**** Senate Judiciary FISA Hearing Thread 1 *******

[MiniMe]

Just started. No coverage on CSPAN, can listen to the live webcast off the website.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3009

[maddezmom]

1. thanks for the link, watching now

:hi:

[redqueen]

2. Thanks for the link... can't stream though...

so thanks in advance to anyone kind enough to feed the cube rats. :)

[MiniMe]

3. Opening statements going on now

Leahy spoke, now Spector.

[madokie]

4. is there a link other than the real player one

I went to cspan 1, 2, and 3, no dice

[MiniMe]

5. I don't think so. You can try capitol hearings.com

They may have a link to the audio, but not sure what format its in.

[madokie]

7. thanks

[MiniMe]

8. Spector wants to work on Mukasey's confirmation before the FISA hearing

Leahy said no because Mukasey just responded late last night to the questions on waterboarding.

[MiniMe]

16. Ugh, Sessions is such a suck-up

[bdamomma]

6. thanks Mini Me for the reminder!!!

you guys are soo good!!! oh poo, it's not on c span, geez, I can't get this feed either, at work. I will need to be fed the details thanks.

[helderheid]

9. thanks!

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. C-SPAN 3 is re-airing the Iraq War hearing from yesterday instead of THIS? No wonder Brian Lamb

received The Medal of Freedom from the psycho.:eyes: There is a reason Friday's C-SPAN Washington Journal REALLY IS...Fascist Friday.:(

Lamb Wins Presidential Medal of Freedom


-- Multichannel News, 10/29/2007 9:48:00 PM

C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb will be awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom next month, the White House said Monday.

Lamb is one of eight recipients this year of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civil award, which was established in 1963,

[halobeam]

11. thanks, listening now.

[VP505]

12. Feingold, making some

very good comments and asking some great questions.

[MiniMe]

13. As he always does

[bdamomma]

14. anything good coming up on this hearing, I cannot get no feed.

[MiniMe]

15. The typical. They are going through warrentless wiretapping now

They discussed the telecom immunity before.

Sessions on now lobbing softballs

[madokie]

17. sessions is a softball

how can his constituents stand listening to him, his voice or what he has to say, either one

[VP505]

19. Softballs

and cheer leading for the program, the Admin and the Telecoms, what a douche.

[MiniMe]

18. Ugh, Sessions is such a suck-up

Apparently nobody should be responsible for anything.

[MiniMe]

20. Leahy clearing up some of Sessions points

Asks if he has heard from any member of congress that we shouldn't be doing surveilance. Says no. Sessions pops up again with "The Pres has been under severe attack". Leahy comes back with the members are concerned that the Pres is not following the law. Sessions says that he is under the impression that the Pres was following the law.

More BS, but Leahy made his point.

[MiniMe]

21. Cardin up now

[pberq]

22. Cornyn - softballs, cheerleading the war machine

[pberq]

23. Whitehouse - great questions

asking if the U.S. can spy on an American family vacationing in the Carribean

[DemReadingDU]

24. Sen Whitehouse is up

stating that the Protect America law allows wiretapping of US citizens while they travel abroad without any supervision, oversight, or warrants.

I guess I missed that originally, didn't realize we could be spyed on outside of U.S.

[Mojorabbit]

25. Geez

Lindsay Graham is making sense.

[rodeodance]

26. Durbin asking IF any telcoms REFUSED to give info but it is classified--

[rodeodance]

27. Link in OP works fine for me (regular cspan3 link did not work---odd)

[MiniMe]

34. Its not on cspan

And it should be

[rodeodance]

28. Dubin saying WH can not argue IN good faith" since one refused to turn over the info.

[robinlynne]

29. Why is Feinstein chairing this? Isn't Leahy the chairman?

[truebrit71]

30. Perhaps Leahy is drafting another 'strongly worded letter'...

...:shrug:

[robinlynne]

32. I'm counting on Leahy to stop FISA in this committee. Feinstein cannot be trusted.

[truebrit71]

36. I'm hoping that Leahy does as you suggest, but recent history leads me to be less than...

..optimistic...

Feinstein is about as useful as a kick-stand on a Jackass...

