This is the face of the enemy within. This guy needs to be in prison, along with all the other collaborators!!!

Steny Hoyer=Marshal Petain

I am so pissed I can't see straight. I have been calling washington all morning!!!

get on the phones people!!!!

Hammer Obama's office and DEMAND he personally filibuster the bill.

NOW!!!!

Daily Drudge good one!

Hoyer, Pelosi et al are all corporation-loving a-holes. I will give what I can to see them all unseated.

To quote the late great GC-

"Fuck Hoover."

So what blackmail material do they have on him? Must be something good. (The Bush administration has been tapping phones and e-mails since they got into office. What better use than to tap the opposition.)

Maybe what needs to happen is a fund to dig into the backgrounds of those who support telecom immunity, find out what dark secrets are being used against them and expose them to get them out of office before they do more harm. We know who has those secrets by their voting record. We just have to figure out what they are.

alan @ 7:

So what blackmail material do they have on him? Must be something good. (The Bush administration has been tapping phones and e-mails since they got into office. What better use than to tap the opposition.)

Maybe what needs to happen is a fund to dig into the backgrounds of those who support telecom immunity, find out what dark secrets are being used against them and expose them to get them out of office before they do more harm. We know who has those secrets by their voting record. We just have to figure out what they are.

I've been thinking the same thing.

Glenn Greenwald nails Steny Hoyer for rolling over to the "telecoNs".

"One last point: in the days before he unveiled the FISA bill to the public, both Hoyer and his office were vehemently denying reports that he had negotiated and approved a deal to provide retroactive immunity to telecoms. They were even claiming that "there's been an incredible amount of misinformation out on the internet" -- don't let those reckless bloggers "on the internet" claim that Hoyer is negotiating a deal with retroactive immunity. It's not true!

Yet now, here he is boasting to The Politico about how he "was clearly the driving force in the months of arduous discussions over the FISA rewrite" and how he "shepherded a set of FISA amendments through the House last week." They not only do all of this in total secrecy -- so that the public has no opportunity to know about or comment upon the bills they're writing -- but they overtly lie about what they're doing as they're doing it. Then, when they finally unveil a very complex bill they wrote that completely re-writes our nation's surveillance laws, they force a vote on it in less than 24 hours so that the public and even most members of Congress have no time even to understand what they've done before it's passed (though the telecoms themselves were full-fledged participants in the secret negotiations over their own immunity). That's democracy in action, delivered by the Democratic-led House."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/24/hoyer/

Amy Goodman had Senator Feingold on today discussing the "telecoN" issue.
She also had a tribute for George Carlin on. George is reminding us that we do not have choices we have "owners"
http://www.democracynow.org/

HOYER NEGOTIATED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND THEN PUSHED A VOTE IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER THE FINAL DEAL WAS RELEASED.

Democracy at work folks. As Carlin says "they are fucking Americans up the ass with a red, white and Blue Dick" (Cheney)

Thanks Steny!

alan @ 7:

So what blackmail material do they have on him? Must be something good. (The Bush administration has been tapping phones and e-mails since they got into office. What better use than to tap the opposition.)

Maybe what needs to happen is a fund to dig into the backgrounds of those who support telecom immunity, find out what dark secrets are being used against them and expose them to get them out of office before they do more harm. We know who has those secrets by their voting record. We just have to figure out what they are.

Let's see...the NSA monitors all phone calls that go out of and come into the US (am I not correct that this is allowed)....what we may have is the Telcos tapping domestic calls (am I not correct that this is not allowed but done with a warrant[locally issued] by the FBI) from a list supplied by the current administration....a list supplied by the current administration that we do not have access to....who in the current legislative branch was on that list and what did they say...this is the thing that makes me go hmmmmm

Why the fuck would Pelosi even bring this up for a vote before the Presidential elections?

Now Harry Reid is about to do the same damn thing in the Senate?

WTF is wrong with the Dem leadership in congress?

Replace Pelosi and Reid NOW!

After the push to elect the 06 cycle, and ending up with nothing to show for it, I'm not sure what to think anymore.

steny hoyer - "enemy no. 1" that should have been or maybe ENEMA NO. 1

I have a feeling some great big campaign donations have been promised to Hoyer and others by the telecom companies. That's the only thing that makes sense.

who can use his friendships across the aisle to strike deals

Maybe I'd feel a little more comforted if I knew he was considering the friends on his OWN side of the aisle first and foremost...

