Dancing Perilously Close to Official Blackmail

Jeff Stein's story in Congressional Quarterly today is a fascinating read. Not only is this a scandal, but it's a scandal with several overlapping layers and numerous bad actors. It's also a completely bipartisan scandal, which means it is not likely to result in the typical partisan entrenchment.

The most interesting aspect of the story to me, though, is the implication that Stein is very careful to avoid making.

[C]ontrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

[...]

According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.

Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program.

He was right.

Stein is very careful here to avoid implying that Harman was blackmailed by the Bush administration. Indeed, the implication is that Gonzales knew that Harman would come to the defense of the administration, so he didn't want to damage her credibility. That, in itself, is an entirely indefensible use of prosecutorial discretion, particularly if Gonzales' orders came from the White House--which they almost surely did. But it's also perilously close to being an outright criminal abuse of power.

The only missing element is some sort of communication from the administration to Harman. If, for instance, Harmon was tipped off by the administration (whether directly or indirectly) about the existence of the wiretapped conversation, then suddenly we've entered the realm official blackmail. And that's because the implied message behind any such tip would be (or at least could be inferred to be) that Harman better continue to go to bat for the administration or else.

Now, again, Stein likely does not have any evidence of such a communication, which is why he is very careful not to suggest that Harman was blackmailed by the administration. But given the overall facts of the story, it's really not that much of a stretch. There is enough smoke here to warrant official investigation. Eric Holder really should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the circumstances of the decision not to proceed with charges against Harman. If that decision was driven by purely political considerations (which Stein's multiple sources clearly allege) that alone is worthy of investigation. But if the threat of prosecution was secretly wielded in order to influence the actions of a member of Congress, that is a serious crime and as blatant an abuse of power as you will ever see. I hope that's not what happened here, but further investigation is needed.