STENY HOYER, AN ARCH-VILLAIN LEADING OTHERS DOWN THE ROAD TO PERDITION

You know, here at DWT we didn't just wake up during the FISA debate and suddenly decide Steny Hoyer should be removed as House Majority Leader. I just ran across this post from February, 2007 where we asked some rhetorical questions about Steny Hoyer:

I thought this is why we worked our asses off last year-- not to make slimy hacks careers better but to bring honesty and decency back to our government. So now instead of Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert we're stuck with the equally reprehensible Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. These people don't belong leading the Democratic Party; they belong in prison-- along with anyone else, of either party, who thinks being elected to public office means dining at the public trough-- and golfing with lobbyists, whether in Scotland or Puerto Rico.

I'm sure the Rio Mar Beach Golf Resort and Spa is no St Andrews but the idea is the same-- corruption. Technically the trip is not illegal and Hoyer can't be dragged before a judge and thrown in prison. But that's because of the absurdity of allowing politicians to write the laws governing their own behavior. The trip is being paid for by Hoyer's PAC and NPR explains how it works:

This is the way the leadership PAC loophole works: Hoyer's guests give thousands of dollars to his PAC. Because there are few restrictions on how PAC money can be spent, Hoyer's PAC uses some of the cash to pay for the congressman's trip to Puerto Rico. The PAC also provides entertainment, golf, even nifty little gifts bags for all the guests. The lobbyists and donors who have supplied the cash for this party then pay their own way to Puerto Rico. And in return for their generosity, they get to golf and hang with the congressman in the Caribbean.

Am I saying that Hoyer should be stripped of his job as majority Leader? Yes. Am I saying that Hoyer should be kicked out of the Democratic Caucus? Yes. Am I suggesting to the good folks back in Maryland's 5th CD that they defeat him and elect ah honest congressman instead? Of course I am.

Today I was doing a little research on where John Barrow, the reactionary warmonger in GA-12, gets his money from. One his biggest individual contributors was AmeriPAC ($30,000). I looked to see what AmeriPAC is and, lo and behold, it's Steny Hoyer's leadership PAC. He's taken in $2,247,384 (as of the last reporting period) and it went a long way towards explaining why so few Democratic incumbents or candidates are willing to go on the record attacking his sell-out on Iraq or on FISA last week. He and his master, Rahm Emanuel, led enough Dixiecrats and Blue Dogs across the aisle to join the Republicans in order to give Bush what he wanted on both war funding for Iraq-- something Hoyer has been a strong proponent of since he helped trick Congress into voting to attack Iraq in 2002-- and on retroactive immunity for their criminal corporate contributors in the telecom companies. But the majority of Democrats voted against the war and against the FISA sell-out. I spoke to dozens of members of Congress and, although some told me some rather unpleasant things about Hoyer, no one would go on the record. Same with the candidates.

His PAC contributions explain a lot. After all, the reason we'll never have meaningful campaign finance reform is not something we can only blame on Republicans. Emanuel and Hoyer owe their power to the money they are able to gobble up from special interests and parcel out to other Democrats. In that way they are exactly like the biggest Republican scumbags we just dealt with, slimy characters like Tom DeLay, Jerry Lewis, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, etc.

I decided to see if there is any correlation between how Democrats voted on continuing the war and supporting retroactive immunity and the amount of money Hoyer has doled out for them. These are the fifteen biggest recipients of Hoyer's largess in the current cycle only:

Melissa Bean (IL)- $52,300- pro-war, pro-FISA
Ciro Rodriguez (TX)- $33,500- pro-war, pro-FISA
Tim Mahoney (FL)- $30,100- pro-war, pro-FISA, anti-Obama
Chis Murphy (CT)- $29,250- anti-war, anti-FISA
Brad Ellsworth (IN)- $28,300- pro-war, pro-FISA
Patrick Murphy (PA)- $28,250- anti-war, pro-FISA
Joe Donnelly (IN)- $27,500- pro-war, pro-FISA
Ron Klein (FL)- $27,100- anti-war, pro-FISA
Jason Altmire (PA)- $27,000- pro-war, pro-FISA
Ed Perlmutter (CO)- $26,250- missed war vote, pro-FISA
Chet Edwards (TX)- $25,500- pro-war, pro-FISA
Heath Shuler (NC)- $25,300- pro-war, pro-FISA, pro-Republican
Travis Childers (MS)- $25,250- pro-war, pro-FISA
John Barrow (GA)- $24,000- pro-war, pro-FISA
Baron Hill (IN)- $22,300- pro-war, pro-FISA

Draw your own conclusions. Oh, and speaking of members of Congress who support the occupation of Iraq and are all gung-ho about spying on Americans without warrants and treating rich corporate criminals differently from non-campaign donors, the House Democratic Majority Leader has also given $10,000 to Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger (TX-12) of Ft Worth who is being opposed by Texas Democrat Tracey Smith, who must be scratching his head.

