yo

So will it take 50 votes to pass this one, or 60?

The whole Whitehouse thing is a real enigma. I am less surprised at Kohl but still….

Stopped to read when only one comment.
Good post! Thanks for keeping us informed!
Now it’s time for Team Dodd, with a chorus of Firepups and Kossacks.

Bob in HI

OT, but because we are the Lake of the rule of law and care about indictments:
Breaking News 5:19 PM ET:Barry Bonds Indicted on Perjury and Obstruction Charges

There’s a hang up on telecom immunity? Please hold.

If immunity comes out of committee then it is a done deal unless Bush vetoes the law because of warrants.

The whole thing is extremely confusing, but it appears that the bill got out of the Judiciary WITHOUT amnesty. Which means, if true, that it would have to be added back in by amendment — a huge victory from our side, just what we wanted.

What’s not clear, however, is how Feingold failed and immunity got stripped out at the same time.

Conflicting reports, more as we hear it.

If true, it’s also a HUGE bird flipped by Leahy to Reid and Rockefeller.

Thanks for the update, Christy.

Depending on how Title I was amended, this Title II-less version of FISA may be the best version available aside from the deep-sixed Holt version.

But getting it past the Senate without destructive amendments is beyond Harry Reid’s ability level. So it seems as though Dodd is going to be forced to keep his hold in place unless and until he gets a promise from Harry Reid and enough colleagues to pass only Title I, if it in fact holds the line on program warrants (which Feingold’s amendment in committee seems to have addressed), and keeps immunity off the table.

Senator Whitehouse: You have so much explaining to do about your immunity vote…

[For more about Feingold’s amendment and the lay of the land from Pat Leahy, see the excerpts in my comment here:

Reply

I just called Reid’s office and asked if he is going to honor Dodd’s hold on this bill. The young woman I spoke with said in the past Reid always honors holds. With that, I said, “Does Harry Reid understand that George Bush and his ilk have been spying on Americans since February 2001 and is using 9/11 as his ‘green light’ to continue to do something illegal? Does Harry Reid know personally if George Bush’s obscene intelligence community has been spying on him? Americans think it’s important for George Bush and others to follow the law, not break the law, and to go after the telecom companies that also broke the law with him”. I said, “Do you get that?” in a very angry tone, and she said she would reiterate this to Harry Reid.

Updated above based on a little new information. It’s trickling out at the moment and I have several calls out for clarification. Will let folks know if I hear more…

Sorry completely OT, but this is so wrong on many levels….

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…..096814.stm

Jane Hamsher @ 9

If true, it’s also a HUGE bird flipped by Leahy to Reid and Rockefeller.

Why do I think Leahy is quite willing to tell them both to go p*ss up a rope?

Maybe because he has been an USA and understands the Constitution and his sworn oath and takes it a bit more seriously than the others?

What all of this means is that the fight on immunity gets saved for the floor of the Senate

That is the way it looks to me also but it is confusing. If it is not stopped in SJC we are screwed; Harry won’t honor any hold on this bill.

How were 19 votes cast? Isn’t Biden in Las Vegas? Is it possible to vote by proxy for committee votes?

The fact that SJC didn’t “report out” Title II just means, I think, that Title II is as reported out by Intelligence. SJC had their chance to have their say, and saying nothing, that part of the bill leaves SJC in the same form it entered.
.
The question of telecom immunity won’t be settled in the first go-around in the Senate. It looks as though the House will pass something, which sets the stage for a conference committee, where things can really be hammered out minus public debate, then hurried through both chambers just before some holiday recess.
.
I don’t see the presence of telecom amnesty as preventing the Senate from taking up and passing S.2248. It might take 60 votes to proceed to the bill, and then to limit debate on the bill, but those votes are there. Then it takes 51 to pass it, and that is an easy hurdle.

Jim White @ 16

How were 19 votes cast? Isn’t Biden in Las Vegas? Is it possible to vote by proxy for committee votes?

Could someone please explain to me why members of Congress can’t vote by phone or web?

Looking at the Third Amendment as well as the Fourth for some pushback…

In an earlier case, United States v. Valenzuela, 95 F. Supp. 363 (S.D. Cal. 1951), the defendant asked that a federal rent-control law be struck down on the grounds that it was “the incubator and hatchery of swarms of bureaucrats to be quartered as storm troopers upon the people in violation of Amendment III of the United States Constitution.”

If Gen. Hayden wants into my bedroom, he’s going to have to come here personally…

1,659 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

A question, sister Smith, if no bill is passed does the existin’ FISA law sunset back to the original…if so, isn’t that as good as it gets? So if no FISA rewrite is passed, the horrible last minute legislation from the last congress will evaporate and we start with the perfectly good, more than adequate, original bill…do I have that right?

