Harman

In a way -- and certainly if one takes a purist's view of Congress -- very few if any members could be considered "uncompromised."  But Jane Harman's reputation has never been considered optimal by this blogger.  She shares a spot in Washington's political basement with, ironically, AIPAC. 

Harman was seen to be on a short list for a "top intelligence post" in the Obama administration, according to Warrick and Pincus, writing in the Washington Post in December.  So she would have been undergoing the vetting process which would, in turn, throw up any hint of malfeasance with respect to AIPAC.

Back in 2006, after the Democratic shake-up in Congress, Jane Harman, who had been ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was therefore a natural for the Democratic chair.  She was passed over by Speaker Pelosi.  As Joe Conason pointed out then, Harman was already under investigation.

As for Harman, she faces a significant handicap aside from the enmity of the new speaker and her alleged coziness with Republicans. She is reportedly the subject of a federal investigation concerning her relationship with the powerful lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In a probe that grew out of the Larry Franklin espionage case, Harman is alleged to have promised to seek leniency for two AIPAC officials in exchange for the powerful lobby's support of her bid for the HPSCI chair. She vehemently denies that accusation.

Even if Harman is mostly or slightly or laterally or even literally "innocent," demanding the transcripts won't necessary get her the transcripts.  The New York Times reports that the "full disclosure that Ms. Harman has called for may not be easy or even feasible."

The reports of her conversation, first in CQ and then The New York Times, said she was recorded because she was speaking with someone who was the subject of an authorized wiretap. One former government official who insisted on anonymity said Ms. Harman was picked up as a “collateral collection” to the target, meaning that Ms. Harman was not the subject of the eavesdropping but the other party was. Stewart Baker, a lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson, said a person could not simply demand that wiretap transcripts be disclosed because that person was involved. Mr. Baker, who was a senior lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security, said that the government was not obliged to acknowledge who might have been wiretapped and that the other party had privacy rights. “Someone can’t simply waive the government’s interest in keeping secret national security matters, and they can’t waive the target’s interest in privacy,” he said.

That is one of the chief horrors of wiretapping.  Let's imagine Jane Harman is, like you and me (of course!), completely innocent,  a true servant of democracy, and a long-term fighter for your rights and mine.  All that goodness can be thrown out the window by the Justice Department.  DOJ has to take into account the larger picture.  Wiretapping is, at least potentially, one of our more effective weapons of indiscriminate destruction, the use of which Harman has defended.