Late last night, a Democratic candidate for Congress who has already been burned by the DC Insiders, Steve Harrison, running for the open seat in NY-13, feels passionately about retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping, sent us his statement about what happened last week. He wasn't shy about saying he's willing to stand against his own (corrupt) party leaders to fight for the rights of all Americans:

This Friday, legislation was passed that will take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. The FISA bill strips Americans of these rights and protects telecommunications companies from being held accountable by the people.

I am standing up against my own party because I believe we can have sound legislation that defends our country and, at the same time, protects our Constitution. If we are to hold our government accountable, retroactive immunity is the wrong path to go down.

It's time to support Democrats with democratic values and principles, Democrats who will work on behalf of the American people and protect their rights. When I'm elected to Congress, I will be that Democrat.

Oh, and about that thermometer up top. That shows the number of donors and the amount of dollars those donors have donated for the project of bringing a little accountability into the lives of treacherous Democrats like Steny Hoyer and Chris Carney and... well, we don't want to alert them all but if you watch Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, Digby, Glenn Greenwald and DWT you'll know before anyone else does. And if you'd like to help us get to out goal of half a million dollars, here's the correct Blue America page. The thermometer moves when you put money in-- and you don't even have to refresh the page!

What the heck are they hiding? House Dems move closer to accepting the GOP's frantic cover-up of the Bush regime's electronic-surveillance activities

"It's about finding middle ground, and we have middle ground. It's not going to please everyone, but let's get on with it."

--House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, quoted by CongressDaily, on "a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws" which Reyes "disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept"

"There just isn't enough money at stake to explain this. Nobody's suing for the money, they are suing for the discovery. Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up."

--Digby, in "FISA Zombie," a post of the CongressDaily article

I wasn't originally going to pass on this CongressDaily article about the new "compromise" on a replacement for the expired FISA laws which Chairman Reyes has now signed on to. I know how complex and technical this whole issue is -- both in its substance and in the politics of it. I know people's hair tends to hurt when they hear mere mention of FISA, not to mention "retroactive telecom immunity."

Then I saw that Digby had posted the CD article, and noted in particular the above paragraph that she appended. As usual, she's got it exactly right.

The crucial "compromise" -- negotiated, curiously, with the ranking Republican, Kit Bond of Missouri [right], on the Senate Intelligence Committee (not that the Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller, is any more enlightened on the issue) -- concerns the ever-contentious issue of telecom immunity, which is neither granted nor denied. Instead it is to be determined, in secret of course, by the always-secret FISA court.

As regards the politics of the issue, it's still impossible to know from the CD article where matters stand. If we accept that Chairman Reyes is prepared to sign on to the "compromise," that doesn't mean that either House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer or Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, which means we still don't know what the Democratic leadership position is. It's just not an encouraging step that the Intelligence Committee chairman has decided that the crucial issue is "getting on with it."

But as regards the substance, allowing the telecom companies to get their "get out of jail free" cards in secret means the Bush regime, or whoever is working so hard to make sure that no proper investigation of illegal surveillance ever takes place, have won their case. Because contrary to the usual Republican obfuscation, which has it that FISA-related lawsuits, like most lawsuits, are just money-grubbing opportunities promoted as usual by sleazy lawyer-loving Democrats, as Digby notes, the importance of the FISA lawsuits has nothing to do with money. Such suits may in fact be the only way to force public disclosure of . . . well, whatever the people who are hiding stuff are trying so hard to hide.

Again as Digby notes, "Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up." And the more ferociously the behind-the-scenes negotiators work to obliterate those lawsuits, the badder we may guess that something is that happened. The working hypothesis has to be that it's so bad, there are people who will do whatever it takes to make sure it never becomes public.

That said, since CongressDaily is a subscription deal, here is the full text of the article:

House Chairman Open To Republican Compromise On FISA
by Chris Strohm

The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation's electronic surveillance laws, signaling that a long-running congressional impasse could soon be coming to an end.

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes told CongressDaily that he is "fine" with language offered by Senate Intelligence ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond and other Republicans to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Notably, the GOP language, which was offered a day before the recent congressional recess, would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have helped the Bush administration conduct electronic surveillance on the communications of U.S. citizens without warrants.

