You state above that there are 2 parts to the scandal. Apparently there’s no evidence to support either … so where’s the Moral Reletavism??

You are arguing this point with yourself, though, because nobody else has said or suggested that Harman’s talk with the Israeli agent was a crime.

So. Next?

This is not critical thinking, just a pure partisan way of life.

The prosecution of Harman (which never happened, btw, because Gonzales stopped it before it could start) is not the point. The legitimacy of the DOJ’s reasons for wanting to prosecute Harman are not the issue. The issue is that, whatever the merits of that prosecution, it was stopped by Alberto Gonzales for nakedly partisan reasons — namely, Gonzales’s desire for Harman to publicly defend the NSA warrantless surveillance program when the NYT broke the news that that program existed.

Clearly you won’t give Gonzales the benefit of the doubt in the preceding … what about Obama in the Rezko case?? Does Obama get the benefit of your doubt??

http://www.newsweek.com/id/117851

… at the time I’m guessing you woulda been happy that Gonzales stopped the investigation into Harman … she was not the Target in this case, and the quid pro quo offered was anything but illegal … just common practice in DC Politics. What did she do that was illegal Kathy?? … So why would they start wiretapping Harman?? If they did, would you be angry at that and call the wiretapping illegal, yea, that’s it!! Seems maybe you want it both way’s here?? There is no allegation that she helped the convicted Israeli spies, maybe she did, but there is no evidence nor indication yet. Her background certainly ties her to Israel.

Given the recent Blago fiasco and all we’ve learned about ethics … if some monetary quid pro quo had been offered, clearly this activity would be criminal. In this case the Israeli Agent just offered to LOBBY for Harmon, something NOT illegal but clearly one has to wonder where Harman’s loyalties lie … Congress has always been a gaping hole for Intelligence leaks.

So did Gonzales blackmail her?? I’m guessing that’s your main point here … well one could argue that he did, but now NYT denies talking to her, perhaps negating the “blackmail” allegation … on the other hand had he let the prosecution continue wouldn’t there have been a huge anti-Bush/Gonzales up swell anyway?? Seems like a no win situation here in your mind for Gonzales. If these facts are correct, Harman should have just let the chips fall where they may, knowing she did nothing illegal.

Interesting Story.