The Blue Dogs (Some of Them, at Least) Come Home

Update: We win, 213-197-1, with the 10 Dem no votes a mix of Blue Dogs and Progressives. Good work, Congress!! 

Some time ago, 21 Blue Dog Democrats wrote a letter in support of the Senate bill on FISA. The Republicans (including Doc Hastings in today’s debate) have pointed to that letter in support of their argument for the Senate bill.

But the Blue Dogs–at least some of them–are starting to come home (perhaps because of the pressure that Blue America is preparing to put on them for voting against civil liberties). Today, Leonard Boswell spoke in favor of the vastly better House bill on FISA, calling for the others that signed the letter to support the Democratic bill as well.

So yes, I like 20 others, signed a letter of concern. By the way, it was not a Blue Dog letter, a Blue Dog position but individuals, some of whom were Blue Dogs. Over the course of past weeks, a credit to Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers and our super staff, an acceptable solution has been found. It makes FISA – supports FISA and gives protection to those who assist within the provisions of the law. For example, those who feel their civil rights have been violated can seek justice and telecoms who feel they have complied with the law, a judge can review the classified evidence and decide. This means to me that the Constitution and civil rights are protected and telecoms who are asked under pressure to assist in an emergency can know that classified evidence will be seen by a judge… The bill provides telecom companies a way to present their defense in secure proceedings in a district court without the administration using state secrets to block the defense. A company simply doing its duty following the law, this bill ensures they they will not be punished and I urge everyone who signed the letter with me to support this resolution.

Welcome home Congressman Boswell–I hope you’re back to stay.

image_print
76 replies
  1. Loo Hoo. says:

    Well, good.

    I just wonder if BushCo will manufacture evidence to put before the judge should this bill pass.

  2. BlueStateRedHead says:

    Second BTW. Ward used the fraudulently acquired money against Darcy Burner.
    Now this becomes an FDL issue.

    Fraudulently obtained loan used to boost Reichert during final weeks of 2006 campaign
    by Goldy, 03/13/2008, 2:16 PM

    “The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf.”
    — Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA), former NRCC chair

    Things are going from bad to worse for House Republicans, now that Christopher J. Ward — the “gold standard” of Republican campaign finance experts, and the treasurer of 83 GOP fundraising committees — is now suspected of embezzling millions of dollars from his clients. “Several hundred thousand dollars” were apparently stolen directly from the NRCC over a period of years in a financial fraud that could have far reaching consequences.

    Ward is now alleged to have falsified numerous FEC filings. The NRCC apparently had nearly a million dollars less cash on hand than reported to the FEC at the end of 2006, and $740,000 less cash on hand than reported just a few weeks ago. But Ward wasn’t the only beneficiary of his crimes:

    Officials told The Post that the NRCC’s problems may be more extensive. Republican lawmakers and former committee staff members now allege that Ward fabricated audits and other financial documents for 2003 to 2006, some of which were turned over to a Wachovia Bank branch in McLean in October 2006, when the NRCC borrowed $8 million in last-minute money for congressional campaigns.

    That’s right, NRCC money spent on behalf of Dave Reichert in the final weeks of the 2006 campaign was obtained fraudulently, using “fabricated audits and other financial documents.” Loans obtained based on “outside audits” that were never conducted, were used to buy TV ads that helped put Reichert over the top.

    And Republicans accuse Democrats of being the party of waste, fraud and abuse…?

    UPDATE:
    I’ve just started searching through the FEC reports and already found this NRCC expenditure from Oct. 13, 2006:

    STRATEGIC MEDIA SERVICES
    1023 31ST ST. NW
    4TH FLOOR
    WASHINGTON, DC 20007

    Purpose of Expenditure: Issue Ad Placement
    Name of Federal Candidate supported or opposed by expenditure: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
    Office Sought: House of Representatives
    State is Washington in District 08
    Date Expended = 10/13/2006
    Person Completing Form: CHRISTOPHER J. WARD
    Date Signed = 10/13/2006
    Amount Expended = $424948.80

    Notice the name on the form: “Christopher J. Ward”. So Ward falsifies audits and other documents to obtain an $8 million loan, and then turns around and spends nearly half a million dollars of it attacking Darcy Burner. And I’m guessing there’s another million or so more where that came from spent during the following weeks.

    http://www.horsesass.org/
    don’t know the site is it credible?

