Why Did Reid Pull the Bill?
This rather snotty article from the WaPo says that Reid didn’t pull the FISA bill yesterday because of Dodd’s efforts.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the decision had nothing to do with the efforts of Dodd and his allies. Indeed, for most of yesterday, Dodd appeared to be fighting a losing battle. His initial filibuster effort was steamrolled when the Senate voted 76 to 10 to take up the measure at noon.
Manley is, of course, full of shit. At the very least, Reid did the math to see that Dodd could filibuster this issue until the Christmas break, and since Reid intended to get funding done before the break, he was faced with postponing the break or punting the appropriations bills to the next year. So whatever else caused Reid to pull the bill, Dodd’s demonstration that he was willing to hold the Senate floor was one factor (apparently, Dodd only left the floor once during yesterday’s debate).
Snotty article also points to the amendments as one of the reasons Reid pulled the bill.
But in the face of more than a dozen amendments to the bill and guerrilla tactics from its opponents, Reid surprised his colleagues when he announced there would not be enough time to finish the job.
Now, best as I can count, I think I know of at least five amendments:
- Dodd’s amendment to pull immunity from the bill
- DiFi’s amendment to declare FISA the exclusive means of electronic tapping
- DiFi’s amendment to have the FISA Court review the authorizations the telecoms got before they received immunity
- [I think] A Whitehouse amendment to prohibit wiretapping of US Persons abroad
- [I think] A Whitehouse amendment to provide oversight of minimization
- Update: Beth Meacham says Leahy’s amendment–to substitute the SJC bill–came up just before Reid pulled the bill (thanks Beth).
I’ll try to clarify these later today. In addition, I’m sure there were going to be Republican amendments seeking to allow Bush to wiretap each and every Dirty Fucking Hippie and similar authoritarian fun.
Now, here’s what I understand would have happened last night: at some point, Reid would have called for the amendment fun to start. The Dodd crowd didn’t expect Reid to allow the full 30 hours of debate, but we got through about 8 of them, and no one expected even that much time to elapse. As I understand it, Reid was busy trying to figure out how to proceed after Dodd refused to agree to the unanimous consent. Had it come to it, Dodd’s amendment would have been the first to be considered, and it would have failed. At that point, Dodd’s filibuster would have officially started, which would have lasted roughly 24 hours, before he collapsed and we moved onto the other amendments. Presumably, once Dodd got some sleep, he could launch another filibuster. So one of the problems, for Reid, with all those amendments, is that they gave Dodd multiple opportunities to filibuster, with breaks in between.
DiFi’s Amendment
But here’s the other thing. I’m fairly certain DiFi said she was supporting Whitehouse’s amendments (though I need to check this). She also said, quite clearly, that she would have a hard time voting for immunity if her own amendment didn’t pass. In other words, a key block from the "bipartisan" crowd who had originally supported the SSCI bill was going soft on it, threatening to vote against the bill if it didn’t have some kind of compromise on immunity. Now, DiFi is famous for disappointing Democrats–but she did seem to be sending a clear message, at a time when the debate was still quite public.
So what was DiFi’s amendment? As I understand it (again, I’ll try to get clarification later), her amendment would have added one wrinkle to the immunity provision as currently written. It would have required the FISA Court to review the authorizations the telecoms received, to see whether they were legal, before the telecoms got immunity. If the FISA Court determined that those authorizations were not adequate under the law, then the telecoms would not get immunity. I have no idea what would happen then–I presume they would just revert back to non-FISA Courts to rule on and we’d get back into the State Secret dance we’re currently doing. Though with the added information that the FISA Court had reviewed all the stuff the Bush Administration was claiming State Secrets over, and determined that the telecoms had indeed broken the law. But DiFi’s amendment would provide a way for a Court (albeit a secret one) to determine that the telecoms had broken the law when they complied with the Administration’s request.
Why DiFi’s Amendment Would Be a Poison Pill
Now, before Orrin Hatch started accusing "partisan blogs" of fear-mongering on this debate, he had an apoplectic fit about DiFi’s amendment, lumping it in with more generalized DFH opposition to immunity. He strongly suggested DiFi’s amendment would be a poison pill for him–and presumably the other Republicans following Dick Cheney’s orders dutifully.
And there’s a reason for that. When the SSCI passed their immunity bill, they did so only by inventing the fiction that it was legal for telecoms to wiretap at the behest of the government if they had the authorization of the Attorney General or "certain other officers." They did so because they know–having read the authorization letters–that one of the letters (presumably the one for March 11, 2004), was signed by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Here’s part of a post I did explaining this dodge.
As SSCI points out, the telecoms would be immune from prosecution if they had been authorized to conduct wiretaps under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii).
Under the existing statutory scheme, wire or electronic communication providers are authorized to provide information and assistance to persons with authority to conduct electronic surveillance if the providers have been provided with (1) a court order directing the assistance, or (2) a certification in writing signed by the Attorney General or certain other officers that ―no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specific assistance is required.‖ See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii).
I’ve bolded those words, "or certain other officers," to emphasize that Jello Jay and the Republicans didn’t actually specify what the law says. So let’s look at the law, shall we?
(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—
(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or
(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
The law says that only the AG or someone specified in 2518(7) may provide the telecoms with the certification that their actions are legal. Here’s what 2518(7) says:
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines that— [my emphasis]
So the only people who may give telecoms the authorization that their eavesdropping is legal are: the AG, the DAG, the AAG, and any principal prosecuting attorney, such as the State AG [corrected per LHP]
USA [Actually, maybe this means a State AG].Yet, as the report informs us, for a period of time (a period of time, I might add, at some remove from 9/11), none of those people had signed off on the wiretapping program. After the Deputy Attorney General, as the Acting Attorney General, refused to endorse the legality of the program, Alberto Gonzales authorized it.
The Committee can say, however, that beginning soon after September 11, 2001, the Executive branch provided written requests or directives to U.S. electronic communication service providers to obtain their assistance with communications intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.
The Committee has reviewed all of the relevant correspondence. The letters were provided to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. All of the letters stated that the activities had been authorized by the President. All of the letters also stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Attorney General, except for one letter that covered a period of less than sixty days. That letter, which like all the others stated that the activities had been authorized by the President, stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the President. [my emphasis]
In other words, DiFi’s amendment would introduce the very real possibility that the FISA Court would rule that the White House Counsel could not legally authorize the telecoms to wiretap, and that therefore the wiretapping that occurred immediately after March 10, 2004–precisely the time period when the AG and the Acting AG determined that the wiretapping was not legal–was not legal. DiFi’s amendment was poison for Hatch because it threatens to hold the telecoms responsible for continuing the wiretap program during the period when the AG refused to authorize the program. And, of course, it therefore threatens to certify in a court that Bush’s actions following the hospital confrontation were illegal. In other words, DiFi’s amendment threatens to scuttle the real intent of the immunity provision, protecting Bush from any legal consequences for wiretapping illegally.
