What Did the Blue Dogs Promise to DNI McConnell?

by emptywheel

My house guests are gone, I'm recovering from the turkey (on the heritage turkey? It is better, but I'm not sure it's enough better to justify the price tag), and now I'm wading through Friday's document dump. These are the documents the EFF forced DNI to release after he had been stalling on their release; he was supposed to provide all correspondence between Congress and DNI and between the telecoms and DNI. More on how far short he fell of compliance in another post.

A lot of the attention so far has focused on this letter from Jello Jay to Mike McConnell, rebuking him for his bait and switch during the debates over the Protect America Act.

For the moment, though, I'm just as interested in this letter, from the Blue Dogs to McConnell. It memorializes a meeting the Blue Dogs had with McConnell that same day, August 1. I find it interesting for two reasons. First, it shows that McConnell was working the faction of the Democratic Party that would most likely split from the rest to give the Administration proposal a majority without widespread support among Democrats (which, of course, is precisely what happened just two days later).

The other interesting detail is how reasonable the Blue Dog proposal was. In particular, they note that they supported a revision that required individual warrants for Americans, and one that sunsets in six months. Though--of serious concern for the upcoming FISA debate--they state,

We also agree that it is important to address the issue of retroactive liability for private sector partners.

While their stance is not terrible, their understanding only addressed one of the real issues (the sunset provision) that remained up for debate that week--the ones that McConnell baited and switched over. So we don't know whether McConnell made his agreements with Democratic leadership already having undercut them in an agreement with the Blue Dogs. So I wonder--what was said in that Blue Dog meeting on August 1?

I also wonder, is this the kind of back channel negotiation that Jane Harman has been so excitable about?

Update: provided more explanation about the document dump.

Comments

[minstrel boy]

if you want much of the flavor boost and meatiness of a heritage turkey without the hefty (and i agree it isn't worth the money at this stage of the market) price tag consider a kosher bird. big plus, they are pre-brined.

[Jodi]

Huh?

[Brian in Seattle]

I agree with Jodi.

Now I must type elsewhere for a few seconds...

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

On the off chance that Wm Ockham shows up, I left a query at the bottom of the previous thread. If he -- or anyone else -- has time, I'd appreciate feedback. A link from pow wow led to an article by Sun's Research division. That Sun article raises some very worrying questions about FISA architecture.
I'd like a brighter, more informed mind (or two, or three) to offer a reality-check if anyone has time.

[Mad Dogs]

EW,

It was very clear from that "Blue Dogs" letter that Jane and her mutts were more than just supportive of Telco retroactive immunity, they were enthusiastic.

It was as if, "how could anyone not provide shelter to these poor ol' patriotic Telco heroes in our War on Terra?"

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect wrt Telco retroactive immunity between the Village dwellers and certainly the blogosphere, but I believe also, the entire non-Village population, i.e. the very citizenry of our nation.

I have yet to find any Village elder make even a semblance of a convincing case as to just why these criminal acts must be excused.

It is always about "patriotism" as if that very concept relieves one of the responsibility to be law-abiding.

Its sort of like: "They were patriots first, and only criminals second."

Another thing that struck me (somewhere in the bowels of that DNI/ODNI document dump) was McConnell "stating" that only a tiny few of purported US-based Al Quaeda sympathizers/supporters have ever been discovered via the TSP and its related massive warrantless snooping programs.

One of the "facts of life" in any large organization, and most particularly in large Government Intel or Defense programs, is that the "more" money you can stuff in your budget, the "more" valid and successful (contrary to every reality datapoint) you must actually be in the belief of the funders who authorize your funding.

It can never be said that "big money" doesn't provide "big returns", even if they don't!

The NSA has been consuming tens of billions of government funding every year for decades. It must never be said that they deliver only a pittance in return. Empires do empiring, not self-reflection.

[Kathleen]

EW thanks for staying on this.

Why would we ever believe that Jane Harman is playing Hardball? Is she still under investigation?

[P J Evans]

Mad Dogs

Do you remember the line about the last refuge of scoundrels? We're seeing it here, I think.

[freepatriot]

wow

wanna bet my blue dog Democratic representative don't want you digging into this, ew ???

so should I call him and ask him if he got played for a sucker by the repuglitards ???

that's what this is about, right ???

the blue dogs getting played by bushco

it's good to know that you persons are "on the job" while I overdose on football an stuff ...

btw, about that wine, I think more than just the box was defective

[Jodi]

Brian in Seattle

Welcome to the Force!

[Mad Dogs]

P J Evans,

And we certainly have scoundrels aplenty!

On a related note, did anyone else get the impression when reading the excellent David Kris review of the Senate FAA bill this past May that pow wow uncovered in the last post, that the Government's position wrt to "drift-netting" is legal with respect to FISA because it is not "targeted" at an individual?

As I understood David's explanation, no FISA warrant is required to "watchlist" all communications because the Government is not targeting a specific person, hence the massive capture and "drift-netting" that AT&T is alleged to have assisted with does not fall within the bounds of either FISA or the PAA.

Would any of the resident legal eagles here care to do some "devil's advocate" work and flesh out this legal theory of Cheney/Addington/Yoo/Gonzales?

[JohnLopresti]

In our region redistricting yielded a bluedog which was progress compared to the prior some representatives but worse than some liberals we elected prior to that census based revision, though one of those liberals grew pretty bluedoggish after a few years inside the Beltway.

There are 48 bluedogs.

I worked in recent years in the district of yet another bluedog, as well; this other bludog's website has a link to testimony 44pp he gave in congress in February 2007 concerning the insurance claims fiasco in some communities among those most affected by Katrina along the gulf coast of so.MS.

[Shit Stain Remover]

Brian in Seattle,

Please don't feed the turkey.

[Jodi]

FALSE JODI AT 16:40.

[emptywheel]

She's right, btw, that appears to be an imposter Jodi.

[freepatriot]

so the shit stain is having problems with it's multi-personality disorder,what's new ???

didn't we already decide that the shit stain couldn't be a single person anyway ???

unless we're dealing with a freeper "Billy Milligan"

and look how that turned out

[Anonymous]

Putting aside the documents:

The litigation against the telecoms started. It's an exercise of judiical power to decide the outcome of that litigation. How does Congess -- the legislative branch -- justify asserting Judicial power in retroactively affecting the outcome of ongoing litigation? Please discuss the unconstitutionality of the proposed immunity/shield legislation in light of judicial-legislative powers/ separation of powers.