About 40 civil lawsuits already have been filed against the companies. The administration, Bond and other Republicans had backed a Senate-passed FISA bill that would have shielded the telecom firms from the lawsuits upon enactment.

"It's about finding middle ground and we have middle ground," Reyes said of the compromise offered by Republicans. "It's not going to please everyone but let's get on with it."

Reyes said he believes enough Democrats will support the proposal to pass it in the House.

But he said House Majority Leader Hoyer told him that House Democratic leaders want to have the liability of the telecoms reviewed in federal district court as opposed to the FISA court.

A senior Reyes aide clarified his boss' positions by saying that while Reyes thinks Bond's proposal is a positive one, he remains supportive of Hoyer's efforts to improve on it.

A FISA reform bill passed by the House earlier this year would have had the cases heard in district court.

Efforts to obtain comment from Hoyer's office were unsuccessful at presstime and Reyes' assertion that the GOP language would pass the House could not be confirmed.

Public interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the GOP language on the immunity issue, saying it does not empower the FISA court to determine if the administration or the telecom firms broke the law. They say the court review would be too limited to give plantiffs in the lawsuits a fair hearing.

On another issue, the proposed GOP compromise would require the administration to submit its procedures and certifications to the FISA court for review before surveillance could begin, except in exigent circumstances. This would apply to wiretaps involving the communications of a U.S. citizen inside the United States.

Republicans also have said they will accept, for the most part, language from House Democrats making FISA the exclusive means for conducting wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence. House Speaker Pelosi has said that having such language in a final FISA bill is her top priority.

And Republicans have agreed to accept a Democratic demand that the inspectors general of the intelligence agencies conduct audits of the terrorist surveillance program.

The House-passed FISA bill included a provision that would have established an independent commission to investigate the administration's warrantless wiretapping activities.

"We knew we weren't going to get everything, but we need to get this done," Reyes said.

#

HOLDING TYRANTS AND THEIR CHICKEN-SHIT ENABLERS ACCOUNTABLE

Has he earned your trust?

This morning Glenn Greenwald kicked off the latest initiative of the Blue America PAC, an attempt to hold some members of Congress accountable for their decisions (and actions) to grant the Bush Regime and their cronies retroactive immunity. To me this egregious travesty of justice spells the doom of the Rule of Law and a return to pre-French Revolution societal norms.

House Democrats are expected to unveil and possibly vote on their FISA bill this week. While they may (or may not) end up securing some additional, mild safeguards against eavesdropping abuses as compared to the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill, it is almost certain that they will ultimately end up granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms and gutting most of the long-standing, core protections of FISA. The recent, extraordinary revelations of just how sweeping is the administration's spying on domestic calls and emails of Americans seem to have had little effect thus far on what appears to be the inevitable course.

As this week's red-district election to Congress of anti-telecom-amnesty candidate Bill Foster demonstrates, they're not doing these things because it's politically necessary. They're doing it because more than enough Democrats believe in the virtues of telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping -- just as they believe in the continued occupation of Iraq, the abolition of habeas corpus, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Military Commissions Act, concealing Bush's illegal eavesdropping programs, and a long array of other radical Bush policies that now have bipartisan Congressional support.

There's absolutely no point in helping to elect Democrats like that to Congress or helping them to stay there. Yesterday, there was some celebration over the fact that Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor will be re-elected without opposition this year. That's the same Mark Pryor who voted for the Military Commissions Act, for the Protect America Act, for telecom immunity, against every Iraq redeployment measure, and scores of other similar votes. The fact that he's being re-elected with no opposition demonstrates his extremely strong political standing, i.e., that he cast these votes because they reflect what he believes. What's to celebrate about the fact that someone like that -- with that belief system -- is returning to the Senate?

Democrats are never going to change their behavior if there continues to be no price for what they're doing. If even the most pro-Bush Democrats continue to receive reflexive support from other Democrats, regardless of how fundamentally they reject the political values of those Democrats, they will continue on the same course. Why wouldn't they? And if Democrats whose political values are violated by these office holders refrain from ever working against them, solely because they have a (D) after their name, then this process will continue unabated.

We want to ask you which Bush Dog we need to focus in on first-- with an educational plan for their constituents. These 6 have been consistent Bush Regime rubber stamps across the board and each signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi supporting retroactive immunity.
John Barrow (GA)
Chris Carney (PA)
Leonard Boswell (IA)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Zack Space (OH)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Help us pick our winner here on our Get Even for FISA page. And if you'd like to contribute to the effort, to help us hold the winner accountable through action above and beyond railing against him on our blogs, we have a new contribution page set up for this specifically.

