hey!

Jane!

No immunity.

Jane!

Oh, hell…I’ll use the words “full of shit.”

Cause that’s a stinker, all right.

EPU’ed from the last thread, I thought it was worth bringing forward:

OT, but not really, since it’s all interrelated:

A TALE OF INTRIGUE AND POLITICAL INCEST IN THE HIGHEST ORDERS AND PLACES. Mooncat does some excellent coverage of the Attorney scandal.

Also, I <3 Judge Walker…

Not just the optics, but the actuals.

The thing doesn’t only look wrong, it is wrong.

As if Jay Rockefeller needed money, anyhow!

I’d love to see that graph for DiFi, too – probably not as dramatic – she’s been in the bag for Telcos all along…

Judas Jay Rockefellor sold us out. What’s surprising isn’t his whoring, but how cheaply he’ll turn his tricks.

Mods please let me out. This is a good post.

”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied.”

What, I’m supposed to believe the telecoms don’t pay lawyers of their own to know what is legal and what isn’t? Fuck that shit.

Rockerfeller another HO an ABJECT FAILURE.

no immunity Never!

If the telecom immunity thing is successful, have you asked yourself… what’s next?

As we all know, telecoms can’t afford very good lawyers so they wouldn’t have anyone internally who could give them a legal opinion as to the nature of what the Bush government wanted.

Oh wait, that’s not true. Qwest knew better:

In a written statement, the attorney for former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio said the government approached the company in the fall of 2001 seeking access to the phone records of Qwest customers, with neither a warrant nor approval from a special court established to handle surveillance matters.

“Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act,” attorney Herbert Stern said from his Newark, N.J., office.

Thanks :)

What exactly is behind the telecom immunity business?

EvilDrPuma @ 12

”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied.”

What, I’m supposed to believe the telecoms don’t pay lawyers of their own to know what is legal and what isn’t? Fuck that shit.

Yeah, Qwest’s lawyers didn’t have that problem. Were thay just that much better than other telecom lawyers?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 18

What exactly is behind the telecom immunity business?

The mistaken belief that corporate collaboration with an illegal request by a fascist government is forgivable.

Jello Jay (H/T Marcy) goes to Washington:

Years ago when Jello Jay was but a tiny tot, his Mater discovered that Jello Jay had all the intelligence of a pet rock.

Knowing that someday he would eventually grow up, she bit her fingernails to the quick trying to divine some occupation for Jello Jay where little was expected of him and much more importantly, where he couldn’t dissipate the Rockefeller family fortune, which Jello Jay, with his lack of intellect, showed every propensity for doing.

After many sleepless nights (caused more by her liking of double martinis than Jello Jay’s problem), Mater Rockefeller stumbled on the solution.

“Ah-ha!” said she. “Let’s have Jello Jay be a politician.” And so she called in the family’s tony, white-shoed Wall Street legal beagles and instructed them to find Jello Jay a political position that was:

- Suitable for the family’s name and status.
- A position where he could do little harm to the family fortune.
- From a geographical location where little was expected, and less was delivered.
- And somewhere relatively cheap since Mater was kind of cheap herself.

After much to-ing and fro-ing, the tony, white-shoed Wall Street legal beagles came up with a solution. Jello Jay could for a minor insignificant financial investment, become a “Senator” from the hills of West Virginy. And once the West Virginy pols were paid their tribute of $25 and a half-gallon jug of Ol’ Grandpappy, Jello Jay would become Senator Jello Jay of West Virginy.

After the money changed hands and a few gratuitous snorts of Ol’ Grandpappy, Mater Rockefeller delivered Jello Jay to the train station for his departure to Washington, gave him a cuff on the ear, two dimes and a nickel, an old penny whistle and this advice: “Whatever you do Jello Jay, don’t evah be playin’ poker with anyone. You ain’t got the sense the Lord gave a donkey. And keep your pecker in your pants too, ’cause I ain’t leaving the family fortune to any descendants of yours, hell no!”

Jello Jay, happy to be let off the estate for the first time in his life, joyfully boarded the train to DC, and proceeded to lose the 25 cents, the penny whistle, his socks, and his virginity in a poker game with the train conductor and two room-service maids.

Upon his arrival in DC, Jello Jay was whisked into the Senate Majority Leader’s office. The Mater’s tony, white-shoed Wall Street legal beagles had called ahead to warn the Senate Majority Leader of both Jello Jay’s imminent arrival and his “skills”.

The Senate Majority Leader was sorely vexed by having Jello Jay put in his care, but with another minor insignificant financial investment of $25 and a half-gallon jug of Ol’ Grandpappy, he resigned himself to “helping” assign the new Senator of West Virginy to a post befitting his “skills”.

The Senate Majority Leader was reluctant to let Jello Jay anywhere near “Other People’s Money” having been forewarned of Mater Rockefeller’s similar reluctance to her own fortune. “Where can I best stick…ahmmm…place this boy to ensure no one else is harmed?” he said to himself.

And the one and only brilliant thought he ever had came suddenly to the Senate Majority Leader. “Ah know, ah’ll jest place Jello Jay in as the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.”

The reason why this was such a brilliant idea, was the very fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee was an oxymoron.

No committee of the Senate was more kept in the dark than was the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee was always told lies by the Administration and its pet Intelligence agencies because that’s what spys do for a living.

And additionally, none of the “Other People’s Money” could ever be spent, because the Senate Intelligence Committee budget was itself necessarily a secret. A secret kept from the Senate Intelligence Committee in order to protect it from knowing anything that might be secret.

To be continued…

They were spying on Americans PRIOR TO 9-11. What they’re trying to hide is Bush’s early intent to take out Saddam and Iran BEFORE most of us knew who OBL was.

