Progressives Team Up With Conservatives To Scuttle Pelosi's Orwellian Domestic Spying Bill

Progressives in Congress worked with the GOP Tuesday to torpedo an authoritarian domestic spying bill-- already passed by the Senate-- that Pelosi, Hoyer and Schiff were trying to push through the House. By late that night, Pelosi and her team read the tea leaves and pulled their own bill that was meant to reauthorize key parts of FISA. Trump, for his reasons-- remember he had signed the FISA legislation into law last year-- had threatened to veto the bill hours before Pelosi cancelled the vote on it.

As Ryan Grim pointed out, "earlier this month, the Republican-led Senate failed to pass a measure that would limit the FBI’s ability to access web-browsing history and other online activity without a warrant by a single vote... Civil libertarians, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) pushed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow an up-or-down vote on that amendment, then send it back to the Senate, where it could pass with all senators voting. Pelosi instead told Lofgren to negotiate with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) the New York Times reported, and Schiff watered down the legislation. The result drew criticism from the left and right-- and Trump’s attention to the fight. Had Pelosi agreed to a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate amendment, it likely would have passed easily, and reauthorization of the broad surveillance authorities, along with some real reforms, would be on their way to becoming law."

The politics of surveillance, even in normal times, scramble the typical partisan tendencies, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Pelosi, and Schiff often aligning on questions about the breadth and depth of state power to surveil and track Americans. Opposing those congressional leaders is the civil liberties community, which includes both progressives and conservatives with libertarian leanings, but which rarely can muster a majority in Congress for its defense of the Bill of Rights.

The civil liberties argument has gained new traction in recent months, with Trump’s outrage over the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court’s handling of surveillance of his campaign, particularly the deeply flawed application for a warrant to surveil former adviser Carter Page. Although it was initially designed to review intelligence surveillance applications for suspected agents of a foreign power, after 9/11 the secretive FISA court signed off on expansive interpretations of surveillance law. Now, as Trump feels victimized by it, he and his allies have found religion on the question.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), a famously eccentric conservative in the House, remarked at a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning on the oddity of House Democrats fighting to give Trump surveillance powers he wasn’t asking for, despite his clear determination to use law enforcement for his own political ends.

“It sure seems strange to me. For Democrats to vote for this reauthorization, even with these amendments, would have to be sort of saying, we have so much trust in Donald Trump and the people he’s appointed that they would never lie to a FISA court. They would never just go after their enemies. We feel like he can be trusted and so can all the people he’s appointed,” he said. “We know he’s cleaned out some folks at the Justice Department, FBI, I mean, think about it.”

The unlikely coalition of Trump and the civil libertarians was enough to stall the legal reauthorization of the FBI’s “call detail records” program, an amended version of the Patriot Act that allowed federal law enforcement to collect phone records. The authority lapsed in March after McConnell was unable to force through an unamended reauthorization.

Earlier this month, the Senate reauthorized those programs with additional restrictions, but an amendment that would limit the government’s ability to collect internet browsing history without a warrant fell one vote short of the 60 votes it needed to pass.

Pelosi then instructed Schiff to come up with a compromise version with Lofgren, rather than allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate language. The result of those negotiations was an amendment, introduced by Lofgren and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that reintroduced the restriction on collecting browsing history, but applies it only to U.S. persons.

However, Lofgren’s and Davidson’s amendment leaves up to interpretation what federal agents should do when they don’t know ahead of time whether U.S. persons’ information would be swept up in information requests-- giving the secretive FISA court room to allow bulk collection and task the FBI with purging U.S. person information afterward. The agreement broke down when Schiff and Lofgren offered different interpretations of their measure.

“If the government wants to use a dragnet and order a service provider to produce a list of everyone who has visited a particular website, watched a particular YouTube video, or made a particular search query, it cannot seek that order unless it can guarantee that the business records returned will contain no U.S. person IP addresses, or other U.S. person identifiers,” Lofgren said at a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning. That interpretation was enough to win the backing of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

In a statement, Schiff said that the amendment prohibited orders that “to seek to obtain” U.S. persons’ browsing information, leaving open the possibility that the FBI could seek to collect visitor logs from a website that contained Americans, as long as that was not their primary purpose.

Statements like that, noted Charlie Savage in The Times, can be used by judges to determine legislative intent and confounded what had appeared to be a settled issue.

That led to pushback from both the left and right, and the renewed attention not only risked reforms that had been won in the Senate and failed to win support for the amendment Schiff advocated for, but it also drew a veto threat from Trump. Wyden, who co-sponsored the failed amendment in the Senate, withdrew his support, saying in a statement that it “flatly contradicted the intent” of his amendment in the Senate, and urged the House to consider his version.

...David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, which lobbied against the legislation, said that Pelosi and Schiff’s apparent own goal came from too close of an alliance with the national security establishment, which, he argued, “has led them to line up against reforms that could have passed, and in support of a bill that harms Americans, might not pass, and would likely be vetoed.”

...The opposition of a vast majority of Republicans gifted the CPC a fresh opportunity to flex its muscles in the House, after a disappointing effort to influence coronavirus relief packages. Trump’s turn against surveillance authorities has produced enough Republican opposition that a concerted effort by progressives could block passage. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., a CPC co-chair, told The Intercept that the caucus was urging its 92 members to vote no. “We have grave concerns that this legislation does not protect people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, especially their online activity including web browsing and internet searches,” said Pocan and fellow co-chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., in a statement later on Wednesday afternoon. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection.”

...The opposition of a vast majority of Republicans gifted the Congressional Progressive Caucus a fresh opportunity to flex its muscles in the House, after a disappointing effort to influence coronavirus relief packages. Trump’s turn against surveillance authorities has produced enough Republican opposition that a concerted effort by progressives could block passage.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) a CPC co-chair, told The Intercept that the caucus was urging its 92 members to vote no.

