The Next Hurrah

What happened to the House FISA bill?

by Kagro X

The House was scheduled to take up the RESTORE Act today, in an effort to roll back the August FISA debacle. But as predicted last week, the bill fell victim to yet another Republican motion to recommit (see linked story for a backgrounder on the motion).

As TPM Election Central reported earlier, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced his intention to offer a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that it be amended "promptly" to include language that nothing in it:

"shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization...from attacking the United States or any United States person."

What does that mean? A couple things.

First, it means that Cantor has devised a vote that some strategists worry will be very tough for Democrats from marginal districts to resist. How, they fret, will these Democrats be able to explain voting no on an "amendment" that supposedly ensures that intelligence operatives won't be tied up in red tape when they need to prevent a terrorist attack?

Second, it means that if enough Democrats sweat this vote and go along with Republicans, the bill gets "recommitted" -- that is, it's sent back to committee.

Third, the choice of the "promptly" language means the bill gets delayed, and can't come to the floor for passage right away. Why is that?

If you love having people stare at you like you're from another planet, read on after the flip and find out. Then you too can be the person nobody will sit next to on day two of the legislative education conference.

Roll Call on FISA in HJC

by emptywheel

Via email, here are the roll call votes against the Forbes amendment (favoring immunity for Telcos) and for the RESTORE legislation.

Forbes:

No: Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Wexler, Sanchez, Cohen, Sutton, Sherman, Baldwin, Weiner, Schiff, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison

Yes: Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Goodlatte, Lungren, Cannon, Keller, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan

Final Passage

Yes: Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Delahunt, Wexler, Sanchez, Cohen, Johnson, Sutton, Baldwin, Weiner, Schiff, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison

No: Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Goodlatte, Chabot, Cannon, Keller, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan [my emphasis]

Just two details of note. First, Artur Davis voted with Democrats on both votes. Davis is the only Democrat on HJC who voted for the crappy August bill. And it appears, at least, that on the important issue of immunity, he will side with Democrats. Hopefully this suggests more of those Dems who voted for the Bush bill in August will exercise some judgment and restraint in this go-around.

Second, I'm curious about the Dan Lungren non-vote against RESTORE. In one of the FISA hearings, Lungren was vocal about the importance of sound minimization procedures. Perhaps someone finally told him that Mike McConnell was actually opposed to the Dem bills in August because they did what Lungren said FISA had to do--have real, reviewable minimization procedures? Or, just as likely, he just left early for the day or had some swank lunch meeting.

In any case, the only other thing this vote tells us is (as I said yesterday or the day before) the Republicans would prefer to go down with Bush than to make a stand for civil liberties.

Stuff that doesn't fit in soundbites

by Kagro X

This isn't meant to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton in particular. But it's going to end up that way, because she's the only one of the sitting Democratic Senators running for president who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment the other day.

But I say that this isn't about her in particular because I think there are a lot of Democrats in Congress who make one of the component errors that I think she made in making her decision, even if they eventually come down in opposition to resolutions and amendments like this one.

What do I mean? Well, I just got a look at Senator Clinton's statement on her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that passed the Senate the other day, and this part grabbed me:

In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority. Nothing in this resolution changes that.

Von Spakovsky to slip through?

by Kagro X

It looks for all the world like former Justice Department evildoer Hans Von Spakovsky will slip through and land his share of Wingnut Welfare: a paycheck from the Federal Election Commission.

Von Spakovsky's nomination has been red-flagged for months, since revelations regarding his role in voter suppression schemes, approval of racially discriminatory redistricting schemes, and other transgressions came to light. Von Spakovsky's reward for permanently perverting the electoral system on behalf of the Bush "administration?" A cushy seat with the nation's elections watchdogs. Brilliantly played!

So, you already know where this is going, right? Senate Democrats aren't going to stop his nomination.

Why not?

House Rules

by emptywheel

The WaPo has more on the logic behind the refusal of the 13 Congressmen subpoenaed yesterday to testify.

As required by House rules, the subpoenas were read into the Congressional Record late Monday evening. John D. Filamor, assistant House counsel, wrote Geragos on Sept. 6 to object to the subpoenas, citing House rules that forbid members from testifying in judicial proceedings unless their testimony is "material and relevant."

Filamor also cited the "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution as a likely impediment to the testimony and to "many, if not all, of the documents" Geragos is seeking from a handful of lawmakers. That clause protects members from being tried criminally for legislative acts.

We have yet to see the subpoenas themselves, but the mention of documents here suggests that one of the documents Geragos is seeking is the report on the HPSCI's involvement in approving Cunningham graft--and perhaps other documents that chronicle Congress' addiction to earmarks.