KEEP THE FAITH AND LET ME LOOK AT THE SCORECARD…I DON’T HAVE A PROGRAM!!

No immunity? WOO HOO!!

Jim at 19 — Based on the votes the last business meeting, there were proxy votes cast on the Mukasey nomination. So I think it is, indeed, possible to do so during a business meeting in the Senate.

jackie @ 13

Sorry completely OT, but this is so wrong on many levels….

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…..096814.stm

I am sure that the Saudi’s BFF Bush wishes he could do that here. The really sad thing is how can this Country complain about human rights anywhere now.

NorskeFlamethrower @ 20

1,659 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

A question, sister Smith, if no bill is passed does the existin’ FISA law sunset back to the original…if so, isn’t that as good as it gets? So if no FISA rewrite is passed, the horrible last minute legislation from the last congress will evaporate and we start with the perfectly good, more than adequate, original bill…do I have that right?

KEEP THE FAITH AND LET ME LOOK AT THE SCORECARD…I DON’T HAVE A PROGRAM!!

*throwing Norse a pencil with a huge eraser on it*

;-)

wow. i go out for a while, and all kinds of things have happened…. time to try to catch up now!

……

as a tool to help us contact our senators -
i have created a file that contains the “business cards” or “contacts” (depending on what kind of computer and email program you use) for the entire senate – it will automatically import the phone numbers, fax numbers, dc snail mail address, email (if they have it)and websites for all 100 senators.

it should work for both pc and macs (newtonusr and ann in az tested in yesterday)…. and it can be used for doing things like faxing every senator.

i just have one little glitch when i posted it for downloading (so everyone can grab it without me emailing it to them)…

so, i’m looking for newtonusr (or another mac techie) to advise. i’m hoping to resolve this quickly (i’ve posted many files for download and very had this problem before) and make the file available to firepups tonight.

(when i get pissed off about the state of the world, trying to do something semi-constructive is good therapy).

cboldt @ 17

The fact that SJC didn’t “report out” Title II just means, I think, that Title II is as reported out by Intelligence. SJC had their chance to have their say, and saying nothing, that part of the bill leaves SJC in the same form it entered.
.
The question of telecom immunity won’t be settled in the first go-around in the Senate. It looks as though the House will pass something, which sets the stage for a conference committee, where things can really be hammered out minus public debate, then hurried through both chambers just before some holiday recess.
.
I don’t see the presence of telecom amnesty as preventing the Senate from taking up and passing S.2248. It might take 60 votes to proceed to the bill, and then to limit debate on the bill, but those votes are there. Then it takes 51 to pass it, and that is an easy hurdle.

Aha. Makes sense.

eCAHNomics @ 18

Jim White @ 16

How were 19 votes cast? Isn’t Biden in Las Vegas? Is it possible to vote by proxy for committee votes?

Could someone please explain to me why members of Congress can’t vote by phone or web?

Because, then nobody would ever show up.

Norske at 20 — Yes, if nothing passes, then the current bill sunsets and we go back to the original FISA law which, to my mind, is certainly preferable to the loophole-filled idiocy that was passed in haste.

There are a couple of areas that do need revision to deal with foreign surveillance issues that have come up in a FISA court decision in the last few months. But that is the only urgent issue — the immunity issues and the basket warrants are superfluous CYA maneuvering in my opinion.

If immunity comes out of committee then it is a done deal unless Bush vetoes the law because of warrants.

I wouldn’t be so sure, because the bill will have to go to conference, and with the House Dems firmly against immunity, and a significant majority of Senate Dems opposed to immunity, Reid just has to (and should) appoint only those Dems who oppose immunity to keep it out of the conference committee bill.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 22

Jim at 19 — Based on the votes the last business meeting, there were proxy votes cast on the Mukasey nomination. So I think it is, indeed, possible to do so during a business meeting in the Senate.

Thanks.

do-si-do @ 6

There’s a hang up on telecom immunity? Please hold.

I should have added the /s on this.

Anyway, I plead insanity since Newsweek is hiring Rove of all people.

I feel sick to my stomach wondering what kind of government my children will have to toil under. I feel so paleo-constitutionist (can I say that?).

Kudos to any and all congress people to speaks the clear and plain truth on this bill. And thanks, fdl, for explaining it as clearly and plainly as is possible.

Christy you are too good to keep us updated on this slippery situation.

