Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kos: Dems Implicated in Illegal Wiretapping Ready to Compromise

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 05:15 PM
Original message
Kos: Dems Implicated in Illegal Wiretapping Ready to Compromise
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 05:28 PM by Flabbergasted
Dems Implicated in Illegal Wiretapping Ready to Compromise
by drational
Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:45:53 AM PDT

Select members of Congress have been briefed, at least in part, on the Bush Administration Warrantless Wiretapping Program since 2001. The "Gang of Eight" and other Congressional leaders briefed on The Program when it was clearly in violation of existing FISA law included several Democrats still in leadership positions in Congress.
It is not surprising these Democratic leaders are now willing to compromise on every surveillance concession demanded by the White House. Nor is it any surprise that they are willing to grant retroactive immunity to TelCos....

Because TelCo immunity will likely mean immunity for the Administration officials who ordered the illegality.

And of course, it will also mean immunity* for the Congressmen and women who gave a Congressional green light to the Administration.

The three Democrats most frequently briefed on the Warrantless Surveillance Program Between 10/2001 and 3/2004, were Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman and John D. Rockefeller. In March 2004, mutineers in the DOJ including James Comey, Jack Goldsmith and Patrick Philbin, blocked DOJ authorization of The Program on the grounds that it was illegal.

Those who crafted the illegal Program, those who authorized the illegal Program, and those who perpetrated the illegal Program are no doubt fearful of prosecution for their role in the illegal Program.

Those in Congress who were given the secret blueprint for this Unitary Executive powerplay, are no doubt also a bit worried.

What better way to ease one's troubled soul than to grant immunity for any past illegality associated with The Program?


Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker of the House, was instrumental in crafting the Rules governing debate of the "Protect America Act" which sailed through Congress in August. Limiting debate and amendments on PAA guaranteed it's passage, and Pelosi knew this. Neither the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, nor Speaker Pelosi have committed to opposing retroactive immunity.



John D. Rockefeller just chaired the SSCI panel that voted for retroactive TelCo immunity 12-2. Although Rockefeller voiced secret concerns about the Warrantless Wiretapping Program in a handwritten letter to Dick Cheney in 2003, he is now a strong supporter of retroactive immunity.



Jane Harman was removed from her position on the HPSCI after the Congressional changes in November 2006, yet according to a WaPo article today, she is engineering a Democratic capitulation on retroactive immunity behind closed doors:

And as Democratic leaders push their own legislation to rein in the wiretapping program, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) has been quietly exploring avenues of compromise with Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee. Centrist Democrats hope those talks can dovetail with the Senate intelligence committee's own bipartisan measure on surveillance of suspected terrorists.


Analysis

Can anyone say "conflict of interest"?
emptywheel at The Next Hurrah has it right in suggesting Harman needs a primary challenge. There are at least two other Democrats, Pelosi and Rockefeller, who should recuse themselves from decision-making on retroactive immunity. It is clear that the asses they are covering just might include their own.


Update

Several commentators have pointed out that Congressmen and women are entitled to protected speech and debate, and hence immunity. While true, this does not protect them from arrest for felonies or treason.

Regardless, my use of the word "immunity" for complicit Congressmen and women was intended to include general immunity (electoral, political, and historical) rather than a strictly legal term:

The Bush Power Grab has been historical. Bush did not grab power without help from Congress. If the details of the Surveillance Program become known, and the illegality is revealed to be as egregious and antithetical to American Values as Goldsmith and Comey found it, the public may finally be shocked and recoil from the violations. Members of the Administration could be held accountable. Congressmen who were apprised of the illegal program and did not stop it would certainly be considered villains. If the information comes to light while these Congressmen are still in positions of power, they would have much to lose. So it is clear, to me at least, regardless of whether they could or would face criminal or civil legal jeopardy, immunity for TelCos could have important political, electoral, and historical consequences for Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/30/101037/57
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Explains a lot about Pelosi taking impeachment off the table...
partners in crime, perhaps? Hmmmmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CranialRectaLoopbak Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-31-07 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Impeachment off the table ...
I think it time we take Pelosi off the table. Voter her out in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Pelosi should step down as Speaker now. rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I second the motion.
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 05:43 PM by Benhurst
Recommended :kick: #9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. reaching across the aisle?
or under the table?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Once upon a time I would have been surprised by Pelosi's involvement.
Not anymore. It just figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. *TILT*

Jane Harman is more of a probem than a solution, national security-wise.

Jay Rockefeller is even more of a problem because on the Senate intel committee he had some independent institutional power of oversight which he pissed away, and now I know why.

Bastards. Played like a dummy hand in bridge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. My head is exploding!
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. Out with all three of them - resign and let us pay the consequences.
It's the only right thing to do. They gambled and lost. They are not the friends of citizens. No wonder I've been unhappy with the words coming from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. god i fucking hate pelosi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Hate's a strong word but I'd like a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
11. Sad. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-31-07 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
13. So How Many political parties run this country? One, you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-31-07 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
14. How did Nancy get the Speaker job?
Was this all part of the plan, I wonder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-31-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. They should not be allowed to vote then! absolutely not! Nor should ANYONE receiving money
from att or verizon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC