Jello Jay And Hoyer Slither Back Into The FISA Limelight
Crikey, this is getting old. You may have seen by now that rumors of a new push on passage of FISA, and, of course, full retroactive immunity, are bubbling to the surface in the last 24 hours. Here is Jane. Here is Digby. Here is McJoan. From Jane at FDL:
According to the ACLU, there is rumor of a backroom deal being brokered by Jay Rockefeller on FISA that will include retroactive immunity. I’ve heard from several sources that Steny Hoyer is doing the dirty work on the House side, and some say it will be attached to the new supplemental.
A few more facts and circumstances are available now than were in the earlier stories. For one, we apparently see the "urgency lever" being pressed this time around (there always seems to be one in these plays, it’s a feature). From Alexander Bolton at The Hill:
The topic has reached a critical point because surveillance orders granted by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general under the authority of the Protect America Act begin to expire in August.
If Congress does not approve an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by Memorial Day, intelligence community officials will have to prepare dozens of individual surveillance warrants, a cumbersome alternative to the broader wiretapping authority granted by the Protect America Act, say congressional officials familiar with the issue.
Maybe, but if so, then the situation is intentionally so from a designated plan by the Administration to have some of their programs start running out while they are still in office and can use the "urgency" to fuel their desperate push for immunity. The reason, if you will recall, is the little provision placed in the Protect America Act (PAA) allowing any surveillance order (i.e entire general program, not just individual warrants) existing at the sunset of the PAA, which occurred on February 17, 2008, to continue until expiration, which means that there was NO necessity that any program that the government wished to pursue expire anytime during the current Administration. I have reminded folks of this repeatedly, but here is a wonderful synopsis from Cindy Cohn of EFF:
The PAA provides that any currently ongoing surveillance continues until the "date of expiration of such order," even if PAA expires. "Orders" are what the PAA calls the demand for surveillance by the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence (there’s no court involved). These surveillance orders can be issued for up to a year at a time, and since the PAA is only 6 months old, every order issued under the PAA will still continue for at least six months, until July 31, 2008, even if the law expires. And a surveillance order issued on January 30, 2008 will allow continued surveillance until January 30, 2009.
Even immunity proponent Senator Rockefeller agrees on this point. In a press release he issued today (it’s not online yet) he said: "Our government will continue to have authority under the law until at least August of this year, and can even extend that authority until January 2009."
So, it is pretty likely that anything that is expiring while this Administration is in office is something that they specifically and intentionally did not care about or, better yet, wanted to expire in order to use as a wedge ploy down the road to get their immunity while they are still in office. For any program order they cared about, all they had to do was implement it, or renew it if it had already been instituted, immediately prior the expiration of the PAA and it would have then been viable and active well past when they are out of office. If they didn’t do that, they didn’t care. They pull this bunk every time; don’t fall for it.
There is another old meme that I would like to knock back down before it gets out of hand again; namely that what is going on here is the result of panic and demand by the telcos. For all the same reasons I pointed out here at length, that just is not the case, and nothing since then has changed that fact. There have been nothing but token efforts to keep up appearances by the telcos in regards to lobbying and otherwise forcing passage of immunity. Jane mentions that AT&T hired the new big gun lobby shop, Breaux-Lott, to lead their lobby efforts on immunity. And just how many millions, heck tens of millions, of dollars did AT&T pay the two former heavyweight Senate Leaders to save AT&T’s very existence in life? Uh, that would be zero millions of dollars. AT&T is expending the whopping grand total of $150,000 for their entire lobbying effort. Yep, a paltry $150K. You have got to be kidding me; they are so not even trying that they may not even be breathing on this issue.
No, if AT&T really gave a tinker’s damn about immunity, they would be expending closer to $150 million than $150 thousand. This immunity push is now, and always has been, solely about protecting the dirty rear ends of Bush, Cheney and their slacker lackeys, and covering up the evidence of their blatant systematic and systemic criminal conduct. Never forget that. Instead, the push is being made through the same old tact; Republican solidarity and immense political pressure and manipulation of the Blue Dog Democrats. Again, from The Hill:
Hoyer has discussed various possible compromises with Blue Dogs in the hope of avoiding defections similar to what Democratic leaders saw on Republican-favored immigration legislation.
“A number of Blue Dogs are working on a compromise between the House and the Senate,” said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and the former ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “I’m working with Hoyer and working with others.
“Some other Blue Dogs are involved,” she added. “Blue Dogs are 47 votes; 47 votes will determine how this comes out.”
