Comments on: My Version of Pelosi’s Statement on Exclusivity

By: selise

selise — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:33:46 +0000

well, if glenn greenwald is right, and he usually is, the house dem leadership has no intention of resisting the bush administrations demands wrt FISA.

Exclusive capitulation report: House Democratic leadership circulates FISA bill

As has been expected for a week now, the House Democratic leadership has prepared and is now currently circulating (while trying very hard to keep it confidential) their so-called “compromise” FISA bill. Their soon-to-be-unveiled bill, unsurprisingly, is designed to give the White House exactly what it has demanded, with only the smallest and most inconsequential changes.

By: phred

phred — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:25:09 +0000

Yep, I remember : ) I think you suggested Conyers should have turned the hearing immediately that afternoon into an impeachment hearing. And, as usual, you were right.

By: phred

phred — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:23:21 +0000

Good point selise. FWIW to bring home the political consequences of Pelosi’s actions/inactions the last email I sent her (and my own Rep) was to very pointedly tell them that if they fail to protect the 4th Amendment I will stop supporting Democrats. I realize that is a frustrating position for those working so hard to rebuild the Dem party from within (an activity I support wholeheartedly), I don’t think the Dem leadership is capable of thinking beyond election day ramifications. I truly believe that a threat to their hopes of winning elections is the only threat they will take seriously.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:15:37 +0000

If you will recall my statement on the fateful day of Mukasey’s insolent testimony; there should be contempt immediately (preferably inherent), while the impeachment process is working. If you can’t get tough every now and then, you get no respect and get run over. Which is exactly what routinely happens to the Dems.

By: Sedgequill

Sedgequill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:11:25 +0000

CCIA members, both those who provide email service and those who don’t, may to some extent be concerned about regulatory agency favoritism. Companies that have cooperated with government requests without requiring compulsory process—especially if blessed with retroactive immunity—might tend to fare better before appointed regulatory panels. Arguments concerning competition should be attentively heard.

By: phred

phred — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:06:31 +0000

Mary — I have to say the whole contempt thing really begs the question of why Congress doesn’t impeach Mukasey immediately. I’m all in favor of sorting out the contempt/executive privilege question, but the other profound issue is permitting an AG that just told Congress and the public to “go Cheney themselves” to remain in office. If I were Conyers I would have begun impeachment of Mukasey as soon as he refused to enforce the contempt citations.

By: Praedor

Praedor — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:53:17 +0000

I am not concerned about what Pelosi said (except for the vast gulf between her rhetoric and her actions) as I am what Rep Reyes has said. Pelosi, Smelosi. Reyes has come out in a complete 180 and is stating that immunity is no okeydokie with him and that he thinks that a deal can be made.

No deal! No deal! Yes, exclusivity is important (though FISA is and was broken from the get-go because of its rubberstamp nature and absolute secrecy) but so is the Rule of Law. Immunity throws the Rule of Law away and, de facto, gives the Congressional stamp of approval for complete and absolute violations of the 4th (and 5th) Amendments. It means more of the same. It means that the Constitution does NOT apply any longer.

By: phred

phred — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:46:39 +0000

I should have known that you had something to do with the Speaker’s comments yesterday EW. Well done!

I saw Kiel’s post first, so I was left with the impression that the Speaker felt both exclusivity and not giving retroactive immunity were important. Is her emphasis on exclusivity motivated by a desire to rein in Bush’s abuse of signing statements or do you think there is more to it than that?

Given Bush’s dismissal of the prerogatives of Congress to pass legislation that the President must enforce, it seems to me that exclusivity gets right to the heart of the question of whether the President gets to decide what the laws are. In that light, I thought mcjoan’s interpretation of the Speaker’s comment missed a crucial point of attack against the Unitary Executive.

Ok, off to read the rest of this thread. Thanks for the post and thanks for asking the question! I hope Congress follows through and interviews the email providers as you suggested…

By: Sedgequill

Sedgequill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:43:42 +0000

I have to think that the Framers believed that Congress has to be willing to come with impeachment when the executive branch flouts the Constitution. No substitute for impeachment—even leaving it to time and elections to restore balance of powers—could have been or should be imaginable.

By: klynn

klynn — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:34:21 +0000

EW,

Thanks for your take on this call. Most appreciated. I agree with your idea on having both Google’s and MS’s lawyers. Giving “context” makes all the difference on interpretation…

Did Gates get “called in” and did he have the “where-with-all” on the issues?

How about a blog based writing campaign to Google and MS to get them to stand together on this and get their lawyers to D.C. to address House members? Essentially they have started “that process” with the CCIA letter. Our writing campaign would just simply be asking them to build on what is currently “out there” representing them.