Two things going on today: the FISA debate, viewable on CSPAN2, and an oversight hearing, on CSPAN3 or the Committee feed.
And I'm gonna do my best to cover them both (that is, until Christy can pick up one of them).
Here's the UC for today on the FISA debate--final votes will be around 11:30.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2008, after the Senate convenes at 9:30am, it will resume consideration of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304). There will be one hour and forty-five minutes of debate, with 30 minutes under the control of Senator Feingold; 15 minutes under the control of Senator Dodd; 10 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman; 10 minutes under the control of Senator Leahy; 10 minutes under the control of the Majority Leader; and 30 under the control of the Republican Leader or his designee.
Upon the use or yielding back of this time, the Senate will proceed to roll-call votes in relation to the pending amendments. Upon disposition of these amendments, the Senate will proceed to a roll -call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 6304, as amended if amended.
If cloture is invoked on H.R. 6304, all post-cloture time will be yielded back, and the Senate will proceed to a roll-call vote on passage of H.R. 6304, as amended if amended.
Right now, Leahy is talking at SJC about how this Administration is more politicized than Watergate. And Mitch McConnell is speaking on the Senate floor--so I'll stick with Leahy for now.
Leahy is reminding Mukasey that he promised to review the OLC opinions. "We look forward to obtaining these memos. We look forward to learning which aspects of the OLC memos have been modified or withdrawn by AG."
Specter (in SJC) talks about FISA as an unchecked expansion of executive authority.
Specter discussing attorney-client privilege--has a bill pending on this. He's complaining about corporations being asked to waive privilege. (Apparently, he's okay with the DOJ practice of spying on defense attorneys for people accused of terrorism.)
Now Specter complaining that Judy Miller went to jail when Richard Armitage was the source of the leaks. Apparently he just slept through all the dark clouds hanging over Cheney's head.
A leak in the investigation of Curt Weldon. A very distinguished Congressman, led directly to his defeat. Never mind that he's now an arms dealer.
Here's how the voting on FISA will probably go down:
- Dodd Amendment #5064 (strike immunity)
- Specter Amendment #5059 (immunity) (60-vote threshold)
- Bingaman Amendment #5066 (telecommunications) (60-vote threshold)
- Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 6304
- Passage of H.R. 6304, the FISA amendments act of 2008
Mukasey up with his statement, reassuring us this election will be fair.
BREAKING! Kit Bond apparently didn't get dressed in the dark today.
Mukasey on allegations of politicization. It's crucial that we hire career professionals. Equally critical that Americans have confidence. I have done--and will continue to do--what I can to make sure politics is kept out of decisions about investigations and about career hiring.
Leahy: Secret memos from OLC. We've always seen OLC as a place to provide impartial interpretations of the law. Opinions saying President above rule of law. You committed to review opinions and withdraw those without justification. You said this without any reservation. In your answer to written questions--6 months after--you have only reviewed currently operative opinions. You're going back on commitments to Committee.
Mukasey: I don't think I went back on my word. Then-current interrogation programs. I stand by that. I have since reviewed all significant OLC memos that were issued subsequently. This committee has received unprecedented access to OLC memos relating to interrogation and electronic surveillance.
Leahy: Beg to differ with you. When we asked the questions, it was not with a limitation to just current ones. What led us to this, OLC opinions allowing wiretapping, now found not to be legal, allowing torture, found not to be allowed, these other OLC opinions are still there. If you're not going to review those that were used in the past, will you make them available to this Committee?
Mukasey: OLC opinions, WRT to wiretapping, don't have a current bearing. I don't think it would be responsible to do that.
Leahy: These opinions said the President had inherent authority or was above the law. What I'm concerned about are those parts of the memoranda that says there's an inherent ability of the President to ignore the law. Will you give a list of the opinions?
Mukasey: Obligations that decision makers will come forward to get advice.
[Shorter Mukasey: Yup, going back on my word in the approval hearings.]
Leahy: Your answer is no.
Mukasey: My answer is qualified.
Specter: National Security Act, inform intelligence committees of both houses, President did not follow that law for years, piecemeal telling committees. Did the President's powers justify his violating the National Securities Act?