Oh goody, the Blue Dogs are still driving the bus, and Jane Harman is still smack dab in the middle of the pie with her questionable history of acquiescence with Bush’s surveillance program; and, perhaps more importantly, reason to cover it up. This group of constant weak links is being subjected to immense pressure to sell out the Constitution and country’s right to privacy; but, again, not from the telco lobby, but rather Bush/Cheney political surrogate shadow operations. Once again, from The Hill:
Conservative and freshman Democrats are growing skittish. These lawmakers expect campaign opponents to accuse them of imperiling national security if Congress does not enact new intelligence surveillance legislation.
One outside interest group, the Defense of Democracies Action Fund, has already launched radio ads specifically criticizing Blue Dog Democrats for supporting a House-crafted intelligence bill opposed by President Bush.
Defense of Democracies is, exactly like Freedom’s Watch, nothing but a high powered Bush/Cheney/RNC mouthpiece. So, the bottom line is we know what the goal of the FISA push is (immunity), we know who wants it and why (the Bush/Cheneys because they have engaged in a mass criminal conspiracy and need cover), and we know the path the push will take (GOP assimilation of Blue Dogs). Really, the only part of this puzzle we do not yet know is what the precise nature of "the compromise" is that will cravenly be peddled.
If you will remember, back in early March, there was a compromise proposal floated in the House that would allow for case by case immunity determinations to be made by courts based on certifications and ex parte arguments by the government. Here are the thoughts I expressed at the time, but in short, i agreed with the EFF and ACLU that it was a surprisingly acceptable proposal. The Bush Administration, of course, immediately shrieked and threatened veto. Clearly, such reasonable compromises seem to be relegated to the dustheap of history and we are now back to some other form of "compromise" that results in unmitigated full retroactive immunity. Typical of a Bushco "compromise", we give them everything they want, and in return we get jack.
If there is any two way compromise deal (as opposed to an illusion that just gives Bush what he wants), the best bet at this point is that it will involve Bushco giving slight concessions on exclusivity provisions that they do not really want, in return for getting full retroactive immunity. The other possibility that has been floated involves full retroactive immunity for telecoms in exchange for a bipartisan commission to investigate the illegal wiretapping; but this has about zero chance of being acceptable to the Bushies, they simply are not going to agree to be investigated.
So, the foregoing being what appears to be the case, it looks like we need to gear up immediately for the same full court battle we have been having; the "compromise" is looking bad once again. That said, painful as it may be, it is time to get back to work with your fingers and phones. You know the drill. Make sure they remember that Donna Edwards is going to have a seat in Congress and Al Wynn will not; and the vote was not even close. Make them remember what this country stands for. Here is a list of the Blue Doggies. Here is a comprehensive list of contact information for all House members. And please don’t forget Steny Hoyer.
How typical, if this is the vehicle they try to use to shove a bad FISA bill with Retro Immunity through, that this is being done with the most back room MO possible, after so much emphasis and effort by people in following FISA and trying to prevent Retro Immunity.
Morning bmaz. So how long does it take to prepare the paper work for a LEGAL warrant?
It depends on the complexity of the complexity of the fact situation, but it is really not that bad. Regular street level police officers manage to complete and submit search and seizure warrants every hour of every day, and these are nothing more than glorified versions of the same. Many parts of the warrant affidavit can be cut and pasted extremely quickly, then add in the specific who, what, where, when and why. I would guess that, at the worst, an hour or two, most cases not that long. But keep in mind that they can be dictated over a phone to a judge in real time on the spot and, if there are exigent circumstances, the activity can proceed and the warrant obtained up to three days later. Bottom line, they are spewing total BS when they say what a hardship it all is; they are just terminally lazy and fearful of having court oversight of their illegal activities.
A “far” out there and potentially crazy question but with the events in the last few weeks, we know some of those events are tied to Abramoff or Fisher cases. How would FISA aid or protect any case right now involving AIPAC? Jello and especially Hoyer have close ties and are historic supporters of AIPAC.
I realize this is about FISA and the previous is about depatures but I wonder if there are links between them in any way?
I also meant to list the Franklin case @ 3 as well…
I am reminded of another departure not too long ago…
And irt Fisher:
But Fisher’s “best” on FISA was during this Frontline interview…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..isher.html
Wasn’t part of the rumor that this was going to be attached to the Iraq spending bill? I thought I read a couple days ago that Pelosi was going to bypass the Appropriation Committee so the Iraq bill didn’t get loaded with amendments. So, how’s this going to work? How does FISA get tacked onto the bill? Was Pelosi making an effort to deny the blue dogs their vote on this?
