Dick’s Evolving Demands for Immunity
Thanks to Faiz, who watches Rush, so I don’t have to.
Once again, the Administration has trotted out Dick to lobby for immunity for himself telecom immunity. All the things I said last week about the inappropriateness of sending the guy who would most directly benefit from immunity out to lobby for it still hold.
So someone decided that they would get the person least willing to cooperate with Democrats, the person who single-handedly could eliminate the legal problem they allege the telecoms have, and the person who stands to benefit most from an immunity provision for telecoms, to head out to pressure Congress? And they thought this would work to persuade Democrats to put aside all the troubling legal issues to grant immunity?
But I’m interested in slight changes to Dick’s spiel over the last eight days of legislative wrangling. As an aside, you’d think that some of these differences might stem from the fact that your average Heritage Foundation member has about four times the IQ of your average Rush listener, but Dick’s statements to Rush are much more measured.
One thing I hadn’t noticed in Dick’s Heritage Foundation speech is that it already included (and was perhaps the roll-out of) the Orwellian "liability protection" in lieu of the more accurate "retroactive immunity."
Actions by Congress sometimes have unexpected consequences. But a failure to enact a permanent FISA update with liability protections would have predictable and serious consequences.
It must have polled well, because Dick is developing into an elaborate metaphor including a dig at trial lawyers.
One of the main things we need in there, for example, is retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States —
[snip]
RUSH: The opposition in the Senate is primarily from Democrats, correct?
CHENEY: Correct. People who don’t want to — I guess want to leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big company that may have helped. [my emphasis]
I wonder how the ACLU and EFF feel about being labeled trial lawyers? Read more →