“We have grave concerns that this legislation does not protect people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, especially their online activity including web browsing and internet searches,” said Pocan and fellow co-chair Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in a statement later on Wednesday afternoon. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection.”

For now, the Patriot Act provisions remain dead-- as do the reforms included in the underlying bill (some of which extend beyond the Patriot Act). All because Pelosi and Schiff insist on letting the FBI access browser history without a warrant, not what people who don't watch carefully would ever expect from either Pelosi or Schiff.

Ryan Cooper asked a salient question that Democrats should be asking themselves: If Trump is a budding autocrat-- and we all know he is-- shouldn't Democrats limit his surveillance powers?. "Why in God's name," he asked, "did Democrats even consider giving President Donald Trump-- the man they recently impeached for abuse of power-- more unaccountable surveillance powers? Over his own objection, no less?"

Schiff himself was the leader of the impeachment prosecution of Trump just a few months ago. In a long speech before the Senate, Schiff argued that the Founding Fathers had put impeachment into the Constitution specifically to deal with someone like Trump: "a man who would subvert the interest of the nation to pursue his own interests. For a man who would seek to perpetuate himself in office by inviting foreign interference and cheating an election." Even on the extremely narrow grounds chosen by House Democrats (which left out his most egregious looting of public coffers) Trump undoubtedly deserved to be removed from office.

But Schiff doesn't seem to actually believe his case against Trump. There is no possible justification for granting a corrupt, election-cheating president-- one who appointed a dishonest stooge as the nation's chief law enforcement officer-- the power to root through anyone's browser history without a warrant. Indeed, all the enormous powers of the surveillance state (which accomplish little or nothing of value) are exceptionally dangerous in the hands of Trump, and Democrats should be working frantically to scale them back. So far it appears we have gotten lucky in that Trump doesn't appear to grasp what these powers are for or how he might exploit them fully, but that situation is not guaranteed to hold.

Indeed, Trump's own objections remove the only possible political justification for passing this bill-- that Republicans would call Democrats soft on terrorism. They could shelve the bill, point to Trump, and shrug. Not their fault Trump didn't want these powers extended.

But in reality, Democrats like Schiff have completely swallowed the worldview of the national security establishment. Dragnet surveillance, like semi-randomly assassinating people up to and including American citizens, are some of the Important Tools that Keep Us Safe. The danger of a corrupt imbecile in the White House abusing those powers does not fit into this worldview, so it is ignored. If there is a choice between bowing before American imperial power and recognizing the danger of that power, they will choose the former, even when a game show demagogue is in the White House.

UPDATE From San Francisco: 

I just heard from Shahid Buttar, the progressive attorney and community organizer who is challenging Pelosi in November (having-- like her-- won the jungle primary in March). "It's entirely unacceptable—- and equally unsurprising—- that Nancy Pelosi has yet again used her formidable influence on Capitol Hill to enable authoritarian surveillance powers," he told us. "The reason I felt forced to run to replace Pelosi was her longstanding opposition to surveillance reforms on which I've worked for over a decade. What's new this year is the presence of a right-wing aspiring tyrant in the White House, and a bipartisan block of policymakers willing to do the right thing and challenge the institutional establishment that has rammed these powers through Congress on nearly a dozen occasions over the past decade without ever allowing a transparent debate. It is shameful that Pelosi supported the Republican position on FISA reauthorization. Pelosi's support for GOP positions also represents a profound threat to our democracy. Under the administration of a criminal president with no respect for the rule of law, we need resistance for real in Congress, not partisan posturing paving the road to fascism."

The Worst Democrats In Congress Voted With The GOP This Week On Two Super Important Bills. Want To Know Who?

There were two important bills Congress passed on Wednesday-- a bad one and a good one. The bad one was a reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act (FISA). It passed 278-136. 75 Democrats and 60 Republicans voted against it. The Blue Dogs, New Dems and the corrupt Military Industrial Complex supporters led the way. Which Democrats voted against it? You know... the good ones like Ro Khanna (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), AOC (D-NY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Andy Levin (D-MI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Chuy García (D-IL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)... the ones you'd expect. And the bad guys? 152 Democrats joined with most of the GOP to pass this, many of them all the regular suspects like this couple of dozen shitheads:

• Steny Hoyer (Majority Leader-MD)
• Jim Clyburn (Biden Resuscitator-SC)
• Cheri Bustos (DCCC chair-IL)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Greg Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
• Joe Morelle (New Dem-NY)
• Stephen Lynch (New Dem-MA)
• Pete Aguilar (Blue Dog-CA)
• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)

Those 24 were just a representative sample of all the bad Democrats who voted for an especially bad bill that reauthorizes the unchecked domestic spying powers of what is now Trump's intelligence-gathering bureaus, such as the unwarranted collection of phone records. I asked some of the candidates running for Congress whose opponents voted for the bill. Liam O'Mara, the Riverside County progressive Democrat taking on Trump sycophant Ken Calvert responded with his own question: "How is it that a country which prides itself on freedom is so quick to limit freedoms in the name of security? There is no cause for spying on the communications of American citizens as a whole, and the Orwellian name of the USA FREEDOM Act should not be allowed to obscure its purpose. Calvert voted to let the NSA watch your calls; I would have voted no."

Eva Putzova, the Arizona progressive taking on Blue Dog and "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran who voted to reauthorize the domestic spying bill (and against the war powers bill). He can always be counted on to vote with the Republicans on any important legislation. Eva told us this morning that his vote "to join with the Trump administration and the GOP and reauthorize Section 215 of the Patriot Act that allows government spying and surveillance on American citizens is reprehensible. This provision allows the unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States. It would give Attorney General Barr the authority to engage in surveillance of the administration's political rivals. Is this what the incumbent and my opponent wants? Growing up in pre-1989 Czechoslovakia, I'm too familiar with tools of totalitarian regimes used to terrorize their own citizens and the Patriot Act is just like that. When I am in Congress I will vote to repeal the Patriot Act and all other intrusive government spying and surveillance programs that interfere with our rights under the Constitution."