The whole affair is beneath contempt.
It should be painfully obvious to the most casual political observer that the Democratic Party is firmly in the hands of a group of people who are determined to diametrically oppose every single issue important to Progressives.
They will ensure complete failure on every front.
Its what they do,and they're Damned Proud of it.

What more proof is needed that Hoyer needs to lose his job than Drudge calling him a hero for his principal role in betraying the Constitution? There are some people's approval that you just don't want.

on the plus side, the backlash on this is going to be a motherfucker.

Stainy Whore Strokes Bush on Phones, Relieves Politico's Daily Drudgery

...circle of jerks is complete...

;-}

Marko, do it.

[If you're going to do it, marko, do it civilly. Thank you. Site Monitor.]

Steny Hoyer proved to be the best republican money could buy.
Give Pelosi some credit; she wanted Murtha in Hoyer's position.
But she still could have stopped Hoyer, and she didn't so she IS in fact complicit in the betrayal of the Constitution.

I visit a site called "Once Upon a Time" every now and then just to remind myself how and why I should stay towards the center in politics. Though the past eight years have shown me that the Republicans/NeoCons are just pure evil, I always ask myself how they got away with all this shit (no other word for it per Lewis Black). Now I see that the House Democrats have capitulated on the new FISA legislation including Telcom immunity. But...How?...But...That can't...But...WHY?!!! I figured Obama would sort it out for me. His "NO" vote vs. Hillary's "Not Voting" the last time this came up was what finally determined who I'd support as president. But Obama has caved too. He's going to support the bill but work really hard to remove the "Telcom Immunity" wording. But...How...But...That's not...But...WHY?!!! I've felt so betrayed the last few days. But today I visited "Once Upon a Time" to try and get my bearings once again. Read the essay "No One Is Safe (II): FISA Is Only the Prelude to Nightmare". We're so screwed.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/

Top 5 Reasons Democrats caved on FISA:

5 - They really just want to protect America
(Willing to sacrifice liberty for security)
4 - Afraid of being painted weak
3 - Blackmail
2 - Want to cover own complicity in wiretapping crimes.
And the number one reason Democrats caved on FISA:
1 - They want the power for themselves!

They were briefed and are covering their asses.

They should resign in disgrace and then tried with w and his mafia.

richard @ 32:

marko @ 1:

This is the face of the enemy within. This guy needs to be in prison, along with all the other collaborators!!!

Steny Hoyer=Marshal Petain

I am so pissed I can't see straight. I have been calling washington all morning!!!

get on the phones people!!!!

Hammer Obama's office and DEMAND he personally filibuster the bill.

NOW!!!!

Nope. Not going to do that. Not going to have a cow. Don't see how Hoyer is like Petain. Have some perspective on issues.

piss in our time!

Can someone please tell me why a senator cannot put a HOLD order on this? Anonymously?

Didn't Dodd do this to the last bill which came up in the senate back in October? (I know it requires 60 votes to overcome the hold but still...)

Can someone tell me why this isn't an option this time?

Kathleen @ 46:

John @ 45:

Can someone please tell me why a senator cannot put a HOLD order on this? Anonymously?

Didn't Dodd do this to the last bill which came up in the senate back in October? (I know it requires 60 votes to overcome the hold but still...)

Can someone tell me why this isn't an option this time?

Dodd and Feingold will fillibuster

Feingold announced this on Democracy Now today. Go watch and listen

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/24/feingold

From the transcripts
AMY GOODMAN: What role did the telecommunications companies play in writing this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, they clearly wanted this immunity. They think they should be let off the hook, regardless of what the current laws require. I think, and many of my allies on this think, that the courts should decide it based on the law.

Sadly, the administration has been very behind the telephone companies’ desire to have this immunity, maybe even leading the charge, because there is an additional benefit to them if this immunity goes through. It may block our ability to directly challenge in court the violation of the Constitution that the illegal wiretapping program represents.

The President takes the position that under Article II of the Constitution he can ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We believe that that’s absolutely wrong. I have pointed out that I think it is not only against the law, but I think it’s a pretty plain impeachable offense that the President created this program, and yet this immunity provision may have the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime, which I believe it is.