Reid’s Request for the Authorization Letters
Now consider the fact that Harry Reid made a belated attempt on Sunday to get Mike McConnell to turn over the authorization documentation for the warrantless wiretap program to all of the Senate.
Dear Admiral McConnell:
As you know, the Senate will begin debate on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 this week. Among the issues the Senate will consider is whether to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that are alleged to have assisted the government in its warrantless wiretapping program. You recently wrote in the New York Times that immunity is one of the three most critical issues in this bill.
We appreciate that you have provided access to the documents necessary for evaluation of this issue to the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, as each has in turn considered it. As the debate now moves to the full Senate, I believe it is of critical importance that all Senators who will be called upon to vote on this important question have an opportunity to review these key documents themselves so that they may draw their own conclusions. In my view, each sitting Senator has a constitutional right of access to these documents before voting on this matter.
I strongly urge you to make the documents previously provided to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committee regarding retroactive immunity available in a secure location to any Senator who wishes to review them during the floor debate.
Who knows whether, faced with a rejection from Congress, McConnell is going to be more willing to share those authorizations than he has been up to this point. But if he is, then the Senate will know what SSCI already knows–and already told us. The warrantless wiretap program operated outside the plain text reading of the laws governing wiretapping, at least for the period following the hospital confrontation. If I can figure that out, then I suspect the FISA Court can figure that out.
Pulling the Bill
So how does this result in Harry Reid having to pull the bill? I’m not sure. But I suspect that, if he really believed that DiFi and all the other moderate Dems refused to pass a bill with immunity without FISA Court review (and presume that we might trade Specter for Lieberman to gain a majority). Reid may well be at the point where there are three factions in the Senate (No Immunity, FISA Review before Immunity, Bush Apologists), which would prevent a bill from ever passing.
EW!
oy. the WaPo is just thoroughly reprehensible. (and it’s not safe for septic systems, so what’s it good for?)
Like in the old “Lou Grant” series lead-in: bird cage liner. Usage as puppy pee pads also comes to mind…
Read the WaPo article 1st thing this a.m. Between that & the Annie Applecart op/ed spew, it certainly blew my a.m. good mood.
That’s kind of how I gathered her amendment went — but it makes absolutely no sense.
Turn it around for a minute: If the FISA court rules that the authorization was legal, then the telecoms get immunuity. But if it was legal, the telecoms already HAVE immunity. If it was legal, there’s no case against the telecoms.
Something screwy with this one.
No, it makes complete sense.
First, remember when the SSCI bill passed, it had only had a few hours with the authorization letters. Clearly, they knew that Gonzales had signed one of the letters. I suspect there has been some debate since–particular on the Judiciary Committee (DiFi is one of the three joint SJC and SSCI people) about whether this was legal or not.
But I’m pretty sure the amendment said that if FISC said the authorization was illegal, then it gets kicked back out to the 9th circuit. In other words, it says the telecoms only get immunity if a court decides that they were correct in interpreting an authorization from the WH Counsel to be legal, which it’s not.
It puts the decision of whether they broke the law in a court that is utterly immune from BushCo’s invocation of State Secrets.
So it has nothing, really, to do with immunity — and everything to do with hauling dubious BushCo legal theories before a judge?
That’d be nice.
You’re giving DiFi an awful lot of credit for being sneaky in defense of the Constitution and rule of law, however. Some might object that there is little evidence to support her having ever headed in that direction. I suppose there’s always a first time.
DiFi has been under some pretty strong constituent pressure lately. Could it be she woke up and smelled the coffee?
Could be — though she’s proven to be rather resistant to that in the past, going as far back as her days as a member of the SF Board of Supervisors.
I think the biggest reason Harry pulled the bill is that this whole FISA situation spiraled out of his control, and he HAS to get an omnibus spending bill passed by Friday. When push came to shove — and Dodd did a great job of shoving — Reid recognized that the FISA fight can wait, but the budget fight can’t.
Which only gives Dodd & Co. more time to get support lined up on their side, and more time for Christy & Co. to rattle the cages of every member of the Senate.
Reid is diverting from the bill (which is now the formally pending business of the Senate, see legislative calendar (link will go stale on this subject, when the Congress adjourns sine die, as it’s updated to each day’s legislative business)), just because of time constraints. He wasted too much time on “the farm bill,” insisting for a couple weeks on micro-managing the amendment process, but eventually capitulating to an “open” process with 20 amendments per side.
With only a few days left in the session, it’s a cinch for a determined obstructor to run the clock out and preclude other business. There would only need to be objection to one amendment, and objection to passage of the bill, and just like that, by insisting on adhering to the time allowances of cloture (see Rule XXII), a week is consumed.
On a separate subject, you make the common mistake of thinking that Dodd has to talk in order to impose a slow walk of the bill. He doesn’t have to. All he has to do is object to UC requests to vote. Dodd’s filibuster was officially on as of yesterday. He refused to consent to the motion to proceed, thereby forcing the 30 hours of post-cloture time to run. He capitulated ONLY after Reid said the bill would be set aside until next year. As long as an objector withholds consent to waive a provision in the rules, he forces the Senate to adhere to the timelines expressed in the rules. The rules don’t impose a requirement to talk — although talking/holding the floor can be useful as a time waster, it is not the ONLY time waster available to an objector.
OTOH, if you define “filibuster” as consisting ONLY of talking and holding the floor, and not as doing whatever is available under the rules to impede passage of an objectionable bill, then it’s entirely possible that Dodd would NEVER have filibustered — because he has the more efficient device of simple objection that will accomplish the same delay.
Funny. That’s not what Dodd’s people say. You’d think they’d know both 1) what constitutes a filibuster according to Dodd and 2) whether he was doing one.
You’d also think all those references to “real” filibusters, tracking teh amount of time that racists like Strom Thurmond had held the floor, indicated that that was what was at issue here. And indicate that there still is somethign that is a real filibuster.
But perhaps you know things that the Senator himself doesn’t know?
i think it’s quite possible that the senator knows, but your contacts in the dodd camp do not.
Nicely done EW. When you connect the dots, sparks fly! I hope the MSM can pick up on what you have done here, I doubt it though. Maybe Olbermann can run wit this analysis too…
…by the way, great work from Marcy, Jane, Christy and Glenn all day yesterday! (and everywhere I looked, too–tuned in to the Young Turks’ Filibusterthon yesterday and there you were. must’ve been a LOOOOONG day…)
Dodd was able to hold up the bill yesterday, without holding the floor. The amount of time he could hold it up was limited to the 30 hours post-cloture.
I’m not saying that holding the floor can’t be used as a dilatory tactic. I’m saying that it’s not the only one, and it really isn’t the most effective one. The most effective dilatory tactic is simple objection to proceeding. The Senate runs on unanimous consent. Put some sand in that set of gears, and the legislative process can be slowed much longer than a person is able to physically hold the floor.
