Trying to Peel the Haggis

by emptywheel

The White House must be trying to peel Scottish Haggis away from the Democrats on the SJC who oppose granting the telecoms immunity for illegally spying on citizens. Why else show Leahy and Specter the family jewels--the justification for the domestic wiretap program--without sharing them with the rest of SJC?

The White House has offered leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee access to legal documents related to the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program, senators said Thursday.

But Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said while the White House had offered the documents to both him and the panel’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, he was pushing for the entire committee to receive access to the documents. But he also said he would take advantage of the offer and review the documents.

[snip]

The entire Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff did receive access to the documents prior to its approval of draft surveillance legislation last week, and had conditioned its own markup of getting to view them. That committee’s draft legislation includes retroactive legal immunity.

If they could bring Scottish Haggis back into the camp of Republican rubber stamps (and at least get Leahy to agree to let the bill move through the committee), they should be able to get their telecom immunity. After all, DiFi and Whitehouse already voted for immunity in SSCI (though Whitehouse wants to add more oversight on minimization). So with Specter, they'd have an 11-8 vote for immunity.

How about it, Haggis, want to be a hero? Or will you once again trade your purported principles for party fealty?

The funny thing, though, is what this childish tactic says about the others on SJC--those who can't see the family jewels. Feingold has already seen the family jewels over at SSCI, along with DiFi and Whitehouse. So which of the following Senators do you think the White House is trying--with such desperation--to prevent from viewing the family views?

• Ted Kennedy
• Joe Biden
• Herb Kohl
• Chuck Schumer
• Dick Durbin
• Ben Cardin

Sure, Kennedy and Biden are blowhards (Schumer, for his part, isn't even solidly against immunity yet). But they're Senator blowhards. What are you guys so worried about?

Comments

[tekel]

So which of the following Senators do you think the White House is trying--with such desperation--to prevent from viewing the family [jewels]?

Are any of them former DAs or US Attorneys? Anyone who could express a valid and knowledgeable opinion about whether or not the documents are evidence that a federal felony was committed?

[Mad Dogs]

Based upon the "lack" of applause from Dodd's colleagues, it sure seems like the Senatorial fix is in wrt retroactive immunity, massive warrantless eavesdropping and "community of interest" data-mining in this FISA re-write.

The silence is deafening from the Democrats you've listed EW. And from his leadership himself, Harry Reid.

The Senatorial fix is definitely in.

I sure hope we can hold those in the House, as well as during Conference.

[OldCoastie]

they don't want Kennedy to see them - there's something in there about his family that is horribly embarassing (WAG).

[P J Evans]

One thing that the Dems could actually use: that immunity for the telecoms is the GOP being 'soft on crime'.

Now, how do we convince any of them to actually use that?

[Jodi]

An 11% approval rating for Congress in case you are one that watches approval ratings.

Why do you expect that is?

[Shit Stain Remover]

If I were one who watches approval ratings, I wouldn't need you to tell me about the
11% approval rating for Congress.

The post is about Specter's position on immunity for telecoms. What the f*ck are you talking about
Shit Stain Jodi?

[Joe Klein's conscience]

Are any of them former DAs or US Attorneys? Anyone who could express a valid and knowledgeable opinion about whether or not the documents are evidence that a federal felony was committed?

Whitehouse was a USDA during Clinton's presidency. Why would he be for telco immunity?

OldCoastie:
I doubt it's Teddy at this point. They might have stuff on other members of the Kennedy clan.

[Jay]

I forget how long it's been since either committee requested those documents, but it's been long enough for the administration to look at all of them, permanently destroy all the docs that they don't want the committees to read, and dilute the rest by duplicating documents, including irrelevant documents, receipts from Chinese restaurants for late-night bull sessions, office supply invoices (in triplicate). There's nothing in those documents. Not the good stuff, that is.

[irene]

"Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also said he would insist on seeing the documents before backing such a plan [telecom immunity]."
At least that's what he was quoted as saying in this october 19 article in The Hill.

from the same article:

For their part, Senate Democratic leaders were cautious about the Intelligence Committee’s deal. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he spoke with Rockefeller Wednesday night, but said he would withhold his support until seeing the White House documents that could explain why such immunity would be needed. Aside from the Senate Intelligence panel, no other lawmakers, including those in leadership or on the Judiciary panels, have seen the documents.

“I have to see what papers they’ve seen [to know whether] there may be justification for it — at this stage I don’t know what that would be,” Reid said.

Harry Reid wants a look?

[drational]

I suggest this is simply to give Leahy and Specter a face saving mechanism to get the bill debated in SJC. With Whitehouse and Feinstein already on board with immunity, the bill can escape SJC without Leahy or Specter support, but only if it gets introduced for discussion. It is in essence a done deal, with Leahy as the only real obstacle. Specter has given lip service to oversight and is pretending to stand up with Leahy, but as soon as he gets to be a big boy and see the grown-ups' documents he will roll into the approve column.

As for a filibuster on the Senate Floor, don't hold your breath. Reid has already said he would advance the bill despite a Dodd "hold", and there were only 28 Senators voting against PAA. Two of these, Whitehouse and Rockefeller are already on the books for immunity. So this means, if all the rest of the prior PAA "Nays" hold their line, a Senate filibuster needs 15 new votes from the ranks of those who previously abstained or voted for PAA to prevent cloture.

I think people need to be thinking about a House filibuster if immunity is to be stopped.

[drational]

since "filibusters" don't happen in the house, only the Rules Committee can make a Senate-passed immunity bill debatable or amendable....
and since PAA went through the House 227-183, things are not looking good for preventing immunity....

[Maalox]

My fair senator, Mr. Kennedy, is still under the impression that the only way to achieve anything in federal government is through "bipartisan" approach. He told me so in a response to my request for supporting Senator Dodd.

I informed him that his only approach is tragically flawed for 1 reason. Simply, the other side doesn't understand the concept. This administration can't understand the concept because they are operating outside the law. Reconciling legality will be fatal to everything they hope to achieve.

As Dylan, the prophet, said, "to live outside the law, you must be honest".

These fools are doomed and they know it. They smell the stench of failure looming and they are dangerously anxious.

[Susan in Iowa]

Marci, Haggis? What are you talking about? Kindly explain.

Biden said he would support a filibuster, last Friday.