Senator Reid and the Senate Democrats deliver retroactive immunity to Mr. Bush and the telecoms

[solarbird]

CSPAN CapitalNews description:

Senate votes 76-10 to advance warrantless wiretapping bill that gives phone companies retroactive immunity.

Damn, what a headline.

As I type, Senator Reid is formalising the 60-vote requirement for amendments for Senator Dodd's and other amendments stripping out retroactive immunity and he's wanting to let the Democrats out of having to vote yes on more cloture votes. (This was all part of the Democratic strategy to close down these investigations into the illegal warrantless wiretapping.) GOP members are also demanding the 60-vote majority... and Senator Reid is giving it to them. Senator Dodd is arguing against, saying that this sets a horrible precedent, because he is not offering anything out of the normal rules of order, but Senator Reid is refusing.

The 60-vote majority is now going to be a requirement. Senator Dood is being limited to an hour of commentary in the remaining 30 hours for amendments as they wish to get this through as quickly as possible.

Let's lay this out:

14 Senators did not bother to vote. Let's say all 49 Republicans voted for cloture and protecting their party retroactively from criminal offenses committed by Mr. Bush, and, separately, the criminal offenses committed by the telecommunications companies involved. This puts the best possible face on this for the Democrats, so don't accuse me of stacking the deck.

That means of the Democrats, 14 didn't bother voting, including all the major Democratic campaigners who are currently Senators. 36 Democrats, not counting Mr. Lieberman, voted. 26 voted for retroactive immunity for warrantless spying on Americans in direction violation of the law. Only 10 did not.

This is 72.2% of Democrats present in the Senate voting for this tragedy. Think about that. If the Democrats controlled every seat in the Senate, cloture passes 72-28. Even under the older rules used to keep civil rights law stalled in the 1950s and early 1960s - when getting cloture was more difficult - cloture would have passed.

Where are these supposed "Good Democrats?"

I don't see 'em. I see a fringe of people working against this who just got a bipartisan smackdown of the first order:

Senate votes 76-10 to advance warrantless wiretapping bill that gives phone companies retroactive immunity.

And people who didn't show up don't fucking count.

Here's another headline from yesterday, the kind of discovery the Democrats just voted overwhelmingly to end:

AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying within two weeks of taking office
Raw Story

[...]
“What he saw,” Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told the Times, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”

What we can hope is that this individual lawsuit may get to continue moving forward on the basis that two weeks after inauguration is before the immunity start time in the bill. Assuming that doesn't get amended back to cover this, too. Hopefully they don't know about it yet, because if they do, and they think it's real, they will.

ETA: There are, reportedly, more rounds of cloture votes ahead, despite Senator Reid's move avoiding cloture votes on amendments. It is, I suppose, possible that 17 votes could be changed - that's the number necessary to support the filibuster. Cloture requires 60 votes outright, not 60%, so that means the coward no-shows can continue to be cowardly no-shows. See llachglin's flowchart comment below.

Comments

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Do we know if the language in this bill gives the government immunity as well? I'm somewhat morally opposed to the telecoms getting off scot-free for this, but on the other hand how exactly should they be punished? Fines? Criminal terms for the people who gave the government the information when it asked, rather than wait for a court order? I'm not certain that would really place the onus where it belongs, squarely on the Bush Administration which abused its authority in these matters. It might also make more sense to allow civil penalties to be sought rather than criminal ones, for the telecoms, while going after the government officials involved for criminal offenses.

[solarbird]

Do we know if the language in this bill gives the government immunity as well?
No, but no one will investigate.

We already know that. They won't. They aren't. The Justice Department is politicised, and running interference for the administration. Congress? Don't make me ill. States can't launch investigations by law. This was it.

I'm somewhat morally opposed to the telecoms getting off scot-free for this
They separately, and specifically, and willingly violated the law in the whole, on their own. Not all of the did so, in fact, but most did. They are as guilty.