We want to move a little more aggressively than Senator Leahy and Congressman Conyers feel they can. The two of them sent a joint email message to their lists today, encouraging their supporters to
write letters-to-the-editor and help build grassroots support in their communities for fixing FISA the right way: protecting national security, preserving civil liberties, and denying retroactive telecom
immunity. By all means, write a letter to the editor and support what Conyers and Leahy are doing, but we think there must be much stronger action accompanying their efforts.

Yesterday Rep. John Hall (D-NY), twice endorsed by Blue America, sent an Op-Ed to all the newspapers in his district. Here is what he told his moderate suburban/exurban district-- which is about a third Republican, a third independent and a third Democratic-- about the FISA bill:

The highest priority of Members of Congress – on both sides of the aisle – is to protect our nation and to uphold our Constitution. Congress and the President must work together to come to an agreement that modernizes FISA. I remain committed to detecting, identifying and defeating terrorists and to preserving the freedoms that define America. Thus, it is disappointing that President Bush and his allies have chosen to play politics and to misrepresent the facts in the continuing debate on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FISA was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to President Nixon's abusive use of wiretaps against his political adversaries and the press. The existing FISA law has protected American citizens both from foreign terrorism and from infringement on their Constitutional right to privacy. Intelligence agencies should have the tools to intercept cellular or fiber optic communications through switches in the US while protecting Americans' rights.

Unfortunately, President Bush is using scare tactics in an attempt to bully Congress on this issue, much like he did in the build up to the war in Iraq. He has repeatedly made statements that officials within his administration and outside experts have indicated are untrue. Since the President and his allies are likely to continue these attacks, it is important to separate myth from fact.

The President continually states that with the expiration of the Protect America Act (PAA) last month, the capability of intelligence agencies to track terrorists will be weakened. The fact is that authorizations ordered under the PAA to conduct surveillance will continue for at least six months, and in some cases for up to one year. All known terrorist organizations and targets are already included in those orders, and new targets can be added quickly. Here's the bottom line—if a terrorist was being tracked a month ago, he can still be tracked today.

The President also claims that intelligence efforts are impeded by a requirement to obtain a warrant in a FISA court. The fact is that a FISA court order can be obtained up to three days AFTER intelligence collection has already begun. In the 30 year history of the FISA courts, the government has asked for over 23,000 warrants, and only five have been denied. Obtaining a warrant from a FISA court when there is concern that an American will be overheard during collection of evidence is clearly not a high hurdle.

Last November, the House passed a strong, balanced FISA bill, and I supported it. However, it was opposed by President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate and did not become law. I will not support any FISA legislation that lets the executive branch alone decide who is a terrorist suspect and to forego judicial warrants altogether. This would completely undermine the system of checks and balances that is the bedrock of our Constitution. I also will not support a FISA bill that gives legal immunity to telecom companies who cooperated with the Bush Administration's efforts to overstep its authority.

The debate over FISA is extremely important and President Bush will not make America stronger or safer by attempting to stampede Congress into accepting a severely flawed bill. I will work quickly with my colleagues and the President to pass a strong bill that protects our nation and our civil liberties, and I will never let my family or yours be put at risk.

Martin Heinrich, the progressive candidate for the New Mexico congressional seat being abandoned by Heather Wilson, has written about retroactive immunity at DWT in the past in a guest post. Yesterday the extreme right-wing maniac the Republicans plan on running against him, Darren White (the 2004 Bush/Cheney Campaign Chair) attacked Martin for his strong and principled stand against retroactive immunity. In a typical right wing fundraising missive, White lies about Martin's stance, tries to use Blue Dogs as a wedge and calls all of us "extreme left-wing groups." White:

My likely Democrat opponent... is opposed to the Terrorist Surveillance Program and has used the issue to drum up support for his candidacy among extreme left-wing groups. He believes that we should not immediately intercept calls from known terrorists and has even gone so far as to attack middle-of-the-road Democrats who support this bipartisan bill. I believe his position on the Terrorist Surveillance Program clearly demonstrates that his views are out-of-step with common-sense New Mexico values.

Martin is a progressive leader and a real champion of the values that draw us to a progressive world view. He doesn't back down. Here's how he answered White and the Republicans:

"...I stand with the American people who say fear mongering is not acceptable. Not acceptable from George Bush, not acceptable from Karl Rove and not acceptable from Darren White. I agree with Bill Richardson that we can keep our country safe without resorting to unconstitutional, warrantless wiretaps. I support a strong FISA that authorizes our intelligence community to intercept the communications of foreign terrorists, not American citizens minding their own business."

That's how you respond to a budding little fascist turd.

