The following California Democrats caved on retroactive immunity and disregarded their oath to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic”:

Joe Baca, Howard Berman, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Jane Harman, Jerry McNerney, Nancy Pelosi, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Ellen Tauscher

Pete Stark did not vote. This is the list of those who are potential targets of the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity which as of now has raised $310,673 to, “fund accountability for congressmembers supporting retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps.” This money isn’t going to send thank you cards to the members who did defend the constitution, this is primary money and cold cash to dump Steny Hoyer from leadership (Rahm Emanuel also capitulated).

As the battle moves to the Senate, all eyes are on Barack Obama nationally and Dianne Feinstein locally [(202) 224-3841].

As for 2010 primaries, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this. Carole Migden’s 3rd place finish showed that entrenched politics matters less in a modern media environment. Ellen Tauscher is again practically begging to be primaried and in that district she’s walking on thin ice. Joe Baca deserves particular scorn as the only Californian to sign the Blue Dog letter to Pelosi pushing capitulation (and a primary of Baca could probably receive significant institutional support from former members of the Hispanic Caucus). McNerney has outdone himself in contracting a full-blown case of Potomic Fever during his first term, every time he makes a move I think about asking for a refund. And Harman and Berman voting to cover-up warrantless wiretapping isn’t going to do much to quell the rumors that they are pushing this because they are worried about their own culpability on the issue.

If you live in one of this districts, please call your member and ask them why. Comments and diaries with responses are highly encouraged.

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.”

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.

There he goes again, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, reading into the Congressional record just 35 of the reasons why this Congress should be impeaching this sitting president and his VP. With diminutive stature but steely resolve, Kucinich forcefully takes his place alongside the earlier patriots who stood up to executive abuse, the “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and spoke out for accountability.

And who was listening? Certainly not the US media, and by extension, no one else. The C-Span viewer was one of the few in the country who could witness this historic event. Or, check youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JLf… Gore Vidal  rightfully points out that anyone truly interested in knowing what’s going on in our country must be reading foreign coverage–all still available online–since other countries ARE interested in what happens in the U.S. http://www.truthdig.com/report…

The impeachment resolution, HR 1258, was introduced June 9th as a “privileged motion” to get around Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who personally opposes impeachment and has reportedly said she “likes” President Bush.  

Two days later, the House voted that this motion be referred to John Conyers’ Judiciary Committee. Kucinich, as well as co-sponsors, Robert Wexler (D-FL) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), voted FOR this referral. For rollcall see: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200…  Most pundits are saying that the motion will die in Judiciary. If so, then why would these three have voted for it to go there? Is there hope that Conyers will actually step forward and support impeachment hearings as he did BEFORE he took over as chair after the 2006 election?

Yes, let’s roll back to that time when those who vote came out and said ENOUGH!!! Give control back to the Democrats so that they will stop this war and put brakes on this renegade band in the White House! Yet, immediately after this 2006 election when DEMOCRATS were handed the majority in both houses (well, sort of, if anyone really still considers Lieberman one), Nancy Pelosi, as the new Speaker, took it upon herself to dismiss the constitutional requirements to hold the executive branch in check through the mandated procedures of impeachment.

“Impeachment is off the table,” said she. And one by one, the little sheep in the Democratic flock, have gone along with her pronouncement. They seem to think that they will somehow be rewarded and handed the presidency in ’08 as a result of their cowardice. It may not be convenient that we are in a presidential election year, but should this be used as a reason to NOT INVESTIGATE these serious charges? I think not. A far greater threat is to allow them to pass onto the dung heap of dead motions and, thus, take a stand that ALLOWS the destruction of our constitution. Is that really what Democrats stand for in this presidential election year?

My own Congressman, Henry Waxman, went to great pains to explain to a group of activists from his district last year that there “wasn’t enough time.” He was not ready to support impeachment regardless of those within his district who wanted his many hearings into the corruption of the Bush administration to END with a SERIOUS RESULT — IMPEACHMENT. West Hollywood, a city within his CD, had voted to support impeachment. The Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, one of the oldest and largest in his CD, declined to endorse this incumbent’s candidacy (in spite of no one running against him). David Swanson just posted his take on Waxman’s inaction: http://afterdowningstreet.org/…  (what his constituents have said for a long while).

Are our incumbent Democrats so entrenched and bought out by corporate lobbyists that they will not respond to their electorate? And the dwindling electorate increasingly opts out and won’t vote because “it makes no difference.” And fewer and fewer people make it to the polls, especially for those so-called “little elections” where state officials are selected and gain entree onto the political runway. And incumbents with no opposition funnel their lobbyist funds to their anointed choices who win elections with a tiny fraction of those eligible to vote. And the cycle perpetuates itself.

And the democracy that we’ve been taught we had, is no more, taken over by the corporate and religious interests who dictate both domestic and foreign policy and continue to loot the treasury and spin this nation into the unending pit of trillions of dollars of debt…and the country’s mainstream media fiddles on, themselves complicit.