That is still the rumor GCP. I am not sure what the exact mechanism and implications are of that; there are so many intricacies to House procedural stuff that I cannot tell you much more than that at this point. Seems, at the least, that it would provide the onus of making people vote against funding the troops to vote against FISA; we have seen the depravity of that play before. Good to see you, been a while.
I wish I understood those intricacies, too.
If the immunity provisions are added to an Iraq troops funding bill, what stops the non-Blue Dog democrat from countering with an Iraq troops funding bill minus the additions?
It drives me crazy that amendments to bills can cloud the intention of a person’s yes or no vote.
Agree. What’s worse is Pelosi got her position precisely because people were opposed to this kind of crap and she doesn’t seem to understand that at all. OR maybe just doesn’t care.
Thanks. Been on the ‘work’ routine. I try to catch up and by the time I have you folks move so fast I’m already behind again.
I was thinking more along the lines that Pelosi may actually be trying to help on this. If the funding bill goes straight to the floor when do Steny and the Blue Dogs get to insert their amendment? If the bill goes to the floor with FISA immunity already included then I can see where she’s a sellout. I can’t imagine she would think this is so important that she would be willing to sell out all the Democrats nationally who put her in her position by forcing a vote on FISA with troop money attached. What could these people possibly be thinking during an election season? It’s almost like they WANT to lose it in the fall when everything is right there for the taking.
Have you been following the latest stories on Roger? Now, it’s John Daly’s ex-wife. One of them anyway. I’m a golf nut and played a little professionally when I was much yonger many years ago but I can’t even keep up with all of Daly’s ex-wives, although I think one of them went to prison for a while and I think this may be the one. After the news of the singer who went to prison, and now this, what was Roger thinking? I don’t know about the criminal or civil case aspects of all this but I can’t imagine the current and longtime Mrs. Clemens is thrilled with these developments. No matter what the Feds do he could be broke by the time she gets through with him.
Heh, yeah, ole Roger is not looking good. I think it might be the criminal Mrs. Daly, but I’m not sure on that at all. My real strong beef on the main case is the way it, and the ones that preceded it, have been run by the Feds and specifically this Jeff Novitsky asshole. I saw this process in action here long before Clemens boiled to the surface. They didn’t have squat on Clemens, but the Mitchell report was literally desperate for a big name, so they went with shoddy evidence and allegations and then went about flushing stuff out. And the way they used Congress as a civil lever to force feed what ought to be a criminal investigation is beyond despicable in my eyes. Clemens sure hasn’t helped himself along the way though, and that is mostly at his own assistance and not what his lawyer has suggested, or when it was suggested, it was done so on incomplete facts. That is pretty much the word from behind the scenes. Oh well, Rocket will reap that which he has sown. My only complaint is it makes Novitsky look legitimate in the long run, and that is so far from the truth it is laughable.
For whatever reason, it was pretty clear to me long ago that Pelosi and Reid had some level of agreement with the Administration to get immunity through. I think there are probably a multitude of reasons for this, but probably the biggest one is simply raw political calculation (same as impeachment) to keep their leadership majorities and grow them for more power. But they are too timid to actually use their power for the duty it is intended for.
I remember you talking about the tactics of the government earlier although I’d have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Hardin found out about some of these things. I can’t believe Roger was completely honest with him.
After all the reading here and elsewhere this is what I still don’t understand – why do Pelosi and Hoyer want any agreement with the administration? And what is their reasoning that these agreements will help them grow their majorities/power when they are only pissing off the people who pu them where they are now and will never receive any credit/votes from the people we oppose. If they are complicit in all this, or actually agree with what the smirk did, then that would be one thing but for the life of me, in raw political terms, I don’t see the upside to their actions.
I just don’t get it.
well, i’d guess that different people have different reasons for their actions. but as far as the house leadership goes – imo, they look complicit – possibly because they don’t care or because they agree. if this is hard to believe, take a stroll down memory lane to 1996.
Oh, don’t worry. I haven’t forgotten. It’s no secret I’m not a fan of the Clinton’s. Either one of them. In fact, of the three contenders still in the race for the presidency I’m not so sure Hillary isn’t the most dangerous. Bill certainly put in place the infrastructure for what followed with the smirk and his pals. Didn’t the tech in the SF case who testified about the government room say the cutovers were made in February, 2001 and haven’t there always been suspicions that the smirkies were eavesdropping and spying previous to 9 – 11. They couldn’t have put all the infrastructure in place from the inauguration and had everything complete that soon. Some of it was being worked on during Clinton’s term.