If Dodd wants to define “filibuster” as holding the floor and talking, and once he stops talking, delay is over, he is free to do so. But if you watch the action on the floor, you’ll see that delay persists, even after a determined objector stops talking.
What I object to is you suggestion that, “you make the common mistake of thinking that Dodd has to talk in order to impose a slow walk of the bill” (which is not what I said at all).
What I described here is based on what the Dodd camp understood to have happened and would happen. The plan was NOT to object all week long to amendments but, once Dodd’s amendment failed, to go into a filibuster. In their mind, he was not filibustering yesterday, he was managing the floor for those who opposed the bill. So while you are perfectly correct that the 30 hours of debate ended up delaying any consideration of the amendments, you are incorrect in suggesting that Dodd’s filibuster started yesterday.
We may never know (or not until January) whether he would have REALLY filibustered. I kind of think he was prepared to do so. After all, what Dodd objects to is not the bill as a whole but the immunity provision. For him to make that point, he needs to filibuster the things that matter.
my bold.
i don’t understand what you mean by “go into a filibuster” – how are you defining when a filibuster starts?
Dodd’s team did not consider yesterday’s events a filibuster (at least as they explained it to me). The filibuster would have started only after Dodd’s amendment failed.
This is what makes it even more complicated.
Only Dems petitioned for cloture to begin with.
Of the Dems voting for cloture, there were countless surprises:
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Byrd
Durbin
Kennedy!!!
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Reed
Reid
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
These folks all previously voted against PAA but voted for cloture. Kennedy then went on to make an impassioned speech against SSCI.
Rockefeller and Whitehouse both previously voted against PAA, but already voted to report the SSCI version.
Here is my optimistic suspicion:
Reid knew this was a dead deal. Dodd had told him as much.
Of those previously voting against PAA, many either petitioned for cloture or voted for it.
To me it suggests that many anti-amnesty Senators WANTED this debate to take place in the 30-hour post-cloture period, prior to the bill actually being directly debated on the Senate Floor.
I suspect the withdrawal was pre-determined, given the necessity of working on Omnibus.
Now Reid has a leverage position with the Administration- Show all of the Senators the legal justification.
Perhaps on January 15, Reid will come back with a change of heart.
“Because the Administration refuses to provide legal justification for the TSP, it is unreasonable to give blanket immunity to TelCos for past illegality. As such, I will advance the SJC version as the base bill.”
Then it will be the GOP and pro-amnesty crowd forced to filibuster, shortly before PAA expiration, “risking the lives of Americans” by rejecting a good FISA update bill (SJC version) simply to protect phone companies.
This obviously assumes a lot of strategy I have not known Democrats to exhibit, but the sequence and nature of events yesterday simply seem to defy an easy explanation….
drational
You may well be right about a lot of that. Though it suggests two things: one, that Reid was willing to take the heat of ignoring Dodd’s hold to pull this off. And two, that he couldn’t have used the upcoming debate to call for the authorizations already.
So while it may be Reid’s face-saving strategy (and all it would take is Reid, who once upon a time did have that strategic mind), I’m not sure how long ago it was hatched. Though I will note that Dodd was very complimentary of Reid yesterday.
I almost wonder whether he got a full understanding of what the letters say just in recent days.
Dodd’s was complimentary of Reid (who was contra-precedent ignoring his hold request)- yet there was Reid, seemingly steamrolling a GOP-friendly bill version he himself opposed.
Why did the cloture petition come from Dems only, including several clear anti-amnesty votes?
Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Debbie Stabenow, Richard J. Durbin, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, Sheldon Whitehouse, all voted against PAA yet signed for cloture (Jello and Whitehouse on SSCI so not all that surprising)
And Leahy present but silent yesterday…. I could be wrong, but I sense Leahy is sitting in the bushes silently licking his chops, ready to say “Go Fuck Yourself”.
And if this plays out with SJC version advancing in January, I will have more than a little respect for Reid. He is a boxer, after all, and I wonder if he has not just taken the fall.
I’m not that troubled by the Dem cloture petition. Some of them are actually pro-amnesty (Levin, for example). And at least they claimed they voted for cloture because they want the bill passed. The Dems care mightily about being to claim that they tried to pass some bill, even if they’re opposed to immunity.
Drational on the case makes the good parts of yesterday even better. Now if you would not mind slumming a bit, I am trying to make sense of why the WaPo had to be snotty, when the newsier news was the Dem’s actions in this case, and not for the usual rounded up suspects of in-the-Beltway insiderness, access, etc.
I ask because when I allow myself to look forward to change, I wonder how we will change the DC media so that the change is reported as…well, change.
Short of replacing them all with sleuthybloggers and brilliant commenters likes present company and that’s not me.
Know the end is far from certain, but hope there was beerchuggint at the EW house last nite.
EW…I agree that Feinstein’s Amendment is likely a poison pill that would fail to gain the support of either the Republicans or Bush. Maybe you can clarify this for me, but it seems that DIFi’s amendment simply extends the period for FISA Court review of this specific set of wiretaps. The earlier FISA law required warrants to be obtained in a three day window. This will actually allow all those undertaken up to the Bill’s passage to be reviewed by the FISA structure for legality. IOW she’s giving them a “free ride” in terms of review. But if the Court judges them illegal then there is no immunity.
But under what criteria is “illegality” judged in such a case. My understanding was that previously even domestic surveillance could be undertaken with that three day “emergency” provision…but shut down if subsequently the requested FISA warrant was rejected. This does all sorts of things I personally don’t like…it makes some acts semi-illegal, but not actionable if they are shut down, for instance. I don’t like the idea of “semi-illegal acts”. DI Fi’s Amendment makes that period of “semi-illegality” wider. And makes it even more difficult to say whether the acts ARE illegal.
And to add to the chaos, what happens after the law is passed. Is there a time period in which the AG or Director of National Intelligence MUST bring their affidavits before the FISA Court? Could they not do that before in the old system? If the Court is required to adjudge “illegality” of these affidavits it would seem that they would at least need the same amount of information that would be required to obtain a warrant. I haven’t read DIFi’s amendment, but it sounds like a mess.
Someone should point out that the President already has a means of protecting the Telecoms from prosecution under Federal Statutes…it’s called a PARDON. Pardons require an acknowledgement of the illegality of the ACTS but grants clemency – perhaps because those acts served a national interest. Congress need not do anything at all to grant this type of “immunity”.
But that form of immunity also subjects the guilty party to questioning about their acts before Congress, Grand Juries and the Courts. They cannot utilize their Fifth Amendment rights against prosecution if their are pardoned. It doesn’t bury the fact that they DID ACT ILLEGALLY.