As you have your hands full, I am wondering if any other DOJ watcher can parse Bush’s nomination of assistant, associates, and one Deputy AGs for us, when things calm down a bit on the Fisa front.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news…..115-2.html

p.lukasiak @ 29

If immunity comes out of committee then it is a done deal unless Bush vetoes the law because of warrants.

I wouldn’t be so sure, because the bill will have to go to conference, and with the House Dems firmly against immunity, and a significant majority of Senate Dems opposed to immunity, Reid just has to (and should) appoint only those Dems who oppose immunity to keep it out of the conference committee bill.

I guess that is possible but it seems that what usually comes out of conference is usually worse than what goes in.

I wonder, cboldt @ 17 – that sounds like a good possibility (that the Intelligence Committee Title II will stand in lieu of no Title II from the Judiciary Committee), but we probably need a Senate insider to confirm that fact. It would amount to merging two bills into one, outside of any committee, before floor action (which is what happened in the House when two different versions of the RESTORE Act came out of two different House committees at the same time).

The suspense! AAAAAHHH THE SUSPENSSSSSEEE it BURNSSSSS usssss…

gah!

Here’s more news…

In Twist, Senate Judiciary Spying Bill Lacks Immunity for Telecoms
By Ryan Singel

Civil liberties groups got a stunningly unexpected win Thursday as the Senate Judiciary panel passed their version of the new government spying bill out of committee without including a provision giving immunity to telecoms being sued for helping the government secretly spy on Americans.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok…..enate.html

BlueStateRedHead @ 5

OT, but because we are the Lake of the rule of law and care about indictments:
Breaking News 5:19 PM ET:Barry Bonds Indicted on Perjury and Obstruction Charges

Better get Scooter’s defense team, not Martha’s.

The way I see it, it’s not “No Title II from SJC.” It’s “No change to Title II from SJC.” SJC got the bill from Intelligence, made adjustments to Title I, and didn’t touch Title II.

I would like Senator Whitehouse or one of his aides to comment on FDL about his vote and what it means.

Steve-AR @ 33

p.lukasiak @ 29

If immunity comes out of committee then it is a done deal unless Bush vetoes the law because of warrants.

I wouldn’t be so sure, because the bill will have to go to conference, and with the House Dems firmly against immunity, and a significant majority of Senate Dems opposed to immunity, Reid just has to (and should) appoint only those Dems who oppose immunity to keep it out of the conference committee bill.

I guess that is possible but it seems that what usually comes out of conference is usually worse than what goes in.

The “tell” will be in whom Reid sends in.

CTuttle – thanks much for that Wired link. Updated above witha H/T for you.

Prairie Sunshine @ 37

BlueStateRedHead @ 5

OT, but because we are the Lake of the rule of law and care about indictments:
Breaking News 5:19 PM ET:Barry Bonds Indicted on Perjury and Obstruction Charges

Better get Scooter’s defense team, not Martha’s.

Well, IIRC, Scooter’s defense team was as successful as Martha’s, it’s just she wasn’t BFF with Little Boots VP and Cruella DeCarville.

But since Barry can hit the ball, Little Boots will likely treat him the same he did Scooter.

pow wow @ 10 –

pow wow, i was going to share your RESTORE ACT analysis with glenn greenwald and his commenters by posting links to your comments here from earlier today.

instead, would you be willing to give gleen a summary of your analysis? he has not yet read the amended bill (and is depending on rush holt’s support at the moment. i’m sure glenn will read it when he gets the chance, but i’d be very interested in his response to your comments.

if you don’t want to do it, i perfectly understand (and i know i’m being a bit of an ass to ask)… and will just post links to your earlier comments as i had intended.

here’s my comment at glenn’s place, and here’s his reply.

glenn did an interview with rush holt in october, maybe he will be willing to do one again – i hope so (and i’m going to ask *g*).

It’s not as though SJC didn’t debate Title II … they did. They rejected Feingold’s amendment that would drop Title II.

I am totally f’ing confused. Feingold was defeaded but did Leahy pull a procedural fast one?

cboldt @ 38

The way I see it, it’s not “No Title II from SJC.” It’s “No change to Title II from SJC.” SJC got the bill from Intelligence, made adjustments to Title I, and didn’t touch Title II.

True! “…Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) decided to send the bill out of committee without an agreement on immunity.”

Christy Hardin Smith @ 41

CTuttle – thanks much for that Wired link. Updated above witha H/T for you.