If the goal is to reduce the footprint of the national security state and you put Hillary in office with a Democratic Congress she isn’t going to want to give it up. She’s going to browbeat a Democratic Congress just like the bushies did with a Republican Congress.
Thanks for giving us more details, bmaz. Back to work on this, yet again…
nomolos:
DOJ has been beefing up staff on this effort. From a press release yesterday:
I would hope that their efforts at reorganizing the office reflect an expectation that they just might not get what they want on this last, back-door effort, but maybe I’m too optimistic here.
Marcy – I wrote all my folks yesterday a very strong email. My Rep. is a freshman and a good guy, Mike Arcuri. And, I explained why this is NOT about telco immunity, but about protecting the regime from being held accountable…and that the American People WANT these unmentionable b*tards to be held accountable…before everyone’s phone calls are being listened to, everyone’s emails are being read, and the 3 a.m. knocks on the door start.
dozens ??? really ?, .to uphold the rule of law for hundreds of millions ? gee whiz golly what a bitch !
Mornin’ All – anyone seen anything more on the Fisher resignation ?
Haven’t seen anything really new, but It’s always amusing to read the variations of this sentence about departing BushCo appointees, depending, of course, on yr. definition of “amusement”:
“When nominated, Fisher drew criticism because she had never tried a case and had no experience as a federal prosecutor.”
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/…..al-di.html
And I’m on those faxes re: the latest telco retro immunity sneak play, bmaz. Thanx for reprinting the contact info. Home fax will get the usual workout before I head out this a.m.
Why do the real patriots need an agreement on a bipartisan investigation?
Why can’t said patriots make the point that immunity means the telecoms would have no excuse not to testify to Congress on what was (and is) going on?
Why can’t this threat be repeated often enough that BushCo decide that they’d be better off without telecom immunity?
Does it all come down to your assertion that the telecoms are at zero real risk, so BushCo know that immunity makes no difference to whether the telcoms would agree to testify?
If so, then I’m back to my first question: why haven’t there been hearings yet? Who needs bipartisanship when you’re in the majority?
This makes me absolutely crazy. From the NYTimes:
“At the hearing, a department official, John P. Elwood, disclosed a previously unpublicized method to cloak government activities. Mr. Elwood acknowledged that the administration believed that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he or other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation.”
Previously unpublicized? The Times has never heard of pixie dust?!
That’s just the NYT sprinkling a little pixie dust of its own — over EW and others in the blogosphere. We’re not really here, y’know? Not here at all.
I did my best. What can I say?
mcjoan is currently up quoting Isikoff about a lawsuit about the administration not disclosing its lobbying contacts with the telecoms about FISA. Will check the dates.
Here is the EFF page on this lawsuit. The contacts are “since last fall”, i.e. during the latest FISA fight.
Thanks bmaz.
Regarding Telecom immunity, I just got off the phone with
that piece of sh*t, the rethug litethe Majority Leader’s Office.Apparently the telecoms were coordinating their lobbying of congresscritters with the WH, too. Posted at Kos.
Steny-the-fink and Jello Jay really need to get out more, or have staff that gets out, and learn what’s going on under their (plugged?) noses.
And 4jkb4ia too – This fits in with exactly what I have been saying though; the telcos are not out doing their own lobbying, the small amount of lobbying they are doing appears to be directly at the behest and direction of the White House. Every ounce of activity and energy is flowing from the White House, NOT the telcos; what does that tell you?
It tells us, we are FUCKED.
bmaz – so how do you see pelosi’s and conyers’ role in this? do you think they are innocent bystanders (obviously i don’t think this is the case) or in some ways allied with the administration?
i think there is something we don’t know – and that is to what degree is the democratic house leadership complicit. not just hoyer and his blue dogs (which i think are being used as cover) – i mean pelosi and conyers.
both the legislative process and the hearings (crappy or non-existent) of the 110th congress suggest, i think, the possibility of massive complicity.
Steny Hoyer, a Demorat?
http://www.opensecrets.org/rac…..Cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/rac…..;special=N
http://www.opensecrets.org/rac…..;special=N
This post needs to be made into a commercial (Robert Greenwald?) and shown in all of the blue dog television areas. It is not a difficult concept, and I’m sick of us being treated like we’re so stupid and gullible that Defense of Democracies can trick us. Is anyone running against Jane Harmon?
Hard to find my fave quote from her Frontline interview, but this part of the interview is a gem: (sorry this is so long)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…..isher.html
(My bold)
I wonder if the BlueDogs would like a Canuck to remind them that America is a F*cking Democracy and that they took an oath to the Constitution … gotta go meditate now, this really pisses me off.
