In the Right

Stein reported that Harman, apparently acknowledging to herself and the suspected agent that exposure of the deal would be problematic, ended the discussion by saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."

Harman ended up not getting that post, which instead went to Texas Democrat Silvestre Reyes, and instead was named chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Committee's subcommittee on intelligence, information sharing and terrorism risk assessment.

When contacted by Stein for comment about the alleged conversation, Harman issued a strong denial through a spokesman, stating, "I have never engaged in any such activity," and describing the allegation as "an outrageous and recycled canard."

The charge that Harman tried to get the charges reduced in exchange for help lobbying Pelosi is nothing new. What Stein's piece contributes to the story is his reporting that a conversation revealing the deal was secretly recorded by the NSA under a court-approved wiretap.

The political problem is obvious: No congresswoman wants to have to defend herself against charges that she sold (or even rented) her office to agents of a foreign power in exchange for help in achieving a personal political ambition.

Problematic, yes -- but is it a threat to her political career?

Thanks to the Democratic gerrymander during California's redistricting that took place in 2001, Harman's 36th District in suburban Los Angeles has returned her with an average of 63.9 percent of the vote in the four elections since the lines were last drawn. She took 68.6 percent of the vote when she last was up in 2008, long after the original facts of the case had been discussed publicly. So the electoral threat she faces isn't really that large.

So the question then becomes, did what she did violate any laws?

After all, there is no allegation that money, or anything else of tangible "value," exchanged hands, or even was promised, in exchange for her official action.

The chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee is "valuable" to a certain small segment of the population -- but it's an intangible value. How would one attach a tangible, or monetary, value to it?

And if one cannot attach a monetary value to the thing offered in exchange for the official action -- even if the official action appears to have taken place at the behest of a foreign power -- did a crime occur?

If you happen to be a lawyer practicing in the field of national security law, please weigh in. (Victoria Toensing or Joe DiGenova, are you reading?)

Or, you could just log in to Jeff Stein's live chat at 3:30 PM and share your wisdom.