Mahalo, Ma’am! *blush*

thinkprogress has this up now:

snip

which states that “the nation’s intelligence services do not need to request a court warrant to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications involving suspected terrorists.” The committee is expected to vote later today on whether to grant retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies

snip

Petrocelli @ 39

I would like Senator Whitehouse or one of his aides to comment on FDL about his vote and what it means.

i have called senator whitehouse’s office about a dozen times (only once per day though) to ask for a statement on why he voted for amnesty in the senate intelligence committee. the first few times the people in his office didn’t believe me (oh, he wouldn’t do that) until they confirmed it with the legislative aide. after that it has been – there is no statement at this time.

CTuttle @ 36

Here’s more news…

In Twist, Senate Judiciary Spying Bill Lacks Immunity for Telecoms
By Ryan Singel

Civil liberties groups got a stunningly unexpected win Thursday as the Senate Judiciary panel passed their version of the new government spying bill out of committee without including a provision giving immunity to telecoms being sued for helping the government secretly spy on Americans.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok…..enate.html

Wow. This is an enormous victory. It’s everything we wanted.

Still waiting for solid confirmation, but if true now the Republicans will have to add it back in as a specific amendment, and that’s going to be a lot tougher to get people to vote for. The possibility of burying it and getting people to vote for an overall bill based on “war on terra” was much stronger. Now it forces people to make the argument that telecom amnesty is necessary for the war on terra, which is going to be much more difficult to get out of your mouth without your head exploding.

I don’t know why they did it but it seems that they did.

Awesome.

p.lukasiak @ 29

If immunity comes out of committee then it is a done deal unless Bush vetoes the law because of warrants.

I wouldn’t be so sure, because the bill will have to go to conference, and with the House Dems firmly against immunity, and a significant majority of Senate Dems opposed to immunity, Reid just has to (and should) appoint only those Dems who oppose immunity to keep it out of the conference committee bill.

Quite right. Just this week the Transportation authorization bill came out of conference:

Buried in the just released House and Senate Conference report for the Transportation-HUD spending bill is a provision that has open government groups worried.

The provision would ban the public from having timely access to budget information for the Transportation Department, according to one open government analyst.

FYI, new post upstairs

selise @ 49

Petrocelli @ 39

I would like Senator Whitehouse or one of his aides to comment on FDL about his vote and what it means.

i have called senator whitehouse’s office about a dozen times (only once per day though) to ask for a statement on why he voted for amnesty in the senate intelligence committee. the first few times the people in his office didn’t believe me (oh, he wouldn’t do that) until they confirmed it with the legislative aide. after that it has been – there is no statement at this time.

His vote is disappointing, given that he was USA and ought to know better … I know his people read FDL and I hope they comment soon !

cboldt @ 38 – I definitely agree with you, if that’s the case (or if the committee carried action over until tomorrow on Title II, for example). But the indications that Christy and Wired are picking up are that the SJC in fact succeeded in passing only an amended Title I out of committee, and voted out no version of Title II, for whatever reason. I’ve got my fingers crossed.

[selise @ 43 - do you mean go over and post a comment at Glenn’s? Sure, I can do that - but feel free to stick any pertinent links in, in case I run into problems getting a comment up. What we all really need, probably, is a statement from the ACLU, pro or con the just-unveiled revised RESTORE Act.]

Jane Hamsher @ 50

CTuttle @ 36

Here’s more news…

In Twist, Senate Judiciary Spying Bill Lacks Immunity for Telecoms
By Ryan Singel

Civil liberties groups got a stunningly unexpected win Thursday as the Senate Judiciary panel passed their version of the new government spying bill out of committee without including a provision giving immunity to telecoms being sued for helping the government secretly spy on Americans.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok…..enate.html

Wow. This is an enormous victory. It’s everything we wanted.

Still waiting for solid confirmation, but if true now the Republicans will have to add it back in as a specific amendment, and that’s going to be a lot tougher to get people to vote for. The possibility of burying it and getting people to vote for an overall bill based on “war on terra” was much stronger. Now it forces people to make the argument that telecom amnesty is necessary for the war on terra, which is going to be much more difficult to get out of your mouth without your head exploding.

I don’t know why they did it but it seems that they did.

Awesome.

i’m trying to contain my urge to do a happy dance until there is confirmation… but it’s just not possible to feel some relief, excitement and hope – woo hoo!!!!

selise @ 55

Jane Hamsher @ 50

Wow. This is an enormous victory. It’s everything we wanted.

Still waiting for solid confirmation, but if true now the Republicans will have to add it back in as a specific amendment, and that’s going to be a lot tougher to get people to vote for. The possibility of burying it and getting people to vote for an overall bill based on “war on terra” was much stronger. Now it forces people to make the argument that telecom amnesty is necessary for the war on terra, which is going to be much more difficult to get out of your mouth without your head exploding.

I don’t know why they did it but it seems that they did.