So a more reasonable process would be to offer immunity to those that are willing to testify fully and under oath regarding the content and scope of the acts for which they are being immunized. Thus anyone protected would be immunized subject to acceptance of a Congressional or Grand Jury subpoena.
Another possibility is that the Telecoms be granted some financial limitation for their act. Thus maybe they could have some sort of sliding scale for penalties on a Grand Scale. Or perhaps the fines could be limited to amounts that reduced dividends to shareholders to US$1/year of violation. Thus the Telecoms would not be bankrupted but neither would they be rewarded for performing their “patriotic duty”. Consider it a shared sacrifice in the War On Terror…American Citizens lose their 4th Amendment rights…the stockholders lose their ability to unfettered profits from those they have illegally wiretapped.
A pardon cannot protect the telecoms from a civil suit, which is precisely what they are facing. Pardons only deal with criminal cases.
What the telecoms did (at BushCo’s behest) may have been criminal, but to date no indictments have been presented. Knowing what we know about the US attorney system under Bush, I can’t say that this surprises me in the least.
If a magistrate (FISA Judge) learns of an illegal act by an officer of the Federal Government what is that magistrates options, particularly if they believe the investigation or prosecution of the act may be impeded by the Attorney General?
Lots of murkiness there, especially when you add in the legitimate security issues and laws on secrecy. How do you bring illegal secret activities into view (and thus begin to hold the lawbreakers to account), while keeping legal secret activities out of view?
At a minimum, and as a non-lawyer, I would think that presenting the information to the Gang of Eight (Intelligence committee chairs and ranking members, plus the leadership of both houses) would be a good start. You’re talking about impeachable offenses committed by the AG (obstruction of justice), and possibly others higher in the executive branch — and Congress has ways of dealing with classified materials, even in the context of impeachment.
The short version is “they don’t have to keep talking, in order to sustain their objection.” See a vast multitude of “I object” with brief (or no) explanation, resulting in long delays, and sometimes the objected matter (usually an amendment) never becoming the business of the Senate.
What Dodd did yesterday was refuse to Reid’s proposed consent agreement, to pass the motion to proceed to the FISA bill before the 30 hours of post-cloture debate had elapsed. He (Dodd) also signaled that he would object to other amendments, thereby forcing the cloture clocks to run on those as well. Reid looked at that, and at the December calendar, and at the omnibus appropriations bill, and figured out which had to give way.
Interestingly, under post-cloture rules, the time a single senator may talk is limited to one hour, plus time allocated to him by other senators, but never to exceed two hours. This is to preclude a single senator (or a small group of allied senators) from taking the entire 30 hours of post cloture time.
For “long talking” to be useful as a dilatory tactic, the long-talking has to occur pre-cloture. And even there, long-talking results in ultimate success only when there is a time barrier at the other end of the talk, i.e., the session of Congress is near its end.
As for the bigger picture, that being the FISA holdup and the possibility of a three or four way impasse regarding immunity, that will play out in January. The Senate WILL pass a bill, and I predict that it WILL include something that effectively shields the facts of the TSP from the public.
I see two possible paths. Either the administration asserts state secret, or Congress passes statutory immunity. The only ball in play is which branch plays the heavy. The administration is trying to get Congress to play the heavy, so the administration doesn’t have to assert state secret as many times as it takes to run the cases out of public sight. Plus, there is concern that once this administration is out of power, the next one will not assert state secret, and the public will get a full airing of the shoddy legal reasoning behind the TSP.
See, I’m not objecting to your assertion about delay. I’m objecting to the fact that you’ve accused me of error in a statement I didn’t make, even while you were making comments about Dodd’s actions which don’t accord with what Dodd’s own people say about his actions. Your overall assertion about delay is correct as to parliamentary procedure but incorrect as to what Dodd intended (unless his people are blowing smoke).
or again, your source was just a bit confused. i don’t think this stuff is straight forward, and i don’t have the impression that dodd is explaining his strategy all that widely – in fact, i think when he objected yesterday to reid’s consent request for 60 votes on amendments, dodd objected w/o staff consultation, etc (at least that’s what he said happened in video msg last night).
One might even get the impression that Dodd thinks this fight might not yet be over, and doesn’t want to put all his cards on the table just yet.
oh, i hope that’s true.
but that wasn’t what i meant. just that educating staff on the process may not be high on the priority list right now and that some info/msgs are getting garbled on it’s way to us.
No, you didn’t say that. You have a description of events where “filibuster” was happening only when Dodd was talking. Most people define filibuster as talking, and some of them conclude, in error, that once the talking has stopped, the delay has terminated.
It depends on how one defines filibuster. If it’s defined as delay by holding the floor and talking, they I have to agree with you, he didn’t do that.
But, if one defines filibuster as preventing or delaying the passage of an objectionable bill, then his withholding of consent to proceed before 30 hours had elapsed (coupled with his telling Reid he would do so at each step of the legislative process) was enough, given the calendar, to cause Reid to set the bill aside.
I credit Dodd with this, and don’t much care if the tactic is labeled “filibuster” or not.
Well, I was using the word filibuster as Dodd’s team was using it, which seems to be relevant in this discussion.
How does Cheney secure the loyalty of nimrods such as Hatch? Tit for tat?
H
That’s that part that I took as implying a need to talk, in order to impose delay. Now, I agree that the 24 hours of holding the floor, perhaps on his own amendment, would constitute a use of time. But there are other ways to run the clock, and in fact, the SAME CLOCK may be running, whether he is talking or not.
He has the right to object to taking the vote on his own amendment. He need not keep talking in order to sustain this objection. If he did so, there would have to be a cloture motion filed. Once filed, he can insist on the “one day between filing and voting,” and then he can insist on the 30 hours of post-cloture debate (just like he did yesterday) at each and every step.
I don’t doubt that Dodd may have planned to take the floor and hold it for an extended period. And I think doing so is good for him, personally, as it makes him appear strong and determined.
But the way your paragraph naturally reads, it comes off as “Dodd needs to keep talking in order to sustain his filibister.” Well, true, if “filibuster” is directly synonymous with “talking.” In fact, a truism, “Dodd needs to keep talking in order to keep talking.” But he doesn’t need to talk in order to derail the bill, or delay its consideration and vote on passage.
Sorry, cboldt, you’re reading into that. I was simply repeating what Dodd’s team said would happen, using his definition of filibuster. I grant that if someone uses your definition of filibuster (which I would not agree with), then the paragraph implies I’m wrong about filibuster. But that’s you reading your definition into the events, instead of using Dodd’s own definition.
Further, you seem to be reading this paragraph as a statement about what is parliamentarily possible, presumably because you’ve been arguing about what the most efficient means of stalling is. But that’s not what it is. It is a plain language explanation about what Dodd’s team (at least semi-publicly) said would happen, including when they considered Dodd to be filibustering. If you’ve got problems with that, then you’ve got problems with Dodd’s plan, not my understanding of parliamentary procedure.
