercise Congressional power is not ruled by the executive. The House is granted equal power by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Furthermore the Congress does not have the right to transfer its Constitutional power to the executive branch, but apparently did so anyhow by relinquishing more power to an executive already intoxicated by it.

So what is the Congress planning on doing about this, if anything?

Rep. Harman, have I got this right? A book is coming out about your utter failure to do the job you swore an oath - and are very well paid - to do, and now you feel the need to set the record straight? We are meant to believe that you had no idea the Bush administration was violating the law. Yet you say that you want a full accounting from this lawless presidency for past violations. Which is it? YOU trusted them but knew them to be lawless? Does that not make you just as guilty for aiding and abetting their crimes? Have you not just indicted the entire Democratic leadership for the same malfeasance?

Madam, you have set the record straight alright.

Why were you a Ranking Member on this committee if you had to consult experts, after the fact, to get a feel for whether or not this surveillance activity violated the law and Constitution? You had no expertise that would allow you assess the activity you were in charge of overseeing? Too busy fundraising?

Your job is not to be passive. You, a representative of the people, swore to actively defend the Constitution against both foreign and domestic enemies. You are not only "free" to do what it takes to uphold that oath, it's your duty to take whatever steps are necessary. If you are not watching the hen house, then who?

So many excuses in the name of preventing all this terrorism that's so grave you feel compelled to drain trillions of taxpayer dollars and let illegal spying go on. There are plenty of conspicuous inconsistencies, that is for sure. But while you are busy throwing the tax money of unborn American's around, it's a wonder you haven't even provided funds to check more than a negligible fraction of food imports or take real control of the ports and borders.

Almost too obvious to state, but we need to do some serious house cleaning in Congress.