Awesome.

i’m trying to contain my urge to do a happy dance until there is confirmation… but it’s just not possible to feel some relief, excitement and hope – woo hoo!!!!

Me too … and I’m Canadian ! *g*

Can an amendment be filibustered? If not, I don’t see an amendment being defeated; there are 51 votes “for” even without the usual Bush Dogs.

pow wow @ 54

[selise @ 43 - do you mean go over and post a comment at Glenn’s? Sure, I can do that - but feel free to stick any pertinent links in, in case I run into problems getting a comment up. What we all really need, probably, is a statement from the ACLU, pro or con the just-unveiled revised RESTORE Act.]

yes, that is what i meant… if you have problems, i’d be happy to lend a hand. glenn reads all his comments and frequently replies – so i don’t think it would be a wasted effort. and, i think, it would be a help to people like me who learn by “listening” in on conversations between people who have a clue what they’re talking about and yet have slightly different takes/ideas. thanks!

ACLU reporting it’s true:

Washington, DC – The ACLU is delighted that the Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a FISA bill without letting the telephone companies off the hook, although the rest of the bill does not pass constitutional muster.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU said, “We appreciate the work of Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. We still have reservations with both the House and Senate bills, and will continue to work to improve the legislation. It is heartening to know that people who feel their privacy was violated by the phone companies and by their own government are one step closer to having their day in court.

The ACLU is asking Senators to build in more civil liberties and privacy protections when the bill is considered by the whole Senate and to keep telecom immunity out of the final bill. We look to the leadership of Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) who has pledged a filibuster of any bill with telecom immunity in it.

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass the RESTORE Act later this evening. Fredrickson said, “Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) and the Progressive Caucus deserve credit for fighting for important improvements in the bill.”

The ACLU will fight in the coming months to keep immunity for telecommunications companies out of the final bill. Fredrickson said, “Americans whose privacy was violated deserve their day in court against the telephone companies.”

Everyone who called, faxed and emailed, please join Selise in the “happy dance.”

Just got this from the ACLU via e-mail:

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU said, “We appreciate the work of Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. We still have reservations with both the House and Senate bills, and will continue to work to improve the legislation. It is heartening to know that people who feel their privacy was violated by the phone companies and by their own government are one step closer to having their day in court.

The ACLU is asking Senators to build in more civil liberties and privacy protections when the bill is considered by the whole Senate and to keep telecom immunity out of the final bill. We look to the leadership of Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) who has pledged a filibuster of any bill with telecom immunity in it.

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass the RESTORE Act later this evening. Fredrickson said, “Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) and the Progressive Caucus deserve credit for fighting for important improvements in the bill.”

The ACLU will fight in the coming months to keep immunity for telecommunications companies out of the final bill. Fredrickson said, “Americans whose privacy was violated deserve their day in court against the telephone companies.”

LOL Jane — GMTA!

*doing ecstatic Snoopy dance* ;-)

woo hoo!!!

many thanks got to christ dodd, rush holt, russ feingold, pat leahy (and problably a bunch more congress critters i don’t even know about)… and a special thanks to jane and christy and matt and everyone who worked to give our congress spine – and to all of us who supported your efforts.

woo hoo!!!

now-a-days any little win makes me happy …. and this is no little win, this is huge!

The SJC ‘Punted’ Telecom Immunity…

Congress Takes Up Terrorist Surveillance

By PAMELA HESS – 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee punted on Thursday over whether to shield telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly helping the government eavesdrop on Americans.

That decision — the main sticking point in a rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — will be left to the full Senate. The FISA law dictates when the government must obtain court permission to conduct electronic eavesdropping, and President Bush has promised to veto any rewrite that does not provide legal immunity to telecom companies. Bush argues that the lawsuits could bankrupt the companies and reveal classified information.

http://ap.google.com/article/A…..wD8SUD33G0

Does this mean that DiFi will be very unhappy tonight?

…and we thought it was ONLY our soldiers fighting for the rights of Americans! It appears average Americans are also the fighters during this most atrocious time in our history.

selise @ 63

woo hoo!!!

many thanks got to christ dodd, rush holt, russ feingold, pat leahy (and problably a bunch more congress critters i don’t even know about)… and a special thanks to jane and christy and matt and everyone who worked to give our congress spine – and to all of us who supported your efforts.

woo hoo!!!

now-a-days any little win makes me happy …. and this is no little win, this is huge!

Congratulations to all of you … all your hard work paid off !

Someone please tell upstairs.

CTuttle @ 64

The SJC ‘Punted’ Telecom Immunity…

i don’t understand… does that mean i have to stop with the happy dance?