It might also make more sense to allow civil penalties to be sought rather than criminal ones, for the telecoms
That's what was going on, as the Justice Department and Congress were refusing to investigate. That's what just got shut down.

while going after the government officials involved for criminal offenses.
Except the parties responsible for such actions refuse to do so.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

This is bleak, but a couple of corrections are in order.

The filibuster has not happened yet. There was a vote for cloture, which passed. Voting against cloture is the more common way that a filibuster is accomplished, but the traditional filibuster method of refusing to yield the floor is still an option and one that Dodd is going to pursue.

Dodd voted against cloture, and he's running for president. So it's not true that all Senators running for president voted for cloture. Biden, Clinton, and Obama refused to go on record either way, acts of cowardice worth remembering, and in this case nearly as bad as votes for cloture.

I don't know how you get a vote for cloture if every seat in the Senate was Democratic. All we know for sure is that 28 Democrats voted for this abomination, so the vote for cloture in your theoretical all-Dem Senate could be anywhere from 28 to 90, with 60 needed. The key is to elect good Democrats (or good Republicans if you can find any, or good third-party candidates if you can make any of them viable). (And marginal or not, we have 10 good Democrats on this vote, which is 10 more than exist from any other party.) No matter what party anyone aligns with, the key to improving matters is to elect candidates who did or would do the right thing, and replace those who won't.

Here in Washington state, Murray voted for cloture. We need to run a candidate against her in the primary when she's up for reelection in 2010. Cantwell voted against cloture and deserved kudos for her vote.

And, in the spirit of the holidays and believing in unicorns, let's cross our fingers and hope that somehow Dodd's old-school filibuster can reverse the tide.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

By the way, this is the flowchart of the ongoing filibuster process. We just passed the first decision point (the diamond/kite shape thing first from the top). The next relevant steps occur on Wednesday:



Don't you just love arcane Senate procedure?

[solarbird]

Because I can do math. 72% of existing Democrats voted for cloture. Any new Democrats would be coming from states whose representatives currently support Republicans. Where are these like-the-28%-minourity Democrats supposed to come from? Mars?

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

Really? I just talked with Senator Cantwell's office (Murray's office sent me to voicemail; all lines were busy) and the woman I spoke with told me that both Murray and Cantwell had voted against cloture. Must go research ...

[solarbird]

Senator Reid can - and already has - moved for cloture over the head of Senator Dodd's desire to keep talking. (Cloture motions do not require the support of the current speaker.) Further, Senator Reid has ruled that no Senator may have more than an hour of floor time regardless, including Mr. Dodd. (One presumes this applies to the 30-hour rule.) How is this compatible with a successful filibuster, given that we already have a 76-10 cloture vote on the record?

Mind you, I support Senator Dodd's insistence upon continuing. One fights all the way down. But I do not see anything to grab ahold of here. There is a substantial majority which will vote against any amendment or substitution - Mr. Reid knows this, which is why he introduced the version of the bill he did - leaving only the possibility of votes against cloture. Is there actually any possibility of changing 17 votes on this matter at this point? Because that's what's needed. How does that work?

[solarbird]

That's not what the Senate recorder announced - but I could have heard it wrong, I was in and out of the room at the time. (I was watching on C-Span 2.)

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Roll call at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00435.

However, this is not the only opportunity for a cloture vote (this was the cloture vote for the motion to proceed, not the final bill). If you look at the flowchart below, there's a vote for cloture once the final bill is done with amendments. That's the real cloture vote for this measure. Many of those who voted yes or did not vote on this first cloture vote might very well change their votes for the critical vote later. There are all sorts of procedural or tactical reasons why an opponent of the FISA legislation would do this. I still think real leaderrship on this issue means obstructing passage every step of the way, but I'll reserve final judgment on Murray, Kennedy, et al. until this process is played out.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

We have a cloture vote for the motion to proceed, and not the amended bill. That's bad, but the two are not the same thing. I don't pretend to understand the stuff once Reid has a choice of the bill or the substitute amendment, except that either option requires another cloture vote. That vote is likely to happen on Friday. Happy Solstice, everyone!