Also, how is one to know what the FISA court reviews in these matters?
marcy – how was reid going to prevent the 30 hours of debate?
By proposing a unanimous consent agreement that no one objected to.
I’m not saying my source wasn’t blowing smoke (though this came long after the debate started, so if he was ignorant or blowing smoke, it came after several hours of time to clarify the procedure). And I don’t doubt that Dodd took any opportunity to stall in a way that was a lot easier for him.
All I’m saying is that 1) Dodd’s team did not consider that a filibuster yesterday, and 2) They at least claimed that eventually (presumably in response to a cloture vote on the first amendment after Dodd’s own amendment failed) he intended to actually filibuster. Again, that may be spin. It may even be spin that only one or two people in teh Dodd camp know to be spin. But that is what they said about procedure yesterday.
but that doesn’t make any sense (to me, anyway):
1) unless reid had some way to prevent dodd from objecting, proposing a uc does nothing to short circuit the 30s
2) a cloture vote on an amendment would send the process into the 2 day “ripening” period – not a filibuster.
i’m not trying to argue with you marcy – it’s just some of the info coming from the dodd camp doesn’t make any sense to me. and since they haven’t been willing to engage in a public discussion (for example, matt could post this info on dodd’s campaign blog and then answer questions in the comments) – i guess i’m just left to comment on my confusion. which is extremely frustrating.
but i have no reason to think they are spinning – i think it’s more likely they are confused (or i am).
Ah – finally some light…
The timing of Gonzo’s resignation is now becoming clear:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08…..ref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02056.html
Or more precisely, the 30 hours of clock time, whether or not talking was going on. A substantial amount of yesterday was under quorum call, nobody talking, yet a delay was in effect. All because Dodd withheld his consent to proceed “outside of the time limits prescribed in Rule XXII.”
I forget which Senator, but one of them got up and reminded the presiding officer of the “one hour per Senator” part of Rule XXII. There would be no way for Dodd to talk for 24 hours in any post-cloture situation, and no reason to talk to enforce the one day layover between filing a cloture motion and voting on it.
selise – I left a comment to you in another thread, about ways that Reid could have made Dodd’s plan more difficult or impossible. I’ve never seen it, and am not closely familiar with it, but Senate Rule X is a “make special” device. Using that (2/3rds of Senators can make a bill “special”) would have precluded objection to proceeding to the bill.
thanks! that sounds interesting. do you have any idea which thread it was? fld or emptywheel? i’ll go hunting for it though if you don’t recall.
I’m using generally accepted definition of filibuster, which is broader than “long talking.”
But I respect Dodd’s right to define it narrowly as “engaging in long talking.” And I look forward to his multiple 24 hour speeches in January, because this same bill is going to come up again, without the end of the session as a backstop.
May I ask a stupid question?
And thank you Emptywheel for all you have done. The propagenda monolith began to crack open when you live-blogged the Libby trial. I mentally think of you as the Times Lady of the Year.
My question: Sen Dodd. read out in the Senate details about the “secret room” and the splitting of data streams to the NSA. Would that have come out in “normal” debate? Is that allowed? Thanks.
This is what Senator Reid said yesterday, that caused me to erroneously think Dodd had agreed to proceed to the bill, in the event that cloture was invoked:
Shortly after the cloture vote, Senator Dodd seemed equivocal on withholding agreement to formally take up the bill before the 30 hours of post-cloture time had elapsed. In fact, at this point in time, he appeared ready and eager to get to the bill without ANY delay.
As the day went on, it became clear that somebody was withholding consent to make the bill immediately pending, and at the end of the debate, after Senator Reid announced the bill would be set aside until January, Senator Dodd concluded with this:
Agree with all of that, with the added bit that Dodd’s folks seemed a bit mystified that the debate was happening. I think they believed that Reid was trying to find a way to move forward during all those hours when Dodd was on the floor. If so, it would explain why Manley claimed that Dodd had nothign to do with the bill being pulled. Which is why I think Dodd is jsut one aspect of it, and something about the way the amendments were coming at him (and possibly, the DiFi Whitehouse amendments) that made Reid think there was no way he could get a vote.
Emptywheel throwing down like she’s Jason Maxiell!
“All of the letters also stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Attorney General, except for one letter that covered a period of less than sixty days. That letter, which like all the others stated that the activities had been authorized by the President, stated that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the President”
Boy, this little piece is sure intriguing.
First of all, the letters “stated” that the activities had been determined to be lawful by the AG. We don’t really know for sure whether Ashcroft even really knew what had been going on prior to the determination by himself and Comey that what had been going on did not have legal standing.
Who wrote the letters? Who signed the letters? I suspect that Ashcroft had been compartmentalized out of the loop for a long time, and that perhaps he resigned because of that.
What was going on during that 60 day period that was “different” from the previous time period, or is that just when Ashcroft found out about it…that they had been writing letters stating that he had approved the legality? So much so that DOJ people were willing to resign over it. So much so that Gonzo made the “legal” determination himself…
Something is so skewed. Whitehouse knows…and interestingly he read the documents and then made the EO pixie dust speech. Wyden knows, and he was adamant yesterday, that if everyone voting read the documents, they would not vote for immunity. Reid and everyone else wants to know why they are not allowed to know what happened, and that is progress.
Oh, everyone knows. Feingold was pretty darn explicit about what the telco bit is about. The problem with that discussion is that there be dragons there.
From Feingold’s speech:
“The law is clear. Companies already have immunity from civil liability when they cooperate with a government request for assistance – as long as they receive a court order, or the Attorney General certifies that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have been met.”
I’m betting the AG never certified anything of the sort. I’m betting, the WH authored a letter “stating” that the AG had, but I don’t think he was even in the loop. Then, I think that W just pixie dusted the requirement that the AG needed to sign off at all (in the event they balked)and they basically told the Telcos, that if Bush said it was legal, it was legal; which leads back to Whitehouse’s comments. JMHO
It was a recent thread on fdl. I didn’t have much more there than here, just cited the rule by number and indicated that invoking it, with a 2/3rds majority vote (easily obtained on this bill) would substitute for a motion to proceed, Dodd’s objection to that, and the eventual time periods available under cloture rules.
I think the only other point I made was that Dodd would still have had the objection and cloture process available on any amendments, including those he agreed with if he really wanted to slow things down, as well as on final passage.
Link to Rule X
Riddick’s Senate Procedure doesn’t add much, other than how a Special Order interacts with other business of the Senate in scenarios that are different from the situation with the FISA bill.
What Dodd wanted to accomplish yesterday is clear no matter which widely accepted definition of filibuster his folks has in mind. Why Reid pulled the bill is not so clear but understanding it will help identify what Dodd and the anti-amnesty caucus are up against in January.
Breaking!
MSNBC TV says a Federal Judge has ordered a hearing into destruction of CIA interrogation tapes.
