Updated and bumped: OK, Threat Level got the quote wrong.  The actual quote from her floor statement (which I have checked against the C-SPAN video) is the following:

We take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.  In that Preamble to that Constitution, we must provide for the common defense.  Essential to honoring that commitment to protect the American people is to have the operational intelligence that will help us do that.

When I first went on the Intelligence Committee, our focus was on force protection.  Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence to make the decisions necessary to keep them safe and to do their job.  It is still a primary responsibility of our Intelligence Committee.

In addition to that, we have the fight on the war on terrorism.  The fight against terrorism wherever it may exist.  Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plans of the terrorist and to defeat those plans.  So we can’t go without a bill.  That’s just simply not an option.  But to have a bill we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States and this bill does not.

She goes on to explain that the bill is better than the Senate Bill, yadda yadda yadda.  Except the Senate Bill is dead, and all that the House had to do was nothing.  Sit on its hands, or maybe just fix the single loophole in FISA.   Now it’s weak sauce, I think, to hold the provide-for-the-common-defense preamble clause as the reason for gutting the 4th Amendment, but at least she got her oath right, so I retract that criticism.  The rest of my objections stand.  Today was a contemptible capitulation by the Democratic leadership to the Republican Party’s war on the rule of law, one in which Speaker Pelosi participated.

[end update]  

From a Threat Level report on the House gutting the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and striking a blow against accountability and the rule of law:

“We took an oath to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Pelosi said. “Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plans of the terrorists, so we can’t not have a bill.”

Unless this is a radical misquote, this is false in two ways.  The trivial falsehood is that this travesty is necessary.  The only thing that is necessary for “good intelligence” (aside from having an Administration that actually gives a damn about it) is the trivial work to patch the one hole in FISA to allow the Feds to listen in when a non-US person (non-citizen outside the US) calls another non-US person, but the contact is routed through the US.  A get-out-of-jail-free card for the telcos is not necessary, nor is the rest of the bill, as has been ably shown elsewhere.

The truly enormous falsehood is the nature of the oath that Speaker Pelosi asserts she took.  Here, in full, is the oath of office for members of the House of Representatives:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I am one of Speaker Pelosi’s constituents, and (unless the quote here is completely wrong) I will not be voting for Speaker Pelosi in November, nor, I suspect, ever again.  She doesn’t actually seem to know her most solemn duty, the only duty to which she’s sworn an actual oath as a member of the people’s House, is to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including our Fourth Amendment, even though the Republicans might campaign against the Constitution.  For those who may have forgotten (including, apparently, Speaker Pelosi):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Back in March of 2008, Speaker Pelosi said the following in a conference call with bloggers, as reported by TPM:

Exclusivity is the issue.

To which Kagro X at DailyKos counters, with irrefutable proof: No it isn’t.

Here’s the “exclusivity” provision of the old FISA law, still on the books when George W. Bush instituted his illegal programs:

[P]rocedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

The “administration’s” lawyers — people like John Yoo — advised Bush that the president had the “inherent power” to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of “national security.” So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

The upshot is: how can exclusivity be the issue in this new FISA fight if the airtight exclusivity in the previous recension of the bill didn’t stop the Bush Administration from completely ignoring it?

This is not hard: having an exclusivity provision in a law is only useful when dealing with people who don’t intend to break it.  If you’re dealing with people who have broken similar laws before, the one thing you’d want to make sure you put on there is a guarantee that those who do break it will pay a price of some kind.

If you give immunity to organizations that were complicit in breaking the law; if you do not enforce inherent contempt against those who are in a position to know what lawbreaking was done when they refuse to testify; and if you take the threat of pressing charges against those who break the law off the table; then you may as well not have any laws at all.  Doesn’t matter if those laws have an all-hallowed “exclusivity provision” or not.

The sham “compromise” on FISA is now being considered in the in House.  After all of this time fighting to make sure the telecom companies don’t get immunity, it is extremely frustrating and disheartening to see the leadership cave to the Bush administration.  There was absolutely no need to do it.  We could have run out the clock until Bush was out of office.

It is heartening to hear from my Rep, who rarely seems to step out with her own strong voice on FISA.  Here is the statement from Rep. Doris Matsui on FISA.

I believe firmly that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they go hand in hand.  It is in celebration of our civil liberties that we fight to secure our nation and preserve our way of life.  In the absence of the liberties and values that we hold most dear, we lose a piece of our national identity and a small piece of the heart of our country.

That is why I must, in good conscience, vote against the FISA legislation before the House today.   The structure of the bill chips away at the bedrock of our liberties.  It is exactly times like these when we must pause, study our national discourse, and make a choice to take a principled stand against the erosion of the principles we cherish.

This is not a partisan battle, although many have fought to make it one.  It is a fight for the right of every American citizen to be free of oppression and the infringement of their personal privacy.  I am saddened that we could not reach a compromise that preserved these rights while still allowing our law enforcement professionals broad latitude to do their jobs.