So, again, please help us pick the worst Bush Dog and please help us finance a campaign to hip the winner's constituents about how he votes.

JUDGE FINDS BUSH'S WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS UNJUSTIFIED-- WILL CONGRESS HEAR?

Take out the candidates for the presidency-- although keep in mind that the Telecoms have given McCain a whopping $356,145, far more than they donated to either Obama or Hillary-- and the senator who has benefited most from their largesse is... Jay Rockefeller, the crooked West Virginia political hack who has been leading the fight to grant his benefactors retroactive immunity for any crimes they may have committed under the FISA laws. The Telecoms gave Rockefeller $51,500 and the next closest senator was-- speaking of crooks-- Ted Stevens (R-AK) at $37,900. Funny how Rockefeller has vaulted to the top of the heap too. Overall, he was only their 25th most favorite senator (at $168,442) and it wasn't until he became the champion of retroactive immunity that they realized he was worthy of some big checks. In way of comparison, this year's #2, Senator Stevens, has gotten $260,450 from the Telecoms over his Senate career, which, I guess, helps explain his popular "tubes" song and dance.

Yesterday another judge rejected the Bush Regime's-- and the paid off members of Congress-- claim that they could wiretap American citizens without legal warrants. Count on Glenn Greenwald to make it clear and easy to understand:

A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge-- out of three who have ruled on the issue-- to reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday's decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.

In this morning's NY Times Eric Lichtblau took a stab at explaining how the new ruling did not and does not give Bush the right to wiretap without warrants.

The Bush Regime had worked diligently to quash the law suit for the past 2 years claiming the case was a "state secret and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program."

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to-- and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court.

But for members of the House and Senate, particularly the Republicans plus corrupt Democrats like Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, Chris Carney, and John Barrow, who are determined to keep the bribes from Telecoms flowing their way, no voice carries any weight except for the voice at the polls. There are no plausible opponents for Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, and Rahm Emanuel in 2008. If Carney loses, as bad as he is, he will lose to a much worse Republican lunatic. That leaves John Barrow. Helping to elect a progressive state Senator, Regina Thomas, who vociferously opposes warrantless wiretaps and retroactive immunity-- and who has made it a key part of her election campaign is the only way to send our congressional employees a message they will hear. There is still a chance to let them know there is a real price to pay for violating our constitutional rights. Please help Regina Thomas this Independence Day weekend. It means at least as much as a parade and a barbecue.


UPDATE: SO HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE SENATE ON TUESDAY?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation seems optimistic. "With the Senate poised to vote on the FISA Amendments Act and immunity this Tuesday, this decision is particularly timely, as it demolishes key arguments made by proponents of telecom immunity... udge Walker's decision makes clear that Congress is about to pass telecom immunity based on arguments that are just plain wrong. Congress should take the time to look at the facts, rather than be fooled by the myths. It should not to rush to judgment next week. If you haven't already, phone your Senators now and urge them to vote against ending debate on the FISA bill, vote for the amendments to the bill that would strip or weaken the immunity provisions, and vote against final passage of the bill." And the list of myths and facts is absolutely great. Stuff like this:

Myth: The telecoms can't defend themselves in court because of the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege.

Fact: The Al Haramain decision makes clear that the state secrets privilege will not prevent the telecoms from defending themselves, because FISA's evidentiary procedures preempt the privilege. See Opinion at p. 2 ("FISA preempts the state secrets privilege in connection with electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.")

Myth: It's not fair to punish the telecoms for relying in good faith on the president's authorization to conduct the surveillance, even though it violated FISA.

Fact: In an extended discussion, the Al Haramain decision makes clear-- or rather, shows how clear it already was-- that the President's commander-in-chief powers do not give him the authority to ignore FISA. See Opinion at pp. 10-14, 23 ("[With FISA,] Congress appears clearly to have intended to-- and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities....")

But there is one problem: the pervasive and all powerful Culture of Corruption that IS Washington, DC. You thought we got rid of that with the end of Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Bob Ney and Denny Hastert? Not a chance. Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Jay Rockefeller, John Barrow and the rest of the bribe-takers who are adamant about joining the Republican to pass retroactive immunity for their benefactors at the Telecoms, make that crowd look like pikers.

Chief Justice Roberts does everything he can to see that the FISA court remains a trusty tool of the national-security state

So you think you have a right to know something, anything, about the workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? Maybe we need to, um, discuss this at greater length in, you know, secret.

"[The members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] all seem to have some type of a pretty conservative bent, I don't think that is what the Congress envisioned when giving the chief justice that authority. Maybe they didn't think about the ramifications of giving that much power to one person."