So that was the bad bill. The good bill that passed was a bicameral directive to removes all U.S. armed forces deployed against Iran without congressional approval. It passed 227 to 186. Six fucked-up fake Democrats voted with the Republicans to stop this. If you see one of these in the street, you should throw a runny fruit pie in their face:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)

And if you live in one of their districts... Well, you know what to do. Oklahoma's 5th district would be a good one to start in. Blue Dog Kendra Horn has one of the most disgraceful voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- craven, cowardly and conservative. She has no business being in Congress at all and was never anything more than a lesser-of-two evils candidate. Progressive Tom Guild is running against her this cycle, in part because of voters like the two she screwed up on this week-- voting for domestic spying and against peace With Iran. "Under no circumstances," said Guild today, "should American troops fight in Iran without prior congressional approval. I’m deeply disappointed that Horn gave the current volatile and impulsive president or any president carte blanche to start another costly endless war in the Middle East. Enough is Enough!"

Blue Dogs And New Dems Team Up With The GOP To Permit Unwarranted Spying On American Citizens

Late Tuesday night, the House voted on an amendment offered by Justin Amash (R-MI) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to an omnibus appropriations bill. The amendment failed 253-175. It was voted down by an institutionally conservative coalition that included 127 Republicans and 126 Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party— primarily New Dems, Blue Dogs and associated shitheads (like Steny Hoyer). Voting to pass the bill were almost every progressive in the House (110) of them + a motley crew of 65 Republicans. The rejected bill was meant to end unwarranted federal mass surveillance of phone calls, texts, and browsing histories of the American people (the stuff Ed Snowden exposed). Reason Magazine explained the amendment as seeking to forbid the use of any funds to submit a surveillance request under Section 702's guidelines unless the requesting organization— the National Security Agency (NSA)— certifies that the surveillance is not "to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States, any acquisition of a communication as to which no participant is a person who is targeted pursuant to the authorized acquisition, or any acquisition of a communication known to be entirely domestic."

Translation: The purpose of Section 702 of FISA is intended to authorize warrantless secret surveillance of foreign targets of interest in other countries who may be plotting against the United States. In practice, we know that the NSA has been collecting significant amounts of domestic communications of American citizens, without warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was the surveillance that Edward Snowden helped expose, and we've been arguing over it ever since.

Despite repeatedly and loudly complaining that he and his aides had been illegally surveilled under FISA as a candidate, President Donald Trump has done nothing to actually restrain these surveillance powers. Last year, given the opportunity to rethink the limits of Section 702 when it was up for renewal, Congress and Trump instead expanded its authority to snoop on Americans.

So this year, Amash and Lofgren embarked on a new effort to stop the NSA from secretly collecting Americans' communications. Amash spoke passionately in defense of his amendment on the House floor [Tuesday] evening:

We can see what's wrong with Washington right here. We have Republicans for months saying "We're worried about FISA abuse. FISA's out of control!" Here we are trying to limit FISA and they're running against it. They're saying "No, we can't limit FISA!" Democrats say, "We want to hold the president in check. Executive power is out of control." We have an amendment to hold the president in check. This is our time to stand up for the American people. I'm sick of going home and telling them that neither side wanted to defend their rights.

But it was not to be. The amendment got all of 10 minutes of debate and was defeated.

So… which team would you want to be on? One one side you have Barbara Lee (D-CA), AOC (D-NY), Justin Amash (R-MI), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Payapal (D-WA), Katie Porter (D-CA), Joe Kennedy III (D-MA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), David Cicilline (D-RI), Deb Haaland (D-NM), Jamie Raskin (D-MA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY)… And on the other side you have Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Devin Nunes (R-CA),  Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Steve King (R-IA), Fred Upton (R-MI), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Liz Cheney (R-WY), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Sean Duffy (R-WI), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), David Scott (Blue Dog-GA), Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL), Ron Kind (new Dem-WI), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Tom O’Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)…

I reached out to some Democrats who firmly believe in the concept of privacy from unreasonable searches. Remember Tim Canova, a constitutional lawyer from Florida who made a couple of spirited runs against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the New Dems who backs unwarranted spying on American citizens. Tim reminded me that he had “long opposed the federal government’s warrantless mass surveillance program… Wasserman Schultz has argued that federal agencies need these tools to protect us from terrorists, from those who would collude with foreign enemies, rig our elections, and destroy our system of government. It’s therefore ironic that Wasserman Schultz and her own electronic communications are now of interest to the U.S. Justice Department and various federal prosecutors. Most notable are investigations into the origins of the unverified and salacious Christopher Steele dossier and how it was used in 2016 to lie to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court to spy on the Trump campaign. It turns out that Wasserman Schultz had her Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid millions of dollars for the dirty dossier, with payments ultimately going to Steele, a former foreign Intelligence agent, and his sources inside Russian intelligence circles. As the New York Times reported, the Russians may have fed Steele the most outlandish lies about Trump as part of a Kremlin disinformation program to destabilize our political system. Paying foreigners to influence the U.S. presidential election are serious violations of federal campaign finance law. It also turns out that Wasserman Schultz laundered these payments to Steele and the others through Fusion GPS, a crony, and a high powered law firm, Perkins Coie. That’s money laundering to conceal the underlying felonies. Federal prosecutors likely have plenty of probable cause to obtain a FISA warrant to inspect Wasserman Schultz’s electronic communications from 2016. Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz keeps voting in the House to allow federal mass surveillance without warrants. If there’s any karmic justice in this world, it won’t be warrantless mass surveillance that catches up with Wasserman Schultz, but a FISA warrant based on verified information and probable cause. RussiaGate conspiracy mongering has been great for cable TV ratings and has allowed criminal Democrats like Wasserman Schultz to distract attention from their own crimes. It is quickly proving to be a failing strategy against Donald Trump. All thanks to Dirty Debbie.”

Jon Hoadley is a state Rep running for the congressional seat held by Trump enabler Fred Upton. His position wasn’t much like Canova’s but wound up with a similar conclusion. “Voters in Southwest Michigan were disappointed to learn their 16-term congressman, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), once again landed on the wrong side of history by voting against the Lofgren-Amash amendment. This amendment would have closed the legal loopholes that enable mass government surveillance on private citizens. As a state representative, I've introduced legislation to ensure privacy for broadband users and worked to advance net neutrality. And when we turn Michigan's Sixth District blue next November, I'll vote to end mass government spying on citizens and to hold corporations accountable for abusing consumer data.

Dr. Michael Owens, a national security expert running for Congress against craven Blue Dog David Scott in a suburban district southwest of Atlanta told me that it’s unfortunate that Scott “again voted with Republicans and the Trump Administration to continue to allow the government to collect Americans' personal, private communications without a warrant. This is the second time that David Scott has voted for the warrantless collection of Americans' data that was installed hastily after 911 by President Bush as part of the overreaching Patriot Act. We must be clear, with David Scott's help, the Republicans in the House were successful in voting against the basic freedoms that every American is granted under the Fourth Amendment, he continues to be complicit in the government's mass collections of data that potentially puts  every American citizen at risk to cyber attacks and the potential exposure of any American citizen's most private information. Lastly, with this vote Congressman Scott continues to support Trump by allowing the biased targeting of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants… I support this amendment and would’ve stood with the many progressive and decisive Democrats who voted yes. Under this amendment the government would have basic safeguards to allow the government to continue using Section 702 for its stated purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. But just as important, it would’ve stopped the abuse of the Constitution's 4th amendment with the government’s warrantless collection of Americans’ communications under FISA. This amendment would’ve also helped to reduce the billions of pieces of information that are being collected, indexed and searched against the will of the American people.”

Another reactionary Blue Dog who opposed the bipartisan amendment was Tom O’Halleran (AZ), a “former” Republican. And, like Scott, he has a strong progressive primary opponent— Eva Putzova. “The U.S. government can continue to read its citizens’ emails and text messages and surveil their internet activity Russian-style, “ she told me after the vote. “This is a tactic used to control the citizenry by totalitarian regimes and I know that, because I grew up under one of those regimes. Selling out the freedom of our people is unacceptable whether it’s done on partisan basis or not. In this case, both Republicans and Democrats showed a total disregard for personal liberties and failed their constituents.”

Dary Rezvani is the Fresno-area progressive taking on Devin Nunes (R-CA), a huge proponent of illegal domestic surveillance, isn’t happy that his own congressman is leading this charge. “The topic of surveillance,” he told me, “especially as it relates to this topic has always fascinated me for multiple reasons. The first being that Republicans try to sell themselves as the anti-big government party yet they have continually fueled and proposed legislation that allows for government overreach. As a child of 9/11, I remember vividly the arguments over the Patriot Act. At the time I thought ‘if you aren't doing anything wrong, what is the difference?’ Now, being a bit older and a bit wiser, I realize that this has little to do with protecting the public and everything to do with monitoring citizens that might be a ‘problem’ for the status quo. Privacy is a hot topic especially lately. It took a minute but the general population is starting to realize how valuable data is, specifically personal data. As our privacy becomes less and less private, the ability to organize and collectively voice our opinions against injustice becomes more and more difficult. Look at countries like China and Russia, where besides the exception of a couple of cases, the ability to protest is almost impossible. Once again, there’s something wrong with the rhetoric here. America is supposed to be the land of the free. That is what I was taught in school, my mom was taught in school and so on. The problem once again comes back to America's inability to critically think for themselves and ultimately question the government. However, when has there been a time in our history that you could openly question the government without your patriotism coming into question? As Americans, our information should be ours and ours alone. If we have created a society that the government has to monitor every letter we type, we have failed so far beyond belief that no amount on monitoring that can save it.”

Wendy Reed ran against Kevin McCarthy twice, without any help from her own party either time. Yesterday she told me that she would have gladly voted for the amendment and that fact “that McCarthy voted against it shows why he is hated by progressives and Freedom Caucus alike; he is a sellout corporatist, owing his allegiance only to money.”

Discussing this vote with Florida Democrat Alan Grayson, he told me that "After the Snowden revelations, an independent study showed that mass spying had not caught a single terrorist– although it had allowed NSA agents to spy on their girlfriends. 1984 just came a few years late. Big Brother is, indeed, watching you." 

Most New Dems Voted For The Republican FISA Bill-- Here Are Their Crap Candidates For 2018

I have one more thing-- two lists-- to say about last week's FISA vote and the betrayal by the New Dems and Blue Dogs (the Republican wing of the Democratic Party). Currently there are 51 New Dems in Congress, mostly corrupt garbage with a very few exceptions.The New Dems provided Ryan, Trumpanzee and McCarthy with the votes they needed to pass the Republican FISA bill. Without the treacherous Dems they couldn't have passed it because 45 Republicans bailed on them. Of the 51 New Dems these 35 voted with Ryan and the Republicans against the overwhelming majority of actual Democrats:

• Pete Aguilar (CA)
• Ami Bera (CA)
• Lisa Blunt (DE)
• Anthony Brown (MD)
• Julia Brownley (CA)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Andre Carson (IN)
• Jim Costa (CA)
• Charlie Crist (FL)
• Henry Cuellar (TX)
• John Delaney (MD)
• Val Demings (FL)
• Bill Foster (IL)
• Josh Gottheimer (NJ)
• Jim Himes (CT)
• Bill Keating (MA)
• Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL)
• Ann Kuster (NH)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (NY)
• Gregory Meeks (NY)
• Seth Moulton (MA)
• Stephanie Murphy (FL)
• Don Norcross (NJ)
• Tom O'Halleran (AZ)
• Ed Perlmutter (CO)
• Scott Peters (CA)
• Mike Quigley (IL)
• Kathleen Rice (NY)
• Adam Schiff (CA)
• Brad Schneider (IL)
• David Scott (GA)
• Terri Sewell (AL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)
• Norma Torres (CA)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)