Nothing on the website just yet, but I’m sure we’ll be seeing more.
Ooh, and he set the hearing for this Friday morning!
Marcy, you missed one amendment. Only a few minutes before Reid pulled the bill, he noted that Senator Leahy had filed an amendment to it: that amendment was to substitute the text of the SJC bill for the SSCI bill.
Sure. He was reciting testimony/allegations that is in the public domain.
I did get a kick out of the part of Hatch’s speech where he bemoaned the risk of telling bad guys our methods of surveillance. It was Hatch who divulged, during a speech from the floor of the Senate, that the US was able to triangulate satellite phone positions and therefore knew bin Laden’s location. After that speech, bin Laden quit using satellite phones.
To boot, Hatch’s beef was out of place in the current FISA debate, which isn’t HOW the government snoops (it snoops by wiretapping and wireless interception), but HOW MUCH snooping should be allowed without a warrant.
I don’t find Whitehouse’s ‘telcoms couldn’t defend themselves’ argument for amnesty compelling, but then IANAL. Does anyone here have a way to get into a conversation with Whitehouse on this? Is there a possibility that his reasoning could shift? (Imagine that artillery firing from our direction!)
I think it’s pretty clear. He needs to get to the appropriations bill and the AMT bill before the end of the session, and FISA, if it had been allowed to proceed, would have used up all the time available on account of objection from Dodd and/or Feingold.
Thanks cboldt… any public statements to that effect or a common sense conclusion?
Maybe the better question is why Reid brought up this version of the bill.
i just posted reid’s floor statements (made when he pulled the bill) over at fdl (comment link).
The videotapes, AP via LA Times:
Judge Orders Hearing on CIA Videos
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
8:31 AM PST, December 18, 2007
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered a hearing on whether the Bush administration violated a court order by destroying CIA interrogation videos of suspected terrorists.
U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy rejected calls from the Justice Department to stay out of the matter. He ordered lawyers to appear before him Friday morning.
[snipped]
Aw come on PJ, you don’t have to get up very early in the morning to get a jump on me…..Heh heh.
In fairness, from the short blurb I read at TPM, which I think is basically the same AP feed report, it is not clear whether Friday’s cattle call Kennedy set is the hearing itself, or a status setting in order to set a schedule for argument/evidentiary hearing. My guess is more the latter.
dang, bmaz! you’re fast. I had to stop and log in (and the one at the bottom of the page runs you all around the barn).
Reid said so directly, plus it fits with multiple previous statements from Reid about what had to happen before the end of the 1st session of the 110th Congress.
Haven’t read the thread yet, actualy haven’t even finished thepost yet, but this definately means the state AG
There is something else. Don’t foregt the reason Comey convinced Ashcroft to withdraw his authorization::: the program did not fit this criteria. And if it was obviuos on it’s face that it didn’t meet the standard (as Judge Walker seems to think in hte AT&T case) there may not be immunity for the period before that MArch letter–though it is a less clear cut case to make.
Which brings me back to why Comey, Ashcroft, Goldsmith may be in favor of immunity. If DOJ told the telcoms, be way of that authorization, that it was legal–should it be fair to ding the telcoms for relyiing on DOJ?
OMG, That’s it! That’s why!
LHP if I am following your razor-sharp mind on this. The fear is that if the telecoms were given the erronious OK on this by folks at the DOJ, and they are sued, then the telecoms can in turn sue those at DOJ – Gonzales etc. who were behind it, and those above them (Bush, Cheney) who set this in place. Yes?
Yes! Also, according to Whitehouse and his explanation about the way the pixie dust works….they may have been assured that it was legal, because W said it was legal. At least that is what I think. I’m also not so sure Ashcroft really ever authorized the legality in the first place. Maybe they just said he had. He might not have known. Maybe he did, but it just says that in the letters to the Telcos…that it “stated” that the AG had approved the legality…
Questions for Ashcroft:
Did you officially authorize the legality of the Telco’s complicity in the TSP or any other related programs???
If so, when and in what format?
Were you aware of all of the letters to the Telcos that said that you did, in fact, authorize the legality of their participation in the TSP or any other related program(s)?
Basically, what I’m saying is that they just made this shit up (what was in the letters to the Telco companies) and kept it secret even from members of their own cabal, because they knew it wouldn’t fly….now that would support those people feeling that the wool was pulled over the eyes of the Telco companies and that it wasn’t their fault. They got letters, but maybe the letters are BS letters.
So, it could be another Bush cover-up?
How many cover-ups does it take for Pelosi to cry “impeach that
bastard.”
Definitely a cover-up…otherwise none of this would be an issue at all. They probably screwed the Telcos, and that is what the Administration doesn’t want to come out.
I call major BS on the Administration. They had Gonzo sign, because Ashcroft either didn’t know about it and/or refused to sign off. Comey was frantic to not let them get to him at the hospital. He was actually afraid for Ashcroft. I think that the issue of legality arose when Comey discovered that they had been writing these BS letters….all along, without Ashcroft being in the loop. The letters lied to the Telcos. That is what I think the bottom line is.
“Theyhad Gonzo sign….” Who is they in this context (narrowly and broadly) and what are the possible consequences?
Whoever concocted the idea in the first place…whoever Gonzo answered to…Bush/Cheney. Remember, this started before 9/11, so the justification was not 9/11…it would be hard to get Ashcroft to go along with this before 9/11 and maybe even after 9/11. We don’t know unless we actually see documentation with Ashcroft’s name on it (not autopenned).
LS. Many Thanks! My feeling deep down, is thunk – deep sadness at the corruption of it all. Geez. These guys are really beyond the pale, and the aim, I assume is essentially perpetal political gain – Rethuglicanism for eva and eva, because they would have dirt on everyone – supporters and opposition, MSM reporters, etc. – to say nothing of political strategy. Somehow, I see Rove as deep in this shit! All of it wrapped up in terms of moral values.
OT: O’Reilly choses Betrayus as Man of the Year.
Forecast: Time magazine selects “Bloggers” as Persons of the year (wishful thinking).
My pick is Judge Reggie Walton…
fwiw, author Jonathan Weisman of said snotty article holds his front-page byline by special grant from his alma mater, the Fred Hiatt School of Suckup Journalism. He’s a real protege.
Last year I sent him an e-mail expressing my distress at his use of the term “standing firm” to describe guess which deciderator’s latest sputtering hissy fit about guess what war. He responded that I was obviously viewing his journalistic artistry through the distorted “prism” of my own “worldview,” and that a more nuanced reader would interpret “standing firm” as conveying a kind of intransigence.
Oh riiiiight, Jon-y. Guess you’re just too subtle for me.
EW…I wonder when W will say that he will veeeeetoe the FISA bill if it contains the requirement (DIFI’s) that FISC review the authorizations for legality!!!
Bwahahahaha….Oh, nooooo, can’t have that can of worms opened up to expose more of their corruptedness….besides it would be helping the terrrrrrists.
