Skip to main content

Through a Glass Darkly continued ... follow the bouncing ball. (Do NOT click if you are a "yellow dog" Democrat)

[Note: Made a few aesthetic edits that I've been wanting to include for awhile]

Follow the bouncing ball ...

{Through a Glass Darkly}

This is my opinion and my opinion only

For the past six years I've been under the impression that the Democratic "leadership" has wanted the same things as what I want, and think, and hold important, but in the last week I've been slowly coming to the conclusion that what I want, and think, and hold important, about the direction of this country differs greatly from what the Democratic "leadership" wants, and thinks.

The Democratic "leadership" in Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, I charge, were not compliant, but are complicit and entered into a confederacy with George Bush in the orchestration of this horrible invasion of privacy in the revision of the FISA bill, and I'm going to show how they did it.

This matters not just because this is an affront to all that we hold dear as Americans as to our privacy, but this is how they're going to manipulate the next Iraqi Occupation funding bill if their propaganda arm is not as successful as they hope.

I'm probably going to mix several metaphors, and for that I apologize, but what will follow is an autopsy into legislative subterfuge and manipulation to get what they really wanted. I also apologize for the length, and any spelling, grammatical or incorrect conclusions that are arrived at but are seemingly incontrovertible evidence of the confederacy of the leadership. And I also hope the explanations are clear enough. Be sure to click on the links to understand the full measure of what was done last weekend.

I allege that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were not compliant as they would have you believe because that is the M.O. that they wish, but what I have come to conclude is that they are complicit in the deceit of the Bush administration, they are not compliant but complicit. They are playing that old "good cop" "bad cop" routine. I first offer two examples of circumstantial evidence of their complicity, while this can be viewed as coincidence, I think in light of what's to follow in the Congressional record and news reports it can only be viewed cynically as a confederacy between the parties involved.

Now watch as the "debate" ping pongs back and forth as a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing

Follow the bouncing ball ...

Thursday evening, August 2, 2007: Nancy Pelosi has dinner at the White House in the company of her husband.

A spokesman for Harry Reid had this to say

    "Democrats and Republicans agreed [that] going home without addressing this issue was not an option. Passing anything to address this problem - or any problem - required 60 votes," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who also opposed the FISA bill. "The clear option was the DNI proposal or nothing. We chose the DNI plan with as many modifications as we could get."

Harry Reid gamed the vote in his chamber. He gamed the vote in the words "unanimous consent". Which I understand to mean that a 2/3 vote is required, which goes back to the quote by his aide above -- Harry Reid wasn't leaving town without a 2/3 vote and he knew he had one with the Republican bill because, he knew Bush would hold the Republicans in line

The Senate debate would last 1 hour

Partial Senate Timeline

    8:08 p.m. The Senate, which had been recessed since 11:33 a.m. subject to the call of the Chair reassembled, and proceeded to accept a unanimous consent request as follows:

      Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to debate concurrently S. 2011 [Rockefeller/Levin], now at the desk, and S. 1927 [McConnell/Bond], as amended with the changes now at the desk; that there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that no amendments or motions be in order with respect to either bill; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the bills each be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of S. 1927, as amended, to be followed by a vote on passage of S. 2011; that if either bill fails to achieve 60 votes, then the vote on passage be vitiated and the bill be placed on the calendar in the case of S. 2011 or returned to the calendar in the case of S. 1927, as amended.

      The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

      The clerk will report.

      The legislative clerk read as follows:

      A bill (S. 2011) cited as the Protect America Act of 2007.

      A bill (S. 192[7]) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.

      The amendment (No. 2649) to S. 1927 is as follows:
      (Purpose: To provide a sunset provision)

      At the end, add the following:

      (c) Sunset. Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

      (d) Authorizations in Effect. Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Back to the timeline:

    9:10 p.m. Senator Whitehouse closed the debate for the Democrats in the Senate with a one-minute statement pointing out (for the benefit of Senator Feinstein and others) that an Executive Order forbidding monitoring of U.S. citizens overseas is not an independent check and balance, contrary to the assertions made to her in the halls by DNI McConnell during the debate, 20 minutes after Feinstein claimed she first saw the Democratic Levin/Rockefeller version of the FISA bill (which Whitehouse among others had spent the graveyard shift crafting).

    9:15 p.m. Voting underway in the Senate on the McConnell/Bond FISA bill (S. 1927), needing 60 votes to pass (per the unanimous consent agreement); by 9:35 p.m., it passed 60-28.

    9:20 p.m. Voting underway in the House on a motion to adjourn until Saturday; it passed and the House adjourned for the night at 9:39 p.m.

