New York Times Exec Editor Denies Harman Helped Persuade Him To Hold Wiretapping Story

[ProSense]

New York Times Exec Editor Denies Harman Helped Persuade Him To Hold Wiretapping Story

New York Times editor Bill Keller is denying that Dem Rep Jane Harman had any role in persuading him to hold its big warrantless wiretapping expose until after the 2004 elections, a controversial decision that may have altered the election’s outcome and changed history.

The claim that Harman worked behind the scenes to persuade the paper not to run the story was one of many startling revelations in the big CQ Politics piece that is being talked and blogged about today. The story claims that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he knew in 2005 that he could count on Harman to defend Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by The Times, because she had helped talk the paper out of running it in 2004.

If true, that would be a huge deal — it means a Dem Rep may have actively worked to kill a major expose about the Bush administration that, had it run, could have put a Democrat in the White House.

I asked Times spokesperson Catherine Mathis for a response to the claim. She emailed me a quote from Keller:

“”Ms. Harman did not influence my decision. I don’t recall that she even spoke to me.”

If this is right, this deals the story a blow. CQ reports that Harman’s alleged efforts to get the story spiked in 2004 was a key rationale for one of the story’s most explosive charges: That Gonzales knew he could count on Harman’s support for warrantless wiretapping in 2005, and hence got a separate FBI probe against Harman dropped.

But The Times says that didn’t happen.

Update: I got a quote from Keller himself, and have edited the above to reflect that.

Harman: I Never Contacted DOJ On AIPAC Case

[lisa58]

1. ohhhh, good - just as long as everyone is denying it

[ProSense]

5. Yeah, that's what usually happens

when stories are printed without actual facts to back them up. If the NYT is denying this, then there's a good chance (not absolute, but good) it's not true.

Then one has to wonder, why it came out now: May be to put a little wrinkle in blaming Bush and the Repubs? Afer all, Dems are complicit too?

If any investigation is going to be launched, prosecute Bush war criminals first.

[EFerrari]

7. You make good points and yes, that's how things are usually spun --

"the Democrats did it, too".

But, NYTs has already lied for MONTHS about this story. Why should their word be good now?

[chimpymustgo]

10. Thanks for reminding us: THE NYT HAS LIED FOR MONTHS ABOUT THIS STORY.

[ProSense]

15. Maybe, but the CQ cites the NYT. n/t

[dkofos]

2. Bullshit

[ProSense]

3. Write Congress

Ask them to prosecute Bush officials for war crimes.

[dkofos]

13. Maybe if I write it on $1000 bills. Otherwise they won't see it.

[ProSense]

14. Then just complain. n/t

[dkofos]

17. .

[DJ13]

4. more smoke to cover their tracks

[EFerrari]

6. That's two official denials! Red letter day! n/t

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Keller refused...

...at the time to discuss the timing of the NSA wiretapping story with own paper's ombudsman, Byron Calame.

Plus. he's weaseling: "Ms. Harman did not influence my decision. I don’t recall that she even spoke to me.”

Not 'She didn't speak to me' -- 'I don't recall'.

He's not-lying.

[Howardx]

9. all the lawyer weasel words

add up to coverup

[blm]

11. Of COURSE he'd say that. He'd never admit how NYT's decision to hold the story was to protect WH

from a President Kerry - all that open government and accountability would have exposed NYT's complicity on major matters reIranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning - all of which led directly to 9-11, this Iraq war and our nation's fascist foreign policy agenda.

Remember how NYT and LATimes helped tear down Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Gary Webb just to protect BushInc on CIA drugrunning>

[riderinthestorm]

12. Whoa. Why did the NYT even feel they had to issue this non-denial, denial??

I mean, far more credible would be to just dismiss it completely with "never happened". Instead we get a real response... of the prevaricating kind.

She "did not influence my decision" is begging for a followup like "so you had already made up your mind before she called you?"

And the infamous "I don't recall". I actually winced at that! Shades of Alberto Gonzalez himself! Eek!

[Marie26]

16. Oh God.

Remember the good old days when the newspapers exposed scandals instead of covering them up?