Just got off the phone with DiFi's DC office (202.224.3841). I last called 'em on Thursday about this subject.

Got phone-answerer (a guy, this time) and asked if the Senator was in favor of granting retroactive immunity to telecoms who violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant. Was told, of course, that the Senator simply had not made an announcement on this issue, and that he'd be happy to relay my thoughts to the Senator.

I noted that the House Judiciary Committee, clearly, had, itself, made an announcement on this very issue, by virtue of the fact that it has now drafted a bill that does *not* contain retroactive immunity. Was told that the bill the Senator will vote for will certainly be one that conforms to the House bill.

I expressed my surprise at the above statement, given the fact that the WaPo reports that House Democrats lean against granting retroactive immunity (not to mention the House's recent draft bill which fails to grant retroactive immunity), while Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee (of which the Senator is a member) favor granting some sort of retroactive immunity... again, per the WaPo. Was told, by phone answerer, that he had misspoken in his previous answer. That what he meant to say is that there will likely be a conference committee, down the line, marrying these two bills, and that that bill is gonna be the one the Senator ends up supporting.

I said that I understood these bills will be reconciled in conference committee, and that my fear is that, at that point, it will be too late to effectively influence my Senator, particularly if she keeps her position secret until that time. I continued by confessing my fear that that may, in fact, be the Senator's strategy: to keep her position secret as long as possible (in contrast to my representative and my other Senator, who've already declared their stance on this issue), until such time as it's too late for constituents such as myself to respond effectively. Was responded to with silence.

I asked if the Senator, or any of her staffers, could confirm or deny the WaPo report that Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee favor some form of retroactive immunity. Was told that no one could confirm or deny that.

I asked for confirmation that the Senator's staffer, Dan Safire (sp?), is the staffer most responsible for coordinating the Senator's action on this specific issue. The phone-answerer confirmed. I noted that that I'd left a message for Mr. Safire (sp?) last week, and had not heard back. I asked to leave another message. Was transferred to said staffer's voice mail.

Left message on voicemail of Dan Safire (sp?), asking him to please explain to me why my Senator was unwilling to do what my Congressperson and my other Senator were already willing to do: declare an opposition to the granting of retroactive immunity to telecoms who violated federal law by eavesdropping without a warrant.

Am now waiting, breath held, for a return call.

Patrick Meighan

Culver City, CA

Up 'til today, the standard, pro-forma response had been that my Senator hadn't decided how she's gonna vote, and will release a statement later, when she decides.

Now, however, that she has voted (at least in the Intelligence Committee), that answer has less legitimacy (if it ever had any). Thus, I called again this afternoon, as a constituent, and asked for an explanation for my elected representative's already-cast Intelligence Committee vote. Guess what: they're sticking to the old cop-out. My Senator will release a statement "soon" explaining her position on this bill. 'Til then, I can go rot. Kee-ryst, this is aggrevating!

At the very least, though, I've wrung this concession from two separate phone answerers in DiFi's D.C. office: they're received absolutely *no* constituent contact explicitly urging retroactive immunity for the telecoms. None. Every piece of constituent contact DiFi's office has received on this issue has been in the negative. The phone answerer tried to wriggle on this, somewhat, by saying that they have received some constituent support for the FISA bill (and that, the phone answerer claims, could be construed as inherent constituent support for retroactive immunity, since the FISA bill contains such a provision). Blech.

It's so frustrating, smashing myself against the wall of DiFi's non-responsiveness, but I'll keep on at it, right up 'til the end.

Patrick Meighan

Culver City, CA