Mukasey: TSP brought under PAA. President has all the authority he needs.
Specter: Not talking about now. Talking about what happened after 9/11.
Mukasey: Conflict between branches.
Specter: So President was right?
Mukasey: I'm not a court.
Specter: C'mon, you're the AG.
Mukasey: After I arrived, program brought under PAA.
Specter: Will you give some study to the issue on whether the President's authority extended that far. Move onto Attorney Client privilege.
Mukasey: DAG will send a memo that will have a clear position supporting Attorney Client privilege. McNulty memo can be used in proper way. We will no longer measure cooperation by waiver of privilege.
Specter: Can we get something we can decide whether we're going to have to do legislation?
Mukasey: Letter in a few days.
Specter: it's a matter affecting a lot of people. [so far as you buy corporations are people]
Specter: Reporters privilege. Justification for keeping Judith Stern [sic] in jail?
Mukasey: That case may be a better argument against the Special Counsel than the legislation proposed.
Specter: Why throw her in jail when we knew the source.
Mukasey: mumble mumble.
Specter: Why give that power to prosecutor when you know who leaker is.
Mukasey: We don't--the Prosecutor must get it cleared through AG.
Biden: Crisp. Crisp. Crisp. You talked about working against politicization. Did you find it had been when you arrived?
Mukasey: Did I find it? The IG found it.
Biden: You act like you float above the ether.
Mukasey: What I found was enormously dedicated people are committed to our success.
Biden: So you disagree with the IG report.
Mukasey: Criticized two people who are no longer there, two who are there having been criticizing. IG report reflected two people had failed to respond with alacrity to charges of politicization.
Biden: Supportive of restoring Burn grants and JAG grants, or do you think they're unnecessary programs?
Mukasey: Focus energy where they can do the most good.
Biden: Burn grants not at top of list.
Mukasey: Putting something at top above another is not what I do.
Biden: Do you think Burn grants don't produce results.
Mukasey: Task force programs, of which grants are a part.
Biden: But they are not Burn grants. You have eliminated programs. Is it based on efficacy, or is it on devolution of power?
Meanwhile, Russ Feingold is beating up people who still think the President's program was legal.
Feingold: I thought we were past this. I can't believe that we are still debating the legality of this program on the Senate floor, the notion that notifying the Gang of Eight, while still keeping the rest of the Intelligence Committee in the dark, makes it legal. I thought these issues had been put to rest.
Brings up AGAG's lies about whether or not the President had authorized the illegal wiretap program.
Biden: Why aren't you funding US Marshall service?
Hatch at SJC, Feingold at FISA.
Hatch will be whining about Senate approvals. I'm going to ignore Hatch, as a favor to you all.
Feingold quoting the number of times the President has said that the program was legal and worked under FISA.
Feingold: President himself was repeatedly presenting a different picture to the public. Some of the Gang of Eight say they were not fully informed. AUMF argument has been thoroughly discredited. We did not authorize the President to wiretap American citizens.
Feingold: Not inherent power. When action and law conflict, how do you decide? We're talking about President acting in direct violation of statute. At its lowest ebb. Every time SCOTUS has ruled on Presidential action that has conflicted with law, it has upheld the law. FISA overrode any inherent authority. FISA recognizes no inherent authority of President. This statute, not any presidential power, controls. The Trung case that is hauled out was decided BEFORE FISA was enacted. Yet these cases are repeatedly cited. The fact is that not a single court has considered whether after FISA the President nonetheless has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps. In fact, just last week, a federal district court indicated that President must follow FISA.
Hatch asked about the Heller. Mukasey says (I think) he's not worried.
Kohl: OPR investigating misconduct. Investigations being kept secret. Keeping these secret plays to Americans fears. People have a right to know whether investigations show misconduct. Will you make summaries of OPR investigations that find misconduct public?
Mukasey: Govt has to be as transparent as possible. OPR conducts investigations of lawyers. Particular obligations under Bar. Virtually anything can open OPR investigation. Those opened can be referred to Bar Asscs. One has to be careful on whether one is to ruin career of lawyer based on unsubstantiated allegations. Very reluctant to making them public, firmly committed to making those that should be public public.