Christy (or other lawyer),

Please explain how the serious/adult/politicians can be arguing over a retroactive immunity law. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” link: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

I mean, is it just a given that since this is related to the GWOT, we can ignore the Constitution? Seriously, why isn’t anyone (Fiengold, someone) bringing this up?

Does it do any good to write a committee member to complain about their colleague, the committee chair?

Didn’t someone once say something along the lines of: “Give me liberty or give me death”. Spying on Americans without a court order is the opposite of “liberty”. Isn’t it?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 18

What exactly is behind the telecom immunity business?

I’ve read there’s a sense that the eavesdropping cooperation might have been decided at Board of Directors meetings, which puts some very well-connected people at risk. Not just managers-for-hire, but outside Directors as well, under some readings of Sarbanes-Oxley, the new corporate governance regulations.

The bottom line about all of this is that the Administration went to Telcos and asked them to spy on American citizens without a warrant…it was 6 months prior to 9/11. Some of the Telcos went along with it and some did not. The ones that did , complied with an Administration that was committing a violation of the Contitution and the FISA law.

All those complicit in these activities need to be held accountable. Rockefeller knew and said nothing even though he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect us from enemies within.

An Administration that spies on its own citizens (who are their bosses) is acting as an enemy of the people.

EPU’d from the last thread. The following is a quote that someone pulled from Edwards regarding FISA, and my response.

aye @ 108

“Congress is considering new wiretapping laws that go well beyond the authority the president needs to keep our country safe by allowing wiretapping of Americans’ phone calls and emails without court supervision. Once again, George Bush is intimidating his critics with political threats.

“It’s time for Congress to show some backbone and stand up for the principles that have always made America strong. To defeat terrorism, we must preserve our moral authority to lead the world. If we are to succeed in spreading democracy abroad, we must defend the fundamental principles of democracy at home.”

There isn’t anything in this statement about retroactive immunity for telecoms, which is the main issue on the table at this point.

And I’m not just asking Edwards to make a statement, I’m asking him to at least send an email getting his supporters involved in this cause. Same goes for the other candidates, but I’m singling out Edwards because I expect more of him on progressive issues.

TeddySanFran @ 25

Oklahoma kiddo @ 18

What exactly is behind the telecom immunity business?

I’ve read there’s a sense that the eavesdropping cooperation might have been decided at Board of Directors meetings, which puts some very well-connected people at risk. Not just managers-for-hire, but outside Directors as well, under some readings of Sarbanes-Oxley, the new corporate governance regulations.

Ahhh…

Teddy (or anyone) – found a link/s that lists the names of the Board of Directors of various? That might make for very interesting reading.

Habitat-Vic @ 23

Christy (or other lawyer),

Please explain how the serious/adult/politicians can be arguing over a retroactive immunity law. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” link: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

I mean, is it just a given that since this is related to the GWOT, we can ignore the Constitution? Seriously, why isn’t anyone (Fiengold, someone) bringing this up?

This is commonly thought to prohibit making past legal acts illegal. It’s unclear whether making past illegal acts legal is covered.

Jay, but I have to say — the optics are just not good on this.

the upticks are not good, either.

Richardson pushes the question: where’s the National Guard when SoCal needs them?

I still think he sold out for chump change. $25K for a Rockefeller? A good hooker could do better.

the crusty ol’ NewDeal farmers in the neighborhood where i grew up woulda had this to say about the relationship of Rockefeller to telecoms, “he’s following them so close you can see the toilet paper hanging out of his mouth.”

no no no. you don’t understand. it’s just a happy coinkydink that senator jay is also sitting on the COMMERCE committee and that’s really the reason for the sudden spike in telecom green making its way into rock’s coffers. it has NOTHING to do with covering their asses for the criminality on behalf of the bushies.

TeddySanFran,

Thanks for clarifying that. Sadly, that makes sense.

These last few days (weeks? months?) of Congressional capitulation have left me grasping at straws.

When John Dean came to visit.

I asked

What do you think about the possibility of “retroactive immunity” for these companies?

We have yet to witness Senator Rockerfeller (now that Republican Senator Pat Roberts is out of the way) hold anyone accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. I don’t believe that Phase II of the Senate Selection Committee on Intelligence was ever completed?

Americans and others around the world are hungry to witness the US congress hold people and companies ACCOUNTABLE for their “alleged” crimes.

Why would Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Senator Jay Rockerfeller and other congress members roll over to these companies?

J. Dean says:
October 14th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

No. 29 – QUESTION: What do you think about the possibility of “retroactive immunity” for these companies?

ANSWER: Sen. Rockefeller is not the flip-side of the Pat Roberts coin, and at times seems intimidated by his GOP colleagues. Retroactive immunity when it is not even known what these companies did nor why is absurd.

Hm, now I’m wondering if Rockefeller’s utterly impotent protests about Cheney’s secrecy and warmongering and intel-manipulation were *also* influenced by his taking up residence in, as was said in the previous post about another “Democratic” senator, the tank.

Just a thought.

So then, is it a false sense of patriotism that gave way to warrantless phone taps, etc.? If so, is this a facsimile to a precusor to pre WW II conditions?

TeddySanFran @ 30

Habitat-Vic @ 23

Christy (or other lawyer),

Please explain how the serious/adult/politicians can be arguing over a retroactive immunity law. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” link: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

I mean, is it just a given that since this is related to the GWOT, we can ignore the Constitution? Seriously, why isn’t anyone (Fiengold, someone) bringing this up?

This is commonly thought to prohibit making past legal acts illegal. It’s unclear whether making past illegal acts legal is covered.