Granting too much power and oversight to one branch of government shakes the very foundation of our country.  While the spirit of compromise and reasoned debate are often the best tools in a democracy, there are unalienable rights which cannot be compromised. and these rights are the reason I cannot support this legislation.

If people have other good statements on FISA from CA Reps, please throw them in this thread/diary.

[UPDATE by Dave]: On the other hand, these 11 CA Reps., who voted to provide amnesty for lawbreaking and allow illegal spying, have no conscience whatsoever, no understanding of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and are a complete embarrassment to the Democratic Party and should be kindly asked to leave.

Baca

Berman

Cardoza

Costa

Harman

McNerney

Pelosi

Richardson

Schiff

Sherman

Tauscher

If you can’t stand up for Constitutional rights and civil liberties, you are worthless and contemptible.  And stop asking me for money.  And don’t expect a warm reception if you should ever come around here to apologize.

If you remember how you felt in 2004 …

You will let the Hillary supporter’s grieve their loss – this is coming from a loyal Hillary supporter. In 2004 there was a lot of talk that if John Kerry lost and George Bush won again  we would not have to worry about 2008 because Former First Lady Hillary Clinton would be running for the Presidency. A HUGE piece of history would be made in the next election, a female president- imagine that.  The world would change.

Now remember how you felt on November 3, 2004 when Senator Kerry conceded the election, and we had President George Bush for another 4 years. There were a lot of Republicans saying they were right after all and their candidate prevailed in yet another election.  No matter how hard we worked for Senator Kerry they still tormented us – even those who did not vote had an opinion.

In 2004 we also learned about a Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Many of us heard his powerful rhetoric for the first time at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. I said “Wow, this person is amazing; he is going to be our president someday!”

SOMEDAY is the key word. For the first time in my 13 years of voting, I was torn between whom to elect on February 5. I finally had the opportunity to vote in a life changing election. We had the first female speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, and it was time for the first female president, Senator Hillary Clinton.   I felt that Senator Obama lacked the depth of experience that we had with Senator Clinton. Do you remember that Hillary swept California, not Obama?  There was hope!

We Hillary supporters feel as though it’s 2004 all over again.  It’s a monumental loss for all of us and Senator Clinton who we believed in and who was going to be our first female President. We feel that the Obama supporters are like Bush supporters in many ways. No matter how hard we worked, they won’t give us time to mourn. They seem to forget that they have a lot of work to do in unifying the Hillary supporters with their candidate.

Yes, we Hillary supporters feel jilted and angry because four years ago we were waiting for her to make history and become the first female president of the United States.  Now it’s Obama, Obama, and more Obama mania.

In November, Obama will need all of the votes that he can get – these include those from the disappointed Hillary supporters.  As Democrats, we are all peers who hold the same vision and values.  But honestly, even after a month it still pains me to go into a room and have everyone cheer for Obama because he is the nominee.   I am not on the Obama side yet and sit afraid to speak for fear of being ridiculed and accused of supporting the other party.  Right now the best things that an Obama supporter can do is when meeting a Hillary supporter to take the time and listen – you might learn something, make a new friend, and get a vote in the long run.

The activities of Dean Andal, the Republican nominee running against Jerry McNerney for Congress in CA-11, have come up in a grand jury investigation.  

This week, the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury released its report investigating misconduct by the San Joaquin Delta College Board of Trustees.  It found that the Board had “squandered millions of dollars in taxpayer money and breached open government laws by sharing closed-session information to developers outside regular meetings.”  Tracy Press  The confidential information apparently disclosed illegally was given to Andal and his associate, big Republican contributor and Sacramento developer Gerry Kamilos.

The grand jury investigation concerned the development of a site for Delta College.  Two sites were considered.  Consultants hired by the Board and the Board’s own staff each recommended a site offered by the City of Tracy.  But the Board voted 4-3 for a site offered for development by a Gerry Kamilos enterprise, PCCP Mountain House, LLC.  Things went south fairly quickly.  The Grand Jury found that the Board’s decisions wasted millions of dollars of public funds.  Regarding Andal:

“a closed-session meeting of the Delta College Board of Trustees was held on February 9, 2006, where Delta College’s attorney and administrative team informed the Board of Trustees that PCCP would be missing the deadline for the delivery of the Letters of Credit, which would result in a breach of the contract.  The Board then discussed the possibility of returning to the deal offered by the City of Tracy.”  

The very next day, one or more of the Board members relayed confidential information about the “breach of contract” discussion to Kamilos and a person the grand jury called his “consultant.”  The media has identified that consultant as Dean Andal.  Indeed, as the Tri-Valley Herald wrote:

“The day after the closed-session meeting, the report says, phone calls and a faxed letter indicated that one or more board members had relayed confidential information about the “breach of contract” discussion to the developer and his consultant, Dean Andal, the Republican nominee for the 11th Congressional District seat in November.”  

Although not discussed in the media at present, Andal is more than just a consultant to Kamilos.  According to a 2007 Stockton Record story, Andal:

“is a director of Service 1st Bancorp in Stockton and also works closely with developer Gerry Kamilos, the builder primarily responsible for the Mountain House community outside Tracy. Andal earned at least $210,000 from Kamilos’ various businesses last year, according to financial records filed with the county.”  