Kohl: When they do find misconduct, are you committed to making that public?
Mukasey: If it's very serious, to point of dismissal, yes. But private admonitions no.
Kohl: No action against OPEC cartel.
Mukasey: OPEC very special problem. Dog chasing car. Let's assume we get verdict against OPEC. OPEC can cease to do business against us.
Kohl: Whether you would like department to have authority to take action?
Mukasey: I'd like to look further than I have. We can bring actions in a way that would bring more harm than good.
Feingold on FISA: There are no consequences for illegal behavior. That's just wrong.
Kohl: No anti-trust remedies for freight rail.
Kyl: Now bitching that Biden complained about the Burn grants. It's not my opinion that no role to assist local law enforcement. Focus funds on area where federal nexus. Like immigration.
Feingold: FISA as originally enacted stated ALREADY that FISA was exclusive. The idea that we'd trust this Administration to take this language. Only under the unprecedented actions of this Administration would an Administration read that language and not find it exclusive. And I don't trust this Administration to follow this strengthened FISA language. The President authorized illegal program in blatant violation of a statute. Now a Democratically controlled Congress, we're about to grant immunity to companies that participated in the President's lawlessness. Based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified in the future, members of this body WILL regret that we passed this legislation. I invite my colleagues to talk to me about the collection activities. We will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure. I'm confident that history will not judge this Senate kindly. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law.
DiFi: Very disappointed in your answer to Biden's question. Several USAs were fired for political reasons. Civil Rights, Honors Program, Summer Interns, OLC opinions, Civil and Tax division may have been politicized, Voting Rights, Rules were changed. Red book changed to green book. Hiring of immigration judges. The measure to overturn Comey's opinion on TSP, to convince AG to approve it, when you answered to say, effectively, no politicization.
Mukasey: Two of the items you cite, firing of USAs, and another, currently under investigation, OIG, OPR, they will be acted upon, just as recent report on IG wrt summer interns and honors, actions were taken even before that report was issued. Revised rules WRT contacts with WH, revised procedures we used for hiring of immigration judges.
DiFi: But when Biden asked the question, you essentially said no. Dept has lost enormous credibility. Question on Gitmo. June 20, first decision on DTA, Parhat, Uigur handed over to the US. CSRT relied on classified info to conclude that Parhat associated with Taliban and AQ. DC Circuit rejected this argument. What are your plans for reviewing the case files of others at Gitmo, to ensure adequate evidence to support detention.
Mukasey: Parhat not only one before us. Boumediene substantial change in landscape. Parhat, inadequacies in CSRT he underwent. Status of CSRTs has to change, going to change. We're trying to organize orderly way to resolve this situation. CSRT enacted by Congress.
[DiFI--you might ask if Parhat will be released??]
[LOL: Mukasey now blaming Congress for having passed an unconstitutional law.]
Grassley: Here are all the letters you haven't responded to Mueller response, exigent letters, Also, you'll soon get a letter from me and Baucus on correspondence we sent around 6 months ago, received a non-response. Misuse of DC USA office money. Received response embarrassingly inadequate.
Mukasey: Did receive letter from Chair referring to past correspondence, dealt with referred to in that letter.
Grassley: Dept headed in right direction, re fraud and other natural disaster. Flood and tornado damage in IA, pleased to see recent press release warning IA not to be victim twice. Hoping IG oversight of disaster recovery.
Specter on FISA: Can't grant retroactive immunity without knowing what it is. An historical embarrassment--everybody knows we don't know what we're voting on. Here we're caught red-handed. Greatest expansion of presidential authority in history. National Security Act. Signing statement.
Mukasey: Summer intern and honors program in hands of career employees.
Feingold: Accountability for those who did this?
Mukasey: Covered, people who were deficient, some no longer in Department. If you can point to any criminal laws violated.