I sure hope there are procedural mechanisms to derail an immunity amendment..if is comes to a vote, it will pass. The thought make me ill.

selise @ 68

CTuttle @ 64

The SJC ‘Punted’ Telecom Immunity…

i don’t understand… does that mean i have to stop with the happy dance?

It’s apparently still in the bill…

“When the full Senate takes up the bill, Specter is likely to offer a compromise that would shield the companies from financial ruin but allow lawsuits to go forward by having the federal government stand in for the companies at trial.”

I think it will be a priority to force cloture, and/or, the Conference Committee to exclude the Immunity… 8-(

But… with Mukasey’s promise to get the eventual result vetoed, won’t this whole thing get re-opened for debate again anyway?

Since PAA sunsets next week, and we have the Dodd hold, and we have the veto threat, it looks to me like we’ll very likely be reverting to FISA Classic for at least a little while… no?

Hmmm.

Hmmm. @ 71

But… with Mukasey’s promise to get the eventual result vetoed, won’t this whole thing get re-opened for debate again anyway?

Since PAA sunsets next week, and we have the Dodd hold, and we have the veto threat, it looks to me like we’ll very likely be reverting to FISA Classic for at least a little while… no?

Hmmm.

Are you sure about the PAA sunset — I thought it was 6 months from when it was signed (late Aug/early Sept).

selise @ 43 & 58, Take Two – I just read your comment and Glenn’s reply, and now, thankfully, the ACLU statement. Glenn seems to be focused on the immunity issue, in which case the RESTORE Act is obviously way ahead of the Senate Intelligence Committee bill. I don’t think I can add too much to his understanding, now that we have this apparent good-news development from the SJC. Everything is going to get into tricky end-of-session negotiations on the Senate floor and in conference, so picking too much right now on RESTORE probably doesn’t help much with that (thanks to Russ Feingold and the SJC). So not being a regular commenter over there, on second thought I think I’ll pass for now on highlighting how I interpret the RESTORE revisions – but I think your comment was helpful and will get him to look twice at it. And now the ACLU statement gives us and Glenn a good framework for the next steps to focus on. Thanks for the timely suggestion, though. What a day…

We are really dependent now on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi deciding to, and then successfully managing to, force the very best (best for the American people, that is, which ought to go without saying) committee-generated product through Congress for a presidential signature/veto. Chris Dodd can and I trust will play a pivotal role in that process in the Senate.

We need to build on the gains we achieved through the hard work of Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, and apparently Pat Leahy and others. The Democratic leadership’s management of its own caucus and parliamentary procedure is the main hurdle potentially standing in the way of our ability to hold those gains.

P.S. The PAA doesn’t sunset until February 5th. And I think the Specter compromise will be an amendment to the Title I-alone version of the bill, if Dodd releases his hold and it reaches the Senate floor. So I think snoopy dances may continue for the time being…

To the question of “can amendments be filibustered,” the answer is YES.
.
PAA doesn’t sunset until February.

Great news!

cboldt @ 74

To the question of “can amendments be filibustered,” the answer is YES.
.
PAA doesn’t sunset until February.

I’m worried that Reid will bypass Dodd’s attempt to filibuster, another 53-40 vote, I suspect…

My mistake, I was thinking of Leahy:

“Senator Specter and I wrote a joint letter seeking referral of this matter in accordance with Senate procedures, but our Committee’s jurisdiction is limited in time. It is set to expire this week. I tried to make that point last week, and to proceed through the amendments to Title I so that we could turn to the retroactive immunity issue in Title II this week, and provide the Senate with our best collective judgment on how best to proceed.”

Sorry, and thanks much for the corrections.

Thanks all for the clarifications on the sunset date…

pow wow can’t bring myself to do a happy dance ’cause I couldn’t take the disappointment if we fail in the end. Still for now, I’ll tap my foot, in a restrained yet cheerful manner, how’s that? ;)

pow wow @ 73 – thank you for the update… at the moment i will hold off too – i’m way behind anyway (and trying to do too many things at the same time).

and besides…. i just want to enjoy the moment. *g*

here’s hoping that holt and tierny and dodd and feingold get put on the conference committee if it gets that far… as prairie sunshine said above: “The “tell” will be in whom Reid [and pelosi] sends in [to conference].”

CTuttle @ 76

cboldt @ 74

To the question of “can amendments be filibustered,” the answer is YES.
.
PAA doesn’t sunset until February.

I’m worried that Reid will bypass Dodd’s attempt to filibuster, another 53-40 vote, I suspect…

can he do that?

Any single determined Senator can force a cloture vote. Reid has no procedural device to prevent that.