Well there is a young man sitting in prison in Georgia right now (of course, Georgia) because he was sentenced to ten or fifteen years for receiving a consensual blow job when he was 19 and she was 15 since the law at that time did not allow for that, only for “trad” sex. The law has been changed but I as I understand it, he is still in prison.

IIRC, there have been many other types of this situation where folks have continued to languish in prison even after the laws that placed them there have been softened.

Maybe they’ve got some dirt on Rockefeller…wouldn’t be the first time a Rockefeller had a secret.

Allow me

Senator Jay Rockefeller you’re full of shit.

Kathleen @ 37: Yep.

Also, nice quote from John Dean: “at times [Rockefeller] seems intimidated by his GOP colleagues”

Maybe he’s bashful about having to pretend to fight his true friends…

OMG – that is a damning chart…

And my(?) representatives are available that cheap?

Hell, I can put together that much money.

Maybe “democracy” is cheaper than I thought – masybe I can buy some up…

See what you can do with money in America?

You can buy yourself a congress critter or senator.

Na… not in America. This is a democracy.

Wow. CodePink kicked much Condi ass today.

Rep. Stark is gonna hafta apologize for their behaviour I’m sure.

Great. Now we’re NEVER going to get a meeting with Condi or Shrub to figure out a bipartisan solution to end Iraq Occupation II: Electric Boogaloo.

Good goin’ gals. We were getting so close too. A compromise was near, and now you crazy hippies had to be mean and ruin it all. Hrumpf.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..nt-1055395

EPU’d on previous thread, worth repeating:

dakine01 (in part):
The problem with the Verizon and ATT begging for retroactive immunity is two or three fold.

A) Qwest received the same requests (as did some of the smaller TelCos) and refused to comply because the lawyers could tell it was breaking the law. Sounds simple doesn’t it?

B) IIRC, at least one judge in civil cases on this has called BS on both ATT and the Gov’t lawyers backing them that they can’t play that game.

C) The initial requests for this info went out six months prior to 9/11 so all the NatSec arguments are bogus on the face of it.

(my bold)

Kathleen, I have mulled over John Dean’s answer to your question several times since his visit. What do you think he’s trying to tell us about Rockefeller, especially by comparing him to Pat Roberts, who was really in the tank for BushCheneyCo? I wonder if there’s more to the story.

Recall Jay’s handwritten letter to BigTime in 2003:

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

i think something wierd is going on in the intelligence committee (or the reporting).

the nyt has reported that whitehouse voted, in committee, for the bill and against an amendment to remove telco immunity.

i’ve called his office several times – each time i’m met with some disbelief – not about the report (which they’ve even checked online), but about it’s veracity. no one thinks (including me) these votes are consistent with whitehouse’s previous votes or statements.

so, what gives? his staff seems doubtful.. but can’t tell me how he actually voted (i’ve been asking for a statement on how and why he voted on this bill).

does that seem as weird to you-all as it does to me?

for background – link to previous comment.

selise @ 49

i think something wierd is going on in the intelligence committee (or the reporting).

the nyt has reported that whitehouse voted, in committee, for the bill and against an amendment to remove telco immunity.

i’ve called his office several times – each time i’m met with some disbelief – not about the report (which they’ve even checked online), but about it’s veracity. no one thinks (including me) these votes are consistent with whitehouse’s previous votes or statements.

so, what gives? his staff seems doubtful.. but can’t tell me how he actually voted (i’ve been asking for a statement on how and why he voted on this bill).

does that seem as weird to you-all as it does to me?

for background – link to previous comment.

Wasn’t there some concern about the “voting” machines in the Senate awhile back….maybe votes are getting Diebolded.

selise- OT, but did you see this? Check it out.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..rz-wanted/

To all those who responded to my question in previous thread, thanks. Getting dinner on table and blogging at same time caused some delays.

holy shit.
Someone get Jay some hot pants, stilleto heels, daisy dukes and some cheap make-up. the man belongs on a street corner in vegas, with AT&T’s jizz dribbling from his herpes-infected lips.

The man is a common whore, but less honest about it.

I’m serious – if I can’t raise $27,500 by noon tomorrow – them I’m not only sadly mistaken but not worth a broke dick – if I couldn’t raise at least $50K for the Rockefeller-bribe fund…

Aw, fuck it – that’s not the way it’s supposed to work… Cheap whore motherfucker….

Perhaps “whore” is the operative word.

brendancalling @ 53

holy shit.
Someone get Jay some hot pants, stilleto heels, daisy dukes and some cheap make-up. the man belongs on a street corner in vegas, with AT&T’s jizz dribbling from his herpes-infected lips.

The man is a common whore, but less honest about it.

He gets off the Rocksoffellers?

Smart thinking JayT. But don’t call it ‘bribery’ – It’s called ‘lobbying’ and ‘fundraising’ for future campaigns.

TeddySanFran @ 48

Kathleen, I have mulled over John Dean’s answer to your question several times since his visit. What do you think he’s trying to tell us about Rockefeller, especially by comparing him to Pat Roberts, who was really in the tank for BushCheneyCo? I wonder if there’s more to the story.

Recall Jay’s handwritten letter to BigTime in 2003:

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

I have been wondering about Rockefeller due to the incomplete Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (which was to investigate all offices involved with the creation and dessimination of false pre-war intelligence). From what I have read the Office of Special Plans was “off limits” to the Silberman/Robb investigation and Phase I of the SSCI. And that Republican Senator Pat Roberts did everything to dilute, divert and delay the completion of Phase II. The way I understand it, Phase II is still not completed and the most critical part of the investigation has been cast aside.