Feingold: 2007 Draft regs gives AG, rather than Court of Appeals, states to opt-in. Disadvantage petitioner. Concerns about completeness of regulations. No guidance in assessing whether state provided competent counsel. Your responses the last time were more cavalier than expected. I want to understand fully DOJ justification. Commitment to answer questions fully. Personal attention. Will you commit to that? Trying to determine whether AG guidelines can be harmonized. Dept will put in place permit FBI to open preliminary investigations relying on terrorist profile, that may include racist profile. Under these new guidelines, ethnicity, without any evidence of wrong-doing.
Mukasey: No. That represents no change.
Feingold: US citizen of Pakistani decent, who travels frequently to Pakistan?
Mukasey: Person's travel may be one element in determining whether to conduct an inquiry.
Feingold: I asked whether travel to Pakistan itself will be sufficient.
Mukasey: Not prepared to discuss hypotheticals. What I do want to point out, take regulations that apply to opening of criminal investigations and intelligence investigations.
Feingold: What if person also owns a gun. SCOTUS rule. May that person be investigated?
Mukasey: Don't want to get into particular cases. Presided over first amendment expression because along with other evidence they were relevant determining whether defendants were guilty. Regulations will assure nature of evidence to be gathered and way it's gathered.
Schumer: Mukasey, at confirmation hearing troubled about politicization of prosecutions. Urged you to get to bottom of Siegelman. I pointed out at time, witnesses have contended that his case was selectively prosecuted. Jill Simpson, pictures of Siegelman, Rove personally contacted DOJ, Karl Rove has refused to appear to testify about Siegelman. You were reluctant to look at it. It's time you get to bottom of this. In unusual decision released Siegelman. Substantial question of law or fact reversal. 54 bipartisan AGs supporting appeal. Underscores flimsiness of case. I have to tell you, nothing has troubled me more than this. It's like making DOJ like the justice department in a banana republic. OPR investigation in Siegelman. When did it begin. When will it be done?
Mukasey: Don't know. Meet regularly with head of OPR, no reason to believe anyone's slow-rolling that?
Schumer: This one is different than lots of other cases. If the allegations are true it would be stunning.
Mukasey: If the allegations are true it would be stunning, Appeals court went to issues in indictment, not politicization.
Schumer: Shouldn't it be a priority?
Mukasey: It think it has.
Schumer: Conclusion before end of Administration.
Mukasey: Every expectation it will.
Schumer: How many lawyers?
Mukasey: I don't know. Enough resources.
Schumer: Will you make OPR findings public?
Mukasey: Depends on what they are. For the same reasons as I discussed with Kohl, I don't know what they're going to find.
Schumer: Calling into question the very fundamentals of justice.
Mukasey: Various avenues in investigating, including investing the source.
[Then why not force Rove to appear? Huh?]
Mukasey: If a lawyer neglected attention, I hesitate to make it public. Cases are brought for all kinds of reasons.
Schumer: That's not what we're discussing here. I'm asking that, if the allegations are true, is there any reason not to make it public? If Rove suggested a second prosecution?
Mukasey: Underlying evidence. Why should that not be made public. I don't see publicizing source of allegation if allegation appears to be true.
Schumer: Should Rove be intereviewed?
Mukasey: Matter for OPR.
Schumer: You don't think that given the allegations that have been made, that Karl Rove should maybe not be interviewed here.
Mukasey: Avenues for conducting investigating other than OPR?
Schumer: Should someone in DOJ ask Rove?
Mukasey: Depends on what the facts are determined by OPR.
Schumer: Very disappointing.
Leahy: Same concerns you've heard from Specter and myself.
Whitehouse: In eight months in office occasion to determine whether water-boarding torture?
Mukasey: No, not part of program.
Whitehouse: In that answer, and other answers, detect very pronounced reluctance to look backwards into problems at DOJ. YOu've assured us that politics will be kept out of your watch going forward. Effects are still alive and well for subjects of those prosecutions. You've revied current OLC opinions. But past OLC opinions are still on the books to be counted as precedents. People hired under politicized processes, it is highly inadequate to have this going forward approach. Be prepared to find out what went wrong and clean it up. We can't be assured it has been cleaned up.