Further, according to an SEC filing of  Service 1st Bancorp, Mr. Andal has been a principal in Gerry N. Kamilos, LLC, a real estate investment concern, since 2005. SEC  

By the way, it should come as no surprise, but Kamilos and his wife each contributed $4,600 to Andal’s campaign in June 2007.  They have also contributed the maximum legal amount to John McCain. Open Secrets

So what does it mean?  The grand jury is raking the Board over the coals for wasting millions of dollars with this Andal enterprise. The grand jury says that the Board’s consultants and staff recommended a different company, but the Board voted 4-3 to go with Andal’s firm anyway.  That decision has cost taxpayers millions of dollars.  Then, in 2006, the Board met in closed session and discussed the possibility of getting out of the Kamilos-Andal contract, due to a breach by that firm, and returning to the deal offered by the City of Tracy.  The very next day, Kamilos and Andal allegedly were tipped off with confidential information passed to them.  If true, passing the information was illegal.  I confess that I do not know the details of this, but from how it reads, I assume  Kamilos and Andal promptly cured their contractual breach and kept the Board on the hook for their lucrative contract.

This smells to high heaven.  Not only should the Board members be investigated, but Dean Andal has some explaining to do.  

We’re seeing a real separation of those on the side of justice and those on the side of cover-ups in the FISA fallout.  On the side of justice, for example, is Patrick Leahy:

But after months of negotiations, the House today unveiled a new FISA bill that I cannot support. While I applaud the fact that this legislation includes some of the important surveillance protections we wrote into the Senate Judiciary Committee bill last year, it fails to hold the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable for its illegal wiretapping program.

I will oppose this new FISA bill when the Senate votes on it next week. We must do everything we can to protect Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration’s erosion of our civil liberties and callous disregard for the rule of law — and this new FISA bill fails that test.

Of course, he was cut out of the decision-making on this “deal.”

On the side of cover-ups is Nancy Pelosi (over):

Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill.  As you probably know, the bill has been filed.  It is a balanced bill.  I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way.  But I have to say this about it: it’s an improvement over the Senate bill and I say that as a strong statement.  The Senate bill is unacceptable.  Totally unacceptable.  This bill improves upon the Senate bill.  

But you probably know that.  What you may not know is that it’s improvement over the original FISA bill as well.  So it makes progress in the right direction.  But these bills depend on the commitment to the Constitution of the President of the United States and of his Justice Department.  So while some may have some complaints about this, that, or the other about the bill, it is about the enforcement, it is about the implementation of the law where our constitutional rights are protected.  

But I’m pleased that in Title I, there is enhancement over the existing FISA law.  Reaffirmation, I guess that’s the word I’d looking for.  A reaffirmation that FISA and Title III of the Criminal Code are the authorities under which Americans can be collected upon.  It makes an improvement over current law and the Senate bill in terms of how you can collect on Americans overseas.  

It’s an improvement over the Senate bill in terms of – the Senate wanted to say, “Okay, we will agree to exclusivity,” which is, in my view, the biggest issue in the bill, that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the President of the United States.  They said, “We will agree to exclusivity, but only a narrow collection of things will fall that that category.  Under the rest, the President has inherent authority under the Constitution.”   That’s out.  That’s out, thank heavens.  

And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity.  It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.  

So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow.  We will have a lively debate I’m sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress.  It has bipartisan support.

She’s out of her mind.  She says that the problem was with implementation of the bill, yet the bill lets the White House off the hook for 7 years’ worth of illegal implementation of warrantless spying.  She won’t say that the District Court will assuredly immunize the telecoms because they are empowered only to see if the President gave them a piece of paper which said “this is legal.”  She thinks exclusivity is the most important part because that’s what Feinstein told her, but if the President can hand over a piece of paper and make the illegal suddenly legal, there’s nothing exclusive about FISA.

Before Pelosi became the Minority Leader in 2003 she was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.  She was briefed on these activities and knew at least the colors of what was taking place, if not the details.  She’s protecting her capo Steny Hoyer and protecting herself.  This is what Nancy’s allowing to go forward:

Reports of the newest FISA compromise indicate that, on telecom immunity, a federal court would be compelled to grant the telecoms immunity if there was substantial evidence that the Bush administration assured them that the warrantless surveillance program was legal. Doesn’t that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it’s legal, it’s legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn’t that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?

Despite authorizing a monarchy today, Pelosi managed to swear in Rep. Donna Edwards, a real progressive that tossed out her telecom-money-besotted chum Al Wynn, and actually used the words “Do you solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?”  

To which I would have said, “I don’t know, Madam Speaker.  Do you?”

…incidentally, we’re hearing that Sen. Obama’s staff is reviewing the FISA issue.  His staff has known what was about to happen for some time.  He can still end this tomorrow.  He can make sure this never sees the light of day in the Senate.  I know it would be terribly partisan to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution, but it’s well within his capacity.  We’ll have that test of his conscience in the coming days.