As of this week, these are the congressional candidates the New Dems are trying-- with copious help from the DCCC-- to get into Congress. Please use the list as a guide to who not to support or vote for, particularly not in primaries. Obviously, there are no progressive candidates on this list:

• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02)
• Greg Stanton (AZ-09)
• Dave Min (CA-45)
• Harley Rouda (CA-48)
• Hans Keirstead (CA-48)
• Lauren Baer (FL-18)
• Jason Crow (CO-06)
• Paul Davis (KS-02)
• Elissa Slotkin (MI-08)
• Angie Craig (MN-02)
• Dean Phillips (MN-03)
• Dan McCready (NC-09)
• Brad Ashford (NE-02)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)
• Max Rose (NY-11)
• Anthony Brindisi (NY-22)
• Mob-connected socialite Susie Lee (NV-03)
• Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06)
• Jana Lynne Sanchez (TX-06)
• Jay Hulings (TX-23)
• Ben McAdams (UT-04)
• R.D. Huffstetler (VA-05)
• Dan Kohl (WI-06)

Ambitious Democrats Decide How To Vote On The Republican FISA Bill

Thanks to Schumer, Arizona won't have a good choice in November

On Thursday, after the FISA vote, we saw how the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party abandoned the Democrats and voted with Trump and Paul Ryan to expand spying. There had been enough principled Republicans who refused to vote for the bill to have killed it had the Blue Dogs and New Dems not saved it.

Today lets look at it from teh perspective of Democrats itrying to move into other jobs and how they voted. First off wretched New Dem John Delaney (D-MD), a declared-- if ridiculous-- candidate for president. Delaney voted for more FISA spying. And he wants the Democratic nomination for president (of the United States). By the way, his overall Progressive Punch score is "F." Seth Moulton (D-MA) harbors some crazy idea that he's going to be drafted to run on the national ticket. His voting record scored an "F" from Progressive Punch.

Michelle Lujan Grisham was been a mediocre New Mexico congresswoman from a safe Albuquerque seat. (Her Progressive Punch score is also "F.") She's running for governor of New Mexico and she's the frontrunner for the nomination and the likely winner in November. She also wants more spying. The are two House members running for governor of Colorado, Ed Perlmutter (who sports an "F" Progressive Punch rating) and he voted for more spying and Jared Polis (who sports a Progressive Punch "D") and who voted against the Republican FISA bill.

There are 3 House incumbents giving up their seats to run for the U.S. Senate-- Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Jacky Rosen (NV), and Beto O'Rourke (TX). Sinema , who heads the Blue Dogs,is the single worst Democrat in the House and was recruited by Chuck Schumer to run for the open Senate seat. (She and Martha McSally, her likely Republican opponent voted identically.) The DSCC is likely to pour over $10 million into her race. Ditto for Rosen. Both have "F" scores from Progressive Punch and neither is remotely qualified to be in Congress in any capacity and in either house. It should surprise no one that both voted for the GOP FISA bill. O'Rourke voted against it. Schumer and the DSCC are not supporting him, at least not yet. Blue America has endorsed O'Rourke and you can contribute to his campaign for the seat held by the odious Ted Cruz by tapping the 2018 Senate thermometer on the right. There is also talk of Blue Dog/New Dem Adam Schiff running for DiFi's Senate seat if she decides to drop out. He may be another superficial Rachel Maddow hero but he's an awful conservative Democrat in a very deep blue California district. Progressive Punch rates him a "D"-- in a district that deserves an "A"-- and he was an influential pro-FISA vote on Thursday.

Two Hawaiians are looking for political advancement. New Dem Colleen Hanabusa is running for governor and she skipped the vote. Tulsi Gabbard has been a conservative and who sees the future in a different direction and has been reforming herself into a Berniecrat. She voted against the FISA bill. Joe Kennedy III sees himself as running for the Senate if, as is likely, Elizabeth Warren is part of the national ticket with Bernie in 2020. He was savvy enough to vote against the Republican bill. Tim Walz (MN) is very conservative and has accrued an "F" score from Progressive Punch. He's running for governor of Minnesota and voted against this bill. If Bernie is elected president, Peter Welch will be favored to win his Senate seat. Welch is generally pretty progressive but not nearly as progressive as Bernie. Bernie rates an "A" from Progressive Punch and Welch rates a "B/" Welch voted against the bill.

One last observation. Although Jim Himes (New Dem-CT) is the head of the New Dems and Queens Machine boss Joe Crowley has officially left the organization to assume a party leadership role, Crowley is still widely assumed to call the shots there. Lately he has been trying to woo progressives by voting with them on some key bills. That doesn't wipe away his corruption and his Wall Street ties but his Progressive Punch lifetime score-- now a "C"-- is a mediocre 85.66. This year though it is a much bluer 94.87, actually slightly higher than progressive icon Mark Pocan (93.85)! Why? Crowley is making a case to progressives that they shouldn't oppose him when he runs for Democratic Leader. The most corrupt Democrat in Congress wants top be Speaker and he parted ways with Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn on FISA. They voted for it and he voted against it. Blecchhh.

Some FISA Vote Politics

Can you guess why we included this graphic on this post?