And, you know, the United States Supreme Court, even though seven out of the ten justices—seven out of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans, they just recently repudiated the President again on excessive executive powers when it came to the detainees. Here, they may do it also, and it would be a very significant ruling. And yet, the administration may well be able to block accountability on this in front of the courts by this legislation that Democrats are going to allow to go through.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, explain exactly what you think is an impeachable offense.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, you know, this is one of the things that’s been debated over the centuries, but I believe that when—it has to do with the rule of law and the very structure of our system of government, in other words, not just the issue that many have been concerned about, misleading the country into war, the Iraq war. That was a terrible thing, and, you know, some say that’s an impeachable offense. But to me, when the law is clear, when it’s absolutely clear that there is a clear statute and the President creates his own idea of a law and says he doesn’t have to follow the duly elected laws of the land, to me, that’s right at the core of what the founders of this country meant when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

So, I’m not calling for impeachment. I’m not saying that that’s something that’s realistic or the right thing for Democrats to do at this point. What I’m saying is the idea of a law that will prohibit the courts potentially from ruling on this is against the rule of law and also protects the President from a historical record that I think should show that he did something that was at least impeachable when it comes to these warrantless wiretaps.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, last year, you called for President Bush and Vice President Cheney—it was just about a year ago—to be censured, not impeached, but censured. Do you think they should be impeached now?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I think they should be censured. I think the idea of going through an impeachment process at this point is obviously not going to happen and a sort of a futile exercise, because there’s simply not the will to do it. But I think a censure resolution that essentially lays out the same case, that for the first time since Andrew Jackson says this president has actually violated the laws of the land and has disregarded our system of government, is a very important step. I know it won’t happen. I know it’s not going to be brought up. But I do think it would be the appropriate step and at least set the stage for pulling back on these excessive claims of executive power that were made by this president. The next president has to renounce these kind of claims, and I think a censure resolution would help that.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s stopping your colleagues from doing this? The argument they use against impeachment is what you said: whether or not it’s merited, they don’t want to get bogged down, and they feel the election is a form of impeachment, if the Democrats win. But what stops them from censuring the President and Vice President?

FEINGOLD TALKED ABOUT A FILLIBUSTER, IMPEACHMENT AND CENSURING

http://rawstory.com/news08/

But I wasn't asking about a filibuster. (They don't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate anyway)

Called both my Senators this morning and asked "What part of inalienable did you not understand in the Declaration of Independence?" My rights are not something that you can "compromise" away and I want you to support the filibuster of Senator Dodd and Senator Fiengold.

PS... sack Reid... he's no leader at all!

Actually I rather like John Adams better on this:

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
----John Adams

"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

----John Adams Letter to Abigail Adams (1775-07-17)

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
----John Adams Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1789)

I hope you've all called Obama's people. He could do a lot about this but he's doing nothing. It ain't just Hoyer. If Obama does nothing, he's enabling the enabler. Unless he accomplishes something meaningful I doubt I'll waste time voting for him this November. He stops this thing and I'll be there to cast a vote for him. This will prove whether he's just a gasbag politician or whether he actually represents the change he talks about. Upholding the Constitution would be a nice change. If I had to put money on it though, I'd put money on him being just another gasbag politician. Prove me wrong, Obama!

So no one can tell me why a senator cannot put a hold on this bill?

I keep thinking how stupid the Democrats were to NOT choose John Murtha for House Majority Leader over this stupid fuck. That ol' Marine would have kicked ass, taken names,and whipped those Blue Dog Dems into line.

Isn't there a jewish curse that goes like may you become so famous they name a disease after you?

Steny-Liebermann disease...............nice ring to it.

Rico @ 60, you just did get hit by the worst attack that could have been made against America you fool! Without a strong Bill of Rights you have ZERO security! Fool!

if we're doing to target the blue dogs, should we also not target obama?

after all, he appears to be in line with hoyer on this one....

Cloture vote tomorow.

Feingold says he will speak, and may delay final vote with procedural delays, but he won't filibuster.

John@57-

The Majority Leader can override a hold.

Daisy Zimmerly@64-

It would be nice to get rid of the Blue Dogs, but those districts tthey represent are pretty purple. Lib/prog Dems don't go over well in those districts. A majority of Americans polled, or so I've read- and tend to believe- don't support the telecom immunity portion of the FISA amendment, but I've got to wonder what that percentage of dissent in, say, Dennis Kucinich's district versus those in Heath Shuler's.

John @ 57, I don't know but since you brought it up I've e-mailed my Senators and told them to put a hold on it.

