The Blue Dogs wrote Mike McConnell a letter. They had met with him that day in August.

[madfloridian]

I am getting concerned about where this immunity deal is going. I thought the House version had omitted the immunity for the telecoms, but not sure now.

From The Next Hurrah today:

What Did the Blue Dogs Promise to DNI McConnell?

now I'm wading through Friday's document dump. These are the documents the EFF forced DNI to release after he had been stalling on their release; he was supposed to provide all correspondence between Congress and DNI and between the telecoms and DNI. More on how far short he fell of compliance in another post.

A lot of the attention so far has focused on this letter from Jello Jay to Mike McConnell, rebuking him for his bait and switch during the debates over the Protect America Act.

For the moment, though, I'm just as interested in this letter, from the Blue Dogs to McConnell. It memorializes a meeting the Blue Dogs had with McConnell that same day, August 1. I find it interesting for two reasons. First, it shows that McConnell was working the faction of the Democratic Party that would most likely split from the rest to give the Administration proposal a majority without widespread support among Democrats (which, of course, is precisely what happened just two days later).

The other interesting detail is how reasonable the Blue Dog proposal was. In particular, they note that they supported a revision that required individual warrants for Americans, and one that sunsets in six months. Though--of serious concern for the upcoming FISA debate--they state,

We also agree that it is important to address the issue of retroactive liability for private sector partners.

I often check out the policy at the DLC/PPI website. Today I found they are apparently telling the Democrats that they should allow immunity for the telecoms.

..."However, it makes little sense to hold up progress on modernizing the FISA bill to punish private companies that responded to White House requests for information. Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has done yeoman's work as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to forge this compromise, and offered an explanation of his support for an immunity clause in an October 31 Washington Post editorial: "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."

In a separate editorial for The Hill on November 8, former senator Bob Kerrey stated, "We cannot hope to achieve such unity of effort (to defeat the enemy) if on the one hand we call upon private industry to aid us in this fight, and on the other allow them to be sued for their good-faith efforts to help."

In sum, since the telecommunications companies had no way of independently verifying the program's legality and were pressured by White House invocations of the national interest, efforts to punish them fail to address the real cause of the problem.

As someone said in response to this post earlier....they are trying to make it sound like the telecoms have dumb lawyers. Dumb like foxes they are.

This kind of thing goes against all we are fighting for as activists. We have called, written, begged....now it appears to be coming up next week. Harry Reid has two versions, one with the immunity and one without. It is up to him to decide.

I agree with emptywheel at the Next Hurrah. I want to know about that meeting.

[notadmblnd]

1. What a crock of shit!

How the hell can they get away with saying they had no way of knowing? These corporations have a slew of the best lawyers working for them. My god, could I, Joe six pack get away with claiming ignorance of the law?

I want to know who the F&%k is getting paid?

[JDPriestly]

2. So, the corporations want the rights of citizens, but don't want the

responsibility of citizens to say "No" and speak out when asked to violate the law. The Telecoms were wimps. The librarians spoke out. Yet the librarians have less power than the telecoms. This is why we need to curb the influence of big corporations in D.C. They are not only corrupt, bad citizens, they are gutless. What wimps. The big corporations have in-house attorneys and the money to get legal opinions whenever they need them. There is no excuse.

So, our rights have been violated. If the telecoms are not at fault, who is? Are they going to let the telecoms go and impeach Bush? No. They are just going to shut their eyes to the violations of our rights.

[madfloridian]

4. The librarians made me proud. They had courage.

Proud of them.

[Supersedeas]

27. sums it up - telecoms demand special treatment under the law

[madfloridian]

3. More about the Blue Dogs control over congress....met with Bush. Not with Dem leadership.

Something is wrong with that picture.

The article is from August.

The New Dixiecrats Behind the YouTube Spy Bill Vote–An InDepth Report

Back in December, shortly after the election, I blogged that the results showed “Essentially, without the Blue Dogs, whose group discipline is legendary, the Democrats will be unable to govern.”

More from the blog:

So it should be no surprise the Blue Dogs were active in passing passing the YouTube spying bill. If some of those bloggers had read The Hill last week they would have realized that the bill was probably going to pass–but then when the article came out they were all busy hyping the kos convention.

Now, after the vote, it seems as though blogdom has finally discovered the Blue Dogs and are writing all sorts of clever and nasty pieces about these “traitors.” But then those folks don’t visit this site too often. Big Dogs and Blue Dogs both like to woof a lot. Before all those posts, The Hill detailed how Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Michael McConnell secretly worked with the Blue Dogs first to insure that the bill would come to a vote before the recess and second to get their cooperation.