    9:45 p.m. Voting underway in the Senate on the Rockefeller/Levin FISA bill (S. 2011), needing 60 votes to pass (per the unanimous consent agreement); by 9:55 p.m., it failed 43-45.

    11:08 p.m. The Senate adjourned by unanimous consent agreement until September 4th

The Senate then left town.

Harry Reid dumped the bill George Bush wanted on the House and left town to assure that no bill other than the harsher bill would be sent to the pResident.

Follow the bouncing ball ... over to the House

From what I understand is that there were not so bad bills and bad bills and it's not easy to keep them separate. We've already seen that the not so bad bill (Levin Rockefeller) lost in the Senate because it didn't get the 2/3 vote because of cloture, but in the House there is no cloture rule, all you need is a majority, unless a bill gets put on a special calendar that's used for things like renaming a post office or a bridge or ...etc. This is where the "leadership" of the House put the not so bad bill HR 3356 which meant that even if a majority of Reps voted in favor of it it would still fail unless it got a 2/3 majority. This was assured by the actions of August 1 and 3, see below

The autopsy continues ...

House Time line by selise

    Sunday, July 29, 2007

    From the ACLU:

      We weren't notified that the bill was moving until 6 days before when Rep. Harman let it slip on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer [transcript]

    Tuesday, July 31, 2007

    From the Washington Post:

      House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disclosed elements of the court's decision in remarks Tuesday to Fox News as he was promoting the administration-backed wiretapping legislation. Boehner has denied revealing classified information, but two government officials privy to the details confirmed that his remarks concerned classified information.

    Wednesday, Aug 1, 2007

    The House Committee on Rules reported out H.Res. 600 (Rules committee Report #110-291). Included under this rule was an unspecified FISA amendment. This resolution allowed the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules for bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

    From Floor Procedure In The U.S. House Of Representatives:

      A motion to suspend the rules requires a vote of two-thirds of the Members present and voting. No amendments are in order unless submitted with the bill by its manager as part of the motion to suspend the rules.

      The purpose of considering bills under suspension is to dispose of non-controversial measures expeditiously

    Friday, Aug 3, 2007 (floor summary)

    At 1:19 PM the House took up H.Res. 600 and it was passed (228-196) at 5:14 PM after heated debate. In the midst of that debate, it finally emerged that the FISA bill to be considered if made in order by passage of H.Res. 600, would be H.R. 3356. (see congressional record pages H09663-H09675)

    At 5:11 PM, Spencer Ackerman of TPM reports, Bush Nixed Dem-DNI FISA Deal

    At 7:20 PM, John Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3356). After debate, H.R.3356 failed at 8:58 PM by a vote of 218 in favor, and 207 opposed after debate. (see congressional record pages H09685-H09695)

Et Tue, John Conyers? Patron Saint of the Stephanie Miller Show, stuck a knife in the back of the Fourth Amendment with this motion on the not so bad bill. 218 in favor 207 opposed. Normally a majority rules, but John Conyers obliterated that assumption

    During the debate, Nancy Pelosi stated that:
      Without any reference to the current Attorney General, and there will be some who might question his judgment, I don't want Alberto Gonzales to have this much power, but in a Democratic administration, I would not want that Attorney General to have this much power. It should be a different branch of government.


      So we have seen them come up with these pieces of legislation that substitute the Attorney General for the FISA courts. It is just totally unacceptable.

I have to interject right here. This statement by Nancy Pelosi is absurd. When unanimous consent was requested in the House the next day for the bad bill from the Senate (McConnell/Bond), she as well as anyone else could have offered amendments to the (Republican) bill which would have allayed her alleged concerns. But she didn't do that. Why?

    At 8:05 PM the House Rules Committee posted a Notice of Action which included H.Res.613 Rules Committee Report #110-298 and H.Res.614 Rules Committee Report #110-299.

    H.Res.613, would have, like the previous H.Res.600, allowed the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules for an unspecified FISA amendment. Passage of a FISA amendment via this resolution would require a 2/3 vote.

    H.Res.614, on the other hand, would allow a simple majority vote for consideration of an unspecified FISA amendment on Saturday, Sunday or Monday (August 4th through the 6th). Neither of these resolutions would be used.

    Saturday, August 4, 2007 (floor summary)

    At 8:18 PM Mr. Hoyer asked unanimous consent that, among other things, A that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of August 4, 2007, to consider S. 1927 in the House under the following terms: All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI; The bill shall be considered as read; The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to its final passage without intervening motion except: (a) 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on the Judiciary and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (b) one motion to recommit There was no objection (see congressional record page H09952).

