Memeorandum

November 17, 2006

Jane Harman Is *NOT* "Currently" Under Investigation

One of the talking points being offered in defense of Nancy Pelosi's plan to dump Jane Harman as House Intel Chair is that she is "currently under federal investigation" for her "possible illegal enlistment of AIPAC in lobbying for her committee post" (quoting Matt Yglesias); Glenn Greenwald offers this as "is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC".

From Mr. Yglesias I expect better - let me offer a steaming mug of reality to the reality based community, from the NY Times, with helpful emphasis added:

The officials, confirming a Time magazine report, said the bureau
had been looking into whether she had made improper promises to the
group in exchange for its efforts to lobby Ms. Pelosi on her behalf.

But the officials also said that the accusations had not been
proved and that although the inquiry remained open, it was no longer
being actively pursued.

Federal law enforcement sources confirmed yesterday that the FBI opened an investigation in 2005 into whether Rep. Jane Harman
(D-Calif.) improperly enlisted the aid of a pro-Israel lobbying group,
but they cautioned that no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

...Although the case is still considered open, officials said, the
allegations have not been substantiated, and there has been no
significant investigative activity on the issue in recent months. The
inquiry was first reported by Time magazine.

Last week, the Web site time.com reported that the FBI had begun
probing whether [Harman] enlisted the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's help in lobbying Pelosi to keep her job.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of
anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, told The Associated
Press that Harman's ties with AIPAC have been under scrutiny since last
year.

However, the inquiry has been dormant in recent months and so far
has failed to turn up evidence of illegal activity, said the official,
who would not detail any concerns there might be.]

It is quite rare for the Feds to formally close an investigation, because who knows what tomorrow may bring in the way of new evidence. But neither Greenwald nor Yglesias have offered any evidence to support their contention that the investigation is current. She was under investigation for engaging in politics, and now she is not.

As to the substance of the charge against her, my goodness - she calls the DoJ to inquire about an intel-related case (perfectly legal), AIPAC tells Pelosi she is doing a great job (perfectly legal), and that adds up to a crime?

By that standard, let me propose another criminal investigation - the Congressional Black Caucus throws their support to Pelosi in exchange for a promise that one of their own will be elevated to chair of the House Intel committee. The quid, the pro, and the quo all seem to be there - where is the investigation?

Well, there won't be one, nor should there be, because that is absolutely politics as usual, as was Harman's phone call on behalf of AIPAC.

All that said, if the leading lights of the left could sail back to reality and correct this "current" problem, I know we would welcome them. We'll leave the light on.

WHILE I'M PLAYING EDITOR: Ezra Klein of TAPPED offers this bit of incomplete history in defense of Pelosi's acumen:

And Crowley should inform "Reader A. M." that the
Hammer would have understood. In 1995, he ran for Majority Whip and
defeated the preferred candidate of that Definer Of The Rules Of
Civilization, Newt Gingrich. I don't recall anyone
commenting at the time how weak Gingrich "seemed" or that he put on a
"game face" after this crushing blow to his new Republican majority.

Let's go the incomparable Times archives, a compelling value as part of the Times Select package which also includes daily access to great commentary by the Times top columnists (NO, I am not paid enough for this; go with the "it's five o'clock somewhere" theory):

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 (Special to The New York Times) --
Representative Newt Gingrich announced today that he would support a
longtime ally, Representative Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania, in a
three-way contest for the No. 3 leadership position in the House.

Mr.
Walker, who is beginning his 19th year in Congress, is running against
Tom DeLay of Texas and Bill McCollum of Florida for majority whip.
Representative Dick Armey of Texas faces no opposition in his pursuit
of the No. 2 job, majority leader.

Mr. Gingrich's press
secretary, Tony Blankley, said tonight that Mr. Gingrich, who is
expected to become Speaker, would vote for Mr. Walker but not actively
campaign for him.

Just a guess, but it was Ms. Pelosi's decision to actively push for Murtha that turned this into a spectacle and her into a Peloser.

