Senate backs retroactive immunity for telecoms

February 12, 2008

It seemed like a modest hurdle. The FISA bill currently under consideration in the Senate includes a ridiculous measure that extends retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that apparently broke the law in turning over information about Americans’ communications to the Bush administration. An amendment would have stripped this provision from the legislation. All we needed was a simple majority of the chamber.

We didn’t even come close.

Let there be no doubt: a majority of senators, and a large number of Democrats, think the telecoms should not suffer the hazard of accountability for cooperating with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) took to the floor last night to give a speech asking, “This is our defining question, the question that confronts every generation: The rule of law, or the rule of men?” The resounding answer: the rule of men.

The Senate voted on the Dodd/Feingold amendment, which would have stripped retroactive immunity from the surveillance bill just now. The final tally was 31-67; crossing over to vote nay were Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) were present for the vote – voting nay and yea, respectively.

Hillary Clinton and Lindsey Graham did not vote.

It’s hard to overstate how disappointing this is.

For the 18 Dems who went along with this nonsense, I’d love to hear an explanation. For the Republicans, not even one GOP senator was willing to take a stand for the rule of law. Not one.

Chris Dodd can’t be faulted for failing to make the case.

And what arguments were presented by the other side? Not much — a few lies about the cooperation coming in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and a basic understanding that Republicans had to go along with the wishes of Mr. 28% at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Just to add insult to injury, senators also rejected a weak compromise amendment.

This one was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ben Cardin (D-MD). It went down 41-57.

The amendment was another attempt at compromise over retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Under the amendment, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would have reviewed the telecoms’ participation in the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program to determine whether that participation “complied with the legal requirements of FISA or was legal or undertaken in good faith with an objectively reasonable belief that such assistance was lawful.” If the court found that the companies should have known that what they were participating in was illegal, the pending lawsuits against the telecoms would have been allowed to continue.

Once again, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), unwilling to compromise, voted nay along with a number of senators who’d also voted down the attempt to strip retroactive immunity from the bill, Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) among them.

Kagro helped explain how basic this amendment really was.

In rejecting the Feinstein “exclusivity” amendment to the FISA revision considered on the Senate floor today — an amendment that failed by a vote of 57 Ayes to 41 Noes, thanks to another “painless filibuster” of precisely the type we were promised would not be tolerated on this bill — the Senate has voted to say that although they were passing a law governing surveillance, it was OK if the President decided that he really didn’t like the law very much and wished to make up his own instead.

Exclusivity — the purpose of the amendment that “failed” — meant simply this: that the law they were passing was the law, and it was the governing authority for how surveillance could be conducted in America.

The Senate just rejected it, so that means that they’re passing a law, but if a president decides later on that he thinks there’s really some other controlling authority besides the law, that’s OK.

The mind reels.

Damn you Debbie Stabenow! You’ll pay for this [fist shaking at imagined effigy of my “esteemed” Senator].

Well, now i’ll just sit back and watch the Obama/Clinton supporter volleyball match over this one…

  • Just when we’re all in the heat of debating whether Hillary or Obama is more electable, or would make a better president, something like this comes along to remind us that the Democratic party is 80% as craven and corrupt as the Republicans. Ugh. We sure like to pretend that we’re somehow better, so maybe it’s good for us to get smacked around by reality a bit.

  • Fuck you, Tom Carper. He’s my senator (Delaware) and I’ve always been a big fan of his. I’m going to love hearing him try to explain this.

    Thank you Dodd for your tireless efforts.

    And thank you Obama for at least doing your part, although you coulda mentioned it more in your speeches!

  • Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

    Well … looks like I’ll be working to get her Democratic challenger elected next time around.

    Disgusting.

  • It is really time for Dianne Feinstein to retire so we can get someone in her seat who has a conscience. I am so tired of these people selling us out. And where was Hillary? A very convenient day to be absent.

  • How many billions has the telecom industry passed around in Washington in the past 20 years?

    One can also see the future of “net neutrality” in this vote.

    If ever there was an argument for public financing of political campaigns, here it is. This is what corporate contributions buy.

  • I’m on the no more Feinstein bandwagon as of today. Fuck you very much, Diane. You rep one of the most liberal parts of the country in a safe seat and you cave on this shit. Fuck you.

    And if I didn’t have enough reasons to vote for Obama, now I have one more extra.