45 Republicans looked at the stinky FISA bill on Thursday and could not pull themselves to vote YES. That means that had Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn held their caucus together, it could have been defeated. Instead, it passed 256-164. How the hell did that happen? Well, start with Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn; they all voted for it. In fact 65 Democrats did-- basically the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, pretty much all the Blue Dogs and all the New Dems and their fellow travelers. 119 Democrats voted NO and 65 voted with the GOP. All the garbage Dems were over on the other side of the aisle as fast as they could get there-- Jim Himes (CT), head of the New Dems with his whole horrid caucus and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), head of the Blue Dogs with her whole horrid caucus.

All the regular Democratic bad guys you'd expect to support Paul Ryan on this... supported Paul Ryan on this. Here are just two dozen of the traitors:

• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Jim Himes (New Dems- CT)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• David Scott (Blue Dog-GA)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)
• Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Kathleen Rice (New Dem-NY)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)

The vote is considered a victory for the Trumpanzee Regime so... thanks Pelosi and Hoyer and Clyburn... and the whole Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Remember, if a candidate is being backed by the DCCC, that's probably the wing of the party they're from. I asked a few of the progressive candidates running against Members of Congress who voted for the Trump Regime's FISA bill. Tim Canova was the first guy I went to. He told me that "Wasserman Schultz showed that once again she talks a big game in her exhortations against President Trump, but when push comes to shove, she falls right in line with some of the worst parts of his agenda. Recall when Trump fired missiles into Syria, killing several Syrians, Wasserman Schultz was quick to endorse his unauthorized use of force. She did not demand Congressional oversight and authorization. Now she has voted against the USA Rights amendment, a bipartisan effort to only somewhat rein in the National Security Agency’s electronic surveillance program. On the one hand, Wasserman Schultz loves to call Donald Trump a mad man. And then she votes to extend the NSA’s program of spying on U.S. citizens. One need not even share Wasserman Schultz’s professed view of Trump’s mental state to conclude the NSA should not have such unbridled powers to spy on American citizens without a warrant, no matter who’s in the White House. Like much of what Wasserman Schultz does or doesn’t do, the most likely explanation is that she’s simply repaying the giant defense and technology contractors that feast off the NSA establishment and continue to contribute to her campaigns, political actions committee, and SuperPACs."

The Blue America-endorsed candidate in west Houston, Jason Westin, wasn't happy that his congressman wasn't one of the several dozen Republicans willing to stand up against Trump's authoritarian nature. "John Culberson," he told us, "just voted again with Mr. Trump (or at least the version of Mr. Trump after his advisors explained to him what FISA is and that he supports it). The FISA court has zero oversight, has already shown that it has issued questionable warrants like the telephone metadata program, and operates outside of US Justice system where no one but the judge and the government know what is being examined. We live in a dangerous world, and we need strong surveillance to protect America from those who would do us harm, but the secrecy of FISA sounds like something from an authoritarian state, not a nation that believes in the rule of law."

Paul Clements in southwest Michigan had a similar reaction when Fred Upton was also too cowardly to stand up to Trump. "Good government depends on transparency and accountability. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments (FISA) Act is the opposite of this. How much do you trust government officials who can read your email messages without getting a warrant not to use this power for their own purposes? How much do you trust appointees not to use it to support the political ends of whoever appointed them, or whoever can fire them? A time when the President encourages the FBI to go after his political opponents, when the government identifies people as threats based on their religion or nationality, and when new technologies create threats to privacy that no one fully understands ... is a bad time to relax transparency and accountability. The FISA Act allows the government to collect American citizens' email and other communications with foreigners, without a warrant, from companies like Google and AT&T. It is a step towards tyranny. My opponent, Congressman Fred Upton, voted for it. I would vote against."

Earlier this week, we introduced DWT readers to J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat running for the northwest Iowa seat occupied by neo-fascist bigot Steve King. Today J.D., commenting on the vote, told me that "This is an expansion of FISA and not the reform that was intended. This attacks our 4th amendment rights by allowing warrantless searching of Americans' communication."


UPDATE: Why Is Rodney Davis Such A Tool For Trump?

David Gill is the progressive opponent in central Illinois to Trump/Ryan puppet Rodney Davis. This morning Doctor Gill told us that "Davis, has demonstrated the complete lack of concern he has for the rights and well-being of all the people who live here in IL-13. With his support of the extension of FISA, he makes clear that his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is absolutely worthless. Mr. Davis supports allowing the government to continue to monitor our international phone calls and emails without a warrant, a gross violation of our Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This program should have been overhauled long ago to comply with our Constitution, or scrapped altogether if necessary; instead, career politicians like Rodney Davis continue to support it. Mr. Davis demonstrates that the most dire threat to our democracy is not from terrorists from other countries, but from 'leaders' like himself who tear it apart from the inside."

It's too bad the president led people to expect fireworks in a speech that was far from un-serious

by Ken

Here's what I think about the president's speech: I don't know why he made such a big production about it. That set it up fora big whuppin', and decreased the amount of attention likely to be paid to what he actually said. The people who thought he's "soft on security" will still think so. (They mostly won't have any idea what the heck he was talking about.) The people who thought he's a traitor on civil liberties will still think so too.

I didn't see or hear the speech, but I did read it. I don't say I studied it, but I do go back over several sections that left me puzzled. Sometimes the puzzlement was because I suspected the president didn't know what he meant, like the whole business about Paul Revere and also the Civil War balloon surveillance. Washington Post blogger Alexandra Petri had some fun trying to parse this, but beyond the fun, she established pretty effectively that those cases don't have much of anything to do with any of the present-day questions we face. (Alexandra, you'll recall, had by far the most savvy take I saw on Gov. Kris KrispyKreme's two-hour piece of performance art the other day. I see she graduated from Harvard only in friggin' 2010 -- that's scary.)

After I read the speech, before I had a chance to find out what the smart people thought, I was thinking, well, that's certainly not revolutionary, but seeing as how he's the guy who has to try to actually do whatever he claims he's going to in his speech, I don't know what more we could have expected. I mean, did anyone really think he was going to, say, call a complete halt to phone-data collection?