Think Progress has a great deal about Phase II at their website.

http://thinkprogress.org/roberts-coverup/

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): Chairman of the Senate Cover-up Committee
robertsbanner.jpg

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts’s (R-KS) duty is “to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States” and “to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” But on the most important intelligence issues facing Americans – such as the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, warrantless domestic spying, and torture – Roberts has transformed his committee into a “Senate Coverup Committee” for the Bush administration.
——————————————–
I am not sure what John Dean was getting at, except that I guess ultimately we can not expect Rockefeller to take congressional oversight responsibilities any more seriously than Roberts did.

Dean did leave his email for further questions any more congressional oversight from Rockefeller as from Roberts.

brokengovernment@gmail.com.

jayt @ 54

I’m serious – if I can’t raise $27,500 by noon tomorrow – them I’m not only sadly mistaken but not worth a broke dick – if I couldn’t raise at least $50K for the Rockefeller-bribe fund…

Aw, fuck it – that’s not the way it’s supposed to work… Cheap whore motherfucker….

That’s why I don’t believe it…

Valley Girl @ 51

selise- OT, but did you see this? Check it out.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..rz-wanted/

wow, jane’s is always up to the coolest stuff.

i’m not even an experienced novice, but i’m happy to tinker if jane is still looking for volunteers… and i have done user evals of new aps in a previous life. if she’s looking for someone to make sure it’s idiot-proof, i have one of the necessary qualifications *g*

Dodd and Greenwald target Reid

I had a comment but I think it got caught in the mod filter.

Kevin Hayden @ 11

Judas Jay Rockefellor sold us out. What’s surprising isn’t his whoring, but how cheaply he’ll turn his tricks.

He’s a cheap whore alright.

Buy low, sell high. Buy a senator for what he’s worth and sell him for what he thinks he’s worth. Step right up germs.

Margot @ 60

I had a comment but I think it got caught in the mod filter.

Margot – try a hard-refresh. There is no “stuck comment” of yours.

selise @ 57

Valley Girl @ 51

selise- OT, but did you see this? Check it out.

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..rz-wanted/

wow, jane’s is always up to the coolest stuff.

i’m not even an experienced novice, but i’m happy to tinker if jane is still looking for volunteers… and i have done user evals of new aps in a previous life. if she’s looking for someone to make sure it’s idiot-proof, i have one of the necessary qualifications *g*

selise- you are being too modest. and, if you read through the thread, you’ll see that Jane made several comments. The relevant email addy is in the post. ;)

Thanks, Lurking Mod.
Maybe I had a computer burp here or something.

Joe Klein’s conscience @ 63

Kevin Hayden @ 11

Judas Jay Rockefellor sold us out. What’s surprising isn’t his whoring, but how cheaply he’ll turn his tricks.

He’s a cheap whore alright.

That’s an insult to ladies of the night everywhere.

Margot @ 67

Thanks, Lurking Mod.
Maybe I had a computer burp here or something.

By chance, are you using the Opera browser? Firefox doesn’t have the same “lost comment” symptom.

… said Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman….”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied.”

And I say to Wendy

Ignorantia juris non excusat

While I’m at it, Jay

tum podem extulit horridulum

What’s old is new again

Big Brother. The zombie summer rerun that never ever goes away.

TLM, no, I use Firefox.
I bet I got impatient and refreshed before it had accepted my comment, so it went into the Ether. ;)

Valley Girl @ 65 –

well i sent an email.

thanks for the heads up. i don’t have much $ to contribute to jane et al.s work here, and am happy to find other ways to pitch in.

The optics, in fact, are appalling. The lengthy provisions of the proposed Senate Intelligence Committee FISA Amendment bill granting immunity and safe harbor here, there, and everywhere for known violations of our Constitution and FISA, are breathtaking in their coverage and detail:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/071019/fisa.pdf

I am stunned that Sheldon Whitehouse is (apparently) lending his good name to this effort.

Bottom line: Wherever the line may exist between the Constitution’s Article I inherent authority (as exercised by Congress via the enactment of the original FISA law) and Article II’s alleged inherent authority (as exercised by Bush/Cheney/Addington/Hayden via Executive Branch unilateral secret surveillance conducted in alleged service to “national security”): No line thus drawn to apportion spying authority between Article I and Article II branches of our government can will away or wish away our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment-protected right to privacy as American citizens.

All of Congress may want to wish away and will away our right to privacy, as the Executive Branch decided to do years ago, but wishing and willing cannot make it so, absent an amendment to our Constitution to formally do away with the Fourth Amendment.

Assuming, that is, that we are still a nation living under the rule of law, and not simply subject to the arbitrary and totalitarian whims of powerful men and women.

Another good thread, and I’m sorry to be OT, but this is well worth taking a moment to read.

If anyone ever doubted just how hard the Turks are squeezing goatboy’s ‘nads…doubt no more.

This should not be a close issue for Democrats, and certainly not for someone as independently wealthy and long-ensconced in his seat as Jay Rockefeller. He needs no money; he needs no added domestic support for his re-election (though he may just have made that necessary). But having acquiesced in allowing one set of corporate supporters to top his state’s mountains, he’s now willing to allow another set to top the Constitution.

Democrats, it seems, must remake their party from top to bottom. Mr. Lieberman is gone; Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Rockefeller need to follow.

Woops…here it is:

http://www.news.com.au/heralds…..63,00.html

pow wow @ 74

I am stunned that Sheldon Whitehouse is (apparently) lending his good name to this effort.

Not the most disappointing thing for me in all this, but very close.

Assuming, that is, that we are still a nation living under the rule of law, and not simply subject to the arbitrary and totalitarian whims of powerful men and women.

Actually, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but-*Friend Computer has determined that the rest of this message is Anti-Friend Computer and redacted it for your safety. Remember, the Computer is your Friend!*

fwiw, I used to do class action work against telecoms. Of course they pay expensive ass lawyers shitloads of $$ to research legality and provide opinions.