I think we can take Hatch’s hysterics on teh floor yesterday as that statement.
Gawd, that was so telling…
guess i should have paid more careful attention. glad you did. here are hatch’s statements for everyone, like me, who missed their significance yesterday.
Was Hatch’s hysterical video’d and did his intervention make it to YouTube?
Haven’t seen it yet, but I’d like to watch it and count the “blinks”…He is somehow in on this whole thing I think. Repubs were suggesting him for AG, prior to Mukasey.
Back to EW’s Pixie Dust…..It is soooo central to this, and actually way bigger than the Telco immunity stuff. Whitehouse is going to play this right. He is very brilliant, and very slick at the same time. I think he has clearly already caught them red-handed, and his speech let them know it in no uncertain terms.
Let’s see:
RICO
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Fraud
Bribary
LHP -good points(though one could argue that the diarrhea model still is germane).
Another question if I might – yet unanwered here as far as I can see – some of the telecoms (verizon for example) stand to benefit so much from the end of network neutrality, do you think the two telecom issues are in anyway interconnected (plus of course the real political potential of controlling sites – theblogs).
In all honesty, I don’t have enough tech knowledge to have a firm opinion, but if the telcoms desperately want an end to net neutratlity, pissing off the president who could sign or veto the bill they want, would not be very smart
But this is a Mexican Standoff, LHP. The telcos have had the goods on the administration since they first started hoovering up the data.
Remember those 5, no, 10 million “missing” emails not archived properly by the White House?
Ahem.
The greedy appetites of the Telcos desperately want a No-Net-Neutrality fix. They have visions of sugar plum fairies under their xmas trees.
The idea is to charge more for faster access.
Kinda like “if you want to go 55 mph on this here freeway, you’ll have to pony up! Otherwise, you can only go 15 mph.”
Telcos and No-Net-Neutrality go together like Junya and Coke.
“Telcos and No-Net-Neutrality go together like Junya and Coke” and add to that the excelerant in this: the ability through the telcoms to shut down political opposition by making their sites off limits (as happened to some sites aleady for state employees, or in some contexts such as airports). It could, like the no-fly list, shut down certain bloggers!
Combine the Telcos with the MSM and you’d have a potent brew. The MSM hate the blogosphere and would do anything to cut off its oxygen.
And of importance to all, we should probably stop referring to “Telcos” ‘caue it ain’t really an accurate description.
The real appellation ought to be “Commcos”.
This is because the real universe of folks who are at risk due to warrantless eavesdropping are < <strong>i>Communications Companies and not just Telephone Companies.
Commcos like Comcast, Time/Warner, Microsoft, Yahoo! and every Mom and Pop ISP in Goatbutt USA. They’ve all been givin’ it up for Uncle Sam.
Just because their names haven’t surfaced in 4th Amendment violation lawsuits, does not mean they are not complicit.
Too many see just the “tree” (AT&T and its Baby Bell offspring) and miss the “forest”. Those criminal critters hidden in the forest have been getting a free pass.
About time we made some noise about ‘em. Are you “listening” Comcast?
Great points. And, I love your commcos – it’s a keeper! And so close to that old nugget commie pinkos.
Very good points. I’ve seen tons of evidence that this is happening, and I know you’ve seen a good deal more.
List of amendments to S.2248
Not a single Republican amendment. There is bound to be at least one, that being to strip the language that purports to protect the privacy of US citizens while they are located outside of the US. Otherwise, I think S.2248 represents pretty much the language suggested by the administration.
nothing from dodd & feingold? does that surprise you?
bmaz and MadDog- many thanks!
On the Whitehouse discussion above and saving those at DOJ who were lower down on the totem pole. Sorry, I don’t agree with this. One of the main threads of this whole sorry Bush era, is people attempting to cover up/ clean up after others in the administration and in the end, making the whole much much worse. Think about Colin Powell, several of the early Iraq generals, Tony Blair etc. There are many career paths in law, DOJ is only one. By allowing for these people to “get off the hook” offers the promise to others in future generations that they too will get off the hook. Far better for the DOJ more generally to make it clear that this sort of thing will not be tolerated. Accountability – that is what the whole telecom immunity thing is all about.
This has been a great thread! I didn’t see it mentioned above, but the role of Addington’s Compartmentalization is worth keeping in the conversation, imo.
It was Addington who erected the Kabuki Screen that shielded his TSP-Authorizing Legal Opinions with Yoo from Ashcroft, Comey, Goldsmith, Philbin and just about everyone else.
I have no trouble believing that Boy Scout Ashcroft was Naively Loyal enough to March Straight Ahead without looking left or right, and “Doing His Part” by signing-off every 45 days on a ‘Certification’ he Never Really Understood.
As well, I have no trouble believing that the Telecom CEO’s were given “On the Authority of Bush” Marching Orders that Claimed Legal Authenticity to Wiretap American Citizens Wholesale, with No Warrants. And, the Telecoms Marched Straight Ahead without looking left or right, until they were sued by Victims of the Actions of the Telecoms.
The only way both the Left Hand (Telecoms) and the Right Hand (Ashcroft) remain “unaware” of Bush’s Claim to Legal Authenticity is by Hiding the Legal Opinion in a Compartment No One Else Can See.
Pretty slick, huh?
It took Comey, Goldsmith and Philbin to pull down that Kabuki Screen and finally get a look at the Yoo-Addington Un-tested Interpretation of the Legal Foundation for the TSP. From there, all the Senior DoJ Staff signed-on to a Resignation en masse, and most importantly Ashcroft was made to finally ’see the light’ on this unscrupulous Power Grab to put the Executive Above the Rule of Law.
Addington’s Compartmentalization made sure everyone at DoJ, who participated in the perpetration of the TSP, felt Patriotic on the front end with the inspiration to help the Nation in a time of need, and Guilty on the back end for lack of due-dilligence in light of gross violations of Our Basic Civil Rights – but for a long time, none of them were able to figure out ‘why?’
The problem is still Bush and Cheney, but our challenge is to strip away the Dupes surrounding them, the beavers-eager-to-please, like Ashcroft, with an understanding that – to some extent or another – they were Lied To, just like US.
It’s the Architects and Conspirators of the Lies that Stand in Stark Contrast to the Rest of US – those We want to bring before the Bar of the Law and Pull Down the Veil of Secrecy that Hides the Moral Bankruptcy of Tyrants.
YUP!
and LHP- thanks.
It provides a logical explaination for a lot of otherwise illogica events. Not just Sheldon’s (I don’t like to call him by his last name b/c it gets conusing with the place were the Preznit is) seemingly bizzare support for telcom immunity, it explains why Comey would take such a position when he is the very person who exposed it in the first place.
sorry, the last comment was not in response to you Radio, the site is still bulloxed up today and weird stuff is happning to me toobz.