  • Hope Hillary gives up on the ‘Obama voted ‘present” meme. On this very important bill she didn’t vote at all.

  • “Once again, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), unwilling to compromise”

    What beautiful words to describe someone defending this nation’s Constitution. More people like Sen. Dodd, please.

    And Sen. Salazar, I will work to replace you. Mark my words.

  • Feinstein didn’t cave. She is Village through and through. Check Greenwald’s posts about her and her family’s defense industry connections. Look at her going out of her way to make excuses for Leslie Southwick. This is who she is.

  • Well, this should end up being an interesting case for the Supreme Court, ultimately, to decide.

  • A huge disappointment, but not a surprise. One can’t help watch the continual capitulation of the congressional Dems to the GOP and not lose heart in the nomination race. If either Obama or Clinton would stand up against this kind of politics ( meaning not just vote the right way but campaign on this stuff) it would be refreshing. The full pushback against the GOP and its enablers was what the Edwards campaign offered that Clinton and Obama do not. Of course, Edwards didn’t win enough votes to make the nomination race come around to his issues.

    In hindsight the FISA fight to unify Democrats in support of the Constitution, always an uphill struggle, was lost in Iowa. Iowa caucusers could have done something to promote Dodd’s point of view by giving him more than 0.2% of the vote. The frontrunners likely look at Dodd’s dismal showing and Edwards shortfalls and think there’s no price to be paid. One can always hope that they will be proven wrong in the future.

  • 60 vote minimum again, eh Harry?
    Thanks for nothing.

    Damn. This is terrible news.

    The House bill does NOT contain immunity, correct? Is there any chance of immunity NOT becoming law when the two chambers work it all out?

    Probably not…

  • Wow.. this sucks, I mean really really sucks. This should of been an easy one, I mean really really easy. Crap, the knife in the back went in really deep this time. I mean really really deep.

  • This seems to be out of fear. If’ we’re going to give immunity, can’t we at least make the lick our soles for it? I hope Reid at least has the sense to let them know that in a year where we are very likely going to expand our power and leverage, we have an electorate salivating for their blood, and that they better think twice about playing favorites as they did since 1992, fire the low-rated Glenn Beck and start putting on some people who the public will actually watch who aren’t Republican shills, or we’re going to start breaking up some media monopolies, too. If Clear Channel is this partisan, obviously we’ve allowed too much ownership in many markets and need a little competition. Treat us with something approaching fairness, or we’re going to bring the fairness doctrine back. Don’t even think about Net Neutrality. From now on, the only songs AT&T is going to censor are going to be pro-GOP.

    We’re terrified of them. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

  • “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Hmmmm……..nope, I can’t see any constitutional violations committed by the telecoms. You bunch of liberal loonies.

    LOL. Seriously, this is terrible news. We ALL need to write to our senators and complain about this. FLOOD their mailboxes with rightious outrage about this.

  • What a pathetic disgrace. I devoutly hope real democracies will not follow your example; or, more correctly, that their populations will not permit it. America has sidled up to dictatorship until it is cheek by jowl with the third world in that category. You may as well just disband the Senate and Congress, because the notion that the President is in any way constrained by either body in his decisions as to what constitutes law is manifestly laughable. Stop wasting money on “legislative bodies” when all the true legislating is done from the throne. While you’re at it, you might as well get rid of your judicial and law enforcement branches as well. I know, give all the money you save to the rich!!!!!!!!

    The law is whatever the president says it is. The very last person who should ever have been granted absolute power in America has it. God help you, because it is plainly evident that he can still do more damage in the time he has left than you could imagine possible.

  • from TPM:

    “…I also like the idea of retroactive immunity paired with the unitary citizen. I could decide not to follow a stupid law and then forgive myself afterwards….”

  • This vote clearly points out what is wrong with the Democratic Party. These kinds of votes allow people like Ralph Nader to credibly point to the fact there is very little difference with the parties when it comes to Corporate Power. Notice the list of Democrats who voted nay on this amendment, with the exception of Debbie Stabenow, the rest are essentially DLC style Democrats. Also keep in mind, many of these people support Barack Obama. Something to think about for the election. Now, to his credit he did support this amendment.

    What is the argument made by these turncoat Democrats to support immunity for telecom companies. I wish we could place a telecom donation list by each Democrat, so that we could get a fuller idea of why they voted this way. I’d bet the persons who voted nay have a healthy donation from the telecom’s. If this were the case, it would put Hillary Clinton’s credibility to the test when she says her donors do not affect her votes or policies. We all know this is bullshit.