If they don’t get the answer they want, they decide if the payoff for what they want to do is worth paying a few million $$ in damages. The old “cost benefit analysis,” also known as the “Chiquita banana rule.”

Here’s the clincher.

Rockefeller puts out a “calm the peasants” press release that says:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004537.php

Rockefeller noted that the larger issue of whether the Administration acted illegally in authorizing its warrantless surveillance program is still an open question. The committee will continue its efforts to understand the legal underpinnings of the program.

So he has no clue whether or not things are legal, but what the hey. Let’s just go ahead and vote immunity and not worry with it. After all – there’s that redacted part of the Constitution that says, if the Congress doesn’t want to bother with changing the Constitution as specified in that document, then they can just go ahead and violate the snot out of all provisions, willy nilly, and grant themselves and their friends immunity.

Yeah – that works.

Except for the “not” part.

pow wow @ 73

I am stunned that Sheldon Whitehouse is (apparently) lending his good name to this effort.

me too… as well as, it sounds like, are the people in his office.

when i called on monday, the person answering the phone put me on hold for a long time so she could call two staffers to try to figure out what was going on. didn’t get an answer – but i think that was because they didn’t know.

if whitehouse is supporting this, i think he’s going to have to do some explaining to his staff as well as to us.

selise @ 82

pow wow @ 73

I am stunned that Sheldon Whitehouse is (apparently) lending his good name to this effort.

me too… as well as, it sounds like, are the people in his office.

when i called on monday, the person answering the phone put me on hold for a long time so she could call two staffers to try to figure out what was going on. didn’t get an answer – but i think that was because they didn’t know.

if whitehouse is supporting this, i think he’s going to have to do some explaining to his staff as well as to us.

If he is true to RI tradition, he’ll be hosting dinners in his state with open invites. He may well hear from some of his flock. There are vids of some of these floating around.

Mary @ 80

Rockefeller puts out a “calm the peasants” press release

i must make a lousy peasant, as i am the opposite of calm!

newtonusr @ 83

selise @ 82

me too… as well as, it sounds like, are the people in his office.

when i called on monday, the person answering the phone put me on hold for a long time so she could call two staffers to try to figure out what was going on. didn’t get an answer – but i think that was because they didn’t know.

if whitehouse is supporting this, i think he’s going to have to do some explaining to his staff as well as to us.

If he is true to RI tradition, he’ll be hosting dinners in his state with open invites. He may well hear from some of his flock. There are vids of some of these floating around.

I sure don’t understand his vote.

said Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman….”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied

Could have avoided those long trials at Nuremberg if only the WWII Americans had realized that argument “works”

Morigi followed her statement with a sad face and said, “Unfortunately, right after that someone asked them to jump off a bridge and golly, it was messy.”

My fear is that the telcos are squeezing their suppliers such as Cisco Systems to make bribes and other giants to make contributions.

Completely OT, Jane, it was so damn good to hear Senator Dodd mention you by name yesterday at the start of his PC.

newtonusr @ 82

If he is true to RI tradition, he’ll be hosting dinners in his state with open invites. He may well hear from some of his flock. There are vids of some of these floating around.

i was hoping for something a little more immediate. he ought to be one of the ones we can convince to work to block the bill.

and since he is also on the judiciary committee – where the bill is now going…. his vote will be key to blocking it in committee.

EvilDrPuma @ 13

”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied.”

What, I’m supposed to believe the telecoms don’t pay lawyers of their own to know what is legal and what isn’t? Fuck that shit.

Someone should get Jello Jay on record regarding how Qwest came to know better.

Mary @ 86

said Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman….”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied

Could have avoided those long trials at Nuremberg if only the WWII Americans had realized that argument “works”

Morigi followed her statement with a sad face and said, “Unfortunately, right after that someone asked them to jump off a bridge and golly, it was messy.”

Crying as I wipe coffee off monitor.

Just got home and read the post; haven’t had a chance to read all the comments yet, so pardon me if this has been brought up.

When judges have a close tie or money related relationship with someone involved in a case, they recuse themselves. We know that many some members of Congress have taken rather a lot of money from the telecoms and other industries (military/industrial corps., for instance) that involve other types of legislation. We know that some of this stuff looks particularly like a conflict of interests. Why should Rockefeller, for example, have any vote in this, or any other Senator or Congressman that has taken campaign money from them. Seems as if they should recuse themselves or simply vote present. We know they know how to do that. Congress should be forced to pass a law that says they will legislate strong sanctions on any member of either house that votes on a bill that has a major impact on one of the biggest donors, say over a certain value. If you did that, I would venture to say, it would solve most of their campaign finance reform problems.

Folks – we have some new thready goodness upstairs.

earlofhuntingdon @ 76

This should not be a close issue for Democrats, and certainly not for someone as independently wealthy and long-ensconced in his seat as Jay Rockefeller. He needs no money; he needs no added domestic support for his re-election (though he may just have made that necessary). But having acquiesced in allowing one set of corporate supporters to top his state’s mountains, he’s now willing to allow another set to top the Constitution.

Democrats, it seems, must remake their party from top to bottom. Mr. Lieberman is gone; Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Rockefeller need to follow.

I am in 100% agreement. This is one issue that all Democrats should be agreeing upon.

Ann in AZ @ 91

Just got home and read the post; haven’t had a chance to read all the comments yet, so pardon me if this has been brought up.

