This is on Russ Feingold's web site. It is a letter from him and Chris Dodd:

Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman Leahy, Chairman Conyers, Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Reyes,

As you work to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, we urge you to include key protections to safeguard the privacy of law-abiding Americans, and not to include provisions that would grant retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly cooperated in the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

Link: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/08/06/20080610f.html

The rest of the letter is also worth reading, as they point out that Bond's "compromise" is pre-approved retroactive immunity in the same way Glenn does in the post. It's nice to see that at least these two haven't given up.

Glenn - I think that you're one of the best political writers and truth tellers in America today; we need more like you. I wanted to point out that neither the New York Times or the Washington Post gave any coverage to the fact that Dennis Kucinich gave a 4-hour presetation on the floor of the House last night, bringing 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush. It's a sad commentary on what are supposedly the two leading newspapers in this country that neither can find the guts or the integrity to present the facts of what Dennis Kucinich, one of our true American Patriots did last night in the House of Representatives.

Just in case some folks don't make it back to the Comcast thread...although I believe someone noted it upthread, I didn't pay close enough attention... apologies if redundant to most.

One Sena Fitzmaurice, presumably of Comcast, responded to Glenn in the thread. Link at sig.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/09/comcast/permalink/
83c916f778dc7fe03624a75361b51744.html

Jonathan Turley was just on Olbermann talking about the Kucinich impeachment resolution. If you can, catch the replay (7:00 on the west coast) or perhaps they'll have it on Crooks & Liars tomorrow. It's worth watching.

Hey Jebbie

I was so roused by the Turley spot that I actually did start pounding my dick on the table. I stopped short of sticking it in a fire, although I could have easily started one with all that firewood I suddenly had.

Many thanks, Glenn, this article is even clearer and more pertinent than your other great work. Congratulations!

The picture you paint is entirely accurate: more and more the picture develops that it is the inside-the-DC-beltway politicians (of both parties), plus the news media, versus the United States of America.

But I'm encouraged. It seems to me that more and more, we Americans are winning and the DC denizens are on the back foot now, and steadily falling behind.

Glenn, a status update of the FISA Update. Our vaunted Democratic patriots at work. “Stoned” Hoyer and “Jello Jay” Rockefeller consider this a FISA “compromise”, but only because neither can spell “Sellout”.

From The Hill (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawmakers-see-progress-on-fisa-talks-2008-06-10.html):

Congressional Republicans are reviewing a Democratic proposal to break the logjam on electronic-surveillance legislation by allowing federal district courts to determine whether telephone companies seeking legal immunity received orders from the Bush administration to wiretap people’s phones.

That differs from a plan that Republicans, with support from the White House, floated right before Memorial Day that would give that authority to the secret court that operates under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In both cases, the courts would not decide whether those orders constitute a violation of the law, according to people familiar with the language. The plan was floated by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and has the support of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

GOP aides said that Republicans would likely suggest more revisions, but saw the proposal as a step in the right direction…

Fookin’ traitors! All they can think of is pleasing the Repugs. Fookin’ traitors!

[Glenn, from the post]: Scarier still: "Telecommunications companies would also have to spend considerable time shutting down existing wiretaps, and then start them up again if ordered under new warrants, officials said."

On the equipment I work with, the expiration date is a mandatory parameter (and should be taken from the search warrant or court order). The idea of having a warrant of indefinite duration is anathema to Fourth Amendment law as practised.

Restarting up "old" warrants is just as "burdensome" as putting in a new one. I haven't heard anyone complain yet about either.

Cheers,

BTW, Lichtblau seems to be a pretty reasonable person, and was hardly a gummint acolyte when he and Risen were first reporting on this stuff (as detailed in his book).

What happened? Any chance you could phone him or e-mail him and ask WTF is going on?

Cheers,

That is the hallmark of the Democratic Party leadership: they are afraid of looking weak....

... so, to avoid that, they'll turn around and grab their ankles when they are confronted by the maladministration's insistence on immunity.

Has anyone told them how wrong they are in doing this? Anyone pointed out that their own approval ratings are in the sh*tter, mainly because they are showing themselves to be part of another phylum than Choradata?? That trying to be wimpier than McCain and the Rethuglicans is about as losing a strategery as you can come up with???

Cheers,

They could easily obviate that weapon by simply offering a bill to extend the orders. When they don't do that, and instead agree to a "compromise" that gives the President virtually everything he has been demanding, it will not be because they were coerced or pressured into doing so, but rather, because they, too, favor warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty.

Is there someone we can lean on that could introduce such a bill? All we need is two Congresspersons and two Senators. Then get them to bring it up (and second it). If the (so-called) "leadership" refuses to take it up, we mount a campaign against the "leadership", explaining the very points you made right here. I'd contribute to a media blast like that in a flash....

I was thinking of going to the Pelosi dinner a week back. But didn't have the time and didn't want to give her the money they'd want. But it would have been worth it to button-hole her on this stuff ... and impeachment. Damn.

Cheers,