Pelosi and Harman Aided and Abetted 9/11 Cover Up

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blocking efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney, or to take any other real steps to save America. One of the grounds for impeachment is that the government made knowingly false claims about 9/11.

Congresswoman Jane Harman chaired the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security which pushing for the labeling 9/11 truth sites as terrorist incubators.

What do these two congresswomen have in common? They were both part of the 9/11 cover up.

Veteran reporter Robert Scheer gives the background in his opinion piece today in the San Francisco Chronicle. The first two lines of the piece set the stage:

"When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, were they also destroying the truth about Sept. 11, 2001? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day - and the nature of the enemy in this war on terror that Bush launched in response to the tragedy - comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers.

Scheer then moves on to Pelosi and Harman' role in the cover up:

But what about those congressional leaders who were briefed on the torture program as early as 2002? That includes Democrats like Nancy Pelosi . . . .

Pelosi claimed that "several months later" her successor as the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of Los Angeles County, was advised the techniques "had in fact been employed" and wrote a classified letter to the CIA in protest, and Pelosi "concurred." Neither went public with her concerns.

Harman told the Washington Post "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four . . . an insider reference to the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees . . . .

Not only did the congressional Gang of Four fail to inform the public about the use of torture by our government but they also kept the 9/11 Commission in the dark.

Pelosi testified before the commission on May 22, 2003 but uttered not a word of caution about the methods used. However, more than two years later on Nov. 16, 2005, Pelosi stated correctly that on the basis of her "many years on the intelligence committee," she knew that "The quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is ... uncorroborated and it is worthless."

As matters now stand, they not only concealed torture but, more significantly, they abetted the waterboarding of our democracy.

Pelosi and Harman played an instrumental role in the 9/11 cover up by keeping their knowledge about the interrogation videotapes secret from the 9/11 Commission and from the American people (they weren't the only ones who knew). This is made all the worse because Pelosi knew that intelligence "collected by torture" is worthless, and yet she never even hinted to the Commission or to anyone else that the CIA's version of events should be questioned. They could have stopped the whole farce cold -- but they chose to go along with it.

These two congresswomen -- who are fighting against 9/11 truth -- previously aided and abetted the 9/11 cover up. Is that why they don't want the truth to come out?

Spin City

haha - no wonder Impeachment is off the table - Her Ass in on the table after getting it on with 9/11 Treason

Pelosi needs a 'wearechange-type' confrontation speciically about these tapes, her knowledge of torture while on the Select Committee and her statement that "the quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is...uncorrobarated and it is worthless"

So in essence is saying there is no value in the 9/11 Commisions basis for the reasons for 9/11 - she basically takes away any evidential foundation for the Official Story

So whats the hard evidence leaking Al-qaeda to 9/11 again? Cuz we KNOW the link isn't through baghdad, and Powell resigned without providing a 'White Paper' like he promised, then th WH backtracked away from. And it's not though Osama, because there is No Hard Evidence linking OBL to 9/11, as per the FBI.
This War or Terror is a scam.
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

What happened to this??

12/11/2007 - Stalkers, the Mayor, and Warren Buffet???

MP3 Audio Clips - Guantanamo And War On Terror A Hoax

Wednesday December 12, 2007
Senator Richard Durbin Questions Brigadier General Thomas Hartman About Guantanamo Prisoners

* source =

Wednesday December 12, 2007
Caller Asks Air America's Randi Rhodes "Where's The Terrorists" And She Says There Are None

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >

I have suspected...

That both sides of the aisle are complicit.

Pelosi was high ranking for years in the IntelCom. She definitely knew what happened.

Most politicians are scared of TRUTH. I'm not saying everyone is involved, but they all know the truth and for one reason or the other choose to keep a lid on it. I suspect that they would get whacked if they knew or did too much.

When it's gonna be huge and heads will roll. It's getting hard for them to keep a lid on it.

We must investigate her interest in protecting the criminals ?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

We have to investigate her and understang how she manages to cheat on us. We have to check out that she is not profiting financially or otherwise in protecting George Bush and his cronies?

We need to interview her about not listening to the millions of Americains who want the 911 truth. We need to know exactly what her relation is with 911 inside job plot.

If ever she plans to visit France do let us know.

Thanks John

Of course congress is complicit in 9/11 coverup

could this be the reason that Pelosi was chosen to be House Speaker?
was it to keep lid on the torture and 9/11 cover-up?
or to keep impeachment off the table?

Scheer's article also appears on his website truthdig at:

be sure to look over the comments and leave some of your own.

