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.

(To be fair, I think we should point out that we still need those 15 Rep. votes, even if we get the 8 Dem votes. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

About an hour ago, my inbox was graced by an email from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, subject line “Heartless.” Inside, she took President Bush to task over SCHIP and his abandonment of the “compassionate” part of conservatism.  It used dramatic language like “forbid” and “cruel veto pen” while suggesting:

This was perhaps George Bush’s most heartless act ever — knowing that he could help deliver health care to millions of American children — then, wiping out that hope with a stroke of his veto pen.

We may not be able to change the President’s mind. But, if we work together — make it our mission between now and October 18th — we can find the 15 Republican votes we need to make the President’s cold-hearted veto pen powerless.

That’s right.  With my help and yours, maybe Congress can find its way out from under President Bush’s thumb.  All we need to do is convince Republicans.  And yet, there are eight Democrats who voted against SCHIP.  Should we not also be trying to convince them?  Change their minds?  The Speaker doesn’t seem to think so.(flip)

On the front page of DailyKos right now is a bit about Nancy Pelosi’s plans to fundraise and campaign for Al Wynn in his primary against Donna Edwards.  It juxtaposes this with her comments from yesterday saying that wanting to end the war immediately is irresponsible and that it is “‘a waste of time’ for them to target Democrats.”

But the two together and you get a rather strange assessment of Congress.  She doesn’t think that constituents should make their views known on major issues facing the country.  She also doesn’t think, apparently, that voters in MD-04 should replace Al Wynn, regardless of whether he actually represents their interests well.  It’s a depressing and hollow attempt to deny the responsibility of Democrats in failing to make any demonstrable progress towards ending the Iraq catastrophe.  On the one hand, she has to cover herself because any failures of the Democratic caucus ultimately will come back to her.

But she’s said that members of Congress will not listen to the voters. Period. It’s a waste of time. And trying to replace members of Congress who haven’t performed as well as their constituents demand, then constituents should lower their expectations.  And that’s what it all comes around to- a sentiment we’re all familiar with here.  Apparently it isn’t that Democrats aren’t accomplishing enough, it’s that we aren’t selling them short enough.  If people would just stop expecting anything from their government, everyone would be much happier.

Well I say nuts to that.  She declared Democrats in Congress to be leaders…except nobody’s going anywhere.  She declared that the “common folk” are irresponsible and shouldn’t be listened to.  She’s signed onto the inviolable sanctity of incumbency, but also declared that the best representation ignores the will and desires of the people.  And most of all, she’s declared that her caucus is exactly how she wants it.  Given what she’s done with it thusfar, I wonder whether it much matters how she wants it.  It’s time to start getting over the notion that “not worse” isn’t the same as “better.”