-- TN Rep. Steve Cohen, to the NYT's Charlie Savage,
in "Roberts's Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court"

"If the surveillance court is to be considered part of the American justice system, it needs to start looking more like an actual court."

-- from a NYT editorial today,
"More Independence for the FISA Court"

by Ken

Chalk it up as yet another horror we wouldn't be talking about, or maybe even know about, if not for the dastardly traitor Edward Snowden's dastardly treasonous breeches of national-security-imposed secrecy.

First, let me say that I'm extremely uneasy talking about the FISA court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, since it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that it's illegal to do so, at least without permission of the FISA court, which would probably be impossible to get because if you know enough to ask questions of the FISC, you're probably already in violation of FISA. For national-security reasons, of course.

Since we like to pretend that we're a nation of laws, the FISC lets us pretend that all the surveillance done under FISA and the assorted other laws that have followed it purporting to define limits for such activities is A-OK because, after all, so many of those activities require warrants -- from the FISC. It seems unlikely that such warrants have been all that difficult to obtain since the court was created in 1978. But now we learn, thanks to the New York Times's Charlie Savage report a few days ago, that Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts "has been quietly reshaping the secret court" by virtue of the chief justice's sole authority to appoint its 11 judges (who serve seven-year terms).

It appears that the chief has gone into territory unexplored even by his predecessor, William Rehnquist, whom you would have thought as rabid a far-right-wing ideologue as you could imagine in the ranks of government.

In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary.

Chief Smirkin' John

Ten of the court's 11 judges -- all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts -- were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials.

Though the two previous chief justices, Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, were conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts, their assignments to the surveillance court were more ideologically diverse, according to an analysis by The New York Times of a list of every judge who has served on the court since it was established in 1978.

According to the analysis, 66 percent of their selections were Republican appointees, and 39 percent once worked for the executive branch.

"Viewing this data, people with responsibility for national security ought to be very concerned about the impression and appearance, if not the reality, of bias -- for favoring the executive branch in its applications for warrants and other action," said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and one of several lawmakers who have sought to change the way the court's judges are selected.

And by, er, happy coincidence -- that is, if you favor a perpetual security state with essentially no check on the government's secret surveillance powers, "The court's complexion has changed at a time when its role has been expanding beyond what Congress envisioned when it established the court as part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

The idea then was that judges would review applications for wiretaps to make sure there was sufficient evidence that the F.B.I.'s target was a foreign terrorist or a spy.

But, increasingly in recent years, the court has produced lengthy rulings interpreting the meaning of surveillance laws and constitutional rights based on procedures devised not for complex legal analysis but for up-or-down approvals of secret wiretap applications. The rulings are classified and based on theories submitted by the Justice Department without the participation of any lawyers offering contrary arguments or appealing a ruling if the government wins.

The court "is becoming ever more important in American life as more and more surveillance comes under its review in this era of big data," said Timothy Edgar, a civil liberties adviser for intelligence issues in both the Bush and Obama administrations. "If the court is seen as skewed or biased, politically or ideologically, it will lose credibility."

How touching that someone is concerned with the FISC's "credibility"! You have to wonder whether any of that concern is shared by the people responsible for the composition of the court -- oh wait, I mean the person responsible.

An unexpected source of information about the workings of FISC comes from a former FISC judge.

At a public meeting this month, Judge James Robertson, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to the surveillance court in 2002 by Chief Justice Rehnquist and resigned from it in December 2005, offered an insider's critique of how rapidly and recently the court's role has changed. He said, for example, that during his time it was not engaged in developing a body of secret precedents interpreting what the law means.

"In my experience, there weren't any opinions," he said. "You approved a warrant application or you didn't -- period."

Not surprisingly, the transformation of FISC into a secret national-security policy-making agency happened in the G.W. Bush administration. "Midway through the Bush administration," Charlie Savage reports, "the executive branch sought and obtained the court's legal blessing to continue secret surveillance programs that had originally circumvented the FISA process."

And, says Savage, "The court's power has also recently expanded in another way."

In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administration's program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americans' communications after they are picked up.

"That change," Savagee reports Judge Robertson saying, "in my view, turned the FISA court into something like an administrative agency that makes rules for others to follow. That's not the bailiwick of judges. Judges don't make policy."

You'll note that there are two categories of appointees who seem to fit Chief Justice Roberts's profile for a FISA judge. There are, of course far-right-wing judges, who are obviously his kind of folks, and then there are former executive-branch employees who are deemed suitable by virtue of their familiarity with the intricate issues involved in applications to FISC.