When judges have a close tie or money related relationship with someone involved in a case, they recuse themselves. We know that many some members of Congress have taken rather a lot of money from the telecoms and other industries (military/industrial corps., for instance) that involve other types of legislation. We know that some of this stuff looks particularly like a conflict of interests. Why should Rockefeller, for example, have any vote in this, or any other Senator or Congressman that has taken campaign money from them. Seems as if they should recuse themselves or simply vote present. We know they know how to do that. Congress should be forced to pass a law that says they will legislate strong sanctions on any member of either house that votes on a bill that has a major impact on one of the biggest donors, say over a certain value. If you did that, I would venture to say, it would solve most of their campaign finance reform problems.

Ooooh….
I like. I mean, I want publicly financed campaign reform, but I recognize many will scream about wasting taxpayer money, yadda yadda…but a recusal thing like this…that’s brilliant!

selise @ 88

newtonusr @ 82

If he is true to RI tradition, he’ll be hosting dinners in his state with open invites. He may well hear from some of his flock. There are vids of some of these floating around.

i was hoping for something a little more immediate. he ought to be one of the ones we can convince to work to block the bill.

and since he is also on the judiciary committee – where the bill is now going…. his vote will be key to blocking it in committee.

I am so damned there with you. This is a heartbreak.

Uhhh, Senator Rockefeller, riddle me these rhetorical questions:

Why do they need retroactive immunity if they were told what they did was legal by their lawyers and whatever lawyers they spoke with from the USG???

Again: Why are they seeking immunity for a legal program?

Is it because they knew what they did was illegal?

selise – I’m pretty positive you would make a lousy peasant. Good with a pitchfork and torch when necessary, but otherwise a bad peasant. *g*

1,636 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

OK, sister Jane, YOU won’t say it , but I will: “Jay, you’re so full of shit yer eyes are turnin’ brown.”

KEEP THE FAITH AND TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!

newtonusr @ 95

OT – are we going to see you after the 26th or are you going to go hide in a cave with your new kitty?

selise @ 99

newtonusr @ 95

OT – are we going to see you after the 26th or are you going to go hide in a cave with your new kitty?

It’s like final exams. Buried and bearded.
must.find.coffee.

linda @ 35

no no no. you don’t understand. it’s just a happy coinkydink that senator jay is also sitting on the COMMERCE committee and that’s really the reason for the sudden spike in telecom green making its way into rock’s coffers. it has NOTHING to do with covering their asses for the criminality on behalf of the bushies.

Have ATT and Verizon bribes… er, donations to other members of the Commerce Committee been similar to those Rockefeller’s received?

Mary @ 86

said Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman….”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied

Could have avoided those long trials at Nuremberg if only the WWII Americans had realized that argument “works”

Morigi followed her statement with a sad face and said, “Unfortunately, right after that someone asked them to jump off a bridge and golly, it was messy.”

So what if it is so that the Telecoms were asked to do this ” wiretap and data mine” without folks knowing it by the Bush administration. It is the Bush administration hiding behind the telecom companies.

Thoroughly investigate hold them accountable. If the telecoms were doing this in “good faith” they should sacrifice the Bush administration.

Several bloggers have pointed out that the Rockefeller/Cheney language in FISA would authorize and insulate from liability far more than just Telcos.

The amendment’s language protects any “person” who “assists” our intelligence entities in obtaining the relevant agency. That includes the butcher, baker and candlestick makers, not to mention your in-laws, former bedmates and political or bureaucratic rivals. It guts the Fourth Amendment as deeply as the fraternity’s mascot pig at the spring barbecue.

Ann in AZ @ 91

Congress should be forced to pass a law that says they will legislate strong sanctions on any member of either house that votes on a bill that has a major impact on one of the biggest donors, say over a certain value. If you did that, I would venture to say, it would solve most of their campaign finance reform problems.

I fully agree… I was contemplating that same thing last evening. I think it is particularly crucial for any committee chairman to avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.

Of course, they will just argue that they remain objective.

newtonusr @ 100

selise @ 99

newtonusr @ 95

OT – are we going to see you after the 26th or are you going to go hide in a cave with your new kitty?

It’s like final exams. Buried and bearded.
must.find.coffee.

well, good luck and we’ll see you when it’s over. hope you get lots of sleep during the next two days in preparation!

dude @ 93

earlofhuntingdon @ 76

This should not be a close issue for Democrats, and certainly not for someone as independently wealthy and long-ensconced in his seat as Jay Rockefeller. He needs no money; he needs no added domestic support for his re-election (though he may just have made that necessary). But having acquiesced in allowing one set of corporate supporters to top his state’s mountains, he’s now willing to allow another set to top the Constitution.

Democrats, it seems, must remake their party from top to bottom. Mr. Lieberman is gone; Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Rockefeller need to follow.

I am in 100% agreement. This is one issue that all Democrats should be agreeing upon.

I am not sure why I expected more out of Senator Rockefeller

selise @ 104

newtonusr @ 100

It’s like final exams. Buried and bearded.
must.find.coffee.

well, good luck and we’ll see you when it’s over. hope you get lots of sleep during the next two days in preparation!

I am all over the kitty. Clients at bay, etc.

Isn’t this like fascism with a democratic smiley face?

CEOs don’t write a letter or change their clothes without consulting a lawyer and Rockefeller knows it.

Valley Girl @ 29

TeddySanFran @ 25

I’ve read there’s a sense that the eavesdropping cooperation might have been decided at Board of Directors meetings, which puts some very well-connected people at risk. Not just managers-for-hire, but outside Directors as well, under some readings of Sarbanes-Oxley, the new corporate governance regulations.

Ahhh…

Teddy (or anyone) – found a link/s that lists the names of the Board of Directors of various? That might make for very interesting reading.

http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=5629

http://investor.verizon.com/co…..ctors.aspx

what is surprising is not that the votes of senators can be bought but that they can be bought so cheaply. thanks for the graph

wini- thanks for those links!

