This is the sort of thing was the highest possible offense, behind treason (which teh gop loves also). Democracy and republcs cannot exist with rampet corruption. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. We must reinstate conseqeunces for treason (dealing with outside countires OVER the will of the nation, or at the detrement of the nation), and bribery.

That is how we save our govnerment, and in turn america. Crime and punishment. Cause and effect. Risk and reward. jail the criminal politicains. Do it one time. This treason stops the next day. One time is all it would take. Justice has been wiating to inflict itself on the gop for 50 years. Time to justice to enforce her wrath.

the traitors are losing all power. The laws that once governed america will be back in business. The gop is done

If they hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't need amnesty, would they? So let's hear Comcast come out against this bill on the grounds that passing it would imply they had broken the law -- wouldn't that be defamatory too?

The NY Times left out the third reason the goopers want telecom immunity; possible legal action against corrupt administration.

Today, The New York Times Editorial Board vigorously condemned the Hoyer bill ...

If I hadn't seen it myself, I wouldn't believe it. I'm not sure I do even now.

Way to go!

Amity, you're out of character! Quick! Quick! Say something crazy before your cover's blown!

Do you know of any indications that the campaign against Carney is having any effect?

Penner has a good idea. Instead of implying that "they broke the law" use some Shakespearean irony on them and let it be known that they wouldn't break the law because they are all honorable men but if they didn't break any laws why do they need amnesty and immunity from prosecution for laws that they didn't break.

They can't have it both ways. If they didn't break the law then they have no need for amnesty/immunity. If they must have amnesty/immunity it is a tacit admission that they broke the law.

Has there been any attempt by Carney, or anybody for that matter, to respond to the ads? Are we seeing any movement toward justice? Or are they stubbornly holding firm?

I'm with you on this. There is something sinister about any political party demanding to eavesdrop without consequence. When you see how they treat detainees with no evidence against them, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine how your political opposition might treat you. I say oust anybody who votes for this bill.

I'm considering donating, but could you explain to the neophytes like me more precisely how you see this working? This vote is imminent, while the elections are months off, presumably. Is the idea just to scare these targets with the specter that the sum raised will be used against them in the future?

Thanks!

Gus

I've worked in the area of so-called advertising law for many years and dealt with any number of these kinds of issues. Glenn, welcome to the 2d class status known as "commercial speech." Were we to litigate, we would no doubt be able to convince a judge that your ad has the same legal protection as editorial content like the Times' piece. However, the executives, editors and managers of media companies instinctively view the ad the same way they look at an ad for soup -- inherently less worthy of First Amendment protection. And since they are embarrassed by the ad and afraid it might actually impact their business negatively, they will fight to keep it off the air.

Getting in front of a judge would help, plus result in valuable free media to boot. It's something to seriously consider...otherwise, welcome to the back of the First Amendment bus.

The law in question immunizes telecoms that broke the law.

Therefore, we can conclude that the existence of the legislation demonstrates that some telecom, somewhere, broke the law.

Also, even if no telecoms actually broke the law, voting for this legislation would still [strictly speaking] immunize "theoretical" telecoms that broke the law.

If I as a Congressman vote for legislation immunizing people for killing the Pope, it is perfectly valid for someone to accuse me of favoring legislation immunizing people for killing the Pope, even if the Pope is still alive. To vote for the legislation, you have to be willing to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, in the event such lawbreaking is shown to have existed.

Dam', I wish we could skip the middleman and just vote for Comcast. Straight up-or-down. After more than a decade of Comcast "service" -- which mainly consists of the company giving themselves an uncontestable, unnegotiated 10% raise every year, year after year -- I know how I'd vote.

Well that certainly convinces me to switch to RCN immediately, maybe someone could create a website where people who drop comcast can put their names on some sort of petition. Comcast could lose 40,000 customers in a few days, that would start to wake them up to the reality that the people are uniting behind sanity, and no longer supporting the special interests that keep the people apart.

Comcast is no longer my provider certainly. And everyone I know will find out why.

I have written to Barack and Nancy and chipped in a few bucks. Here is my letter to Pelosi:

Speaker Pelosi,

I admired you when you said this on the floor of the house:

“It (FISA) protects our civil liberties in a number of ways. The DNI has agreed that when Americans are targeted for surveillance, a warrant is required. We have now included certain criteria that the government must take into account in considering whether a warrant is required. This will help prevent inappropriate warrantless surveillance and ‘reverse targeting’ of Americans under the guise of foreign intelligence.

“The bill restores checks and balances. This is very important, because that is our oath of office, to protect the Constitution of the United States.

And now, despite the self-acknowledged oath you took to protect the consitution, you are among those democrats attempting to, surreptitiously through weasal wording, give the telecoms and indirectly the current admin a free pass on the unconsitutional spying they have done.

I find you particlarly disappointing because, unlike some of your fellow congressmen who have no clue, your own words show you understand the importance of this bill. If this bill passes as is I will be leaving the party and working for someone who not only talks about the importance of their oath to the consitution but acts on it. My admiration was misplaced.