    At 8:31 PM Mr. Reyes called up S.1927 for debate. At 10:19 PM the bill passed 227 to 183 (see congressional record pages H09952-H09966)

Follow the bouncing ball ... for an explanation on the suspension of the rules in the House

Rules Committee complicity

BTW, there is one person who might have been able to stop this atrocity in it's tracks in the Rules Committee - the name is in bold below

    Some facts [as best I can glean them from Congressional websites, with Saturdays House action in the Rules Committee and the House, and Friday's Senate action not yet available on-line] about the House Committee on Rules action that led to the passage of the unConstitutional FISA legislation on 8/4/07 (aka your open, honest Democratic Congress at work):

    1. Friday, August 3rds action on FISA was provided for on Wednesday, August 1 with an unrecorded voice vote in the House Committee on Rules (the evening after Nancy Pelosi's cozy dinner with George and Laura Bush at the White House, in the company of her husband), which successfully reported out to the House a resolution to allow consideration of motions to suspend the rules; specifically with regard to two bills during (only) Friday's legislative day (H.Res. 600 and Rules Committee Report #110-291). The two bills to which this Rules Committee resolution (#600) would apply if passed by simple majority were a bill (H.R. 3087; Armed Services Committee Report #110-283) requiring development of a plan for redeployment from Iraq (which was apparently never brought up on Friday), and an unspecified FISA amendment to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance. Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont was the Democratic Manager of this Rules Committee resolution.

    RESOLUTION

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures:

    (1) The bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

    (2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

    http://www.rules.house.gov/Spe.....ewsID=2837

    2. The House took up H.Res. 600 (allowing for August 3rd motions for consideration of motions to suspend the rules and the regular calendar order for two bills - amended on the floor to three bills) on Friday, August 3rd, upon request of Rep. Alcee Hastings (of both the Rules Committee and the Intelligence Committee), and then passed that Rules Committee resolution #600 by 228-196 after debate. In the midst of that debate, it finally emerged that the FISA bill to be considered if made in order by passage of H.Res. 600, would be H.R. 3356 (apparently via the Judiciary Committee). Accordingly, after passage of H.Res. 600 by simple majority, John Conyers then moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3356), which then went down to defeat by a vote of 218 in favor, and 207 opposed after debate. Debate in which Nancy Pelosi stated that:

      That is why so many of us worked so closely, the distinguished Chairs of the committees of jurisdiction, Judiciary and Intelligence, including the majority leader, who just spoke, we worked closely with the Senate leadership, with the administration, trying to work in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the American people.

      As Mr. Hoyer indicated, and I won't go into it in detail, this involved a series of communications, both in person, on the telephone and otherwise, with the Director of National Intelligence. He presented to us, as I believe Congresswoman Harman has indicated and the chairmen have indicated, he presented us his three must-have provisions in the FISA law, and we wrote a bill that reflected, in fact echoed, the request of the Director of National Security.

      When we sent that to him, he came back and said, I have additional changes that I am requesting, and we accommodated them as far as we could under the balance of liberty and security.

      As Mr. Hoyer said, when we asked in the presence of the majority leader in the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chairs of the intelligence committees, House and Senate, and Armed Services from the Senate, the Director of DNI, that group of people gathered said that our bill would make us significantly safer. It was a positive contribution, as the leader said. Not that he endorsed the bill, because by then the administration had a different approach.

      It made it seem for some time, why we were going back and forth with this, trying to accommodate the DNI. I know that he was negotiating in good faith. I hope that he will accept what we are proposing in that same good faith.

      Some of the things that have been rejected since those conversations, but I hope will reappear in the Senate bill, are to diminish the role of the Attorney General in the decision-making on this. We have always said that there would be a third branch of government, the courts, to issue the warrants. The discretion in this situation is now given to the Attorney General.

      Without any reference to the current Attorney General, and there will be some who might question his judgment, I don't want Alberto Gonzales to have this much power, but in a Democratic administration, I would not want that Attorney General to have this much power. It should be a different branch of government.

      So we have seen them come up with these pieces of legislation that substitute the Attorney General for the FISA courts. It is just totally unacceptable. - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 8/3/07

    http://thomas.loc.gov/r110/r110.html

    So why wasn't majority approval enough for the House FISA bill? Because (as Nancy Pelosi knew full well) even with passage of the Rules Committee special rule to make H.R. 3356 in order for consideration by the House on Friday, the actual FISA vote itself nevertheless required a 2/3rds vote to suspend the rules and pass:

      Rule XV for the 110th Congress

      Suspensions

      1. (a) A rule may not be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present. The Speaker may not entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of Congress.