Greg Sargent has some more details over at TPM Election Central.

cboldt @ 81

Any single determined Senator can force a cloture vote. Reid has no procedural device to prevent that.

IIRC Rule 22.. cloture vote is called if 16 Senators sign a cloture petition.

Congress seems to be having a hell of a time saying, “No.” It’s too bad that the telecoms went along with him [next time, they’ll do a better job of picking their friends]. Self-serving Bush tying up Congress with his perpetual BUllSHit as usual…

Yes. Any 16 senators can mount a challenge to the single senator who objects to moving forward, and it takes 60 senators to overcome that single senator’s objection to moving forward.

selise @ 80

CTuttle @ 76

I’m worried that Reid will bypass Dodd’s attempt to filibuster, another 53-40 vote, I suspect…

can he do that?

Look at the Mukasey debacle, Ma Cheri! Hadn’t several of the Prez Candies said they opposed his nomination, Ironically, with all of them at the debate, howza’bout another Midnite vote on FISA tonite?

I see a hard fought and close process in both the House and Senate, with the Senate passing a bill with immunity, and the House passing a bill without.
.
In the Senate, Intelligence passed a bill with immunity, gave that to SJC. SJC voted on stripping immunity out, and rejected stripping it out. SJC had on its plate, other proposals for Title II, but didn’t have enough time to air those proposals out in committee, so deviations from Intelligence-passed Title II will have to air in the full Senate.
.
Don’t shoot me, I’m just the prognosticator, but I see the House/Senate conference committee passing a bill with immunity, but couched in sufficient legalese smoke that public debate is delayed and stifled. With an easily-arranged “rush before the Christmas recess,” I see statutory immunity.
.
The alternative scenario of a presidential veto and do-over is too messy. It draws too much attention.

Anyone have word on which Republican voted for the Feingold Amendment?

Snoopy Dance Time!

Sources: Latest Senate FISA Bill Does Not Contain Telecom Immunity
By Greg Sargent – November 15, 2007, 6:13PM

This is pretty big. As some people have been speculating today, aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have confirmed to me that the version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not — repeat, does not — contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..munity.php

7:15pm EAST Coast time-Reids’ mailbox full.
try again in am DEMS.
Great reporting Christy.

Thanks Senators: Dodd,Leahy,Biden, and Obama.

Parlimentarians must be having fits. It sounds like Leahy played a nice trick with the rules and DiFi went along with it. She got to (1) keep her promise and vote AGAINST the amendment stripping immunity from the bill but then (2) vote FOR the referall of the non-immunity related provisions out of committee. Thus she got to keep her word and STILL do the right thing.

Question: could the immunity provisions (Title II) still be voted out of comittee as a separate bill?

– Parlimentarians must be having fits. It sounds like Leahy played a nice trick with the rules and DiFi went along with it. –
.

The parliamentarians know the straight dope, and it’s doubtful that Leahy “pulled a fast one” that amounted to overriding a vote held in open committee.

I know what you mean, phred @ 78. Same here. Restrained yet cheerful passes muster. In line with cboldt’s expectations, my distrustful theory – that I’m unable to quash – is that Harry Reid wanted to end-run Dodd’s hold without actually dishonoring it, so he got Leahy to get a bill without immunity out of committee, to bypass Dodd, so that immunity could get added back to the bill on the floor after Dodd dropped his hold and the bill was brought up for debate… After Mukasey, even though Leahy opposes immunity, I don’t trust him not to cooperate with such a scheme, which is basically what he facilitated to some extent with that nomination. Once burned, twice shy. And we’ve burned way more than once by the Democratic Congress. So yeah, restrained is the order of the day.

What happens when Booosh gets out his veto pen?

Thanks all for working so hard to keep the status and implications clear.

– could the immunity provisions (Title II) still be voted out of comittee as a separate bill? –

.

In principle, yes. There isn’t any particular required “form” for getting a matter before the Senate — that is, there isn’t any substantive difference if something is adopted via amendment, or adopted standing alone as its own bill.

.

As a practical matter, amnesty for telecoms is a battle of wills between Congress and President Bush. Congress aims to blow enough smoke to be reelected, nothing else matters.

jackie @ 13

Sorry completely OT, but this is so wrong on many levels….

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…..096814.stm

The Republicans must be envious. They too want to uphold traditional family values that way.

msmolly @ 94

What happens when Booosh gets out his veto pen?

He probably stabs himself with it and then spills ink all down his shirt and pants leg.

But, that’s just my fantasy. YMMV.