Steven G. Bradbury, who led the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the second term of the Bush administration, argued that it made sense to put judges who were executive branch veterans on the court because they were already familiar with the issues. And he challenged the claim that they would be more deferential.

"When it comes to highly technical national security issues, I really think there is value in a judge being a former prosecutor or a former government lawyer who understands how the executive branch works," he said, adding that such judges "will be familiar with the process and able to ask the tough questions and see where the weak points are."

Of course, since we have no access to the actual workings of FISC, we have no way of knowing how often these fantasies of Bradbury's actually become reality -- you know, a wiser decision being made based on all the executive-branch-insider's knowledge, or one of those ex-insiders asking the tough questions.

What suggests that it's utter nonsense is the further preponderance of all thos hard-right judges. What wealth of personal qualifications do they bring to national-security legal issues? (Savage points out that among the FISC's current members, the only Democratic-appointee, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, is a former prosecutor.)

Savage quotes an American University law professor, Stephen Vladeck, accepting the premise that all those executive-branch veterans ("including what he called 'law-and-order Democrats' ") are valuable for their experience with national-security matters.

But the downside, he argued, is that they may also be unduly accommodating to government requests. "The further the court's authority has expanded from where it was in 1978, the greater the need has been for independent-minded government skeptics on the court," he said.

Oops!

Today's NYT editorial on the subject, "More Independence for the FISA Court," points out:

The FISA court considers government requests for warrants to collect phone and Internet data, among other things, on an enormous scale. The judges hear only the government’s argument. There is no adversary present to represent interests of those whose privacy would be violated — which could well involve millions of Americans. The court’s rulings, some of which include novel interpretations of constitutional law, remain secret.

The editorial goes on to say:

If the surveillance court is to be considered part of the American justice system, it needs to start looking more like an actual court. For starters, there is no good reason the chief justice should have sole authority to appoint the court’s judges. Already, critics of the current system have floated numerous alternative ways for selecting FISA court judges.

One idea worth considering, offered by Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, is for each of the chief judges of the federal appeals courts to select one judge for the surveillance court.

This approach could minimize the risk of politicizing the process. A further step might be to require the chief judges’ choices to be submitted for approval to a board consisting of members of Congress with experience in intelligence matters and experts with experience in protecting civil liberties.

The professional qualifications of the judges appointed by Chief Justice Roberts are not in question. But given the extent to which the FISA court’s rulings have infiltrated our lives, it is appropriate for the public to have a voice in who sits on it.

The authority of our judiciary derives from its independence and its accountability. At the very least, the power to select the judges who are making secret law should not rest in the hands of one man.

Because that one man could be, you know, a radical ideologue happy as a clam to consign us all to live in a security state committed to keeping us in a state of terror. I'm not sure I'm prepared to conced that "the professional qualifications of the judges appointed by Chief Justice Roberts are not in question," because nobody knows better than the chief how important it is to hide your deeply held judicial agendas in order to slither your way onto, say, the Supreme Court. My guess is that there's a fair amount of really putrid sludge festering among his FISC appointments.

Still, it would be nice to have some representation of contrary views when it comes to rubber-stamping FISA warrants and also writing the surveillance and security policy that the FISA court is apparently writing on an ongoing basis -- in total secret, of course.

#

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

GOP FRONT GROUP-- BACKED BY JOE LIEBERMAN AND ZELL MILLER-- ATTACK CAROL SHEA-PORTER (D-NH) AND 14 OTHER DEMOCRATIC FRESHMEN

Carol Shea-Porter: A patriot pushes back against lawless thugs

As I mentioned the other day, a Republican front organization, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (aided and abetted by renegade Bush "Democrats" Zell Miller, Jim Marshall and Joe Lieberman) is on the attack against freshmen Democrats, trying to use the old GOP scare and smear routine around, of all things, Democrats' attempts to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law regarding Bush's attempts to get retroactive immunity for himself and his corporate allies. We mentioned previously that a well-funded campaign of TV spots had been launched against Democrats Chris Murphy (D-CT), Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Ron Klein (D-FL). Today we hear that a Blue America incumbent, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), has also been targeted.

Last week the Democratic Leadership in the House exposed the Republican Party's baseless fearmongering on this issue and showed how, once again, the right is willing, even eager, to use the nation's security as a tool for their divisive partisan political maneuvers. While Democrats are working on putting together a sensible bipartisan plan to modernize the FISA legislation, GOP hacks are running around spreading their misinformation and hatred. Their fiction and the facts:

Fiction: “By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it’s going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America.”
- President George W. Bush, 2/15/08

Fact: All sides agree that the intelligence community should have the tools it needs to protect America. Indeed, right now, intelligence professionals have what they need to conduct surveillance of terrorists. Expansive authorizations to conduct surveillance of all known terrorist organizations and targets are already in place. All surveillance being conducted today can continue for at least another six months, and new targets can be added under existing authorizations. In the unlikely event that new warrants for new surveillance against previously unknown terrorist organizations are needed, they can be obtained quickly from the FISA court. In an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately and permission can be obtained from the FISA court later.