CLASSIC GREENWALD: Folks who can't endure the link will miss this old rhetorical standby from Greenwald. Here we are in paragraphs fifteen-sixteen, learning that the cause of the Pelosi-Harman personal rift is reported but unproven:

I'd like to see proof that Pelosi's opposition to Harman is purely or
even principally personal. I keep hearing this from [reporters], but what is
it based on? ...

How do these
all-knowing analysts know that Pelosi's opposition to Harman isn't
based on these obvious and compelling substantive grounds, as opposed
to the bitchy personal "cat fights" they allegedly have had?

Clear? Reporters say their is a personal animosity, but they don't say why.

Yet by paragraph twenty-one, the reporters have no foundation at all for their beliefs:

...these self-styled "serious" journalists are already trying to cripple
Pelosi's ability to do anything before she has even begun, all based on
giggly chit-chat and gossipy garbage that has no legitimacy other than
the fact that they all repeat it in unison on television and in print.

Somewhere in those five paragraphs Greenwald made it from not knowing their proof to knowing they had no proof, reminding me yet again that I could never cut it in the reality based community.

Comments

And now you, who run a little cottage industry of fisking NYT stories, treat the NYT as the oracle of Delphi and its word as final.

Color me surprised.

How about if I color you "Not Keeping Up" - I did my Times bashing and pointed out their awkward positioning on this story weeks ago:

The NY Times is somewhat on board with that [ignoring the whole Harman/Hastings thing], but there is a subtle problem - Jane Harman, the ranking Dem on the House Intelligence Committee who is marked for replacement by Nancy Pelosi, has been in the news herself for being too friendly with AIPAC. Awkward! The Times has plenty of readers who take an interest in Israel so it is tough to duck this.

On the other hand, Alcee Hastings is the candidate of choice of the Congressional Black Caucus, and from time to time it has been clear that there is a bit of tension between blacks and Jews within the Democratic Party; with that in mind, the Times does not want to report on trouble in paradise two weeks before the ascension of Speaker Pelosi.

The result is some of the more passive "reporting" we are likely to see - here is the Times presenting All The News That Fits Their Storyline:

I just can't be repeating myself all the time - move on.

Anyway, I added the WaPo and the AP to buttress the Times on the dormant investigation.

Oh, stop - you guys have "Oklahoma!", still one of the greatest Broadway show tunes ever. As a Jersey guy, I can tell you about "No Respect". (GO, Rutgers!)

Posted by: Tom Maguire | November 18, 2006 at 05:52 A
Oh Tom, Tom, Tom
There is a speeding, out of control Semi by the name of OSU coming down the highway..
Do you really want to send Rutgers out there to face them?
Just keep mutter'n 'no respect' and have a seat sir.
( gosh! That feels great to say when your team is great)
Just ribben ya Tom...great posts BTW.

IIRC some guy named JackAss termed this blog "Officially Dead" a couple day's ago. As an Irishman I now Officially term this Blog's "Wake" in progress, commencing now and extending through at least the year 2050. Bartender please, another round of Guiness for TM and the JOM'ers. Go to Hell Duke.

Nooooo. That's actually why Lieberman and Harman WILL be extremely influential Dems - because they can reach across the aisle and get things done. Further, they're equipped to lead the new, conservative crop of Dems.

Are you talking about Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet master? Sorry, I just like to give the ol' Google engine as many links to Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet as possible, since he patrols his Wikipedia entry relentlessly trying to keep any mention of Glenn Greewald sockpuppet out of it. Everyone should use Glenn "Sockpuppet" Greenwald as his default name for just this reason :)

I realize that, this late in the thread, I may be picking nits: but seeing as the Dems just elected 232 of their own to the House, and minus Pelosi as Speaker that leaves 231 who could potentially chair a committee, if Harmon is somehow damaged goods, and Hastings is an impeached judge with no credibility whatsoever --

why not get one of the other 229 Dems to chair the friggin' committee?