And a little bit more:

In other words, any attempt by the Democrats to derail the YouTube spying bill was doomed from the start because 33 members of their own party had already cut a deal with the Bush Administration to support the measure. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were stabbed in the back by members of their own party over one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Congress this year.

What is especially galling is that the Blue Dogs met with McConnell and apparently did not meet with leaders of their own party. Reid and Pelosi were shut out but the Bush Administration was not. What can only be seen as a deliberate “in your face” move against their own party should give us all pause about the direction Congress will take after they return from their recess.

And yet we keep on saying that to win in a red state or in the South, we must elect near Republicans.

And we just keep on doing it. The same thing over and over...and we have Bush Dogs who work with Bush and not the Democrats.

[defendandprotect]

11. THIS may also have something to do with the PROMISE to not impeach --- ?????

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. Ignorance is no excuse in a court of law. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. Oh yeah... watch this issue sink to the bottom of public consciousness here & elsewhere

Telecoms unwittingly control what people think, even people who read these
boards. Next time there is a big dust-up on cable you will have dozens of
posts on it. Meanwhile you will have one short-lived thread about telecom
immunity (like the end of Brown v. Board of Education.)

Is retroactive immunity (from criminal prosecution) even legal
from the executive branch?

[madfloridian]

7. The way it dropped indicates people are not being activist about it now.

And probably are more concerned about bashing candidates.

I found this in the comments of the post by emptywheel. It shows a kind of thoughtful posting that goes on about it from people who realize that soon we the people might be given the honor of paying if the telecoms are sued.

"It was very clear from that "Blue Dogs" letter that Jane and her mutts were more than just supportive of Telco retroactive immunity, they were enthusiastic.

It was as if, "how could anyone not provide shelter to these poor ol' patriotic Telco heroes in our War on Terra?"

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect wrt Telco retroactive immunity between the Village dwellers and certainly the blogosphere, but I believe also, the entire non-Village population, i.e. the very citizenry of our nation.

I have yet to find any Village elder make even a semblance of a convincing case as to just why these criminal acts must be excused.

It is always about "patriotism" as if that very concept relieves one of the responsibility to be law-abiding.

Its sort of like: "They were patriots first, and only criminals second."

[Neecy]

8. This doesn't surprise me

One of the leading Congressional Blue Dogs, Dennis Moore, has Sprint headquartered in his district. Telecoms lead him around by the nose.

[madfloridian]

9. Leahy is even being pressured by the FBI NEI...they claim ignorance as excuse.

This page has part of the letter to Leahy, and the pressure is on. Also law enforcement groups are pushing for the immunity.

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/12/_fbinei_nationa.php

"Section 202 provides much needed relief from mass tort litigation relief to telecommunications companies that helped protect our nation after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. Should this narrow provision not be adopted, we believe that all levels of law enforcement will suffer by losing the cooperation of vital allies in our ongoing fight against crime. Businesses may feel compelled to avoid the risk of litigation by declining to cooperate with law enforcement even though they have every reason to believe the request is lawful.

In the weeks following the 9/11 attacks, some telecommunications companies were apparently asked by the President for their assistance with intelligence activities, aimed at preventing similar attacks in the future. These companies were assured that their compliance was necesary and deemed lawful by the Attorney General. Upon complying with the government's request and providing information that would keep the American people safe; these companies now face the prospect of years of litigation, even though they cannot defend themselves in court due to the highly classified nature of the governmental program they were assured was legal."

I thought in a court of law, ignorance was NO excuse. But then maybe that is why they are pushing for the immunity. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

10. The GOP is "working" the Blue Dogs---???!!! Nancy? Harry?

[Robbien]

12. Nancy and Harry are fully aware that Blue Dogs regularly meet with GOPers

Blue Dogs brag about their secret meetings and deals with GOPers.

[defendandprotect]

13. I had no idea . . . !!!

but evidently mtgs are "SECRET" . . . ???

And, I gather the press isn't discussing this much either --- ???

So -- in order for Harry and Nancy to get cooperation of Blue Dogs, they almost
have to be making deals with the GOP?

This is sick --- !!!

[Robbien]

14. Yes it is sick

which is why there is a lot of animosity on this board against DLC/BlueDogs. Also it is why the word bipartisanship is a very dirty word here.

Heck, to get the BlueDogs to vote with Dems, we have to make a deal with the devil and go on bended knee begging for BlueDogs cooperation.