Mukasey: Variety of subjects. Interrogations. Law has changed. You have access to, you in particular bc on SSCI, access to unredacted copies of operative memoranda.
Whitehouse: I"ve seen exaggerated claims of executive authority. Dramatic lapses of scholarship. Repeatedly, we've seen OLC opinions retracted. OLC is Bush's little shop f legal horrors. Just not adequate to say fine going forward. Not just about your integrity. Goldsmith: OLC has developed a number of processes to assure that OLC not political, not all those processes followed.
Mukasey: Fact that OLC opinions withdrawn not a shop of horrors.
Whitehouse: What went wrong at the time, opinions that are so embarrassing, that's a matter of legitimate inquiry, and I'm concerned that you're not curious.
Mukasey: A cycle of aggressiveness and timidity in intelligence community. We have people demanding push law to limit. Ultimate conclusions unchanged.
[That's not what Levin said]
Whitehouse: 5th circuit court of appeals, if you look at that case, you see it's waterboarding. It's a case that was prosecuted by DOJ. Person who prosecuted is still in the department. If this matter were being briefed to you as a judge, and a party had missed that case, you'd be justifiably angry that they missed that case. 50-odd page opinion, they don't cite that case. Something went badly, badly wrong. Not just people being a little energetic. It can recur if we don't figure out what happened.
Mukasey: I agree with your interest in thoroughness. Case is not a torture case. Civil rights laws.
Whitehouse: When a court of appeals describes a technique as torture, isn't that relevant to whether it was torture under a different statute?
Mukasey: Quoting from indictment.
Whitehouse: That's not accurate.
Mukasey: I believe it is.
Cardin, then 10 minute break.
Cardin: What program in place to have widest possible participation in election?
Mukasey: Every single district will have a AUSA schooled in voting laws, alert to misinformation, which as I've said in private conversations, just as much fraud as any kind of fraud. Inspectors in particular districts. Prepared to go into those districts to head off practices you talked about.
Cardin: Monitors already been placed. Extremely important. Encourage in placing monitors to look at previous activities. Also take a look at areas that have recently shown some challenges. To share that information so we can have a better understanding of problems.
Mukasey: Agree we ought to publicize it afterwards. Will have people looking for the kind of conduct you mentioned.
Cardin: If primary is any indication, unusual number of young people. College campuses in the fall. What steps to make sure that students fully participate in political process?
Mukasey: Statutes that require state laws that provide services to encourage voter reg.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
McConnell is telling us Bush will veto any amended versions of HR 6304 and that the terrists will come and get us. Booga-booga.
See, told you it was missable.
But let us know if McConnell (shock) does something besides fearmonger.
I am on the SJC as FISA is a done deal.
Specter Just said he did not know why Judy Miller spent 85 days in jail when Armitage was the known source of the leak….
Gag. Reid expressing his affection and total admiration for Rockefeller. Sums up all our problems right there.
What about our calling yesterday do we have a rough scorecard of how who is going to vote?
Shorter Bond: The mega-corporations are now a feature of governance that should enjoy sovereign immunity.
Please EW if the vote goes wrong don’t drop this topic we should never grow comfortable or used to tyranny.
Before going to radio silence, may I just say that the cogdiss/disgust factor while listening to Mukasey’s opening statements has today officially (for me @ least) surpassed that while listening to Fredo’s opening statements.
The whip count tool now shows 14 supporting the Dodd amendment, 10 against it and 76 unknown. If I heard Reid correctly though, he was predicting that the votes today would be close and was encouraging the Senators to be on time for voting. cboldt’s predictions were that the votes wouldn’t be close.
cboldt is probably closer to reality than Reid. Then again Reid isn’t concerned with reality, only comity.
Bond is attacking Specter now. I hope he makes him mad enough to vote with us.
Off topic today -
Have any of you read that Pelosi may be refusing contempt on Rove? From
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/.....comin.html
This brings us to the current, and very disturbing news. As I stated earlier, Rove apparently has a new ally in Congress and one that should surprise all of you. From Alabama activist, Pam Miles:
“I have firm confirmation that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove.
Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary staff are battling for it but this has become an infight among dems.”
Yes, the Speaker of the House, the first women Speaker in US history, and a Democrat is basically saying Karl Rove is above the law.
Specter is over in the SJC room, so I hope a staffer is taking notes.
But Specter will vote for 6304, as he always fails to put his votes where his mouth is.
Hatch speaks code and confirms the neo-con revolution overturning the Constitution by quoting Kierkegaard.
Old Coastie posted this over on the mother ship: Comment #5
Fascism anyone?
I’ll tell you somethin’. Up to this point (more or less), it has been all about BushCo dismantling our Constitution and rule of law. But if immunity is granted, the United States of America surrenders its claim, its right, to be the great kahuna and bringer of democracy to those other people who don’t get it. Is this what democracy is? Really, now. Really?
Wow-
would this prevent document dumps like the HJC records in the Atty Firing scandal?
They are trying to squash bloggers…..
Has Orrin made his usual snide comments about fringe groups yet?
Specter firing off about the Libby case again.
The admin must be nervous about revisiting the Cheney testimony…..
Just had a great mental picture. Bloggers, commenters, webbies, all wearing the uniform of our trade. Garments bedecked with fringe. Headgear with fringe. Think 1920s flappers. Fringed vests. Fringed jammies. Phuckemall.
“If Al Qaeda is not on your speed dial, the government probably is not interested in you.” Probably? Man, is he hard to listen to.
You mean his “Al Qaeda on speed-dial” line? Yep.
Why is the question? However to stop her we need KO to mention Nancy as a Worse Person in the World, Nancy is all about public image.
Anyway we got other fish to fry right now I’m going to be taking names for later butt kicking!
Obama and Hilary both have the power to stop FISA by leaning on Senators I will not accept them voting against FISA but failing to put pressure on their fellow Senators as good enough.
If I wanted good enough I would vote GOP, I want change!
Have they actually trained Bush on how-to-veto? I thought he just attached signing statements, which are mostly ignored by the MSM.
“black helicopter crowd” and “tinfoil hats.” Check.
There it is: “tin-foil hats”!
Thanks, Orrin!
I feel like I’m watching Star Wars, Return of the Sith—the scene where they are all sitting in the Senate and vote essentially to destroy themselves and someone says “This is how democracy falls, with thunderous applause.”
Hatch can bite me.
Bin Ladens are on Bush family speed dials. Anyone interested in that?
Hatch: Those who support Constitutional rights and separation of powers are part of the “black helicopter” lunatic fringe.
Just.
Black helicopter people w/ their tin foil hats…..
along those lines anyway
asshole.
Feingold up, hurrah. Give ‘em hell.
this so sux
trying to keep up with Feingold AND Mukasey at the same time. I KNOW they do these things in sync on purpose.
Aaahh. Oxygen just entered the room. Feingold up and attacking the bullshit right away.
Good point.
If Obama wins, Hatch and his Republic pals will care deeply about Constitutional rights and separation of powers starting on Jan 20, 2009.
Verizon, Bell South, AT&T. Remember those names when you make your investment and purchasing decisions. Just sayin’.
Ya think???! Really??? I can’t even IMAGINE that, in my wildest perfect world fantasies.
i think i just heard rockefeller ask for a UC that a colloquy between he and bond be entered into the record. did anyone catch the topic?
It was on the definition of electronic communication. He also entered a statement from Feinstein supporting the bill. Any hope of her vote going the right way is gone.
If everyone here is not using Credo Mobile (formerly Working Assets), I want to know why!
They’re the only good guys out there.
Feingold is calling the Prez and AGAG on their lies.
Credo user here.
I’ve been meaning to . . . oh, crap, there’s that excuse again.
Today’s the day. Not only does Credo not cave to BushCo, they donate a small percentage of profits (?) or proceeds (?) to progressive activities.
Booyah!
I have a long buyout dealie with Sprint. But it’s my understanding that Credo will pay for at least some of that if I switch, yes?
because i have a $10.95/mo grandfathered contract (that has been through 2 providers as they were bought out and is now on it’s third with att).
sorry.
would that it would make a difference. But too many of the people in the senate are complicit in the crimes and want to cover their own asses.