Thanks for the welcome Daddy..
Oh Tom.. Sorry about Rutgers losing tonight.
I know you are feeling bad..
I could never sleep the night after a losing day on the gridiron..Well, I never slept after a victory either..but that's another story.
Kind regards,
Billy Ray Missle

Let me explain in simple terms: The Democrats campaigned and won, according to their own propaganda, on the issue of foreign policy. They are now responsible for whatever may happen. Period. Apparently, they (or at least some of their sycophants) want to change the subject.

It does not surprise me, or bother me, that Pelosi holds grudges. I couldn't care less. She can stand for whatever she chooses. We the voters will decide, the next time around, whether we like or dislike her approach to serious government. She could earn a lot of brownie points by supporting the Constitution, but it is unlikely that she will.

I think that she burned up an enormous amount of political capital (read: more than the election was worth) promoting a loser for Majority Leader. On the other hand, I can't recall in my lifetime a Speaker that had much to contribute to the country, nor do I know of one through the warped lenses of history.

--Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet as possible, since he patrols his Wikipedia entry relentlessly trying to keep any mention of Glenn Greewald sockpuppet out of it. Everyone should use Glenn "Sockpuppet" Greenwald as his default name for just this reason :)--

Glenn Greenwald has the best selling book in the history of non-fiction, his blog is covered daily by the NYTimes, BBC, CNN, and LSMFT, it is read before and after the morning prayer in the Senate each morning, and federal regulators are considering rules that would make every internet browser worldwide default to his blog as a homepage. His dog is well trained and never gets ear infections, he gets weekly pedicures and his breath is minty fresh.

You fascist right-wing Nazi lunatics cannot begin to engage his intellectual points (usually they start in the 63rd paragraph or so, moron) much less scrub the floor he walks upon.

Note to Democrats: demonize Jews as much as possible. Why? because they give too many votes and too much money to the Democrats.

The Democrats are not even in office and the fractures are propagating at the speed of sound. At one mile every 5 seconds it would take about 15,000 seconds to destroy the Democrat party across the nation. A little over 4 hours.

It is looking more and more like Republicans still control the House and Senate despite their election loss.

Late in the week I was prepared to declare Congressional Republicans winners of a perceived race to 'Stupid.' It appears this race, this mad rush to make ridiculously stupid decisions that negatively impact the prospects for both political parties moving forward might not be the 100-yd dash I thought it.

Glenn noted yesterday with this post, what he referred to as a Democrat "circular firing squad." Indeed:

FANS OF ALCEE HASTINGS are spreading rumors about Jane Harman that don't seem to be true. Tom Maguire is on the case, remarking: "let me offer a steaming mug of reality to the reality based community, from the NY Times, with helpful emphasis added."

I'll just note that, true or not, the Democrats don't seem to have waited long before descending into circular-firing-squad mode.

UPDATE: Plus, Ann Coulter acquires the power to bend space and time, and incidentally to turn lefty bloggers into Emily Litella. Well, it's not the first time that's happened.

The TM post is especially interesting reading as it devolves into a bizarre little contest in the comments, featuring a cameo by the King of the Sockpuppets himself, Glenn Greenwald with a rehashing of old arguments that nobody's making about Jane Harman as head of the Intelligence Committee.

So apparently this race to be the dumbest leaders in Congress will be longer than I thought. Just when I was ready to declare the Republicans as the winner, we enter turn 2 and see the Dems about to retake the lead.

1)Let's talk about the negetives on Jane Harman. First negetive is that Harman has been ranking Minority Leader on the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI)for years. She had the clearances, the staff, and the resources to expose Bush's bullshit intelligence re justification for invading Iraq. So WHY didn't she do so?

There are several possible reasons. One of them
can be summed up in two words: BOEING and FIA.

2) Let me introduce a few FACTS for some of you innocents.

In 1999, Boeing received a huge contract from the National Reconnaisance Office (NRO) to build the next generation of spy satellites -- a generation known as FIA (for Future Imagery Architecture).