[defendandprotect]

16. Wow -- !! I'll have to go recheck and see how many of them there are . . . ???

And this is still, perhaps, based on Southern racism in part?
Religious fanatacism-?

What would any of these "blue-conservative" areas have to gain from a war for OIL?
or Blackwater, or destruction of social programs, bankrupting states?

Am I naive that a bit of speaking out by the leadership might wake up their constitutents???

I get the feeling, the answer is I'm underinformed and naive on this --- ????

[Robbien]

18. The new and upcoming leadership of the party

is in favor of the BlueDogs. Along with the old established leadership. In fact the DCCC uses our contributions to recruit BlueDogs to run against Progressives in primaries. Sick.

The Democratic Leadership (DLC) and the New Dems and the Blue Dogs are all very right wing in their politics.

In the House there are 47 BlueDogs and approximately a dozen in the Senate.

In any vote where there are Dems voting with GOPers, you can bet the farm the BlueDogs are the culprits.

[defendandprotect]

19. So, Pelosi is tightly DLC then . . . ?

Obviously, Howard Dean has been trying to fight this --- and perhaps underestimated their strength? -- how is he working, do you think, to do that?

Of course, Gore and Clinton co-founded the DLC --- !!!

And it looks like about 10% in House and Senate --- ???

20% roughly of Dems --- ???


Again --- how does this profit the blue areas -- ?
Or is this again just holdover stuff?
With DCCC encouraging it ---
or is it widespread in those areas?

There are no benefits to these positions as far as I can see --- ???

[defendandprotect]

20. PS: So progressives or liberal Dems are 80% .... of party???

Why doesn't DLC feel threatened by a walk out --- ???

[Robbien]

21. It profits to be a BlueDog.

because a BlueDog is very pro-corporate and as such rake in tons of lobby money. A BlueDog is also very powerful because not only do they have a say in their own party, they have a say in the GOPer party.

Blue States profit by having more pork sent their way since neither Dems or GOPers fight against BlueDogs adding pork to bills.

And yes, Dean fought against this. When Dean was leading the 2004 primary race, it was a huge question on who actually torpedoed him, Dem Leadership or GOPers.

[defendandprotect]

22. But what do Blue Dog constituents have to gain? Why elect these people?

they're aiding the GOP raid on the Treasury --- bankrupting it and the states ---

Total harm to infrastructure, schools, social programs ---

Why doesn't Dem leadership speak out on this to those area costitutents?

Doesn't Dean try to do this in his 50 state push?

Why can't the Dems undermine the Blue Dogs in their home areas?

Oh, yeah . . Dem/DLC leadership in play has no will to win over the blue dogs? Right?


This is ending me to bed with a headache ---

thanks for the info --- better to know!

[Horse with no Name]

23. Probably the most important point made.

They are playing both sides of the fence.

[madfloridian]

15. The Blue Dogs opposed Pelosi for leader.

I believe Hoyer was their pick. I believe they are waiting to take over.

[defendandprotect]

17. Perhaps, then, all that had to happen was Hoyer and the Blue Dogs ....

promising the GOP that there wouldn't be an impeachment ---

and the answer is not that we don't have the GOP votes, but that we don't have right-wing

Dem votes --- ???


This is really weird ---

[Horse with no Name]

24. This is why it matters WHO has the (D) next to their name

not just that there is one.
Our party has been infiltrated by right leaning moderate republicans that pretend to be Democrats.

[defendandprotect]

26. Ok . . . so we have the same thing having happened in the Dem party which happened

to the Greens ---

The Greens have made a come-back however to large degree --- I hope!

I guess we have to know more about how that was worked out ---

For one, there was OPEN discussion of the fact that there were Democrats involved in
doing harm to the Green Party --

They were identified ---


I think we need more details on this . . ..

[OzarkDem]

25. Time to purge the GOP from the Dem majority in Congress

I don't care how Pelosi, Reid, and the rest try to justify letting the GOP control Congress through the Blue Dogs, the voters care a whole lot.

If they're sincere about wanting to get a Dem elected to the WH next year, they'd better start governing the way voters want them to instead of letting a few Dem traitors run the show.

No Dem will win the WH next year if this crap continues.

[defendandprotect]

28. Targetting each and every Blue Dog would take a lot of time, while tDCC would still be

recruiting new Blue Dogs . . . ???

I think we need more leverage on this ---
and more savvy political advice ---

The Democratic Party is contaminated by Republican influence ---
and sufficiently so that we don't really have a Democratic Party or
reliable Democratic leadership ---

We need to face this and figure out if there is any way to salvage the party --- ???