Writing yesterday, The New Yorker's John Cassidy, a writer readers may recall I sincerely admire, said ("Obama and the N.S.A.: Why He Can't Be Trusted"):

In his speech on Friday, the President will probably follow his usual tack and seek to portray himself as a reasonable man hewing to the middle ground between opposing views. In this instance, though, such a depiction doesn't withstand inspection.

He proceeds to cite a number of "moderates" (like Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Sen. Patrick Leahy) and not-even-moderates like the president's own Review Group on this subject expressing opinions skeptical of the legality of the data collection. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people on the other side, who didn't get quoted.

And while I don't expect that Cassidy will have changed his overall opinion much after encountering the actual speech, the fact is that the information he was basing it on -- reports about what the speech would contain -- were seriously not right. Most notably:

The news reports say that Obama has rejected the Review Group's main recommendation, which was to end the N.S.A.'s bulk collection of metadata, such as the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans. The panel, which issued a long report in December, said the N.S.A. should continue to have access to these records under the auspices of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but it said that the data should be held by the phone companies, or by a third party. Having thrown out this suggestion, Obama is set to leave the current system in place and hand its ultimate fate over to Congress, which is tantamount to doing nothing.

Oops! That's pretty much what the president did propose, except that he was honest enough to say that we still have to figure out the who and the how. Which will probably provide critics with an opportunity to dismiss what he said, because the likelihood is that there aren't going to be any good answers.

I was thinking about this after I wrote my post the other day about that clown Bob Gates's denunciation of the president for not enthusiastically enough supporting his own Afghanistan policy and doubting that it would work. I pointed out that anyone who didn't have doubts that it would work was a halfwit (this means you, Gates), but sure enough, the pea-brained warriors of the Right have already pounced on this as proof that Obama lost Afghanistan. What I didn't point out in my post, I guess because I thought it was too obvious, was that however much the president's plan sucked, every other "plan" sucked worse.

So again, I wonder mostly why the president thought it would be smart to make a big production of this. It was a speech that was bound to satisfy pretty much nobody, and even the one thing I thought he might actually have hoped to accomplish, which was to open some of these security and secrecy issues to national debate, almost certainly won't happen, at least going by the reactions I've seen so far, where everybody is saying exactly the same things they were saying yesterday and the day before and the day before that. And if you'll excuse me, a lot of those things are blockheaded.

If, for example, I hear one more person say that the phone data collection is a "clear" or "unequivocal" or "flagrant" violation of the Fourth Amendment, I will have to suggest that for once in their lives they use their effing brains. Here's what the Fourth Amendment says:

AMENDMENT IV
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe mass phone data falls into the category of "persons, houses, papers, and effects," and maybe it doesn't. We always make fun of the loony right-wing original intentionalists, but this seems to me pretty clearly a question beyond the contemplation of the founders. And I would suggest that if and when the question is put before the present Supreme Court, the unequivocal unconstitutionality may be as far from unequivocal as you can get.

Similarly, the blithe assertion that there have been no cases of this phone data preventing a hostile action just because committees haven't been able to find one is silly. The fact remains that lots of things that are done in secret are, you know, done in secret. Of course secrecy can be used to hide things that shouldn't be hidden, but in the real world it is also used to hide things that have to be hidden. As the president pointed out, while we hear frequently about intelligence failures, we rarely hear about intelligence successes, and we're not going to -- it's the nature of the beast. (I might add that while the knee-jerk critics are quick to point out that investigators haven't turned up evidences of intelligence coups from the phone data, they gloss over the president's point that his Review Group "turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused.")

Sure, I have lots of questions about what the president proposed -- not least, in many areas, what exactly he was proposing. But what, in addition to the major restructuring of the phone data collection and requirements for access to the data base, did the president talk about?

• Some serious loosening of the absolutely secrecy in which the FISC is shrouded. He pointed out that the administration has already begun a process for declassifying rulings of the court (already, he said, "we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders"), and he wants to regularize that with a view to making public whatever is determined can safely be made public. It won't be enough, but it will be something, and will shatter the assumption that everything the court does is by definition forbidden from public view.

Perhaps more important, for the first time the FISC will hear from someone other than the petitioner for the ruling. "To ensure that the Court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

• He has "approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities, at home and abroad," and he listed a bunch of considerations that would go into it, but as far as I can tell, he didn't say anything about what's actually in the directive.

* With regard between Americans and overseas parties: "I am asking the Attorney General and DNI [Director of National Intelligence] to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases, communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702."

• With regard to National Security Letters, "which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation," and which John Cassidy's advance information said wouldn't be touched, he has "directed the Attorney General to amend how we use National Security Letters so this secrecy will not be indefinite, and will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy." They "will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government."

* An overhaul is also promised in foreign data collection, and again contrary to John Cassidy's advance information he will ban eavesdropping on friendly foreign heads of state. This in any case seems to me to have been a wildly overblown issue, despite the obvious embarrassment of the disclosure of our spying on Chancellor Merkel. Ask yourself if there's any intelligence service that wouldn't be happy to be able to eavesdrop on foreign leaders, definitely including friendly ones.

• "I have also asked my Counselor, John Podesta,"

to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. This group will consist of government officials who—along with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders, and look at how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors; whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security.

The president had talked earlier about the enormous and growing problem of data security and privacy in the private sector, and this really is part of the same discussion. And again, he seems genuinely interested in fostering discussion, which might be his answer to a piece like the Washington Post's Sean Sullivan's "How the public is unhappy with surveillance but unmoved, in one chart," which argues the surveillance issue is one --

on which the public opinion can be summed up like this: We don't like what we see, but it's not that big a deal for the government to address compared to other things.