    Now you understand why John Edwards could not take hold on the campaign trail among the establishment Democrats. He truly wants to do something about Corporate corruption. Not just to make available the amounts donated to campaigns, but to actually limit the enormous, corrupting influence they have on our political system.

    Well for those persons who actually think anything is going to change if Obama is elected President, you clearly don’t understand how Washington works. Chris Dodd is fighting with the Constitution as the basis of his argument, and he lost. These Republican and Democrats seemingly care so little about our rights under the Constitution. What hope is there for America when the Constitution no longer matters.

  • Since BushCo had free access to all the traffic it could hoover up, I’d say the odds are high that there’s a few Dems worried about their personal emails and conversations being used against them. And now that the telecoms have tasted retroactive immunity, who’s next? I’ll bet there’s plenty of criminals in high places looking at this and saying “Hmm… tell me again why we shouldn’t be breaking the law…?”

    Stalin would have loved to have a congress like we have.

  • This is a surprising rogues gallery. Many are Senators I thought would be better than this. Jim Webb is especially disappointing.

    As an American I feel embarrassed and disgraced to think that an organization like al Qaida, a few hundred strong, could use the psychology of terrorism to derail our entire justice system. We now seem to have an administration and justice department that are corrupted from the top down and have collapsed into a heap of hair splitting, word parsing, paranoia and utter hypocrisy. The idea that we need “legal opinions” to circumvent not only the Constitution, but international law and possibly morality itself, is absurd.

    Perhaps Mr. Mainstream, JRS jr, could enlighten us as to how an American could be proud of this disgrace. Hopefully he will one day be on trial, defending against secret evidence, redacted legal opinions, paid witnesses, and a US Kangaroo Kourt.

  • I can accept that Clinton was out of town campaigning during a vote that wasn’t close. But has she broadcasted definitively how she would have voted on Dodd/Feingold had she been in town.

    On the day of Kyl-Leiberman, Obama was out of town, but he put out a release that day stating he was against that amdendment. We know exactly where he stood.

    What about Senator Clinton? Where did she stand on this bill? Has she told us?

  • I just sent my senator (Feinstein) the following letter. I suggest to any of you whose senator voted for this bill write a similar message.

    Dear Senator,

    I am deeply disappointed in your decision to vote for the FISA bill which includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies who violated our Constitutional rights by allowing the government to data mine communications and tap phone lines without warrants.

    This is a terrible decision on your part.

    The constitution clearly says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    If the government had “probable cause” then it should have obtained warrants…period. It didn’t bother and violated the rights of every citizen in the nation.

    That you would vote for a bill that includes immunity for these acts clearly demonstrates to me that you do not have my most basic rights at heart. I have voted for you for years. That is over.

    The Constitution is the most fundamental law of our nation and is dearly cherished by millions of your constituents.

    This vote crossed a line. I do not expect my elected representative to agree with me on everything, but I do expect them to abide by the Constitution. In this, you failed.

    Sincerely,

  • “Where did [Senator Clinton] stand on [Dodd/Feingold]? Has she told us?”

    Joe is right. If Hillary Clinton put out an official press release or a statement to inform us what her position on this amendment is, then that should be good enough for those of us who are deciding between Obama and Clinton.

    On the other hand, if she’s remaining silent, then one can reasonably interpret her silence as an act of cowardice.

    If anybody knows…please pass it on.

  • “Hopefully he will one day be on trial, defending against secret evidence, redacted legal opinions, paid witnesses, and a US Kangaroo Kourt.”

    To date, are there any examples of this power being abused and not used for its intent to protect the average US Citizen?

  • “To date, are there any examples of this power being abused and not used for its intent to protect the average US Citizen?”

    To date, I haven’t had to use my insurance to pay for my house burning down. But that doesn’t mean I don’t need it.

    That’s what the Constitution is, insurance for the American people. It’s that document which “protects the average US citizen”, not the promise from a politician that extra-legal powers will be used only for good.

  • This confirms my theory that they (the admin, that is) have something on everyone; everyone but Feingold. I used to say Webb and Feingold, but they obviously got something on Jimmy boy.

    Watergate was childs play compared to this. Do you really think we are the ONLY Americans who are being listened in on?

