That’s why I tend to believe they were right in the middle of it and won’t have any deniability if the story comes all the way out. But that’s just may distrustful gut reaction, not a fact in sight to hang it on.

cboldt – I completely agree with the illusory nature of the statutory remedy. The only way it ever would even come up would be in something like a Keith case setting, where instead of what we have now in DOJ you had lawyers with the integrity of a Mitchell (I know, hard to believe that Mitchell is the baseline integrity standard that no one in DOJ can meet these days, but there it is) to actually comply with court orders and cough up the evidence, rather than assist in it’s destruction or in bogus claims of state secrets.

OTOH, maybe a case like Wright’s if he would push on it, would be a sufficient frame.

And its not just the illusory remedy, it’s the illusion that a true, independent court and judicial review system is involved as well. That just isn’t there.

OTOH, if there were an AG to pursue the criminal charges, then the civil penalties would start to line up as well, but that’s about the only workable scenario. And given that the AG and DAG were signing off on the programs, how does that happen?

It’s like using a stuffed dog to perform watch duty.

Sounds like the sort of thing Holy Joe would favor. If CongressCritters are so happy for Uncle Sam to have unfettered access to all our e-mail and telephone communicaitons, what are they doing to protect their array of silly behavior, their Capitol Hill cavorting and their money gigs for lobbyists and friends?

Heheheh. Well, on FISA, you can add in a few others who are “working for the man.”

I think Lieberman might be okay to party with, but he’s a liar of the first order when it comes to making policy. I think he’s a bit of a dumb-ass, actually. His work on border and shipping security sucks pond water.

Which may explain why Congress is so eager to get the cases out of Court. Congress wants the remedy to sit there as a device to fool the people – but now the public is informed that the remedy is toothless, as designed and intended by Congress.

Don’t you mean 15 Dem Senators and one “Independent” Senator? I know he’s probably too liberal (and too hawkish) for your taste, but he’s not one of us anymore.

- The plaintiffs are losing under the law, so Congress shouldn’t be concerned about either massive financial losses to telecoms, or disclosure of state secret. IOW, there is no need for immunity, things are working out.

- The statutory remedy is illusory. Congress pulled a fast one on the public back in 1978, and continues to, by providing a statutory remedy that can’t be exercised, even if the government surveillance is extra-statutory (one caveat, if the government brought criminal charges under 1809, and named “aggrieved persons” in the course of the criminal trial, those “aggrieved persons” could “tag along” on the criminal trial. — Would never happen, and like the remedy in 1810, it sits there in theory, pretending to be a check against a runaway snooper). It’s like using a stuffed dog to perform watch duty.

A couple of details, although I agree with your conclusion.

Feingold-Dodd would pass with a simple majority. Depending on how many Senators are absent, a majority could realistically be as few as 46, and is likely to be 48 or 49.

A second point of killing off the bill is on the cloture vote relating to final passage. That needs 60 affirmative votes. I think stopping the bill here is a pipe dream, because 16 DEM Senators filed the motion to limit debate, and those 16 are highly likely to vote in favor of the motion they filed. [Nelson (NE), Rockefeller, Carper, Pryor, Nelson (FL), Feinstein, Casey, Mikulski, McCaskill, Conrad, Inouye, Landrieu, Lieberman, Whitehouse, Bayh, and Salazar] There will be at least 45 GOP in favor of invoking cloture; and the 16 listed above isn’t all of the likely DEM “supporters” of final passage. Here are the names of the DEM Senators who filed the cloture motion on the motion to proceed (that are not part of the 16 above): Murray, Johnson, Baucus, Kohl, and Lincoln.

I hasten to add I’m not defending Pelosi. I think she’s joined the Goopers in willingly hiding past lawbreaking so that her side can also “Go Do It!” The idea of public or private debate seems too much for these news anchor versions of politicians; real reporting seems wholly beyond them, too.