For all of those who believe in the power of the Solstice to bring light after the time of greatest darkness, the time to start making sacrifices is now.

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

Well crap.

Senator Murray is going to get another call from me. I understand the whole procedural/tactical thing, but I think you're right that the only way this can be defeated is to fight HARD every step of the way. The Mom in Tennis Shoes needs to get out the stompy boots, y'know?

[solarbird]

That doesn't address my question. Cloture calls can be made at any time after the minimum debate period. AFAIK, that applies to any motion. Can we change 17 votes?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Idaho, for one. A recent poll has a generic Dem outpolling a generic Republican for the race to replace Larry Craig, by a substantial margin. Idaho, like Montana, is a conservative state but it tends to be a more libertarian conservatism, with a long-suppressed but real progressive streak to back it up. Now, otherwise progressive Senator Tester of Montana voted for cloture, but so did a lot of Dems with a decent record who are on record opposing telecom immunity. I really don't think you can conclusively use this cloture vote to predict the one that counts, even if it is a bad sign. If the final cloture vote looks like this, then we can despair.

Bottom line: keep calling our Senators. We have until Friday.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Quite possibly we can change those votes. Here are Senators that I think are strong possible no voters on the final cloture vote who voted yes or did not vote on the cloture vote for the motion to proceed:

Clinton (though I wouldn't count on her)
Obama
Biden
Byrd
Durbin
Kennedy
Kohl
Leahy
Murray
Tester
Webb

That leaves us substantially short, unfortunately. I count 23 other Democrats not in this list of likelies, and maybe one or two possible Republicans, with 20 more needed to stop cloture, so a good outcome is not impossible at this point. It is unlikely. But there's no way to predict what amendments will be passed after the bill is submitted, some of which could be poison pills that keep the bill from moving forward with immunity intact, because of the defection of current bill supporters.

Dodd's current list is 3 who will support a filibuster on the final cloture vote, and no clear answer from the other 97. This is not over yet.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

There's also an unlimited debate period that begins after the simple majority motion to proceed vote on Wednesday. My understanding is that this is the relevant old-school filibuster window, though I think there are several delay techniques available during the period when amendments are being offered as well.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

By the way, the achievable possible outcome would be the defection of the 8 "yes" votes on the list I just gave, plus 9 more switches among the other Democrats who voted yes, with the rest maintaining their non-voting position. It's only yes votes that match, so my scenario of finding 41 no votes is not really the relevant one.

Real leadership from the Senate/Presidential trio would mean that they collectively use their clout as the potential next president to promise preferential treatment of legislation from Senators who do the right thing. Say, pork for the states of Senators who vote the right way. That's ugly, and it can happen with no quid pro quo ever being made clear to the public, but that's how hard-knuckle legislation happens. It's compared to sausage-making for a reason. I'm not saying that will happen, but it could. It's worth some legislative compromise down the road to get the right outcome on this.

[solarbird]

But there's no way to predict what amendments will be passed after the bill is submitted
Sure there is. Senator Reid has ruled supermajority requirement on all amendments, at 60 votes yes. The bill gives Mr. Bush everything he wants right now; they will not allow amendments, and can stop them 100% of the time.

[solarbird]

Senator Dodd and... someone else, I didn't catch who... have been making quorum calls every so often as a stalling tactic. They don't look frivolous - the floor is clearly less crowded - which one presumes is part of the stalling.

[solarbird]

I can only note that your example of the kind of "generic Dem" that could appear from someplace other than Mars... voted for cloture.

That said, there's a petition against Senator Reid hosted here, it'll be delivered in a few days. I've signed it this afternoon.

[solarbird]

I noted all the major candidates. Sadly, Mr. Dodd, at this point, continues not to be a major candidate. That could change, but it hasn't done so yet.