And last but not least. The top two Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees–the so-called “gang of eight”–were fully briefed in interrogation techniques [torture] several times during 2002-3. They concurred unanimously that the interrogation techniques [torture] were OK. This means that Democrats as well as Republicans backed this process.

Isn’t this really a pretty simple issue? Don’t hold hearings on the tapes, even if that is a narrative our famously free press understands. Hold hearings on the entire torture regime.

I’m sure that he will be on other shows this evening, but I thought I’d mention that Jonathan Turley, the constitutional scholar, said that there is no obligation to keep a State Secret, or abide by a pledge of secrecy, if one is reporting a crime.

…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

You’re conflating the “privilege against arrest” part of the clause, which was enacted to prevent monkeyshines like the King used to use against worthies like Wm. Penn, to arrest them on the way to Parliament to prevent their participation in vote/debate contrary to the King’s interests, with the core “Speech and Debate” provision, which immunizes all statements made during Speeches and Debates on the floor (or in committees, or in preparation for legislative work) against any inquiry in any place, including (arguably) a criminal court. The anti-arrest provision is pretty useless – ask Larry Craig, as he was enroute to a session of the Senate and did vote later that day (and made the cop aware of same). The speech and debate immunity, however, is highly prized and well-guarded.

Go read Gravel v. United States and the Jefferson ($90k in the freezer) case – I’m rushed and can’t find links right now, but the former is available through the any of the various US Supreme Court collections and the latter through the DC Circuit.

That does not affect the primary thrust of my commentary – that this is a tempest in a chamberpot stirred up by the Admin/Estalblishment media to somehow tar the Dems with a purely Republican project.

I was wondering if you’re thinking that Spencer Ackerman is MSM, but he’s not; he’s TPM. In my opinion, there’s more than enough blame to go around for Rethugs as well as Dems. But the fact that Dems are complicit might explain the way they’ve been tap dancing with so much that they appear like they are spineless, ineffective, weak, and out of touch.

Also:

Second, and probably regardless of whether the letter is declassified or not: if I’m Harman, I’m pulling a Gravel and going into the well of the House to speak, at length, about “what I was briefed on and what my reactions were”. And, if Hayden doesn’t like that, or disagrees that whatever I might have said is the unvarnished truth, then he will have to provide people, under oath and on TV, to contradict that. And, I will always have the option of saying that what the CIA puts out (should it tend to exculpate the CIA) is a recent fabrication to protect the CIA’s own ass. And, of course, I will be protected by Speech and Debate against any retribution, likely including the Administration pulling my clearance.

I just have a problem with this theory; the Speech and Debate Clause might work, or they could call divulging classified information on the floor of the House or Senate “treason” which makes it punishable! I’ll grant that it would be the height of disingenuous for this admin to try to prosecute such a case considering their involvement with disclosure of the identity of a CIA agent and her whole cover organization during a time of war. But revealing to the world from the house floor that our President is likely a co-conspirator in war crimes might not be taken to kindly, either. It would truly depend on the definition of “treason”.

In other words, we can pimp-slap you, too, Georgie-boy.

Otherwise, I didn’t see this as Nancy throwing Jane under the bus at all; I thought she was using her for cover. I doubt that this is the source of their problems.