    Thanks for the sellout, Webb. And the point of all your previous efforts was…what exactly?

    I can only imagine the threat he received. Is his son still in Iraq?

    ARGH!

  • JRS,

    Why is wrong to expect that the president and American companies should follow clearly established laws? Why don’t any Republican senators give a crap about the rule of law? Wasn’t the rule of law one of the strongest and proudest conservative principles not that long ago?

  • JRS – J. Edgar Hoover & Nixon come to mind as examples of what will happen. There have been cases in nevada that have prosecuted ordinary crimes using information supposedly intended for “National Security only.”

    Keep kidding yourself.

    Power corrupts.

  • Wasn’t the rule of law one of the strongest and proudest conservative principles not that long ago?

    Conservative principle, maybe. Neocon principle? No way! You’re dealing with a whole new animal. God how I pray for extinction!

  • One corporation, under God, with coercion and campaign contributions for all.

    Today, we get rid of Al Wynn (MD-04). I hope you’re next, Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).

  • JRS said, “The outcome (only 31 votes) shows just how far out on the fringe you folks were on this one.”

    By that, you must be saying that supporting the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment is far out on the fringe:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  • Barack Obama has been absent exactly 36 more times than Hillary since 1/1/2007, and only voted today because he was in town already for the “Potamic primaries”..

    I’m not letting HRC off the hook, but seeing how many Dem’s went along with this, Hillary’s vote wouldn’t have done much good.. still I’d like to hear her explanation anyhow.

  • “If Hillary Clinton put out an official press release or a statement to inform us what her position on this amendment is, then that should be good enough for those of us who are deciding between Obama and Clinton.

    On the other hand, if she’s remaining silent, then one can reasonably interpret her silence as an act of cowardice.

    If anybody knows…please pass it on.”

    Here’s my bet: she probably said she was against immunity in front of progressive audiences, but will state that she had objections to the non-immunity bill(s) in the general election, and would have voted against those bills for various reasons.

    In short, she avoided the vote so that she could play both sides.

    Any takers?

  • Since this failed, can we at least salvage it a bit by limiting the retroactive immunity to only after 9-11?

  • Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

    I still blame Harry Reid for not being able to engineer things better. He’s got a majority, if a narrow one. The man’s either ignorant or a coward or both. The corporations rule through the GOP minority and the Democratic traitors and quislings.

  • Hey, JRS – how would anyone know what examples of violation of what ordinances, laws and regulations have taken place when the most secretive administration in U.S. history classifies even routine communications out of most people’s reach? I think it is significant enough that the president regularly reconfirms his right to interpret the law as he sees fit, him being a lifelong constitutional scholar and all. There’d be no need to telegraph your intent to break the law, or to bestow retroactive immunity for lawbreaking if no laws were broken, would there?

  • “To date, are there any examples of this power being abused and not used for its intent to protect the average US Citizen?” – JRS jr

    Well, let’s see, there would be the video tapes of waterboarding…but, alas, the evidence has been destroyed. Then again, what is this “power” you speak of, and is it in some way different than the “power” any criminal uses in breaking the law? In the case of Bush, he claims to have “legal opinions” that allow him to break laws, but these opinions are secret, made in secret, and remain classified.

    Please, JRS jr, elaborate on exactly how this makes you proud. I want to hear how this figures in to the idea that America is in some way different than any other fascist regime.

  • Harry Reid set this up all the way making it impossible for the vote to go any other way. These are the lobbyists running the show. The donations from the telecoms to the senate have been lavish. Bush bribed the telecoms and the telecoms bribed the senate. Tthis had nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists. The FISA act was put there to begin with to protect us from the telecoms and now with the Protect America Act it will now no longer be illegal for them to collect any data they want with no accountability or oversight.

    Senator McCaskill from Missouri ran on the progressive agenda yet she has supported and voted lockstep with the Republicans on all the main issues and against the wishes of her constituents. She has become the new Diane Feinstein, a huge member of the ‘money party’. We in Mo. must work to find her replacement because she has lied to get elected. She has thrown her full support behind Obama which makes me question her commitments. She is such a disappointment…too afraid to go against the money party.
    Is this what Obama will come to be…a go along…a huge disappointment. Same with Clinton…Is there anybody left in this party with a spine.