I love Feingold but he’s whistling in the wind. Democracy? That’s SO 1776.
I dropped AT&T at home and went with VOIP. Now I can FAX DC and don’t have to use only my cell to call them. Tee,hee.
they did for me, but I had already been using their LD service for years so they made the offer. Don’t know if they are still doing it.
Frankly when I switched I was so pissed at Verizon that I would have swallowed the penalty anyway.
Awesome!!
thanks jim. i think it’s bs that rockefeller and bond get to pull that bs to put into the record that their definition of electronic communication is the correct one without even saying it out loud on c-span.
That’s my perspective, too. Instead of donating $$ to spineless candidates, I’ll spend ‘em on getting out of my contract.
Its hard to imagine a more poignant distinction between “reason” and “despotic self-interest” than the one Feingold is drawing now.
So, listening to/watching Feingold. Democrats? This is what integrity looks like. Take notes. Go forth and do likewise.
My understanding is that that is true. I didn’t do that with them, but that’s how I read it. The folks there are really good to deal with, and they don’t have Indian accents……
One month they even gave me my calls to Congress free cause I had understood that I’d have 202 calls uncharged, I’d misunderstood something, and called and asked. They explained it to me, it was like the first 5 calls or something in the deal would be uncharged, but they went ahead and knocked off ALL my 202 calls. There were many, it was during one of the FISA fights.
I like it that some of the money they collect goes to progressive causes. They rock.
Philosophically or physically? Because unless Credo owns their own cables and controls their own traffic, then they are leasing fiber from people like..Verizon, ATT, BellSouth, MCI, TimeWarner, etc. etc. So, if you want to support someone philosophically, then yes..but don’t mistake it - anyone who uses them is just as exposed as anyone else is.
Feingold just said as much.
Obama could mend a lot of fences by choosing him as VEEP or at least AG.
That’s what I was thinking. The audacity of hope??
Wouldn’t that be great???? Feingold is ONE I would trust to really clean up and muck out the VP office and restore it to pre 2000 policies. He’d have fun doing it, and we would all likely learn A LOT!
I’d like to see Whitehouse for AG.
AG.
VP would just be a way to keep feingold from acting.
whitehouse can bite me (see all his votes for immunity).
We need him right where he is.
“Any Democrat who says this is change must not have read it.”
Hey, he’s busy. Give ‘em a break.
It really sucks that they have Mukasey on at the same time as FISA. Didn’t they have Addington on in the House the last time the Senate was discussing FISA ? And didn’t the House have McClellen in a hearing when the FISA vote happened in the House? Do you think they are trying to keep us from watching as they eviscerate the 4th amendment?
Whoa! Groundhog Day in the comments.
These days in DeeCee the crap is flying in and from all directions. It’s hard to either watch or dodge it all at any given time.
Feingold laying down his “I told you so” for when more information comes out about the abuses this bill will enable.
Feingold spoke of the implications of this vote on their constituents 5, 10, 20 years from now. How ’bout tomorrow?
– If I heard Reid correctly though, he was predicting that the votes today would be close –
Reid said he thought the votes would NOT be close, but if they were, he wasn’t going to close off voting as a “gotcha.” His point was to the Senators to be in chamber to vote, so the process would be done before lunch.
I don’t know if anyone was recording Oral Hatch’s appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, but if so, there was an great caller on the Republican line who challenged Hatch on the Constitutional abuses and losses of civil liberties that have occurred under the Bush Administration. He went on to say that he was more afraid of what Bush and the Congress are doing to the Constitution than he was of Bin Laden.
In response, Hatch lied his ass off for a minute or so, but he then made an interesting comment that “we conservatives sometimes overreach” (me paraphrasing).
If anyone did capture this exchange, would you please post it and provide a link to it? It occurred at about 5:33 PT, according to the time window displayed on C-SPAN. Thanks!
Lunch uber alles.
Adieu.