[cali]

42. What recent history?

Are you talking about his not having gotten a vote on contempt citations? You do realize it take a vote on the floor, right? You do realize that he's not in control of that, right? Or maybe you mean that he allowed Mukasey a hearing when he didn't get the info from bushco? You do realize that bushco pulled a last minute switch by installing Keisler the day that he nominated Mukasey, right?

So beyond that, what has Leahy done or not done that makes you believe he's not interested in preventing the FISA bill from granting immunity to the telecoms?

Should Leahy recommend immunity and should he vote to let Mukasey's nom go to the floor, I'll agree that he no longer can be counted on.

[truebrit71]

54. You have noticed the trend for Dem capitualtion recently right?

On FISA, on war-funding, on habeus corpus, on moveon.org on Rep Stark...

You've not seen that trend?

May I borrow your rose-tinted glasses when you're done?

[cali]

40. yes. of course. That's all Leahy's ever done in his career

what baloney.

[truebrit71]

41. Who are those subpoena's working out?

....I think he sent a VERY strongly worded letter about those didn't he?

[cali]

44. What should he do?

Do you even have the slightest clue how contempt of congress works?

[truebrit71]

45. Okay, professor..the floor is all yours....

...explain away....

[cali]

50. I already explained. It takes a vote on the Senate floor

I believe it's simple majority, but face it, Lieberman and probably Landrieu and Nelson and Nelson, wouldn't vote for it. I can't think of any repukes who would, either. Nor is Leahy in control of what comes to the floor for a vote. That would be the Senate leadership.

[truebrit71]

55. Reid is though right? Do the Dems NOT have a whip for their members?

Why not use it?

[cali]

58. I don't know that it's possible to force dems from

NE or LA to go along with what the leadership wants. And the Senate isn't the House. In any case, I was addressing your attacking Leahy for things outside of his control.

[MiniMe]

35. Leahy was there earlier, Feinstein often chairs when he is gone

[rodeodance]

31. Jay Rockefeller Channels Dick Cheney’s Fear-Mongering to Urge Telecom Amnesty

Forum Name Editorials & Other Articles
Topic subject Glenn Greenwald: Jay Rockefeller Channels Dick Cheney’s Fear-Mongering to Urge Telecom Amnesty
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x318031#318031
318031, Glenn Greenwald: Jay Rockefeller Channels Dick Cheney’s Fear-Mongering to Urge Telecom Amnesty
Posted by marmar on Wed Oct-31-07 11:04 AM

from Salon.com, via CommonDreams:



Published on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 by Salon.com
Jay Rockefeller Channels Dick Cheney’s Fear-Mongering to Urge Telecom Amnesty
by Glenn Greenwald


Leading telecom advocate Fred Hiatt this morning turned over his Washington Post Op-Ed page today to leading telecom advocate Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, to explain why it is so “unfair and unwise” to allow telecoms to be sued for breaking the law. Just as all Bush followers do when they want to “justify” lawbreaking, Rockefeller’s entire defense is principally based on one argument: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. Thus he melodramatically begins:


In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush administration had a choice: Aggressively pursue potential terrorists using existing laws or devise new, secret intelligence programs in uncharted legal waters. . . .

Within weeks of the 2001 attacks, communications companies received written requests and directives for assistance with intelligence activities authorized by the president. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland.


Using 9/11 to “justify” telecom amnesty is not only manipulative, but also completely misleading. Telecoms did not merely break the law in the intense days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks. Had they done only that, there would almost certainly be no issue. Indeed, the lead counsel in the AT&T case, Cindy Cohn, said in the podcast interview I conducted with her last week that had telecoms enabled illegal surveillance only in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — but then thereafter demanded that the surveillance be conducted legally — EFF almost certainly would not have sued at all.

But that isn’t what happened. Both the Bush administration and the telecoms jointly broke the law for years. Even as we moved further and further away from the 9/11 attacks, neither the administration nor the telecoms bothered to comply with the law. The administration was too interested in affirming the theory that the President could exercise power without limits, and the telecoms were too busy reaping the great profits from their increasingly close relationship with the Government.