    “Yes, telecoms violated multiple federal laws by enabling government spying on Americans and turning over communications data without warrants. They broke these laws not only in the aftermath of 9/11, but for years and years. By breaking these laws, they reaped enormous financial profits, as the Government paid them huge fees for their cooperation in the illegal spying program. Despite their having broken multiple federal laws and having committed felonies — while reaping great profits in the process — they ought to be granted retroactive amnesty and immunized from any consequences for their lawbreaking, otherwise they may be reluctant to break our laws in the future…” From GG at Salon. 2/11/08
    Feingold added:
    The abuses that took place [prior to FISA] are well documented and quite shocking. With the willing cooperation of the telephone companies, the FBI conducted surveillance of peaceful anti-war protesters, journalists, steel company executives, and even Martin Luther King Jr., an American hero whose life we recently celebrated.
    Congress decided to take action. Based on the history of, and potential for, government abuses, Congress decided that it was not appropriate for telephone companies to simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was legal. Let me repeat that: a primary purpose of FISA was to make clear, once and for all, that the telephone companies should not blindly cooperate with government requests for assistance.
    As Feingold explained, FISA was written with the cooperation of AT&T to ensure they had the clarity they needed — if they received written certification of legality from the AG, then they were required to cooperate with surveillance requests, but if they did not receive such certification, then the requests were by definition illegal and they were prohibited from doing so. The law already provides all the protections telecoms need and wanted for legal surveillance on Americans. This was the law they deliberately broke when they allowed the Bush administration to spy on Americans without warrants.”

    OBSERVE: Invoke an external & internal threat; Establish secret prisons; Develop a paramilitary voice; Surveil ordinary citizens and infiltrate citizens groups; Arbitrarily detain and release citizens (renditions); Restrict the press or infiltrate and control it; Cast criticesm as espionage and dissent as treason; Subvert the rule of law (control the AG; one law for the wealthy and one for the rest of us)…from Naomi Wolf’s “the End of America”. While congress slept, Pelosi and Reid ignored their duties and their oath to defend the constitution. Next up…Nuclear world war. Sure glad the dems got control of
    the congress aren’t you?

  • ***comment 30 JRS jr*** there are over 40 cases now in appeals courts (appealed by the defendants…the telecoms…as judges have already decide in the plaintiff’s favor) which will be subverted and thrown out because of this senate bill. Yes yes indeed the spying was not used for the purposes intended. The senate has interfered with the court’s decisions. They have subverted the rule of law, Justice was bought and paid for by the telecoms. Google the black box which is what is used to gather all information from banks, merchants, individuals etc, gathering info from anyone they chose…with no oversight…none…and definitely no accountability.

  • I called senator Herb Kohl’s (D-WI) office two weeks and ago to ask where he stood on retroactive immunity. The guy who answered the phone said the senator would not support retroactive immunity. What a LYING SACK! Where is my senator’s respect for the constitution and our country’s laws? I plan to call him back and find out. You should call your senator and share your support or disagreement. callcongress.org

  • “The outcome (only 31 votes) shows just how far out on the fringe you folks were on this one.” — JRS

    So it’s “fringe” now to support what the Constitution plainly states? Cowards, the fucking lot of you. Goddamn little bunnies trembling at the mere thought of some beturbaned troglodyte.

    Kudos to Sen. Dodd for pushing this as long as he could. Pity it came down to this.

  • Hey Madprogressive – here you go:

    Democrats who voted in favor of telecom immunity that are among the top 20 recipients of Telecom money (according to Open Secrets Telecom Contribution Trends):

    Hillary Clinton (D-NY) – $329,230
    Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) – $44,100
    Mary Landrieu (D-LA) – $24,793
    Mark Pryor (D-AR) – $46,800
    Ken Salazar (D-CO) – $19,000

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=B09&cycle=2008
    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B09&cycle=2008

  • I should point this out, too:

    #2 Obama, Barack (D) Pres $172,065

    But then, he voted against immunity.

  • To pick up on a theme being mentioned in this thread:
    THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. I REPEAT: THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON.

    We have allowed ourselves to become a nation of cowards, we have allowed our civil liberties to be systematically dismantled, we have bankrupted our treasury in a long drawn out war of choice.

    Could Osama ever have imagined such success?

    19 hijackers managed to do to our society what the USSR, with armies and nukes, couldn’t do in 50 years?

  • Too bad more Dems could not see Dodd for who he is “a man of integrity.”

    Harkin and Grassley shall each receive a copy of the Constitution.