As I said things look bad, and now they look worse than bad

I believe the final outcome will containe precisely what Bush’s legal staff under Fred Fielding and by extension Addington and the Telco laundry list of law firms and lobbyists have hashed out at secret meetings.

Yes, it’s quite true as Glenn Greewald pointed out in his 11th update that Reid could present any bill. I don’t think it will matter because of Conference Committee and the Bush Veto.

I thing Cboldt is right on target with a real sense of how this will play out.

As Cboldt says, it has been the chronic function of Conference Committee to do massive surgery if needed to controversial bills keeping the public completely in the dark. Think there was confusion a plenty today on SJC’s activities–well you’ll learn nothing of what happens in Conference Commmitee ’til it’s over, and they’ve rushed out of town.

Whatever Bush wants, he’s going to get. And the ACLU–Congress couldn’t care less about them at the end of the day that I can ever tell.

cboldt @ 17

The fact that SJC didn’t “report out” Title II just means, I think, that Title II is as reported out by Intelligence. SJC had their chance to have their say, and saying nothing, that part of the bill leaves SJC in the same form it entered.
.
The question of telecom immunity won’t be settled in the first go-around in the Senate. It looks as though the House will pass something, which sets the stage for a conference committee, where things can really be hammered out minus public debate, then hurried through both chambers just before some holiday recess.
.
I don’t see the presence of telecom amnesty as preventing the Senate from taking up and passing S.2248. It might take 60 votes to proceed to the bill, and then to limit debate on the bill, but those votes are there. Then it takes 51 to pass it, and that is an easy hurdle.

cboldt @ 17

If you want an accurate read of how Bush will behave, picture someone disgruntled who takes a rifle and goes into an office and starts picking people off. Bush and Cheney and the White House just don’t care. And what’s going to stop them? A veto? 60 votes to overcome a veto he’ll use if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants? I just don’t see Congress overriding a Bush veto on this issue given the drunken rhetoric by Republicans I watched in the House debate. It was deja vu Osama all bin laden again. You could have easily substituted for most of those tired repetitive speeches, “Hannibal Boogey Man is in the woods and he’s gonna getcha again if we don’t have unfettered wiretappin’”

You’re clearly looking at a Conference Committee now and Bush’s Veto if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants out of it.

It looks doubtful to me that they can muster the votes to support a Dodd fillibuster if it happens.

Telco Amnesty–Absofrigginlutely. Consider it a done deal. Again Conference Committee–Bush Veto. Those are two invincible weapons, given this spineless Congress. Look at Judiciary Committee. They punted even with a Democratic majority.

So enough votes to overcome a veto don’t seem to be there. And this bill is going to a Conference Committee– so whatever comes out of the Conference committee is what Bush will be looking at to launch his veto if there’s anything that’s not in the cake he baked with the Telco lobbyists and law firms.

They don’t need to work with Congress near as much anymore–given the dynamic in the equation now they just meet with Cheney, Addington, and Fielding and present what they want and Bush’s vetos, blind Republican apparichiks and spineless Democrat Caveocrats deliver it every time.

If you want a premonition to the outcome of this, just remember that in a Committee that the Caveocrats “control” they have controlled no significant vote, and 3 spineless Caveocrats, shockingly Sheldon Whitehouse of all people gave it up for Telco amnesty.

– I just don’t see Congress overriding a Bush veto on this issue –
.
I don’t see Congress as having enough guts to invite the veto. Watching how the PAA was passed, it’s rather obvious that the procedural aspects are scripted with a certain outcome “in the sights” to begin with. Most of the passionate rhetoric about protecting personal privacy, in between taking up and passing the bill, is sucker-bait for votes.
.
Last time around, PAA, there was at least one Senator (Lieberman, IIRC) expressing that the bill should not even be debated in public, because doing so shows internal discord and emboldens our enemies, the terrorists.

Senate Page S10865 – August 03, 2007

Mr. LIEBERMAN. May I say first that I regret this debate is happening at all. I regret the news coverage of this discussion. I wish this had been able to be settled among Members of both parties in both Houses and the executive branch. If not, I wish we were debating this in executive session. …

Now, he may have had in mind the narrow circumstance of “we’ve gone dark recently, and need to get back to where we were,” but still, consideration of the fourth amendment is completely absent from his plea. Not even an acknowledgment that perhaps the PAA goes too far in one direction, but necessarily so (in his opinion). I was surprised and taken aback by his speech, hearing it come out live. Given the modest amount of debate, I’m confident that many other Senators share his sentiment – this subject is best handled by giving the administration what it asks for, and then blame them for whatever fallout, be it a successful terrorist attack, or a lost criminal case for fourth amendment violation.

Cboldt @100-101:

Points well taken.