Pelosi a neo-con

Pelosi is simply an awful human being like the rest of the neo-cons - why can't people see this? I remember distinctly that she said she knew about the torture but as being on the select Intell committee, she couldn't talk and was sworn to secrecy. So, she knew the administration was conducting fraudulent illegal operations and refused to defend the Consitution by keeping quiet. Nonsense. She's a neo-con, too.

Common Thread

They're both AIPAC moles. From Wiki:

"Harman was the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 109th Congress. However, in October 2006 reports surfaced that Harman was under investigation by the FBI for "allegedly (with the help of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC) enlisting wealthy donors to lobby then-House Minority Leader (and current House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi to retain her position as the head Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee."[citation needed] Speaker of the House Pelosi then chose Silvestre Reyes to be the Chair of the Intelligence Committee in the 110th Congress."

Have no fear /...

She allready knows she's on our list .Cosmos of paid a visit to her house last Aug ,
taped a 911 Truth Now sign to her door and broadcasted his show Truth+Revolution+Radio+Friday+August+17+mp3
from outside . It was not only brave , but F#@kin awesome.
Mike in Florida

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace


Lets start a money bomb national campaign for Cindy Sheehan. That's how we can take care of Ms Pelosi and allow her to spend more time with her family.

Countdown's list of the top

Countdown's list of the top three Bush scandals you may have forgotten about because of all of the new Bush scandals. This week's scandals: Habeas Corpus-Gate, Air-Gate and NIE-Gate.


But the real victory here is . . .

To me, the real victory we should all be enjoying is that a MAINSTREAM NEWS SOURCE of the reputation and credibilty of the San Fransico Chronicle is publishing a piece, opinion or otherwise, that delves this deeply into the lack of U.S. Government truth about 9/11.

Ms. Pelosi may or may not hang with the rest of this band of treasonous liars, but today, the victory is in the press coverage. Go Chronicle!

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

This is why I filed a police

This is why I filed a police report requesting that they file CRIMINAL charges against her....

Here is the papers that I gave for my charges......

This is a request to file criminal charges against the Speaker of the House, of the Congress of the United States of America, Nancy Pelosi for the partial list of crimes listed below. Since Ms. Pelosi is preventing Impeachment charges from being voted on, she is preventing criminal charges being introduced against Bush or Cheney. This action signals that she supports Bush’s, and Cheney’s, actions and is doing all she can to help with these criminal acts.

These charges do not encompass the entire set of criminal acts that have been performed by Ms. Pelosi, but they do represent the most serious of crimes committed so far. The list below is not in any particular order and is only meant as a record of the crimes not a sequential account of them.

1) Knowledge of ILLEGAL Wiretapping, post and PRE 9/11:
It has been shown, in documents that were once on the web that this spying began well before 9/11. The whistleblower has documents and has stated publicly that these rooms at AT&T were being built BEFORE 9/11. This whistleblower has shown that Bush began speaking with AT&T only WEEKS after getting into the White House regarding spying on Americans. This makes the crime premeditated and by Ms. Pelosi not performing her Constitutionally mandated job, and by not taking legal action, she has stated indirectly that she supports Bush’s illegal actions.

2) Knowledge of Torture:
By allowing Bush to perform torture on people such as German, Canadian, and many others, including American Citizens, she has condoned the action and has made herself a party to the crimes by the very stance of refusing to perform the ONLY legal path available to the people against the Crimes Bush has performed.

3) Knowledge of denying American Citizens Habeas Corpus:
By allowing Bush to detain American Citizens, without providing them their Constitutionally mandated rights. By not speaking up for this American Citizen, Jose Padillia, and Demanding that Bush provide all information about why he held him without granting him his Constitutional rights is just as criminal as Bush for doing it.

4) Knowledge of Dereliction of Duty by Bush on OBL (Osama Bin Laden):
(Using Bush’s own words. "I don't know where he is..... I just don't think about him much") By Bush’s own admittance, he has stated that he is not interested in protecting America against its enemies. By Ms. Pelosi’s failure to Impeach Bush for his crimes, she has again stated that she in-fact supports Bush’s actions and is therefore a party to the Crimes of Bush.

5) Knowledge of the ILLEGAL creation of Homeland Security by an Executive Order:
Only the Congress can create such organizations through law, and the Constitution specifically states who has the power to do that and that is the Congress. The president has no power to create such organizations, and by the Congress standing back and doing nothing about this criminal act, they are stating that they support the crime; As Speaker of the House Ms. Pelosi is responsible for this action by the House of Congress.