    • emptywheel says:

      horsesass is very credible.

      And every time we raise this, we ought to note–the principle is the same as McCain misrepresenting his plans to take matching funds to get a loan.

      • BlueStateRedHead says:

        Ward Fraud vs. Darcy Burner:

        Have alerted FDL.
        I am trying to find out what happened in August to cause Ward to resign, and how his work on pacs connect to retirement announcements that if I remember came fast and furious after that.

        Stop me if you have done this already.

        A larger question:
        Is it worth a cooperative effort at reading FEC filings of the kind Horsesass is doing? I guess I am saying that is there potential fallout that can damage McCain rather than prove the duh point of the RNC being a lousily run org that does not do internal audits. Except, and here I need you or BMAZ, such an effort could force a move to a criminal conspiracy charge that would mean demanding their emails in a way that does not involve executive privilege.

        Apologies again for jetlagged thinking…hope this makes sense.

        Is CREW on this or are they the persons to be doing it?

    • scribe says:

      just remember – horsesass.org was the site that broke Brownie’s job as counsel to the Arabian Horse Association as his job immediately prior to being at FEMA, right in the middle of the Katrina debacle.

      Arguably, since history seems to be developing that Katrina was The Straw That Broke Bushco’s Back, one can (I would) give horsesass.org a lot of credit for plunking down That Last Straw and generating that breakage.

      For those interested in counting coup, so to speak. And, no, I have nothing to do with that site….

  3. Jim Clausen says:

    comment 115 @ firedoglake Yes!

    “Blue dog Boswell must be feelin the heat. s/
    I called as did many others and he is speaking in support. Yea!”

  4. Tross says:

    Am I crazy, or has there really been a sustained, coordinated effort by the Democratic leadership in the House (and possibly even the Senate) to make Bush eat this FISA bill — and without retroactive immunity?

    I watched the video of Nancy Pelosi explaining to the press that President Bush was “wrong, and he knows it!” twice to be sure I heard her correctly.

    I dunno how long it will last, but I like it!

    • PetePierce says:

      The Senate is going to be a real battle just on the immunity provision alone. Jello Jay is in full Jello mode:

      Once a Jello Always a Jello:

      Rockefeller’s support, of course, would be essential for any compromise bill to carry the Senate. But he’s supported retroactive immunity for the telecoms and it appears from his statement that he’s got a number of problems with the House bill.

      A statement from Senate intelligence committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on the House’s bill:

      “I have worked hard in recent weeks to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House FISA bills and produce legislation that strengthens intelligence collection against foreign terrorist targets and addresses liability protection for telecommunications companies. Regrettably, the Administration and Republicans chose to boycott these discussions and refused to play a constructive role in producing such a bill that could have strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House.

      “Today’s House proposal reflects progress in bringing the two bills together, and it is a step in the right direction. But, considerable work remains.

      “I continue to believe that the Senate FISA bill can be made even better through a limited number of changes, such as a shorter sunset, strengthened exclusivity, and improved accountability – modifications that in no way inhibit the collection authorities needed by the Intelligence Community.

      “As soon as the House sends us this new bill, we will once again roll up our sleeves and get back to work on a final compromise that the House, Senate and White House can support.”

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      LabDancer is a very astute commenter who occasionally leaves a comment at EW, and s/he pointed to this very thing at some point in the past month. I think you are correct, and it’s now looking like they played their cards quietly and with resolution. Very encouraging.

      (So, FWIW, I forgot to add ‘LabDancer’ to my earlier thank you list.)

      • scribe says:

        True, and it’s starting to look like that was the plan all along.

        But, I think it would not have been achievable without all us in the blogosphere raising Cain all along the way at every point where it looked like they were going to fold.

        If this is getting played, well, rosin up yer bow.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          Hey scribe!

          I think it would not have been achievable without all us in the blogosphere

          Totally agree.
          But I don’t think that it was simply ‘pressure’; I think it really was the value of the information the netroots had: Wired, EW, Glenzilla, FDL, TPM.. were like magnets that attracted expertise, and some excellent info was exchanged.