The 9/11 attacks could be a coherent (though not persuasive) defense to lawless surveillance on September 13, 2001 or even on October 13, 2001 — but not throughout 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and into 2007. That is nothing more than deliberate lawbreaking motivated by limitless power (in the case of Bush) and swelling profits (in the case of telecoms). Rockefeller’s exploitation of 9/11 and “patriotism” to justify years of illegal spying is shameless in the extreme, and the only thing “unfair and unwise” is to pass laws with no purpose other than to relieve the lawbreakers of all consequences. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4934 /

[rodeodance]

57. Hatch just went on and on repeating WH talking points. Feinstien finally politely cut

him off.

[robinlynne]

33. Feinstein gives Orrin hatch extra time. noone else yet, just Hatch.

[robinlynne]

37. ok. That man was questioned by 2 dems and 4 repubs. plus extra republican time.

[Mojorabbit]

38. I like this

guy speaking now. Rockefeller is going to give them immunity though and that really pisses me off.

[truebrit71]

43. Give WHO immunity?

???

[robinlynne]

48. ATT and Verizon, who spied on Americans illegally. there are 40 lawsuits against

them. Bush insists they be given retroactive immunity.

[Mojorabbit]

49. The telecoms

see
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2173968

[truebrit71]

52. ..but how is Rockefeller going to give it to them?

...that's what I didn't understand about the post...I wasn't sure if he was immunizing someone about to testify...

[Mojorabbit]

53. No

he is making a case for giving the telecoms retroactive immunity in his washington post op ed.

[robinlynne]

60. Rockeeller chairs the intelligence committee. His committee approved

retroactive immunity for the telecoms and blanket warrants instead of individual warrants. It passed despit objections from Feingold and Wyden. now it is the judiciary committee's turn. if it passes here, it goes for a full vote.

[robinlynne]

46. not if this committee says no. It has to make it through this committee.

[cali]

51. It may actually turn out to be a good thing that

none of the Committee members but Leahy and Specter got to see the classified material about this.

[truebrit71]

56. Why? I'm curious?

...

[cali]

59. because I think it makes it harder on them

to vote to retain immunity if they haven't been shown any "compelling" reason to do so. I suspect that the classified material shows that the illegal wiretapping was responsible for disrupting some huge, dire "terror plot". I think it's bullshit, but I think such things are effective at cowing dems. I expect the White House to leak something like this within a couple of weeks.

[truebrit71]

61. If that were the case I'm sure the WH would have already said something to that effect..

..by now though...I think the reason they're hiding it is because it either shows that almost exclusively Dems have been spied on, or that the programme is being wildly mis-used...

[cali]

62. that makes no sense.

You're suggesting that the dems don't want to reveal gross bush malfeasance? Wow. That's really out in left field.

And of course, you're wrong about saying that the WH would already have leaked something; no, they'll leak it when it's most advantageous to leak.

[truebrit71]

63. No that's NOT what I'm saying...read it again...

..I am saying that the reason the info has been kept under wraps is because * has been a naughty little dictator but only TWO Senators would know that..hence it would be VERY easy to figure out where the leak might come from if it ever got out...

And, no, I am NOT wrong about the timing either...They aready KNOW that they have enough republicans (from both sides of the aisles) to pass this, so the most advantageous time to release some 'dire' plot foiled by tapping phones would be NOW as the Dems are 'dragging' their feet in committee...

Which means that they probably HAVE been spying on political opponents and not so much on the terr-ists...and don't want to get nicked for it..

[cali]

64. we're talking at cross purposes

First of all, the entire Intelligence Committee saw the classified material about the telecoms. Secondly, I'm saying that the admin is the entity that will leak. The WH may know that they have enough votes to pass it as is, but they don't know if it will get out of the Judiciary Committee.

And frankly, I believe if the classified materials showed that the WH was spying on political opponents, ALL of the Dems on the Intelligence Committee would have voted against the FISA bill with immunity. You seem to be assuming that the admin dug up such dirt on dems that they're being blackmailed. I don't buy it.

[truebrit71]

65. I am suggesting that the blackmailing idea might not be so far fetched...

..

[cali]

66. OK

that doesn't logically fit for me. I think if it were true, someone like Feingold or Leahy would go straight to the press.

[truebrit71]

67. If they were being blackmailed?

Hmmmmm??

[Mojorabbit]

39. This guy

is full of terra terra terra

[robinlynne]

47. I'm shocked. Feinstein is taking a good position. I eat my words. happily.