Whether this goes through or not, whoever supports telecom immunity should lose their seats in November.
Is it bear-thirty in Beamish country yet? I hope we get a post on how the Beamish pours, whether it’s plentiful etc… or some good news anyway. Heck of a job Bmaz.
Oh, I’m still in Haggis country. The good news is that mr. emptywheel looks just as fine in a kilt as he did the last time he wore a kilt 7 years ago.
Gummy Haggis; they melt in your mouth, not your hand…..
One thing We can be certain of – simply going by what isn’t getting said – is that Our Dems *know* what Bush and the Telecoms did for which they want Immunity.
Steny knows. Nancy knows. Harry knows, and that quivering mass of protoplasm from New York knows, too.
But the Dem who *knows* best is Jane Harman. She’s out in front on this issue, while Steny Works the Blue Dogs in the Back Room.
Memo to Jane: You Better Be Clean in your advocacy here, because it wouldn’t take a Nano-Second for ‘proof’ of your Gang of 8 Sell-out to float down to the Table and Sweep You Out of Office – the local dog-catcher will be able to beat you…
If Harman’s pushing Our Civil Rights into the Pile with her Bet, then We should Trump Her Ass and Take Them Back!
Make Harman Declare her Gang of 8 Vote before We do anything on Telecom Immunity!
The clock is running out. Until it does, Shrub can issue pardons and Executive Orders, and make recess appointments (if Congress is stupid enought not to hold pro forma meetings while nominally in recess). But Shrub can’t legislate. His pardons excuse criminal wrongs, but have no effect on civil law suits and their compelled testimony and production of documents. For the first time in decades, Dick Cheney will be politically unprotected except by other voices in the wilderness.
The next Congress will see significantly larger Democratic majorities and fewer Blue Dogs. The next President will likely be a Democrat, possibly the dreaded Mrs. Clinton or the outsider Obama. Try as he might, Dead-Eye Dick won’t be able to delete, shred, crush or take all his secrets with him. Many will remain, many will be disclosed and acted upon.
Two issues put him in most peril. Torture and widespread illegal domestic spying. The latter is likely to be easier to prove. A slam dunk, in fact. It’s also a key issue. Not just because it involves the illegal gathering of information by copying and diverting whole streams of date to privately managed government data farms. But because of the corrupt things these boys did some of it.
Telecomm immunity would do away with many of his vulnerabilities and allow him to leave office in triumph. He knows that state secrets, national security and unenlightened self-interest might keep him off the hook on torture. So immunity is the brass ring, the capstone of the Cheney Presidency. Not acquiring it may be his undoing, the equivalent of Al Capone and his tax problems.
Cheney may get it. There are lots of Vichy Democrats, waverers who know how well Cheney, Rove and Bush can sling mud. It’ll be a close thing, the fight will continue through next January. But only if we make the effort.
Mornin’ bmaz –
posted this over at the Lake – y’all seen this ?!?!?
law.com link
again, sweet jeebus
I remember seeing that e-mail in the Abramoff dumps.
I wondered then who the recipients were.
I agree with your main premise, that this is about immunizing Bushie’s behind (and those of his lackeys), but this interesting post from over at Big Orange is worth a read.
Looks like the telcos were a moving force behind this – just that when they have the Admin in their pocket (as co-conspirators), they don’t need to spend megabucks to get their way. And, they convert the admin into accessories after the fact.
I have a different take on that entirely. Keep in mind that telcos are constantly lobbying legislators and giving them money; it is just what they naturally do. If you check the historical figures, however, ever since the start of Bush’s “program” the amounts have gone down, not up. That is simply not consistent with them being in mortal peril. But they will always expend some time and money, again, that is just what they do. I think the take away here is that the Administration is directing the telco lobby effort, not serving as the target of it. Sure, the telcos would rather have immunity, it is less hassle that way; but there is simply no urgency or panic commensurate with the thought that they are in mortal peril.
It’s the “accessory after the fact” part that I’m looking at as a new angle.
Doesn’t matter who’s the driving force then, b/c they are all equally liable.
You’re certainly correct that the $150,000 figure is paltry; they’d spend that on a few conferences or a single junket to the Caribbean or Vegas for some “alone time” with their favorite legislative poodles. It’s minuscule when set against administration claims that telcos could be liable for billions in potential damages and thereby makes a mockery of those claims. That amount is seed money for the future and a “thank you” for past deeds, not a rational response to present peril.
Deep Throat’s “Follow the money,” remains as true of Washington today as it was when he said it thirty-five years ago. There ain’t no money, so there’s no “there” there, no insecurity against which telcos are devoting resources.
This is Cheney’s game, to hide wholesale violations of the law by his White House since before 9/11. It is also an attempt to hide the existence and pervasiveness of what Glenzilla accurately calls the Surveillance State, in order to perpetuate. As was said of another devil, the smartest thing he did was convince us he doesn’t exist.
I’m still not getting this, so could someone please explain (in very small words) why an amendment couldn’t be attached to immunity that says the telecoms must cooperate in all investigations or they lose immunity.
If bmaz is correct, the telecoms already have nothing to fear.
Politically, how could anyone argue against forced cooperation with the government?
So required cooperation would seem to force the real issue out into the open.
hey emptywheel–been on this since 4-24-08 when i read in the hill that the gop was attaching fisa to the war/occupation supplemental……
early this am, i called steny hoyer, speaker pelosi, and my rep…..haven’t called rockefeller yet……
noone knew anything about hoyer being involved……..
my rep’s local office gave me a tip when pursuing issues—told me that often times you will get better results for information by calling the local offices, some/most of the dc people answering the phones are interns, local rep people can tell you more, and answer questions.
main question in all of this after reading your post—if this is to cover president bush and co., then why is jay rockefeller pushing it? if telcos aren’t pushing it then what is his reason?
and rep wanted to know what committee this is in right now? anyone know?
leaving town for a few days, i’ll read comments later….
go get ’em pups
sorry bmaz–just saw it was you not emptywheel-in a hurry, didn’t look– : )
Hey folks, guess what? IT’S NATIONAL LAW DAY!
That’s right, Boosh has proclaimed today to be Law Day 2008. How bout we really honor Law Day by applying the law, you know, to Bush.
(as usual, bush is one month late for april fools…)
Careful! There’s a Pig in that bag!
It’s a guess, but the Telecoms are Likely afraid of their Pass-Thru liability for Indiscriminately Dumping all Domestic Voice and Data into 3rd Party Hands – because Bush told them to.
If the Data is/was Used Unscrupulously to Harm American Citizens, the Telecoms want a Pass.
This is also known as the I. G. Farbin Defense: “We only built the Camp Facilities that they asked for.”
Giving away Immunity without Knowing What is Being Immunized – Taking on the Liability for Torturer Bush’s Secret Deal with the Telecoms – could be a Very Heavy Burden, indeed.
Caveat Emptor!
bmaz,
Does Judge Ellis’ ruling in the AIPAC case play any part in this new round of telecom immunity push?
.
(My bold)
Does the redefinition of “agent of foreign power” play a part or does the wording of “harm the United States or aid a foreign power,” make my question not apply?
No, I don’t see the AIPAC case or that ruling having anything to do with this.
Yeah, howdy! As you point out, this must be somehow linked to AIPAC.
(And AIPAC probably links to Abramoff, which then links to people involved in the 2000 and 2004 GOP election fraud. And they link to the Plame outing. And BAE, and Riggs Bank… and the DC Madam must be in this somewhere…)
Looking at only one of these crimes individually is engrossing, and generally baffling. But if you step back further, you see many of the same names coming up over, and over, and over… step back even further and you’re likely to see repeating patterns and themes.
If the Dems give Bush what he wants, then only two explanations make sense:
(1) they’re as complicit as he is, or else
(2) specific individual Dems have compromised themselves, making these individuals vulnerable to blackmail. (Hate to break shocking news here folks, but it happens. See also: Spitzer, Eliot.)
On the face of it, Bu$hCheney are desperate for ‘retroactive immunity’ [which Cheney now calls ‘liability protection’]. Compromised, feckless electeds like David Vitters probably can’t afford to defy Cheney because he has ‘incriminating’ evidence on them. (It wouldn’t surprise me to one day learn that Cheney was helping Palfrey fund her ‘DC Madam’ operation, FWIW.)
Under the guise of ’surveillance’ and security, FISA is probably a barometer of how many members of Congress are so utterly compromised that they are powerless against BushCheney.
It is interesting to review press about the administration’s various wiretapping programs that incrementally became public information, as treated in the comments of two then-G8-members, TDaschle, and BobGraham. In the link from Daschle article in NYT, the discussion is about a page WaPo now has behind the paywall; Daschle comments on the legislative history of AUMF, revealing then on December 23, 2005 that the AUMF language suggested at the last minute by Bushco, and rejected by the Senate, would have included both warrantless wiretapping inside the US and armed force use inside US; Daschle makes it sound like the administration’s attempt to revise the language minutes prior to the AUMF vote instead of bringing the concepts into open floor repartee, was an affont to Congressional independence.