– i think i just heard rockefeller ask for a UC that a colloquy between he and bond be entered into the record. did anyone catch the topic? –
The topic is “the definition of ‘electronic service provider’”
Thanks for the clarification. He’s hard to understand when he mumbles.
Is Obama around? In the Senate today? And what ever happened to “hil”?
Does she still work there?
Obama is presumably in DeeCee today. In the Senate? Who knows.
“I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge… I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
Senator Frank Church
April 26, 1976
Are they trying to enter something into the record that wasn’t part of the debate?
It’s not available where I live (Marshalltown, Iowa). I checked.
DiFi doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, judging by the form letter she sends out on FISA.
She has her official senate mailbox set for outgoing only, too: you can only send mail therough her webform. Talk about not wanting to interact with her constituents!
Maybe Obama heard Feingold and is reading the bill as quickly as he can.
There goes Specter again calling the telephone companies good citizens. Arlen, good citizens to not knowingly break the law.
Mukasey said the CSRTs were set up after Congress passed a bill setting them up in 2006, i.e. the Military Commissions Act. But I don’t think this is true. From wiki:
Mukasey confused military commissions with the CSRTs. They are not the same thing. CSRTs determine whether someone is an enemy combatant. Military commissions are then supposed to try them. What we are talking about here is basically the difference between a pre-kangaroo court process and the kangaroo court itself. In any case, Mukasey blew his answer but Feinstein did not catch him on it.
Feingold just starting to question Mukasey
I’ll bet that Darth is sitting on his easy chair munching popcorn (or perhaps paté) with champagne at the ready upon the final vote.
A proud day for America indeed.
it’s already up in the c-span archives. here’s the link (the bit you want i think starts at 24:20)
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/.....owVid=true
I thought she was going to straighten up since her constituents moved to censure her last year. Did she FORGET that already??? That censure should have gone through to completion.
Snarlin’ “though I’m prepared to stomach this bill if I must . . . . “
So predictable.
Are Obama and Hillary even there today? I have some things to do, and I’m about as disgusted as I can be without causing myself physical damage through high blood pressure, etc. I’ll be back in after the vote, so that I can change my voters registration as I’ve said I would do as soon as this vote goes thru. I’m very serious about washing my hands of Dems from now on. Especially after hearing that now Nancy wants to protect Rove. I don’t know how, but I do know there’s something very corrupt about the way Dems have been operating. Just for the record, though, since Feingold and Obama have had serious antagonisms between them for a long time, I don’t believe there is a snowball’s chance in hell that Feingold would take VP from Obama even if he offered it, which he wouldn’t. I would, however, like to see Dodd as the VP. He has all the chops, maturity, foreign policy, economy. I sure hope his problems due to his mortgage from Countrywide would not preclude the offer of the position, if Obama finally did something right lately and considered him.
I also love the way Specter says he’s fighting hard.
(If you have to tell us that you’re fighting, then you’re either not fighting or you’re doing a lousy job of it.)
specter is tying himself in knots trying to justify voting for h.r.6304 even if none of the amendments are passed.
Just a thought before I leave for the office- How does Mary Jo White feel about her high praise/recommendation of Mukasey now that she’s had a chance to see & hear him in action as AG?
Thanx tremendously for the omnibus liveblogging, ew.
Read you all later.
My G*d. We’re asking whether Obama and Clinton are even there. We ought to be asking when they will be speaking.
Classic Specter.
responseinsult to constituents:Diane Feinstein is a fucking liar
It’s what snarlin is all about.
yup. although it did seem he was having more trouble than usual keeping to his character’s script.
Senate oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; …”
They swear an oath to protect the Constitution against domestic enemies.
Too bad the FISA folders don’t see that the domestic enemy is the person staring back from those fancy Senate bathroom mirrors.
Feingold is asking about the new regulations for triggering investigations of individuals — “profiling” — as the FBI shifts from strict criminal investigation to looking for “actionable intelligence.” Feingold is being much more reasonable on this subject than I would be.
So if Cheney is Darth, does that make Obama Luke? Search your feelings, Luke, you know it’s true. I’m your father. That’s why you’ll vote for the FISA bill.