What’s for Dinner?

One explanation could be that the reported Harman probe was on such a close hold that senior administration officials attending last month’s dinner never even knew about the inquiry. Chertoff, who was chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division between 2001 and 2003, “was not aware of an investigation at that time” and only learned about the “alleged investigation” when it became public a few days ago, a spokesman told NEWSWEEK on Wednesday.

A senior law-enforcement official said that Harman “has been looked at in a very preliminary level” because officials are obligated to pursue tips when they come into the Justice Department. But while describing the investigation as “not particularly well developed,” the official added that “it’s not closed.”

But another explanation, the one preferred by Harman’s allies, is that leaks about the probe were part of a political effort to discredit her and to divert attention from what they believe is the real issue: a web of influence peddling and corruption in national-security contracting that has tainted the House Intelligence Committee itself. The key, they say, is timing. Harman, in recent weeks, has been engaged in an intense and increasingly bitter battle with Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from Michigan, over the release of an internal report on the activities of Duke Cunningham, the former California Republican congressman and member of the Intelligence Committee who resigned last year after pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes. When Hoekstra refused to release a public executive summary of the report, Harman on her own two weeks ago released a copy and posted it on her Web site a move that infuriated Hoekstra and other GOP members of the committee.

The next day, Hoekstra unilaterally suspended Larry Hanauer , a Democratic staff member who reported to Harman, allegedly because of suspicions that Hanauer may have leaked a classified intelligence report on Iraq. (Hanauer has since denied in a sworn affidavit that he played any role in leaking the report, and Democrats have charged that the aide’s suspension was done as “retaliation” for Harman’s release of the Cunningham report.)

It was in the midst of this highly charged, and partisan, squabbling that the reports of the FBI investigation into Harman surfaced. They also came at a time that Pelosi, in line to be House Speaker if the Democrats win, was signaling she does not want Harman to be chairman of the intelligence panel; reports of a FBI probe into Harman would presumably give Pelosi cover to deny the chairmanship to Harman—a moderate Democrat whom Pelosi feels has not been aggressive enough in challenging the Bush administration.

Obscured amid the charges and countercharges is the important new information on the Cunningham investigation included in the Intelligence Committee report, prepared by a special counsel and released by Harman. One was the conclusion by the special counsel, Michael Stern, that the House Intelligence Committee staff had ignored numerous “red flags” that Cunningham was using his position on the panel to steer Pentagon intelligence contracts to one of the contractors, Mitch Wade, who was paying him bribes. (Wade has since pled guilty to bribing Cunningham. ) The red flags included “frequently expressed questions about the ethics and integrity of Wade” and “doubts about the value of the project” that Cunningham was directing to Wade’s company, according to the report.