The Graham article has been around a while, too, authored by Murray Waas in February 2007 mostly as background to the Libby trial; in it the respected senior journalist tells of a Cheney plan in June 2002 to circumvent the G8 in retribution for the publication of the fact of the existence of a surveillance wiretap which had languished untranslated but would have added to the preWTCdestruction alerts filtering in to the intell community; some of it was political bluster from the veep, doubtless, but much of it merely seems like restatement of the extant m.o. of the administration dating back to that formulative part of the domestic policymaking by Cheney+Bush, and occurring at a time when the preIraqWar hype was rolling out in the media under various A1cutout and payola schemes.
Next announced holidays the admin will coin will be stateSecretsDay and SigningStatementDay; perfect conversation for LawDay2008. It’s refreshing that the Democratic Party now is beginning to advance candidacy of leadership that will normalize the extreme policies of BushCheney. I wonder why it would be that congress’ current leaders would try to keep hearings from happening; it seems that is what the stealth renewal of some of the most irresponsible segments of PAA would be attempting to accomplish; maybe they even have the final vote planned to occur with 2008 summer timing similar to last year’s preYkConference deployment, while the opponents are ensconced in caucus.
repeating part of my 35–
main question in all of this after reading your post—if this is to cover president bush and co., then why is jay rockefeller pushing it? if telcos aren’t pushing it then what is his reason?
and rep wanted to know what committee this is in right now? anyone know?
It is in the conference process between the House and Senate. I have no definitive answer on Rockefelller other than he is a gelatinous wimp and he can’t back himself out of the corner he wandered into. I will say this though Rockefeller is no glowing anomaly here.
is that so? last i saw, mcconnell had blocked it going to conference committee – i thought because he was trying to force the house to adopt the senate version, which of course they did not. i was thinking that the ball (or rather the bill) was in the senate’s court now after the house sent it back on 3/31 (?) after the vote (3/14?)
do i have that wrong?
You may be right as to formal conference; however, I think they have been informally doing about the same thing behind the scenes.
don’t disagree – but informal means even more lack of accountability. for example, if there was a formal conference committee, we could see who had been appointed to it. and if holt wasn’t on it we could complain. at the very least, we’d get an idea about where the leadership stood based on who they appointed to the committee.
i think the whole thing stinks.
bmaz – the problem i have with your analysis isn’t wrt to the role the telcos are playing. you’ve convinced me on that one. the issue i have is the role the blue dogs are playing. you seem to say (maybe i have this wrong?) that the blue dogs are being pressured (by who exactly? – the administration?) to join with the Rs against their own caucus (leadership except for hoyer?). i have trouble with this explanation because the bluedogs have voted with their leadership when it counted. i see a splinter of the progressive caucus (and holt) as the ones who have challenged their leadership (and even won – on the vote for version 1 of the restore act, for example).
seems, i think, much more likely that the bluedogs are being used as political cover by the house leadership – so if they decide to cave they can pretend that they fought on our side (and lost).
at the very least, i don’t think this alternative explanation can be dismissed.
“seems, i think, much more likely that the bluedogs are being used as political cover by the house leadership – so if they decide to cave they can pretend that they fought on our side (and lost).”
This may be close to the truth. I think that before this Congress took office back in January of 2007, they made a strategic decision to (a) take impeachment off the table, (b) sit back and watch the Republicans screw up, (c) blame everything on the Republicans (without actually doing much about it), hoping that the net effect would be (d) more Democrats elected in 2008.
In other words, nothing for principle, everything for power.
Oh, wait, is that supposed to be the Republican playbook?
Color me disgusted. My party has no principles.
Bob in HI
It is a little harder to tell in the House; but that fact was crystal clear in the Senate where Hanoi Harry Reid brought the bad Intel Committee bill to the floor instead of the good Judiciary Committee bill; when he had every power in the world to do the opposite. Until they prove otherwise, I think you have to assume leadership is in the tank for immunity.
we can still work with this…. all we need to do is to find a way to convince them that doing their jobs is in their own best interest. don’t see how we can do that wrt to impeachment (doesn’t mean we should stop trying though), but fisa ought to be doable if we don’t let them fool us with their fancy costumes and play-acting.
Well, I’ve been trying. It ought to be a no-brainer: What better way to hold Republican’s feet to the fire than by starting impeachment hearings? Make them defend the Bush-Cheney gang’s illegal acts. Watch them twitch and squirm as they draw a bull’s eye around themselves and try to explain.