Read the thread lead in... The comment 'stinks to high heaven' pretty much sums it all up for me. As for the details???
Fuck the details, Fuck Hoyer and all the rest of it.. The only detail I care about is that little one that's unspoken... That it all amounts to subverting a personal right to privacy and otherwise generally trashing the bill of rights.........THAT'S the biggie to me. All the rest of the little piddly details is BULLSHIT by comparision....JD

John @ 70:

Andy in post 67 mentioned above that the Majority leader can override a hold.

If someone placed a hold, and it was over-ridden, wouldn't that be a good reason to then go after the Majority Leader? I mean, a signal or call-to-arms if you will, to get the Majority Leader out of office?

I have a hunch that the Majority Leader, like most spineless Dems would find it difficult to make a decision where the success or failure of such a controversial bill, rested squarely on their shoulders.

Long view on this is that it's a no win situation, John.

Put the hold on it (and I'm not sure if that was ever possible, because, if I'm reading the procedure correctly, the hold would have to come when the bill was introduced, and that's water under the bridge- this legislation has been in the Senate since December, iirc), force the Leader to respect the hold and win a pyrrhic victory- no immunity for the telecoms, but lose the Presidency and seats in Congress come November 4.

Let it pass, and you still get expanded oversight, and if John Dean is correct, the telecoms are still not immune from criminal liability. Come January, you get to rewrite FISA law, with coattails and just plain Republican incompetence, malfeasance, etc, etc, giving gains to the Dems that override the cloture vote.

Don't get me wrong, the whole situatuion stinks. You've got to face it that one of the few areas where the GOP is perceived stronger than the Dems is security, whether the perception is right or wrong. And it doesn't matter if Obama does something about telecom immunity, or if it's Dodd or Feingold (and ask yourself why they folded), any hold up on this bill will be used as fodder in the next few months by the right.

If you're disenchanted....well, they've crunched the numbers. The Dems are willing to sacrifice a bit of their support on the left while tacking to the middle- where the elections will be won or lost.

And I'm going to address it before you bring it up: is this shit an attack on the 4th Amendment. IMO, definitely! But the final arbiters of the Constitutionality of this are named Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. If I could vote against them, I would. But I can't. So, for now, I'm looking, patiently, at the possibilities the future holds. It's gotta be better than this.

"But Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said Hoyer did what he had to do in getting the deal done."

Harman was one of many Dems that were briefed by the administration and still signed off on it.

She and Hoyer and Pelosi all were briefed and said nothing.

They are all culpable. And they are all covering their asses....Obama is simply pandering and whoring for votes.

Despicable....All.

America will never be destroyed by foreign enemies but from within by cowards and crooks who manipulate opinion for their own advantage.

Can someone please tell me why the Dummycrat congress chooses such garbage for "leaders"? Do they have a need to prove how stupid they are? Is it a self-persecution complex for the more intelligent members of congress? Please, let me know.

Rico @ 78:

Terrible @ 63:

Rico @ 60, you just did get hit by the worst attack that could have been made against America you fool! Without a strong Bill of Rights you have ZERO security! Fool!

The name calling doesn't bother me so you can save it for someone else. Before you so quickly label others as fools, just think about convincing Americans that FISA as the #1 issue for the election this year. The Bill of Rights is certainly important to me, and you've made it clear that it's important to you. But if the likes of you insist on making it the #1 issue of all time, then congratulations, you've helped the Republicans maintain the White House. Then who will be the fools? One battle at a time, dear. Let's get to the White House first.

I hope the repukes do win!

I am beginning to think only another republican great depression will snap the morons in this country out of their stupor. How else could you explain a 45% support for McCain in the polls?

Maybe if the democrats blow the most promising political landscape in 80 years, maybe then they will stop acting like repukes, and take up FDR's mantle as the "people's party" again. Do you really think having Reid and Pelosi in charge is going to change anything, even if Obama does win?

Johnny2Bad @ 76:

Andy K Jong Il @ 73:

John @ 70:

Andy in post 67 mentioned above that the Majority leader can override a hold.

If someone placed a hold, and it was over-ridden, wouldn't that be a good reason to then go after the Majority Leader? I mean, a signal or call-to-arms if you will, to get the Majority Leader out of office?

I have a hunch that the Majority Leader, like most spineless Dems would find it difficult to make a decision where the success or failure of such a controversial bill, rested squarely on their shoulders.

Long view on this is that it's a no win situation, John.