I don't think I adequately explained what I meant yesterday when I said Congressional subpoenas are the new graymail. Recall that the goal of graymail is not to actually win a trial. It is to force the government into deciding between actually holding the trial or dismissing the charges against the defendant.

The reason I said this appears to be similar to a graymail attempt is because Geragos subpoenaed testimony that is, arguably at least, protected. If Judge Burns determines that the subpoenaed testimony is relevant to Wilkes' defense, Congress' invocation of "speech and debate" and House rules will then be weighed. Given the recent Jefferson decision ruling the FBI's raid on Jefferson's office illegal, the speech and debate clause may well be interpreted broadly. Which might--and this is Mark Geragos, mind you, so I say might--mean Congress would be given the choice whether to testify in the trial. And if they don't, Burns might--again, I say might--have to dismiss the charges.

I doubt it'll work (not least because there's only about 3 Congressmen who really have directly relevant testimony, plus that one report), but it's a novel stunt.

Congressional Subpoenas Are the New Graymail

by emptywheel

The AP has the list of Congressmen whom Brent Wilkes has subpoenaed to appear at his trial. There are virtually no surprises on the list--all are either former or current Chairs of the Committees that knew of Wilkes' behavior and/or noted earmarkers in their own right. Here's why I think each person was subpoenaed.

Duncan Hunter, R-CA: Duncan Hunter was Chair of the Armed Services Committee when Duke Cunningham pulled off his scams. In fact, Hunter is the one who taught Cunningham how to earmark worthless programs to bring home pork for the district. He showed up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade's position in Congress. And he's on CREW's list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

John Doolittle, R-CA: He shows up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade's position in Congress. He's on CREW's list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

Jerry Lewis, R-CA: He shows up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade's position in Congress. He's on CREW's list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen. Lewis Chaired Appropriations in the last Congress.

Roy Blunt, R-MO: Blunt has been very good at the same kind of revolving door earmarking as Cunningham.

Denny Hastert, R-IL: Denny was in charge of Congress when Duke was getting bribed. And he shows up on a list of people whose re-election had improved Mitch Wade's position in Congress.

Jerry Weller, R-IL: Willing to craft trade programs for his personal benefit, Weller is on CREW's list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

Pete Hoekstra, R-MI: Hoekstra was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and refused to declassify that committee's report on how Duke ripped the US off via that committee.

Joe Knollenberg, R-MI: Knollenberg is a fantastic earmarker in his own right and was lauded by Cunningham for his help in getting lobbyists their due. And boy did he squirm and fidget when I read The Wrong Stuff while sitting next to him.

Darrell Issa, R-CA: Issa's district is in the neighborhood and he has brought in some earmarks as well (though to Issa's credit, he started self-disclosing his own earmarks).

Norm Dicks, D-WA: On the Appropriations Committee, Dicks is one of the top earmarkers in Congress.

Silvestre Reyes, D-TX: Reyes is the Chair of the House Intell Committee--and has refused to declassify the committee's review of how it approved Duke Cunningham's scams.

Ike Skelton, D-MO: Skelton is the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, one of the committees Duke scammed. There is probably a good deal of relevant paperwork in this committee that is otherwise unavailable thanks to Congress' expanding immunity from subpoena.

John Murtha, D-PA: Probably the Democrats' best earmarker, Murtha is also Chair of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. And if any Democrat was cognizant of Duke's scams, it'd be Murtha. Murtha showed up on a list of Mitch Wade's list of re-elected Congressmen who improved his, Wade's, position in Congress. And he's on CREW's list of 22 most corrupt Congressmen.

For their part, the Congressmen all said they'll refuse the subpoena. Which is all the more reason, I say, to prompt further scrutiny in these guys. To what degree are they hiding their knowledge of Cunningham's/Wade's/Wilke's activities? To what degree are they engaged in the same kind of massive earmarking that Cunningham was?

Update: Yup, they're invoking Congressional privilege to avoid testifying.

After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I have determined that compliance with the subpoena is inconsistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.

Ted Olson as AG = no Congressional subpoena power

by Kagro X

NBC's Chuck Todd notes:

According to the Washington Post, former Solicitor General Ted Olsen is viewed as the leading candidate to become the nation's new Attorney General. Why Olsen? His reputation is top-notch and he should have little problem getting through the confirmation process. Oh, and conservatives love Olsen.

Well, here's a little problem that should give Olson a little problem getting through the confirmation process: He's one of the chief architects of the White House strategy that seeks to render Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (who sits on the front lines on this nomination) utterly powerless in pursuing his investigation of the very scandals which led to Gonzales' resignation in the first place.