      (b) Pending a motion that the House suspend the rules, the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn but may not entertain any other motion until the vote is taken on the suspension.

      (c) A motion that the House suspend the rules is debatable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition thereto.

      http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....ecial_days

      3. Saturday, August 4th FISA bill action was set in motion by 8:05 p.m. on Friday (and entered on the calendar of the House upon passage in the Rules Committee by another unrecorded voice vote), August 3rd: another Rules Committee special order resolution allowing for consideration of motions on Saturday to suspend the rules for two bills [this time the funding of MN bridge repair and a (still unspecified) FISA bill (both H.Res. 613)] AND the following resolution (H.Res. 614) to allow a simple majority vote for consideration of any Rules Committee resolutions on two matters (the FY 2008 defense appropriations bill and FISA) taken up in the House on Saturday, Sunday or Monday if acted upon the same day any such special rule resolutions were reported out of the Rules Committee (which otherwise would have required a 2/3rds vote to be acted upon the same day the Rules Committee reported):

      RESOLUTION

      Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

      Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of Saturday, August 4, 2007, Sunday, August 5, 2007, or Monday, August 6, 2007, providing for consideration of any of the following measures:

      (1) The bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

      (2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

      House Calendar No. 105

      http://www.rules.house.gov/Spe.....ewsID=2842

    The Democratic Rules Committee manager of both Rule Resolution #613 and #614 was Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts (sorry, selise!). Again, the specific FISA bill language contemplated was not included: only the same generic FISA language of August 1 H.Res. 600 was in H.Res. 613 and H.Res. 614. So rank and file Democrats presumably could have still expected a non-Senate Democratic FISA bill (like H.R. 3356) to be brought up on Saturday under this further rule to allow a 2/3rds vote to suspend the rules and pass, following majority-vote passage of the Rules Committee Resolutions #613 and #614.

    But that's not what happened, as we all know. Something else was issued (enabled by H.Res. 614) on Saturday by the Rules Committee, that enabled passage by simple majority vote of the underlying FISA bill, which turned out to be the Senate's version this time. Monday we'll be able to find out exactly what the rule was that the House Rules Committee passed on Saturday that waived, or otherwise bypassed the requirement that the Senate FISA bill also pass with a required-2/3rds majority suspension of the rules. [In other words, what the extra enabling by way of the rules for the Senate FISA bill was that Speaker Pelosi didn't see fit to provide for her own House FISA bill H.R. 3356 the day before, even as she declared to the American people that the Senate FISA language was absolutely unacceptable]

    Question: How many of the rank and file members of the Democratic Party in the House understood what was happening on Friday with the rigged 2/3rds vote, that was doomed to failure in advance?

    House Committee on Rules membership:

    LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, NY - CHAIRWOMAN

    JAMES P. McGOVERN, MA

    ALCEE L. HASTINGS, FL

    DORIS O. MATSUI, CA

    DENNIS CARDOZA, CA

    PETER WELCH, VT

    KATHY CASTOR, FL

    MICHAEL ARCURI, NY

    BETTY SUTTON, OH

    Ranking Minority Member

    DAVID DREIER, CA

    LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, FL

    DOC HASTINGS, WA

    PETE SESSIONS, TX

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

#1 Confederacy of the Democratic Party

I believe a lot of people have been dissapointed by the weakness of the Democratic Party after they won a clear majority in Congress. Democrats need to get more active, assertive and aggressive when need be. Not bow down to the rich and famous!
Amnesty for all hard working illegal immigrants and their families!
Educate to Liberate!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka Peta

Sacramento, Califas, Aztlan

#2 Hi Peta

Long time no read. I hope you do another blog soon, because we always need varied opinions, and I enjoy reading your posts.

And I just want to correct a few things that stood out on my post - I think what might be implied from what I said about the Senate needing a 2/3 vote to pass the bill for cloture should read 3/5 because 60 votes is 3/5.

And I'm not 100% sure what I said about John Conyers is correct, but what I do know is that he could have objected to the unanimous consent request by speaking up, and he did not. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi - because she could have spoken up when the u.c. request was asked for. And there's one other thing - they could have made a motion to recommit - I'm not sure if it's the same thing as objecting to the u.c. request but with a motion to recommit, the minority - I'm not sure if it's the minority in the vote, or if it's the minority party, and if that's the case I'm sure she could have gotten Ron Paul to make the motion - and with this motion they can make amendments to a bill that don't like. If NP would have done this, she wouldn't have had to worry about "violence done to the Constitution"