Great post, Jane.

I hope you are doing well. To me, that is more important than all of this crap.

I’m not by nature much of a hero-worshipper. Meaning those who know me well would laugh uproariously at the mere thought.

For better or worse, you qualify as a hero to me.

Keep up the good work, and don’t hesitate to ask for personal help. You’ll get it.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 18

What exactly is behind the telecom immunity business?

As repayment, shutting down or making it difficult to access websites the government does not like. As it is now, I often find that IE browser sometimes does not open on progressive websites, or closes at intervals.

And what ever happened to the second half of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq? You know, the one that former committee chairman Roberts refused to produce. The one that Harry Reid put the Senate into private session about, causing the good Doctor Frist to have a hissy fit.

Seriously, Senator Rockefellar, what about it?

Just sent the nastiest note to Rockerfeller and
literally told him he was on the take…Told him he sold out to the Telecom companies. Said why??
Your family would be ashamed of you if they were
still with us!!! Blah, blah, blah!!!

Maybe if he gets enough emails and calls he will change his vote. Let’s hope so!!

Sox are winning 13-1 in the 9th…First game in our column!! May win it in 4-5 games. :)
Go Sox!!!

Jay Rockefeller is a rich punk who has sold out to the telecoms (Who knows why? Doesn’t this rich douchebag have enough family money already?)

And then there’s Dianne Feinstein, another heiress douchebag who’s in favor of not only the War on Iraq, but of racist judges like Southwick. Don’t these rich assholes care about the people who voted them into office? In case either of these ignorant rich douchebags care, the people who elected them are called Democrats. We, the real people, you rich assholes.

LS @ 27

The bottom line about all of this is that the Administration went to Telcos and asked them to spy on American citizens without a warrant…it was 6 months prior to 9/11. Some of the Telcos went along with it and some did not. The ones that did , complied with an Administration that was committing a violation of the Contitution and the FISA law.

Here you’re making a very clear point of importance. It was the administration that was violating the law. What law(s) was(were) the telcoms violating?

All those complicit in these activities need to be held accountable. Rockefeller knew and said nothing even though he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect us from enemies within.

An Administration that spies on its own citizens (who are their bosses) is acting as an enemy of the people.

Someone wrote on TNH that there was a precedent on this kind of immunity and it’s prohibited. However, they gave immunity to Oliver North for testifying to Congress. It seems there are some contradictions.

Do the telcoms deserve immunity. To me it seems they were doing what was demanded and trying to serve their country in a great time of need. Think of this, even the FISA law allows the gov’t. to demand such spying without the warrant present, upon demand that the gov’t. get it later (I think it was within 72 hrs.). So, in those circumstances, how can you say the telcoms did wrong? How could they know the gov’t. wouldn’t produce a valid warrant within a couple of days?

Even if they spied, what is the law they were violating? The gov’t. is obviously prohibited from spying, but what’s the law against the corp. doing it? I’m certain one exists.

It’s pretty confusing when the Bush people go off the rails (all the time) and the laws are subjected to bizarre tests.

Now, if Congress can’t give immunity and the court cases go ahead (as seems obvious), then how in those proceedings would immunity possibly come up again?

Is there any way they could win immunity in the course of such civil litigation, or would it be criminal?

Lawyers will definitely earn their pay on all sides of this.

john in sacramento @ 70

… said Wendy Morigi, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman….”The telephone companies were asked to do something,” she said. “They were told it was legal and they complied.”

So if a corrupt government approaches someone and tells them to undertake an obviously illegal and UnConstitutional act (say commit an assassination against a political candidate), and that person does it, then Congress should.

1) Make the act LEGAL
2) Absolutely absolve the folks who did it, both within and outside the government
3) Just tell the public to close their eyes about what happened
4) Provide immunity to these individuals of any illegal activities in the future as long as the corrupt government officials say “it’s legal”.

earlofhuntingdon @ 76

This should not be a close issue for Democrats, and certainly not for someone as independently wealthy and long-ensconced in his seat as Jay Rockefeller. He needs no money; he needs no added domestic support for his re-election (though he may just have made that necessary). But having acquiesced in allowing one set of corporate supporters to top his state’s mountains, he’s now willing to allow another set to top the Constitution.

Democrats, it seems, must remake their party from top to bottom. Mr. Lieberman is gone; Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Rockefeller need to follow.

There about 40 decent (though not perfect) Democrats in the Senate. That’s about 80% of them. Probably about the same number in the House.

But what these folks have to do is grab their leadership by the scrotum and demand that they stop compromising with the Pugs, and PUNISH the “Quislings” that are blocking the changes needed in this country.

MarkH @ 118

Someone wrote on TNH that there was a precedent on this kind of immunity and it’s prohibited. However, they gave immunity to Oliver North for testifying to Congress. It seems there are some contradictions.

One can Constitutionally be provided immunity for testimony in Congress regarding one’s acts, criminal or otherwise.

If one lies ton Congress that immunity ends.

It only applies to information provided to Congress. That INFORMATION cannot be used to prosecute the individual in court, UNLESS the prosecutors obtained it independently from other sources.

Congressional immunity does NOT grant immunity from prosecution for illegal acts…just the testimony being used in that prosecution.

The Telcoms have not openly testified about their acts in Congress at all. Congress is completely in the dark about what they did in spying on Americans. They have no idea on whom was targetted, what sort of nformation was provided, or how it was used. Nada!

If these Telcoms acted as “whistleblowers” then there might be some merit in offering the immunity. But they even lied about doing this sort of activity at all back in May. They deceived the public and Congress.

Still these morons in Congress want to give them FULL IMMUNITY for illegal ACTS in the past and future?