So, WHY ARE the members of Congress so afraid of this president and his henchmen? Have there been blackmail threats? Are there internal dossiers of their own many transgressions? Do they have sexual proclivities that will be revealed if they dare show any backbone? Have their families been threatened? And, what about Blackwater? Is it being used for private enforcement and surveillance?

I recall the days when Senator Wayne Morse stood up to oppose another war and another administration. He was a true patriot.  And earlier in this current war, when our most elder statesman, Senator Robert Byrd, stood up and tried to stop his colleagues’ “rush to war.” Thank you Dennis Kucinich, for standing up once again in the midst of your fellows who are busy doctoring and reframing the meaning of patriotism.

Democratic leadership may think this is an inconvenient time to remind them of their constitutional responsibilities. If you disagree, start calling your electeds and jam the lines. 202-224-3121 is the main number for the House. Or, better yet, go to www.house.gov, tap in your zip code, and get the direct line to your congressional representative. And, call often. Even daily. Remember, there’s a local AND a Washington DC number. Call both.

###

Disclosure, I do some work for Mark Leno

Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Mark Leno!

I do some work for Mark Leno

In just a couple of hours, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be officially endorsing Assemblyman Mark Leno. At 9:30, Pelosi will be appearing at the Leno campaign office at 2344 Market St. Of course, GOTV efforts will commence immediately afterwards.

In other news from SD-03, check out the SF Bay Guardian blog post about a deceptive “Guardian” slate featuring Carole Migden. The Bay Guardian endorsed Leno, and their real slate is here.

UPDATE: The event went quite well, with Speaker Pelosi highlighting some of Mark Leno’s great accomplishments in the Assembly. My full flickr set here.

Yesterday, we chose to issue a “no endorsement” to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. While not speaking for the entirety of the Editorial Board, I wanted to share my take on this. I was quite torn on whether to endorse the Speaker. As a San Franciscan, I am proud of all the incredible things she has done for San Francisco, California, and the nation.  She is simply an incredibly historic figure in American politics.  She destroyed the glass ceiling in Congress, and for that alone, we, and all future generations, owe her a tremendous debt.

I have followed Speaker Pelosi’s career for as long as I can remember, though I only moved to California relatively recently. From healing a fractured activist base after first being elected in 1987, to being active in the Progressive Caucus, to becoming the first female Minority Whip, then Minority Leader, and then finally Speaker. She has had an incredible career, and has been an incredible leader for San Francisco. I’m proud to have been able to vote for Nancy Pelosi several times now, including the June 2008 election.

Perhaps my expectations were unrealistic, but her incredible record in the past led me to believe that she would, in fact, bring “San Francisco values” to the Speakership. Maybe it was simple naïveté to believe that we would be able to completely claim victory over the Republicans with a mish-mosh of 233 Democrats, some of whom would gladly break ranks to show off for the cameras. The fact that we have a Lieberman-fueled majority in the Senate doesn’t help either.

But, still, she is Nancy Pelosi, from whom we expect so much. I wanted to see more pushback on the President’s Iraq Occupation “strategy” or lack thereof.  I wanted to see a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act brought to the floor of the Congress. I wanted to see Nancy Pelosi running the House like I know Nancy Pelosi can.

Thus, I pushed “no endorsement” to make a very specific point: I know Nancy Pelosi can do better.  That is what this is about. Not that I don’t want her to win. Not that I don’t want her to be Speaker of the House come 2009. The point is that I think she can do better. The Speakership brings a higher profile, more responsibility, and therefore deserves more scrutiny and being held to a higher standard.

I want to make this point only precisely because I know she can do better.  I know that she will, given a Democratic President, and greater majorities, bring an end to the senseless Occupation of Iraq. I know that she will work for equality of rights for all Americans.  I know that she will work to ensure that telecommunications companies are not given a free pass, and that the Administration, Democratic or Republican, is not simply given a free pass and a blank check to spy upon Americans, kidnap foreign citizens, or torture.  

I know she can do that.  Now I want to see that.

Periodically between now and the primaries on June 3, I’ll be checking in with some brief election news.

• CA-04: Charlie Brown has released his first ad of the cycle.  It’s a bio spot, and it’s a good one.

I would have liked to have seen some specifics about the veterans care challenge, but I understand that it’s well-known inside the district so maybe the allusion to it was all that was necessary.  Certainly he’s taking an above-the-fray stance in the midst of the brutal primary on the other side.  I like it.

• AD-80: I bet you didn’t to see CNA and SEIU supporting the same candidate in virtually anything, especially at this sensitive time, but both of them have come out in favor of Manuel Perez, in addition to the California Medical Association PAC.

• At Election Track, you can follow contributions to all of California’s candidates as we head to the primary.

• CA-08: Cindy Sheehan says she has $130,000 for her challenge to Nancy Pelosi, running as an independent.

• SD-03: Here’s a Joe Nation ad (over the flip) focusing on the environment. Is this running anywhere?