Recent Gallup polling shows a couple of notable points: 1) A clear majority of Americans (63 percent) say they are dissatisfied with the state of the nation as it pertains to government surveillance of U.S. citizens and 2) It ranks low on the list of priorities they'd like to see Congress and the president address in the next year. Just 42 percent say it is an extremely or very important priority — placing it lower than more than a dozen other matters.

You can look at the chart yourself to see whether it explains anything for you. But perhaps the thinking is that bringing these issues out into the open for discussion may energize public thinking.

I'm sure the president had other proposals and discussion points. These are just the ones I picked out. They're hardly un-serious.


SO WHAT DIDN'T THE PRESIDENT TALK ABOUT?

One criticism of the president that I've encountered I can wholeheartedly second: that with the fixed concern on the necessity of the phone data collection, he gave no consideration to the blatantly worrying security concern many of us have over the dysfunction of our myriad security-involved agencies. By and large, when someone comes up with an example of a situation in which the meta-data could have saved the day, what should have saved the day was (a) better intra-agency handling of information already in its possession and (b) systems for inter-agency sharing of information. To a large degree, it seems clear, our intelligence people aren't suffering from too little information but from ineffectiveness at processing the information they already have. It would have been nice to know if the president had any thoughts about that.

#

The FISA court, our supposed guardian against abuse of national-security surveillance, sez "Who, us?"

Judge Walton says: "The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court. The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance."

by Ken

You want a good laugh?

You know the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the one created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to issue surveillance warrants in cases too secret to go through normal court channels? The one that rules on all the government requests for warrants more or less authorized by the Patriot Act and its assorted derivatives? The court that, we only just learned, as entirely hand-picked -- presumably for warrant-friendliness -- by Supreme Court Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts ("Chief Justice Roberts does everything he can to see that the FISA court remains a trusty tool of the national-security state")?

The one that, crucially, has been heralded as our bulwark against trampling of our civil liberties by presidents dating all the way back to . . . uh, what was that fellow's name? The bumbling nitwit who dithered us into two wars? Yes, as the legend went, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court was standing vigil over government spying by fulfilling its statutory responsibility to issue warrants for surveillance too secret for authorization by normal judicial means. Rest easy, America, the FISC is on the job!

Um, maybe not so much.

This week the Washington Post's Carol D. Leonnig told us (in "Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited," with additional reporting by Barton Gellman, Peter Wallsten, and Alice Crites):

The leader of the secret court that is supposed to provide critical oversight of the government’s vast spying programs said that its ability to do so is limited and that it must trust the government to report when it improperly spies on Americans.

The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said the court lacks the tools to independently verify how often the government’s surveillance breaks the court’s rules that aim to protect Americans’ privacy. Without taking drastic steps, it also cannot check the veracity of the government’s assertions that the violations its staff members report are unintentional mistakes.

“The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court,” its chief, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in a written statement to The Washington Post. “The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.”

Oops! This isn't exactly the story our leaders have told us.

Walton's comments came in response to internal government records obtained by The Post showing that National Security Agency staff members in Washington overstepped their authority on spy programs thousands of times per year. The records also show that the number of violations has been on the rise.

The court's description of its practical limitations contrasts with repeated assurances from the Obama administration and intelligence agency leaders that the court provides central checks and balances on the government's broad spying efforts. They have said that Americans should feel comfortable that the secret intelligence court provides robust oversight of government surveillance and protects their privacy from rogue intrusions.

President Obama and other government leaders have emphasized the court's oversight role in the wake of revelations this year that the government is vacuuming up "metadata" on Americans' telephone and Internet communications.

"We also have federal judges that we've put in place who are not subject to political pressure," Obama said at a news conference in June. "They've got lifetime tenure as federal judges, and they're empowered to look over our shoulder at the executive branch to make sure that these programs aren’t being abused."

Oops! I know I already said that, but this seems to call for another "oops" or two, at minimum. For one thing, as we learned in Charlie Savage's NYT revelations about the makeup of FISC, it's not exactly "we" who appoint its judges, it's the Chief Justice, and all 11 current judges were appointed by Big Chief Smirkin' John, who has stuffed the body with right-wing darlings, and especially former executive-branchers whose background as well as temperament almost certainly disposes them to rubber-stamp any request made by government authorities for surveillance authority.

(What's more, according to the Savage report, people familiar with the workings of FISC say that it has gone way beyond it's original role of saying yes or not to warrant request and now in its rulings essentially makes policy on national-security privacy and secrecy issues. In secret, of course.)

All parties stress the technical complexity of the issues as they come before FISC, which is the justification for appointing all those stooges who used to be, or at least work among, the kind of people who request these warrants. Now, if Chief Judge Walton is to be trusted, the FISA court judges are pretty much in a position where they have to trust the facts as presented to them by the warrant petitioners. Well, maybe they don't have to, but they do. Maybe they look deeply into petitioners' eyes to judge their sincerity and truthfulness. Maybe they don't. As far as I can tell, the judges don't even ask petitioners to pinky-swear.

Oh, one more point about those "violations" that are reported by the government, as mandated by the law. Again, those familiar with the workings of the court insist that the number of actual violations substantially exceeds the number reported. Of course the FISC judges wouldn't have any way of knowing about that, would they?

Carol Leonnig concluded her report by going -- bless her soul! -- into ironic mode:

Last week, the president said that he recognizes that some Americans may lack trust in the oversight process -- in which the secret court approves the rules for collecting Americans' communications -- and that he will work with Congress on reforms, which could include a privacy advocate to the court.

"In other words, it's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs," Obama said in his news conference. "The American people need to have confidence in them, as well."

"A privacy advocate to the court," eh? A privacy battalion, with the necessary investigative resources, might be one thing; "a" privacy advocate, hmm, not so much in the confidence-building department.


"TV WATCH" SCHEDULE NOTE FROM KEN

Tonight's "TV Watch," a look back at the great series Friday Night Lights, follows at 12am ET/9pm PT.

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."