Anywahy in reply to your 133
The problem is still Bush and Cheney, but our challenge is to strip away the Dupes surrounding them, the beavers-eager-to-please, like Ashcroft, with an understanding that – to some extent or another – they were Lied To, just like US.
You have eloquently stated what I have been trying, with only limited success, to say for 3 years.
Thank you for getting my point out.
RFW…
In complete agreement. Addington used Compartmentalization and led on DOJ. AND by extension the Telcoms.
Where is the smoking gun? Who is ready to investigate and build the trail back to his lying, stinking organization? Who in Addington’s “line of command” will turn to save themeselves and send the responsibility where it belongs?
Waxman to Mukasey
Re: Fitzgerald’s Plame investigation.
It’s been 15 days, how about it bub? … Fitz’s invetigation is done and Libby dropped his appeal although I don’t think its germain to my request… while you denied Congress access to info about the DOJ cia torture tape investigation, you have no such ongoing investigation into Plame so what gives old boy?
What’s it gonna be, obstruction or rule of law?
PDF
Rayne: you think the telcos knew of or were in on that? I honestly don’t see how.
They weren’t “in” on it; the only party that I can clearly see “in” on the action was a consulting firm that had been given access to the White House/Congressional network for several different projects.
But if the telcos were hoovering up ALL the communications, they had the dirt on the White House and on members of Congress since they started. And when exactly did they start their complete copies??
Portocliff: I doubt it will be any of the neocons, but maybe by pursuing something at the DOJ on this sordid mess, one of the smart, semi-outsides will light a torch and lead the way.
links to difi’s amendments ?:
s.amdt.3857
s.amdt.3858
1) Yes indeed, EW, the press was certainly superficial and snarky aka totally full of shit concerning Dodd’s admirable effort, and they have been towards any and all civil liberties efforts since 911. They always take the posture that what is a rational approach to preserve the Constitution is a far out kookie obstruction towards protecting the people from the big bad wolf at the door. Try to find a decent account of what happened, how, and why yesterday on the Senate floor in the main stream media. I don’t think you really can.
The decent info I’ve been able to garner has been from blogs like this one, or Kagro X over at Kos and their links.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..733/423374
Maybe there is that magic place that does a summary of Congressional actions out there with links to all relevant documents. If there is and someone knows, I’d appreciate learning them. But the articles in the main stream media before Dodd’s effort, and after, have been terrible.
2) Feinstein/Nelson’s amendment is a trainwreck as far as I’m concerned because it puts too many potential roadblocks between the public’s right to know what illegalities were committed by the Telecom carriers since 2000. I don’t want a FISA court or an FISC reveiw court anywhere near this Telco immunity situation for reasons that FDL and EW have been all over among many others including Glenn Greenwald and Kagro X, Digby, etc.
I believe, and I’m not the lone ranger that major criminal cooperation was launched between the Bush administration’s 6 figure attorneys, NSA’s, DOJ’s attorneys, and the Telco’s wiretapping attorney experts and there were a number of quid pro quos exchanged between the Bush camp, and the Telcos. We the people have every right to have this aired out–our information, phone conversations, medical records, and bank records are potentially part of so many damn matrixes that are being continually data mined now, it makes my head spin.
I want to know what how when and why my information and yours–domestic information on Americans who are law abiding and not terrorists has found its way into this data mining jungle.
If FISA is interjected fagheddaboudit. And as EW raises the question, what happens if a FISA court were to determine that there was illegal wiretapping activity and the Telco wasn’t eligible for said immunity? And remember this. As EW points out, look at all the language in there to enable the AG or his designees and possibly a State AG to okay the illegal wiretapping.
3) As to future activity, please read any version of S. 2248. It has sweeping language in it to allow the DNI or DOJ to determine what constitutes legal vs. illegal wiretapping. That to me is as bad as the immunity provision itself.
4) When ACLU was turned down last week by Judge John Bates, writing the opinion for the FISC, remember that DOJ contended that the FISA court didn’t even have jurisdicition to rule on this in their briefs.
Bates sought predicatable refuge in a ruling decorated in the trappings of State Secrets malarky.
It has become a knee-jerk reflex now in nearly all litigation that concerns wiretapping or destroyed evidence and tapes. DOJ’s attorneys always reach contend in motions that
1) The Judge has no jurisdiction for any of a number of reasons they make up–like the hearing before Judge Kennedy in D.C. tomorrow. Kennedy, DOJ says, has no jurisdiction because they rendered the victims to foreign soil. I’ll bet your bippy that DOJ is in District Court in D.C. tomorrow that they claim has no jurisdiction over them.
2) State Secrets gives them an out is another of their repeat claims now.
No jurisdiction and State secrets are the two coverup positions DOJ now regularly asserts.
It’s pretty much a cliche, although most Americans wouldn’t know the FISA court from Britney’s ass, that through the end of 2004, 18761 warrants were granted, while just five were denied by this Court.
If you look at almost all the rulings by the Federal judiciary that have balanced civil rights vs. security, civil rights has almost never gotten a favorable opinion in any of the federal trial or appellate courts in the last 6 years since Bush/Condi’s/FBI’s/FAA’s failure in 911.
Paradoxically, DOJ’s so-called terrorism prosecutions have a dismal trackrecord of fialure, but their many efforts to trample on human rights like the Judge Mukasey led material witness roundup in SDNY have been very successful.
And finally, the Feinstein/Nelsom Immunity amendment is full of vague language and the bottom line is it allows the scope of immunity behavior to become secret.
The only constructive thing that needs to happen Constitutional law-wise is that all Americans need to know what constituted the behavior of these Telecoms replete with rosters of 6 figure salary lawyers who had a never ending list of 400 plus attorney lawfirms on their team rosters.
These included lawyers who had spent their careers parsing the wiretapping statutes and got paid splendidly for it.
If Feinstein/Nelson’s amendment full of nebulous stilted non-specific, byzantine conundrums were to pass, you can kiss Telco accountability good-bye.
Yep, those (#3857 and #3858) are DiFi’s amendment numbers. They show up in List of Amendments to S.2248 at Post 125 above, as well.
just a repeat because when i checked this morning the text (congressional record) was not yet posted.
… just had a potential brainstorm to explain why reid interrupted consideration of the fisa amendment. it wasn’t only because of time constraints or concern that he couldn’t get any bill passed (although these issues, imo, played a role) and it wasn’t because it embarrassed clinton/obama/biden. reid did it finally at the direction of either the senate republicans or the administration – because they were not prepared to filibuster the dodd/feingold amendment to strike title II (discussed but not submitted) and dodd was going to make them (and not one of the fake ones that reid has been letting the Rs get away with all year).
if this makes as much sense to me in the morning as it does now, i’ll expand on it a bit (if comments here are still open)… because i think it can explain some other things we found confusing (like when did dodd consider his filibuster to begin).