By September of last year, Boeing had spent BILLIONS and had still not delivered. Negroponte finally gave up in disgust and moved a major chunk of the contract to Lockheed.
See http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/ channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/091905p01.xml .

3) The NRO likes to keep a low profile. They are also richer than God. So a contractor has to really REALLY screw the pooch for the Pentagon to make a public move like this. And when the contractor's lawyers don't let out a peep at the loss of business, you know the pooch must have gotten sodomized as well.

See http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/fia.htm . The money quote from the later cite is this:
"Between the time the contract was awarded to Boeing in 1999 and 2005, the government had spent over $10 billion on FIA, including about $4 or $5 billion in cost overruns. The first phase was projected to have a total cost of between $20 billion and $25 billion. By 2005 about 5,000 Boeing and subcontractor employees were enaged on the program, working at windowless buildings at Seal Beach and El Segundo.

In July 2005 a panel reviewing FIA recommended that Boeing stop work on the electro-optical spacecraft, the primary component of the FIA program. Boeing evidently had over-promised and under delivered"

Anyone want to guess which Member of Congress tried to prevent the transfer of FIA work from Boeing to Lockheed? After, we're not talking just about Boeing. We're talking about all the local businesses (e.g., real estate) who get rich serving Boeing's FIA employees. We're talking about the "Gravy Train". See
this 2001 article on the FIA award's impact on the LA economy:http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010319-fia.htm

5) The question of why Jane Harman might have been very reluctant to say ANYTHING against Bush Administration officials for the past 5 years -- to object to ,say, warrentless NSA wiretapping of US Citizens -- is left as an exercise for the reader.

Note how --until the transfer of FIA work to Lockheed in Sept of last year -- Jane Harman's criticism of Bush has either been a day late or a dollar short.

The question of whether Jane Harman kept Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats well informed about the more questionable acts of the Bush Administration is also left as an exercise for the reader.

1) As I noted above, Harman has been ranking Minority Leader on the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI)for years. She had the clearances, the staff, and the resources to expose Bush's bullshit intelligence re justification for invading Iraq. So WHY didn't she do so?

Money quote number 1:
""Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government. "

4) But for political insiders, here is the REAL money quote from the TIME article:
"But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by pressure from some major donors lobbying on behalf of Harman ...
...A congressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment"

5) For those innocents who don't know who Haim Saban is -- and why he is relevant to our invasion of Iraq -- a little background:
-------
a) November 2000- 2002: The biggest campaign donor to the Democratic Party is Israeli billionaire Haim Saban, who contributes $12.7 million in the 2000 and 2002 campaign cycles. (His wife Cheryl's donations raises the total to
$13.7 million) See Reference [1] below

b) May 2002: Haim Saban funds the "Saban Center for Middle East Policy" at the Brookings Institute. One of the four stated research areas is "the implications of regime change in Iraq". Another task is providing "future policymakers with a better understanding of the complexities of the Middle East and the process of developing effective policies to deal with
them"[See ref 2 below]

c) June 30,2002: St Petersburg Times notes that "leading congressional Democrats were concerned that Jewish voters and donors were reassessing their relationship "with the Democratic Party given Bush's strong pro-Israel stance [3]

d) September 10, 2002: During a conference at the University of Virginia, high level intelligence adviser to the White House, Philip Zelikow, states: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," [4]

e) December 19, 2002: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed "Lock and Load", the Directors of Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy ,Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack, state "Saddam Hussein has failed to come clean. His denial of possessing any weapons of mass destruction makes that clear ... As former U.S. government officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq, we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its weapons capabilities" They then advocate launching a war on Iraq.[5]

f) January 17, 2003: Atlanta Jewish Times notes that " pro-Israel interests have contributed $41.3 million" in campaign donations over the past decade, with more than two thirds going to the Democrats. Article also notes that Republicans are making a strong push to court those big donors. [6]

g) June 20, 2003: In a New York Times column, "Saddam's Bombs? We'll Find
Them", Saban Center Director Kenneth Pollack tries to excuse his earlier claims re Iraq WMDs (see (e) above ) by stating "Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? It's a good question, and unfortunately we don't yet have a good answer... In any event, the mystery will be solved in good time; the search for Iraq's nonconventional weapons program has only just begun." [7]

h) September 2004: John Kerry attempts to criticize the Bush war on Iraq but can only make incoherent, strangled sounds.