MarkH @ 118
Do the telcoms deserve immunity. To me it seems they were doing what was demanded and trying to serve their country in a great time of need. Think of this, even the FISA law allows the gov’t. to demand such spying without the warrant present, upon demand that the gov’t. get it later (I think it was within 72 hrs.). So, in those circumstances, how can you say the telcoms did wrong? How could they know the gov’t. wouldn’t produce a valid warrant within a couple of days?.

Mark~ You’d have a point except that the FISA law doesn’t allow domestic spying at all without a normal warrant. FISA only deals with communications from “foreign” to “foreign” , and “foreign-to-domestic” communicfations. The latter require a warrant, but these can be 72 hours pos hoc in the case of an emergency. That provision doesn’t at all deal with domestic communications. These require warrants…obtained by a judge in advance, stipulated what communications are to be seized and laying out the evidence for suspicfion that a crime has been committed.

The WH brought forward the FISA revision because they claimed that a FISA judge had disallowed the investigation of foreign-to-foreign communications through US “switching points”. No one thought that this was an unreasonable revision…and most thought the Government could have overruled that objection if they appealed.

But then Administration insisted on a series of other REVISIONS unrelated to the judges decision. This included “basket warrants” (actually Administrative Subpoenas…which are broad orders for information on unknown subjects and persons without judicial review at any time), and the immunity clauses.

The Telecoms have presented some court documents suggesting what the Administration wanted was not merely documents related to calls from foreign sources to domestic numbers (this would be acceptable under FISA law if a warrant was obtained, in some cases post hoc)

…but the request also demanded records of all calls that the domestic recipient received/made. That would include domestic-domestic communications, and require a TRUE search warrant presented in advance before a judge.

The Telecoms apparently told the Administration that they didn’t have these “community of interest” records. In other words, they had records of calls, but not linked with secondary calls.

So all the government would need to do is to then request a second set of documents using the numbers provided on the first occasion. And the Telecoms seemed to be willing to comply.

That’s in direct violation of the Telecommunications Act and other Record Privacy laws which prevent the Telecoms from providing these records without a search warrant. It doesn’t matter what the gov’t tells them. It’s illegal. That’s why they want IMMUNITY!

>It guts the Fourth Amendment as deeply
> as the fraternity’s mascot pig at the spring >barbecue.

Right.. which is why I really think this immunity won’t pass constitutional muster..
sadly, the ex post facto provision doesnt help us, as past caselaw has determined that this applies only to criminal offenses, not civil claims. However, I don’t think the 4th amendment would have any meaning if law enforcement could hire a civilian locksmith to break into your house, then pass a law that says you couldnt sue them for that constitutional violation. this seems almost analogous to what they are proposing here, which i why i beleive that this immunity is constitionally unsound..

Although I’m not a lawyer I do have some legal knowledge, and looking over the
immunity bill here: (the immunity provision starts on page 44)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/071019/fisa.pdf

I notice it says that the AG certification required to dismiss the claims will be reviewed using the “abuse of discretion” standard… Can any legal scholars help me out here.. are they saying that the judges have to decide whether the attorney general abused his discretion in making the certification? If so, isnt this a clear violation of the separation of powers by allowing executive branch officers to adjudicate the legality of an act? And even so, doesnt this prevent total immunity by allowing a judge to keep the case in play if they determine that the AG abused his discretion by claiming the acts being litigated were legal?

It seems to me that all this law does is codify the judicial construct of “state secrets” into law. It seems that if the state secrets privledge fails, this does too. Any legal-ese folks care to weigh in on this…?

Porgy at 115 –
I have called Rockefeller’s office and was told the Phase II Report is finished and out on their website. I found two reports — Phase II Accuracy.pdf and Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq. I think there may be three more parts being held. I don’t think these two reports covered the Office of Special Plans activities which I think is the most obvious misinformation mill (cherry picking factory).

Here’s a little something from the Congressional Record Sept. 2006 that may help.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congres…..90806.html

I don’t know how to attach a link — hope this works.

Cheryl,

The link worked great. Hope you will post this important information in a more current thread as well.

Habitat-Vic @ 23

Christy (or other lawyer),

Please explain how the serious/adult/politicians can be arguing over a retroactive immunity law. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” link: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

I mean, is it just a given that since this is related to the GWOT, we can ignore the Constitution? Seriously, why isn’t anyone (Fiengold, someone) bringing this up?

Immunity is an act of forgiveness. Under the Constitution, act of immunity, both backward (retroactive) and forward (prospective) are perfectly kosher, legal, etc.

What is banned (the Ex Post Facto) is making something a crime after the fact, when a person could not possibly have known you would make it a crime in the future.

For example, if Cheney declares martial law, he can make it illegal to be a Democrat (i.e. terrorist sympathizer). What he cannot do is make being a Democrat BEFORE he declared martial law to be a crime.

Bills of Attainder are like arrest warrants. Same thing.

Egregious @125–

Thank you so much for your response. It was OT to the telecom issue and I know that we are most concerned right now with the current issues like FISA and SCHIP but I have been following this Phase II stuff with great interest. I believe the Phase II Report, if it were to come out, would be one more piece of evidence of impeachable offenses.

One other little tidbit from the Intelligence website:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 25, 2007

ROCKEFELLER UNVEILS PHASE II REPORT ON “PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON POSTWAR IRAQ”

Linky here:

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefe…..52507.html

I want the next three parts. Next time I see a thread on this subject I will try to put in the several links I have to the various reports. I usually just lurk as I see so many people with so much more knowledge than I have. You are one of my heroes as well as Jane, Christy, Marcy, Swopa, Pach, TRex, etc… Firedoglake is just the best!