          As that process occurred, the fundamental contradictions, paradoxes, and ‘Trojan horses’ in that Bush version of FISA/PAA were revealed. If Bush’s version could have withstood scrutiny, it would have passed.

          I assume that O’Reilly and Coulter and their ilk are going to whine that this was the ‘lefties’ somehow ‘pressuring’ Congress. That’s superficial and flawed. They only delude themselves.
          The simple truth (which they don’t want to confront) is that FISA/PAA couldn’t withstand public scrutiny.

          That CCIA doc EW linked to was brilliant, IMHO.

          And once MadDogs linked to those Verizon, ATT, and Qwest docs that all basically said, “Sorry, Congress, but we can’t tell you b/c the WH says we can’t talk” then it was clear the Dems had to either pack it in, or dig in.

          Glad they dug in ;-)))

          But they had a lot of talent in the blogosphere helping them out.
          Personally, I learned a ton.

  5. looseheadprop says:

    I would like to pipe up with a gentle reminder that if House (and maybe Senate?) Dems actually do stand up and do the right thing, we in the blogosphere OWE THEM several days of wall to wall coverage of every noble thing each of them said or did to make that final bill happen.

    We never hesitate to dissect word by word everything they do that disappoints us, so when they respond to the stick, we have an obligation to reward them with lots of carrots.

  6. klynn says:

    Is anyone listening to Bush right now (NY Econ speech replay)? Congress has a “habit” of secretly slipping legislation into already approved bills. WHAAAAT?

    He has to be practicing his speech in front of mirror…talking to himself about his own behavior…

  7. bmaz says:

    Well that was sure impossibly hard. Good thing we didn’t try standing up to Bush before now, because the entire fabric of space and time would surely have been destroyed leading to infinite doom..

  8. AZ Matt says:

    OT – Henry is still plenty busy.

    Chairman Waxman Issues a Subpoena for EPA Documents

    Chairman Waxman issued a subpoena to compel EPA to provide unredacted copies of documents that have been improperly withheld from the Committee regarding EPA’s decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

    Chairman Waxman made the following statement,

    “Despite several requests for these documents, EPA has refused to provide them to the Committee. These documents must be provided to the Committee because they are relevant to the examination of the Administration’s decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. The desire to conceal embarrassing facts is not a valid legal basis for withholding these documents from the Committee.”

    The subpoena compels production of 196 internal EPA documents. The Committee’s discussions with EPA regarding the production of EPA communications with the White House and the Department of Justice are ongoing

  9. JTMinIA says:

    So now we sit around for a week or so (maybe even feeling good), then Jello and Kit get to kill it (again), right?

    • emptywheel says:

      No.

      We call all the Dems who flipped to vote for the SSCI version and get them to support this–remember, SSCI said they were giving the telecoms immunity because they couldn’t defend themselves, bc of the Administration invoking state Secrets. This bill fixes this.

      And the Senators will be home, so it’ll be easy to chase them down in person.

  10. bmaz says:

    Okay. Here it comes. MSNBC announcing breaking news that the CIA has turned over a high level al-Qaida operative to Guantanamo; supposedly the guy is “very close to bin Laden”. What are the odds that they are going to say they caught him because of the wondrous “President’s Surveillance Program and the patriotic help of the telcos that would not be possible under the new law the House Democrats passed”?

      • bmaz says:

        That was not a drill; was real news break. And you would think that my speculation on what will come of it would be snark; but, at this point, it is not and is a pretty reasonable possibility. I have not yet heard whether or not it is the tenth Number Three dude; good question on that though…

        • Skilly says:

          The timing of the release seems nearly comical, but I have no doubt what the evening news lead story will be. I’m thinking this release, like the detainee, has been in the can for a while.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Probably Bu$hCo thought that an AQ ‘terraist’ or two would put a little more NOISE into the media today, in an effort to reduce the following SIGNALS:
      (1) news of US taxpayers bailing out more Wall St Gamblers in a very big way today (see: Bear Stearns), plus
      (2) Boosh’s pathetic (delusional?) speech before bankers in NY, plus
      (3) Dems prevailing over Bu$hCo on FISA by protecting Americans, while calling bullshit on Bush’s efforts to cover his criminal activity.