i) November 2004: Instead of $12.7 million, Haim Saban's campaign donations
in the 2004 election only total $84,000 -- and $2,000 goes to George W Bush, in case
the Democrats don't get the message.[8]
------------
References:
[1]http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Saban, Haim" and select election cycles 2000,2002

So the question of whether Jane Harman should be appointed chairwoman of the House Intel Committee is simple:
a)The Democrats won the election with the meme that "Bush lied us into the war in Iraq and our soldiers died as a result"
b) Should the Democrats then turn around and reinstall as HPSCI chairwoman the very person who was responsible for warning us of Bush's lies in 2002 and who failed to do so?
c) Israeli billionaire Haim Saban's $14 million campaign donations bought him access to Democratic leaders. Should it have also bought him the lives of 3000 of our sons to deal with a threat to Israel? Under the guise of dealing with non-existent WMDs?
d)Who are Judith Miller's friends?
e) Is it really intelligent for members of the Israel Lobby -- e.g. Marty Peretz of The New Republic -- to advocate so forcefully for the reappointment of Jane Harman?

PS Kenneth Pollack, the Director of Research at Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy-- who I referenced above -- was also the author of the best-selling book "The Threatening Storm".

This book was much cited by those pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A few quotes from Mr Pollack's book which now appear ..er..not quite true:
----------
"Since then, defectors have revealed that Saddam had concealed quite a bit more than even the inspectors realized and that soon after ousting them he resumed his WMD programs to retain and surpass the capabilities he had amassed before the Gulf War"
------------
"Finally, there is the problem of Saddam's nuclear program. Iraq knows how to build a nuclear weapon and did so in 1990; the only thing it was missing was the fissile material, the uranium. Because Iraq has natural uranium deposits, all the Iraqis need to do is to build a process to enrich that uranium to weapons grade and then enrich enough to make one or more Hiroshima-sized weapons"

[Don Williams comment: Any knowledgeable engineer knew the above statement was misleading bullshit. I myself know how to make an Hiroshima weapon -- the design is simple and widely available. But to say all is needed is weapons-grade uranium is like saying I can run 200 miles an hour --all I need to do is to stick a jet engine in my ass. It took the Manhattan Project a shitload of money and effort to separate out small amounts of U235 from huge amounts of chemically identical U 238 isotopes.]
---------
"Today,we have information from key defectors and a consensus among knowledgable experts that the Iraqis are hard at work on such a [nuclear weapons development ]program and that they have
all the know-how and the technology to do it. The only question is how long it is going to take them."

The bottom line is -- you either support the Party of Appeasers and Cut and Run, with their minions in attendance such as a bunch of leaking disgruntled ex-CIA and State types (VIPs), Code Pinkers, Greenwald Grunts, etc. or you support the Victory Party with their winning attitude that looks to the far view and aren't afraid of the short term setbacks as they keep the American Spirit as their guide.

Right now the PAC&Rs think they actually won something. They discovered with the House leadership battles that maybe they didn't win as much as they thought. Many of their newly elected don't want to be PAC&Rs, they are VPs who want to stay that way, no matter which side of the aisle they have to sit on to do it.

Both the VPs of the Left and the VPs of the Right need to cleanse their ranks of PAC&Rs, the "we hate everyone but us," my way or the highway types and crybabies. Let them form a new party of their own and more reflective of their personal philosophy. WNRRs or Wing-Nut-Rooter-Rats.