  • Who is going to run against Feinstein?

    I still can’t believe she, who represents the BAY AREA which is EVEN MORE LIBERAL than SoCal, capitulated to this.

    WTF?

  • I guess the voting for immunity shows the Democratic Senators are responsive to big corporations wants and needs and not to wants and needs of the the American people.

  • This relates to why I don’t want to reward Hillary with my vote in November. If we do not hold politicians accountable for their votes, why do we expect change? I want to hold her accountable for her authorization to use force in Iraq. Now a lot of people want to hold their Senators accountable for this awful vote.

    And hell must have thawed because we’re back to disagreeing JRS Jr. The majority of Senators never supersedes the rule of law and the Constitution. They don’t get to pick and choose who the law applies to. This one will go to the Supreme Court, and I don’t even think this current crop of clown justices will give this one a pass. Sorry, but this one’s coming back. Repeat first down.

  • To date, are there any examples of this power being abused and not used for its intent to protect the average US Citizen?

    Is there any examples of it NOT being abused and used for something other than its intent?

    The point isn’t that someone has abused it — we’ll probably never know one way or the other. The point here is quite clear: One is either for the rule of law, or against it.

    Period.

    Besides, are you okay with, say, President Hillary having this sort of unchecked power?

  • “Besides, are you okay with, say, President Hillary having this sort of unchecked power?”

    Yes, definately.

  • Can Dodd still attempt to filibuster the overall bill?

    Also, how crazy is it that Dodd is citing Glenn Greenwald as his support?

  • Feinstein, do you understand compromise? It means when your compromise fails, you need to take the extreme stand.

    Argh. Sometimes I hate her so.

  • JRS, Jr. how do you propose we get evidence if this power has been used improperly? From the WH emails that have been deleted? From the lawsuits that have been dismissed because of WH “national secrets” defenses? From the people who may have been disappeared over “evidence” that came out of the wiretaps?

    You know, the Consitution has been shredded and you buy the argument that it’s OK because we can trust this Administration and no one can prove that they intended to do anyone harm…

    Maybe we should just let bank robbers go free because they didn’t really intend any harm, they just wanted to feed their families. Really now!

    You sir, are not a centrist.

  • Guy @ 56: Who is going to run against Feinstein? I still can’t believe she, who represents the BAY AREA which is EVEN MORE LIBERAL than SoCal, capitulated to this.

    Guy, she’s a senator, she represents the whole state. BADLY! As for who’s going to run against her, she’s going to be 80 by the time her term is up, so I would imagine even she would retire by then. If not, I’LL run against her! I cannot stand that tool! What an outrage that California has been represented by someone of her level of selling out and corruption for so many years. She pisses me off so much I could spit, from this to flag burning to bankruptcy bill and almost any other sellout you can think of. She’s the California version of Lieberman.

    And I’m so proud of myself for writing all that about her without once using the word bitch! It was hard, though…

  • Barack Obama has been absent exactly 36 more times than Hillary since 1/1/2007, and only voted today because he was in town already for the “Potamic primaries”..

    Greg @ 40 – Could you please post a link for that? The list I have shows only ten missed votes more than Hillary in 2007, and that six of those were symbolic votes and not real bills. For example, when Hillary helped Cheney get his war with Iran by labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I suppose I would have preferred that Obama vote on these, but they were only symbolic and a non-vote is still better than Hillary’s was. And let’s not forget that she apparently “missed” the Bankruptcy Reform bill that Obama voted against in 2005. Perhaps she was campaigning then too.

    But again, maybe the list I’m looking at is wrong, as I’ve already learned one of the votes they show for Hillary was incorrect. So I’d like to see a better list if possible. Thanks.

  • I’m so disgusted with what is happening with the Democratic Party that I sent a letter to the DNC expressing my disapointment. I also sent a $25.00 donation to Shirley Golub. She is challenging Nancy Pelosi for her congressional seat.
    Futile on my part? Probably, but I had to do something.

  • I was not surprised by Dianne Feinstein’s support for retroactive immunity for the Telecoms.She has totally gone to the dark side.

    But I am struck nearly worldless by the huge number of other Senate Dems who voted against the rule of law to protect the Telecoms from prosecution. Who are these people and why are they still in office? And Senator Reid must be the most ineffective Senate Majority Leader in history unless he is also working for the GOP.

    • Comments are closed.