      AQ = Necessary Bright Shiny Object on a very bad newz day.

      • bmaz says:

        Man, was that the most pathetic gig ever this morning or what? Even by Bush’s standards, it was absolutely horrid. The speech was terrible and said nothing but a bunch of tired and false tripe. And Bush looked vacant, lost, disoriented, scared and defeated. Really bad, even for Bush.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          Actually, I only heard a snippet, b/c it made me so uncomfortable that I had to shut it off. Very unnerving; there’s something really wrong there.

          I’m just worried that as things unravel, he’ll act in ever more risky ways; gamblers tend to do that, I assume. The bigger their losses, the more they’re willing to put on the table. Probably people in Vegas have more insight about Bush than I do.

    • klynn says:

      I had to leave to go pick up my son but heard that news bit announced on CSPAN right after the vote tally was announced. Thought, “Oh golly gee! Amazing timing there CSPAN!”

      Would like to know when CSPAN received the news report and why the “swift” reporting of such news right after the vote was taken?

      Bad play CSPAN. You’ll get caught for such politicizing…

  11. JTMinIA says:

    While I predict that the next Senate version won’t be as bad as the last one, I’m quite confident that it will still contain immunity, mostly due to Jello. So, in about a month, we’ll be back very close to where we were yesterday.

    Of course, it could have been worse. The House could have caved and voted on the Senate’s bill. Plus, each time the House stands firm (and the world doesn’t end in a fire-storm), it becomes easier for the House to stand firm again.

    As to the timely announcement of another #3 being captured (or was this guy #2, for once?): it could easily backfire. The Democrats need only capitalize on the shallow electorate and say “see, we’re winning without the PAA, so it really isn’t needed.”

    • emptywheel says:

      We lost several DEms at the end–including Hinchey, right at the end. (We lost 6 early.) I suspect the progresives held off, assured it would pass, and then voted no on principle.

  12. emptywheel says:

    Voting No (12 with Hinchey’s last minute no):

    Boren
    Capuano
    Carney
    Cooper
    Filner
    Hinchey
    Holden
    Kucinich
    Lampson
    McDermott
    Shuler
    Welch

    Voting Present:
    Lincoln Davis

  13. JTMinIA says:

    Kucinich has consistently voted against anything that extends (in time or scope) the original version of FISA. It surprised me the first time I saw it, too.

  14. Tross says:

    Response to EW @17 (I don’t seem to be able to respond using the reply button) — I agree, “the president is wrong, and he knows it” would be a perfect mantra for the next 6 mos.

  15. JTMinIA says:

    What I’ve seen and heard, they are pushing that this is the highest-ranking AQ member yet caught, so my guess is they’ll call him a #2.

    He’s now resting securely in Gitmo, with his feet slightly above his head, about to be given a gentle facial rinsing.

  16. rincewind says:

    So the House has bought us 2 weeks to go to work on the Senate — to refresh our memories, the Dems who voted for immunity are:

    Baucus (MT)
    Bayh (IN)
    Carper (DE)
    Casey (PA)
    Conrad (ND)
    Inouye (HI)
    Johnson (SD)
    Kohl (WI)
    Landrieu (LA)
    Lincoln (AR)
    McCaskill (MO)
    Mikulski (MD)
    Nelson (FL)
    Nelson (NE)
    Pryor (AR)
    Rockefeller (WV)
    Salazar (CO)
    Webb (VA)
    Whitehouse (RI)

        • rincewind says:

          Didn’t he also back DiFi’s substitution idea? My memory is that he seemed to fall for the “unfair” meme?

        • emptywheel says:

          DiFi’s wasn’t substitution–it was having the FISA court do the review (which is not far off the terms of the House bill today).

          Whitehouse co-sponsored the substitution bill, which failed. But I suspect he woudl vote for this bill if we coudl get it to the floor of the Senate.

      • emptywheel says:

        I suspect he will vote for the most liberal vote he can get out of the Senate, but will continue to vote for whatever bill comes out. I also suspect that, since one of this two amendments was one of the only ones added to teh SSCI bill (minimization) he felt obliged to vote in favor. But that’s just speculation.