Subpoena power takes a powder

by Kagro X

That was then:

Pelosi was asked what was most important about regaining majority status. "Subpoena power," she said.

This is now:

House Democratic leaders have decided to postpone a vote on a criminal contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers for several weeks, and possibly longer, according to top lawmakers and aides.

Why?

Pelosi decided to delay a vote until at least late September, and possibly into October. Democrats said they are not yet ready for such a vote because they have not briefed lawmakers on what it would mean and how the controversy would play out, both legally and politically.

“I don’t think anything is going to happen on that for a while,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). “When you decide to do that, you have to make your best case. You want everyone to understand what’s happening and why.”

Emanuel said Pelosi and other top Democrats have not begun those consultations yet — and he was unsure when they would.

Quick briefing for you, then: What it would mean is, if you don't act, the Congress isn't a coequal branch anymore. In fact, you won't have that one thing you said was "most important" about regaining the majority.

Do you like being a coequal branch? Then vote to be one. If you hate having power and getting things done, sit on your hands for a little longer.

Ready to vote? Good. I thought so. Briefing over.

Something for the Plameologists while The Petraeus Show is on

by Kagro X

Just in case you were wondering whether there might actually be something else going on this week besides the Petraeus Show, there is. Nothing serious, though. Just the latest in a series of deadlines set by Government Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, demanding the delivery by the "administration" of reports generated by the still-unknown private contractor who claims to have "lost" those 5 million White House e-mails. Deadline: Today.

In a letter to Fielding, Rep. Henry Waxman set a Sept. 10 deadline for the White House to turn over information about the missing e-mail, a problem that apparently was discovered by administration officials in 2005.

The letter from Waxman, D-Calif., revealed new details about the issue that came from two White House lawyers who briefed Waxman's staff about problems archiving electronic messages. White House e-mail problems first came to light during a special prosecutor's investigation into whether someone on President Bush's staff illegally leaked a CIA agent's identity and again during congressional inquiries into the role of presidential aides in firings of U.S. attorneys.

Yes, we've known about this since 2005. And yes, it was discovered in the investigation of the Plame outing. And yes, we're still waiting.

P.S. -- Also still pending: Contempt of Congress charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. Both still at large.

Can We Really Afford Twenty More Years of Iraq?

By Mimikatz

Fred Kaplan has a good piece at Slate on the questions that Congress should ask General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker when they report next week.  As Kevin Drum notes, towards the end Kaplan quotes military analyst Stephen Biddle (an adviser to the Administration):

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

"The strategy" being the bottom-up attempt to achieve reconciliation among factions like the reconciliation between the US and Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar.  Leaving aside all the questions Kaplan raises about why it may be not only harder but impossible to reconcile the Iraqi factions, is this "long-shot gamble" what the Democrats in Congress really want?  And can we afford it?

Meanwhile, the GAO Report says that nearly all benchmarks are failing to be met in Iraq and that the Administration's statistics claiming to show the opposite are bogus. And the report issued by a 20-member Commission headed by retired General Jones  says that our excessive footprint in Iraq is actually counterproductive to our stated aims and also says that any declines in Baghdad sectarian violence are probably the result of  ethnic cleansing.  General Jones also says we can begin withdrawing early next year.  And everyone agrees that we will have to start bringing home some troops next year  because we don't have the replacements for them.

And yet, our Democratic Congress appears ready to give the Bush/Cheney regime its demanded $200 billion Iraq Supplemental funding even though the Bush/Cheney regime can't get its request together in a timely way.  (via Atrios.)   They appear ready to abandon the plan to impose withdrawal timetables, all in a futile effort to get a few GOPers to join them.  But why?  With the public--virtually the entire known universe on their side, why are the Dems thinking so small?  Why aren't they making the GOP own and defend this unpopular war?

And over at the economy, the jobs report showed a net loss for the first time in 4 years, the Dow Jones average is down 200 points at this moment and the subprime mortgage mess threatens to morph into a recession, at least in several of the most populous parts of the country. As if this were not enough, the cumulative debt has gone over $ 9 trillion.   This is more than the current debt ceiling of $8.965 trillion, (raised 4 times already during the Bush/Cheney regime) but there are some items that are not subject to the limit, so the Treasury may still be able to  borrow money for a short while.

With all this factual firepower and with not only the approriations power but the leverage of the debt ceiling, why oh why can't the Democrats learn to stand strong and do what the public wants instead of capitulating to the Bush/Cheney regime at every turn?