6) Knowledge of the outing of a CIA NOC:
It has been proven that Mrs. Plame was in fact a Covert officer and that her cover, and the company she used as a cover, was blown by this administration as revenge against her husband for demonstrating the lies of this administration about the Iraq pre-war information being distributed to the American people. Ms. Pelosi has done nothing about this criminal action, which is in fact traitorous and is punishable by execution. To quote George H. W. Bush: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]

At any time the AG needs to have further, and more detailed, information regarding the partial list above, then I may be contacted from the information listed at the top and I will provide the requested information within two weeks.

The actions by the Congress, and driven by Ms. Pelosi, are criminal and legal action is demanded by the Constitution of the United States of America in order to re-establish our legal standing with this document.

If the Attorney General of Michigan does not pursue criminal charges against Ms. Pelosi, then Mr. Cox is also a party to the crime and is also aiding and abetting these crimes. I hope that Mr. Cox realizes that he to took an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America” and that this oath is more than just words uttered at a ceremony. Those words are what true patriots, and citizens, of America stand by, whether it is easy or difficult.

The Constitution specifically allows, and demands that, charges be pursued against Ms. Pelosi. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I strongly encourage the Michigan AG, Mr. Cox, to immediately begin criminal charges in the items listed above.


Well said.

Well said.

This is a big story. Its' great to see that piece in the Chronicle.

George, may I suggest an essay that brings together this destruction of "evidence," Atta's miraculous suitcase in Logan, the fake passport on the street in NYC, the bandanna and passport found at the #93 crash site, and the missing Pentagon and Dulles airport videos?

Taken together, these "details" say a great deal. Atta's suitcase and the passports look more like plants than real evidence, the missing videos and transcripts of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation is destroyed evidence, and the videos from the Pentagon and the airports are either destroyed or withheld evidence. Of course you can add to this list--the debris from the Towers (destroyed evidence), the wreckage from #93 and #77 (only missing?), the black boxes, sworn testimony from Bush & Cheney, etc.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Harman and Pelosi were members of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry

They both heard closed session testimony from KEY officials the public has never heard from.

1993. Emad Salem. Ali Mohamed.

Complicity of both parties is the only logical explanation.


Sweet Jesus, I've been waiting for mainstream media to state the obvious: we have no idea how credible most of the 9/11 story is because most of it comes from alleged detainee interrogation reports based on alleged interrogations that may have involved torture.

I think Robert Scheer has been reading 911blogger, because he takes a page out of our notebook on this one when he references page 146 of the report.

In a saner world, people would have cried bullshit a long time ago. How can you deny the 9/11 Commission access to the alleged perpetrators, and still call the results of the commission credible in any sense? What about that whole "right to confront your accusers" thing.... ?


The Torture Act of 2000
18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A, and 2340B

The Torture Act makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national (or anyone later found present in the United States) to commit torture or conspire or attempt to commit torture outside the United States. Crimes under the Torture Act are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment up to 20 years; or, if the victim dies, by life imprisonment or death.

Although the Torture Act is intended to implement the United States' treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture (which the United States ratified with certain reservations in 1994), there are some important differences between the definition of "torture" under U.S. law and the concept of torture in the Convention, particularly with regard to "mental pain or suffering," which is more narrowly defined in the Torture Act.

The Torture Act defines "'torture' [as] an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control." The law then limits the scope of "severe mental pain or suffering" to mean "prolonged mental harm" resulting from (i) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction upon the victim or a third person of "severe physical pain or suffering"; (ii) the administration or threatened administration upon the victim or a third person of "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality"; or (iii) the "threat of imminent death" of the victim or a third person. Unlike the U.S. law, the Torture Convention does not require that mental harm be "prolonged," nor does the Convention limit the types of causes for mental harm.

Most non-U.S. nationals fall outside the jurisdiction of the Torture Act, since it only applies to suspected torturers who are U.S. nationals, or who are later found physically present in the United States. Conduct prosecuted under the Torture Act need not, however, be linked to armed conflict, nor must the accused have any connection to the military. As with MEJA and the War Crimes Act, there have been no completed trials under the Torture Act

The War Crimes Act of 1996
18 U.S.C. § 2441

The War Crimes Act provides federal jurisdiction over prosecutions for "war crimes," which the law defines as "grave breaches" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and certain other offenses. These so-called "grave breaches" can include offenses against noncombatants, or surrendered or injured combatants, involving "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment . . . [or] willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The Act applies whether the crimes are committed "inside or outside the United States," and whether the "person committing such war a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States." (It does not apply to non-citizens or nationals of the United States.) The statute also applies if the victim is in one of these categories. War crimes committed in the course of declared or undeclared armed conflicts, or during military occupation, are covered by the Act.

Here's my essay on war crimes