The problem is that our Dems have bought the Republican meme that investigations always mean “Gotcha!” politics and can therefore be dismissed as partisan attacks. Well, yah, when cops go after robbers it is kinda a partisan thing, I guess. When are Democrats going to stop reading from scripts prepared for them by Republicans? I mean, get a clue, maybe?
Bob in HI
thanks bmaz
Considering how chaotic and scary this may seem these situations may look bad and impossible to resolve. But isn’t it common that problems in a state of being resolved may look bad anyway? One problem we all have is that we don’t know what all the problems are and if they may be linked to the current problems. Also, this mess from all appearances seems to be too huge and impossible to resolve, but please believe me as this isn’t so! Our vision may be painting a frightening picture that these problems may represent only part of a bigger picture of problems. And if you are thinking that way, you’re correct. From what I know there are other more serious problems that are expected to surface and they will be resolved as well. I was in a family for more than 26 years who is part of the big picture problem and believe me, we haven’t seen anything yet! But don’t give up it will all be resolved.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
I didn’t have time to mention this this morning, but Bmaz, EW and I think to some extent Christy and Jane @ FDL and Cindy Cohn at EFF have never failed to point out this during the FISA bill labyrinth. it’s not only crucial for understanding what is actually going on, but a metaphor for the outright lying this adminitration and particularly the Republican Senate has been telling every time they open their mouths on FISA.
From Bmaz up at the top:
H/T Bmaz for never failing to remind people of this, and I remember when Glenn Greenwald called out Eric Lichtblau for completely failing to mention this in his columns in NYT on FISA. Lictblau weekly said he didn’t have space to mention it. When you claim don’t have space in the NYT to mention what’s crucial on a main article you’re writing about some of the most important privacy legislation in your lifetime, as Lichtblau claims, then someone else should be doing that job.
H/T Bmaz for always emphasizing this point.
Oh, I don’t disagree with that necessarily. I think the blue dogs are getting all of the above. It is uncontroverted that they are getting PR pressure from GOP and wingnut interests, like Defense of Democracies, in their home districts. They also apparently are consistently pounded on by Gooper House members while in session, and they have also not been herded strongly enough by the Dem Leadership. The bottom line though is that the Blue Dogs simply are pretty conservative types to start with. Some of them make Lieberman look like Teddy Kennedy; really, how the hell does Heath Shuler call himself a democrat? It is no secret whatsoever, however, that the White House and the GOP caucus has, from the outset, had a concerted and organized plan to co-opt the Blue Doggies. They have flat out bragged about it,
this is my only point of disagreement – but it’s a big one. because it rests on the assumption that the dem leadership has any wish to heard the blue dogs and the problem is not that they are attempting to deceive us but that they are incompetent, or lazy or something. i don’t buy it.
my hypothesis is that the dem leadership LIKES the fact that the bluedogs want to side with the Rs. it gives the leadership maximum flexibility – if they choose to support the administration’s policies they can cast a fake vote knowing the bluedogs will give them the outcome they have planned for. if they choose not to support the administration’s policies they can pretend they are heros for getting beating up on the bluedogs.
what i want to challenge is that the are any members of the house dem leadership that are fighting on our side. i know that pelosi and conyers want us to think that – but not only am i not convinced, i think it is very likely the opposite.
Ah, but that doesn’t go to whether or not there was herding, that goes to the reason, or motivation, for the lack of the herding! I don’t think we really disagree at all; I am just sometimes remarkably sloppy in my language. You seem to think I should act all educated and accurate and proper and stuff…. Heh heh, thats hard work for me.
LOL.. of course. for example, see how careful i am to always use the “shift” key? not to mention my proper grammar, spelling, etc. that is why i expect the same care from everyone else. *g*
good point re motivation.
i just have this (probably crazy) idea that if pelosi, conyers et al. couldn’t get away with fooling people they were on our side – without, you know, actually delivering – they might put more effort into getting results and less into the kabuki.
and that, is part of what motivates me to argue for keeping the spotlight on pelosi and conyers as well as hoyer and the blue dogs.
btw, i do think we have allies in this fight – holt is one.
Great Post bmaz
climbing back on my soapbox… *g*
some evidence:
1. august paa kabuki
2. burying holt’s fisa bill in committee while pushing the seriously flawed restore act version 1 (conyer’s and reyes’ bill).
3. playing games with holt to get him to not block the restore act version 1 in committee (youtube)
4. only fixing the worst of the restore act when forced to by the progressive caucus (who defied their own leadership to join with the Rs and defeat passage).
imo, we knew the house leadership was in the tank on fisa long before reid showed his true colors this winter.