Put the hold on it (and I'm not sure if that was ever possible, because, if I'm reading the procedure correctly, the hold would have to come when the bill was introduced, and that's water under the bridge- this legislation has been in the Senate since December, iirc), force the Leader to respect the hold and win a pyrrhic victory- no immunity for the telecoms, but lose the Presidency and seats in Congress come November 4.

Let it pass, and you still get expanded oversight, and if John Dean is correct, the telecoms are still not immune from criminal liability. Come January, you get to rewrite FISA law, with coattails and just plain Republican incompetence, malfeasance, etc, etc, giving gains to the Dems that override the cloture vote.

Don't get me wrong, the whole situatuion stinks. You've got to face it that one of the few areas where the GOP is perceived stronger than the Dems is security, whether the perception is right or wrong. And it doesn't matter if Obama does something about telecom immunity, or if it's Dodd or Feingold (and ask yourself why they folded), any hold up on this bill will be used as fodder in the next few months by the right.

If you're disenchanted....well, they've crunched the numbers. The Dems are willing to sacrifice a bit of their support on the left while tacking to the middle- where the elections will be won or lost.

And I'm going to address it before you bring it up: is this shit an attack on the 4th Amendment. IMO, definitely! But the final arbiters of the Constitutionality of this are named Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. If I could vote against them, I would. But I can't. So, for now, I'm looking, patiently, at the possibilities the future holds. It's gotta be better than this.

This "Hope and Change" crowd. Unbelievable. Sheep masquerading as political realists.

Baaaah: "Nothing we can do but vote for the lesser of two evils. "Look, It'll be fine...Obama is a nicer, more benevolent 'program monitor' than the Bushies." "Just wait till after the election we'll really get 'em then."

Tits up and ready to roll over.

Oh, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny2Bad.......The double standards.....

Now two nights ago, you and I were talking, just a bit, about John Edwards and how we both supported him. I still think that he'd have made the best candidate in November, by a long way. And I remembered you had been on Friday's Obama/FISA thread, and I found this:

282 Johnny2Bad Says:
bill doh @ 271:

I’ve lost my enthusiasm. I am tired of being letdown.
This is a great way to lose hope. I was for Obama 1000%. By not taking a stand on this , I’ve lost about 900% of my hope. He needs to stand up FOR our contitution. We have lost to much in the last 8 years. We need to get our rights back.

Might want to drop the word “hope” from your lexicon. Its about “fight”.

Like my (once favorite) boy John Edwards said…

“That’s what this election is about. Unless and until you have a President of the United States who’s willing to stand up
with some backbone and some guts and fight and stand up to these corporate interests, there will never be real change.”
-Mother Jones. December 18, 2007

June 20th, 2008 at 3:15 PM - PDT

----------

And now you're thinking, "What's the point?"

Here's the point: You and I were both willing to support a guy who voted for the illegal war in Iraq. And we were both willing to forgive Edwards. Or didn't you know or care? Because I've seen you around here for a while, and I think you both knew and cared. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Johnny.

So why is Obama held to a different standard here? I'll admit- I have admitted- that this is a shitty FISA Amendment, what with the telecom immunity and all, but, uhm, how many Americans do you think will die over this legislation? 4,000? And how many hundreds of thousands will telecom immunity kill, Johnny?

Or did you ever support Edwards, or any Democrat, or any left-winger at all, Johnny? You weren't trolling, were you? Because it might be seen that way. Do you want me to go back to our thread on Sunday to bring more of your own words concerning your support of a guy who voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq? Because I can.

Please explain this to me. It oughta be good.

Remember how promising was the prospect of Pelosi as Speaker?
then there was that little TANGLE over Murtha... or Steni Hoyer... and Pelosi pushed thru Hoyer and dumped on Murtha... even tho Murtha was a looming anti-war personality???

I have been really disappointed in Pelosi's performance ever since... and Harry Reid just does not have the personal POWER to match the weight of the position he holds. (How the Hell did that happen?)

.

Q U E S T I O N:

Who wins and what is it THEY(sic) win when Americans loose their Right to be secure from their Government's ability to spy on it's citizenry?

.

TYRANNY
noun
1. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
2. dominance through threat of punishment and violence

FOURTH AMENDMENT:
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.

Q U E S T I O N:
Which protects the Republic from the other…?

Grant immunity and America falls to TYRANNY!