  17. bmaz says:

    From MSNBC website:

    Rahim, an Afghan national, was detained in the summer of 2007 by a foreign government, according to a statement CIA Director Michael Hayden gave to CIA employees. The name of the other country was not disclosed.

    “Rahim is a tough, seasoned jihadist,” Hayden wrote. “Rahim is perhaps best known in counter-terror circles as a personal facilitator and translator for Usama bin Ladin and other al-Qaida leaders.”

    The CIA has interrogated Rahim. “I can’t characterize the nature of his questioning (but) this detention was done in accord with U.S. law,” a senior counterterrorism official said.

    I wonder where this guy was being tortured detained? In accord with what US law? More likely it was in accord with US lawlessness.

  18. Ishmael says:

    While on the subject of residents of Guantanamo, lawyers for Canadian child soldier/alleged terrorist Omar Khadr, all of 15 at the time he was captured in Afghanistan, allegedly for his role in killing an American soldier, state that a U.S. military commander altered a report on a firefight in Afghanistan to cast blame on Khadr. Remember, there can’t be any acquittals at Gitmo.

    ….from the Globe and Mail today….

    “The U.S. military has charged Omar Khadr with murder for throwing a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during a U.S. military raid on July 27, 2002, on an al-Qaeda compound in eastern Afghanistan. Mr. Khadr’s case is on track to be the first to go to trial under a military tribunal system at this U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.

    The military commander’s official report the day after the raid originally said the assailant who threw the grenade was killed, which would rule out Mr. Khadr as the suspect. But the report was revised months later, under the same date, to say a U.S. fighter had only “engaged” the assailant, according to [Khadr’s lawyer] Cdr. Kuebler, who said the later version was presented to him by prosecutors as an “updated” document.

    Cmdr. Kuebler told reporters after the hearing that it appears “the government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”

  19. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    EW, and commenters here, thanks so much for helping educate me, and also for clarifying certain issues, subissues, and the overall ‘logic’ of FISA/PAA.

    My personal honor roll of thanks, in addition to EW (and FDL and Glenzilla) includes:
    Wm Ockham, MadDogs, PJEvans, JohnLopresti, Dismayed, LHP, Rayne, phred, LS, LooHoo, Ishmael, klynn, CTuttle, BlueStateRedHead, Hugh *and his timelines!*, BayStateLiberal, and…. okay, bmaz
    … and I’m certain that a few names slip my mind at the moment, but I really wanted to send a shout-out and ‘thank you!’ to all who have helped me better understand the FISA mess in recent months.

    This really vindicates Sen Dodd, as well as Feingold.
    And it’s nice to feel that the Dems are actually **leading**! Whew…

    ———————-
    (BTW: Anyone keeping an eye on the financial news today should have plenty of antacids handy, plus a bottle of whatever beverage you prefer to create a rosy glow, because the news sure ain’t pretty. See: Bear Stearns . Ahem… TRUST is the new gold, I tell ya.)

  20. JTMinIA says:

    bmaz –

    You seem to be operating under the assumption that there can be only one #2. (Maybe you’re old enough to remember the TV show?) This is post-Dan-Quayle America. There can be several.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Yup.
      And ‘nuts’ is one of the words that comes to mind.

      What part of ’self-defeating’ does Bu$hCo fail to comprehend?
      These guys have more Phyrric victories than any group since… well, I think they hold the record at this point.

  21. wavpeac says:

    Well, I say that each and every win puts us closer to getting impeachment back on the table. I want it in the news every night.

    However, I agree with Bmaz, and readeroftealeaves that bushco is going to be feeling very desperate. He does not strike me as a man that handles that emotion well. His past suggests impulsivity as a major problem. This is worth being frightened of. He’s driving the bus.

    I hope all the dems are ready to take the wheel.

  22. masaccio says:

    I am stunned that my Congressman, Jim Cooper, not only voted against the Democratic Party on the bill, he voted to consider the Senate Bill first. FWIW, I sent him an e-mail, asking him to provide a list of other entities who should not be held liable for breaking the law, and suggesting that a statute naming them would be in order.

Comments are closed.