Ranger -- Way way up thread you said Hastings was convicted by the Senate. He was never convicted by the full Senate, only one committee within the Senate who refused to send it to the floor for a full vote. I keep bringing this up, not as a defense of Hastings, but because this is a democrat tactic that has been and is about to be used again and again against the President's nominees for judges and even more important John Bolton. Since Hastings' case did not go to the full Senate, I really think his Acquittal in the criminal case, which is what started the impeachment flap in the first place, should be given more weight. Fair should not be based on whether we like someone or not.

M.Simon, please do not try to draw me into defending Hastings, I won't do it. I don't like him at all. But, I do not have to like someone or even think he is innocent to opine on the fairness of a proceeding. It was my first exposure to the the total incompetence of the FBI when it comes to important investigations and an embarrassment. When you intend to pull one of these impeachments off, you should not come out looking worse than the person charged.

In 1989, Hastings was impeached by the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He became only the sixth Judge in the history of United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate. (The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so.)

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.

Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"[2] between Nixon's case and Hastings', specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, and Sporkin's ruling was vacated, and Hastings' conviction and removal were upheld.

I already posted about my feelings on watching the proceedings live on CSPAN. My first time to see the FBI stumble around and testify without any notes or anything to back up what they said except Trust Us, we're FBI. I thought the whole proceeding smacked of railroad, but Clarice takes strong exception. My impression was strictly as an inexperienced lay person, a first impression kind of thing.

I was far too green at the time to make any kind of informed conclusions, but the whole procedure just didn't smell right. Later, when I heard that Hastings was acquitted by a jury for the same charges, I was not surprised. I don't think he would have been impeached if his case was tried in front of the full Senate, but, of course, we will never know.

I have my own reasons for thinking that Pelosi is an idiot to dump Harmon in favor of Hastings. If she can't live with Harmon, why take on the Hastings battle? Personally, I would like to see Bud Cramer as Chair, if it has to be a dem., he seems one of the good guys.

Polipundit reviews the Hastings case, and I was wrong when I said Congressmen were subject to the same security checks--UGH--their staffers are but THEY ARE NOT. Outrageous.http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=16056

First, my thanks to Clarice who referenced the Uranium Documents earlier in this forum. Thanks. I persisted in making them available at great cost to my webserver and my personal life. But on topic, there are some compelling reasons why Pelosi has been trying to remove Harman from the House Intelligence committee. A story is currently developing on my site with sources from the NYT, Tom Hayden, and Wayne Madsen. Jane Harman has openly supported the NSA's illegal domestic spying: she was opposed in the primary in her district for her cozy relationship with Republican insiders and AIPAC.
She will be cleared by investigators for the same reason the Republicans will be cleared. She has cut a secret deal with them. The investigations are a smokescreen for the destruction of evidence and grants of immunity to principles involved that include Larry Franklin and Douglas Fieth in exchange for their "co-operation", which in reality seems to be non-existant.
The story is being written online by one of my few and brave users, and meanwhile I have had to fend off the usuable cyber-attacks from Cogent Communications and their customers that include the very spooky "Cyveillance". Cyveillance, according to their website:
"has the complete process, tools and technology that monitor every hidden corner of the Internet, resulting in the most comprehensive Internet Monitoring Infrastructure. Included are blogs, message boards, junk (spam) email, IRC and more, any language, anytime. Cyveillance far exceeds the scope of traditional search engines, discovering content that would otherwise go undetected."http://www.cyveillance.com/web/solutions/overview.htm

What they do in reality is well known by server operators. They use their bandwidth to run "spambots" that post comment and "new submission" spam to forums like this one 24/7. They also have phoney search engines that search their target's computers for passwords and personal information. They waste bandwidth and slow down the internet.

They are paid by the government to spy on you. I am putting to getting a comprehensive story, and my only problem is that I have TOO MANY sources.

But back to the heart of the topic. The Harman/Pelosi is up, along with mirrors of the most important sources and the bottom line is that it's much more than a catfight.
It's a matter of principles that has been intentionally made incomprehensible by usual media liars and disinformation operators for reasons that are more than 50 years old.