R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS…
… And so they entertain debates on the merits to undermining Americas core foundational FREEDOMS, RIGHTS and LIBERTIES; What it means to BE an American, FREE FROM TYRANNY!

TREASON
noun
1. a crime that undermines the offender's government
2. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
3. an act of deliberate betrayal

America is being back-stabbed by the People's Elected Officials who took an Oath to protect the Republic from this very activity our Elected Officials are engaging in.

Congressional OATH of OFFICE
The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 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 faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 110th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25:

so,
What's on American Idol now a days...?

.

(sorry SM, it's titled this way. This is a C&P.)

HOUSE DEMS WHO CHANGED THEIR VOTE TO SUPPORT FISA BILL, GIVING IMMUNITY TO TELCOS, RECEIVED, ON AVERAGE, $8,359 IN PAC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VERIZON, AT&T, AND SPRINT

BERKELEY, CA—Last week, on June 20, the House of Representatives approved a compromise bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). The bill sets new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits resulting from the government’s warrantless eavesdropping on phone calls and viewing of emails of private citizens in the U.S. Approximately 40 lawsuits have been filed with potential damages totaling in the billions of dollars.

On March 14 of this year the House passed an amendment that rejected retroactive immunity for phone carriers who helped the National Security Agency carry out the illegal wiretapping program without proper warrants. Ninety-four House Democrats voted in favor of this measure--rejecting immunity--on March 14, then ‘changed’ to vote in favor of the June 20 House bill--approving immunity.

“Why did these ninety-four House members have a change of heart?” asked Daniel Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org, “Their constituents deserve answers.”

MAPLight.org's research department compiled PAC campaign contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint and correlated them with the voting records of all House members who voted on last week’s FISA bill. (The analysis used data from CRP; contributions were from January 2005 through March 2008). Here are the findings:
http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

Our Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are being sold out from under us by our own...
An act of TREASON!

.

Hoyer,Pelosi, Reid...They all have places in the new Bush Regime when martial law is declared. To hell with what their constituents think. they won't have to worry about not getting elected the" next time around.. "

If Russ Feingold thinks this FISA bill is a capitulation he should filibuster or shut up!
I like Russ Feingold I think he’s an honorable man, BUT I’m sick and tired of Dumbocrats pointing out all the law breaking going on by the Bush crime family and letting it go on unchallengend. It’s no wonder Chimpy, Darth, Turdblossom and others have no respect for the rule of law. They will only get away with what you spineless twits let them get away with.

DOOOOOOOO SOMETHING!……………..even if it’s wrong, do something!

Andy K Jong Il @ 95:

TakeOurCountryBack @ 94:

If Russ Feingold thinks this FISA bill is a capitulation he should filibuster or shut up!
I like Russ Feingold I think he’s an honorable man, BUT I’m sick and tired of Dumbocrats pointing out all the law breaking going on by the Bush crime family and letting it go on unchallengend. It’s no wonder Chimpy, Darth, Turdblossom and others have no respect for the rule of law. They will only get away with what you spineless twits let them get away with.

DOOOOOOOO SOMETHING!……………..even if it’s wrong, do something!

He can't filibuster- Rule XXII (cloture) of the Senate has been invoked. There aren't 41 votes to block the cloture of debate. There will be a period of up to 30 hours, where each Senator is allowed to speak 2 times, but they're limited to 1 hour each time.

Once the Blue Dogs made their case to Pelosi, this thing was done.

BTW, if John Dean is to be believed,this bill gives the telecoms immunity in civil cases, not criminal cases.

Excuse me: There will be a vote on cloture (it's going to pass), then the period of up to 30 hours of limited debate.

You know, I was hoping that this would be the one (if only) thing the Dems did right during their house congressional majority -- provide the previous version of the FISA bill without telecom immunity. Somehow, I figured they could and would still snatch defeat from the jaws of that looming victory. And they did.

The Dem House score since 2006: '0'. One big fat spineless '0'. May as well have had a Repub majority, considering that the House "leadership" could not prevent 2/3 of the House from voting Republican on this bill. And thanks to Obama for allowing the House to achieve this perfect '0' record (/sarcasm).

Whatever Osama's purpose was, he got his wish in spades. Every G*d D*mn time our F**king Legislature gets together, they either shoot us in the foot or f**k hell out of us. Getting harder and harder to tell the good guys from the bad.

I thought ex-post facto laws were unconstitutional.