Fiction: “There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us.”
- Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, 2/14/08

Fact: First, telecommunications companies surely want to continue to help protect our nation. In addition, under current law, telecommunications companies can be compelled by the Administration to help with surveillance. Lastly, these companies have had, and continue to have, immunity from prosecution when legally providing information to the government.

Fiction: “When this Protect America Act expires, we are going to go back under the same set of rules and regulations that were in place before 9/11.”
- Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, 2/15/08

Fact: Even with the expiration of the PAA-- which Democrats offered to extend and Republicans refused-- surveillance that began under its guidelines will continue for at least another six months. Democrats agree that FISA needs modernization, and we have invited Republicans to work with us in a constructive manner to quickly achieve that goal.

Fiction: “We can’t go up on new targets. Let’s say, for example, you’ve got a terrorist in Baghdad communicating with a terrorist in London. You can’t go up on a new target without going through the extensive warrant provisions at FISA that have made this law not work in the first place.”
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 2/17/08

Fact: In fact, in the slim chance that intelligence officials become aware of a currently unknown terrorist organization not already under surveillance, they can get an emergency approval to begin surveillance within minutes. There is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court, like there was last summer. In the case of an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately, and approval from the FISA court can be obtained later, within 72 hours.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter has been responding to letters from constituents who have been confused by the GOP attacks and she posted a similar explanation on her website. Calls to her congressional office have been running around 50/50, especially interesting because the attack ads were designed and targeted to stoke people who are predisposed to oppose her position. A large majority of New Hampshire residents, however, do understand what the GOP is up to and seem ready to support her position against retroactive immunity.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter explains that Bush's plan is to grant retroactive immunity to his cronies who have broken the law by giving "Americans’ private information to spy agencies without a court order. If the companies are granted immunity, the congressional intelligence committees and the FISA court will never learn what happened and will never know who asked the companies to break the law. This would be like a defendant saying to a judge, 'I can’t tell you what I’ve done, but let me off the hook anyway.'”

Many members of Congress, including myself, believe that the FISA process should be updated. It is critical that we continue to provide our intelligence agencies the tools they need to intercept communications between suspected terrorists. But the President is wrong to combine legislation intended to address these security issues with unrelated and perhaps unconstitutional provisions. Furthermore, it is clearly wrong to take oversight authority from the courts and to give it to the President. And we should not provide “retroactive immunity” to telecommunications companies that may have engaged in illegal activity.

Yesterday in the Washington Independent Spencer Ackerman exposed what the GOP front group is up to and says they are running their poisonous ads in 15 districts where they think they can damage Democratic freshmen. "On Friday, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies had four prominent Democrats on its board of advisers: Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Eliot Engel of New York; former Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile; and Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia. By Tuesday afternoon all had resigned." Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, of course, are still on board.

If this issue is meaningful to you, today might be a good day to visit Congresswoman Shea-Porter's Blue America page and show her a token of your appreciation for standing up to Bush and his bullies.

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."

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.

Carter Page: "I Do Not Deny That."

It was almost magical watching Chris Hayes interrogate Carter Page on his show a few weeks ago. I kept thinking Page must have a death wish. You can watch a little of it n the clip above. Page is another of those fringe characters Trump has catapulted into the national consciousness. The 45 year old Page is a Russian oil industry speculator who-- seemingly out of nowhere-- wound up a Trump foreign policy advisor. He's a known stooge of Putin's and was fired from strategy consulting firm Eurasia Group, after just 3 months, for being too pro-Putin and too "wackadoodle."

Finding out how this third-rate Russian spy wound up as a top Trump foreign policy advisor is going to reveal a lot about Russia's relationship to Trump and his campaign.

The former Merrill Lynch banker, who was relatively unknown in politics before he was touted as being a foreign policy adviser in the Trump campaign, has steadfastly declined to comment on how he got involved in the Republican campaign. He told ABC News on Thursday that he would not disclose the name of the person who recruited him into the campaign because it would fuel conspiracy theories and have their “lives disrupted.”

...Page is the first Trump aide known to have been the subject of a secret surveillance order, known as a Fisa warrant and issued by a secret court, concerning his connections to Russia. The warrant, as revealed by the Washington Post, was issued in summer 2016, around the time the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump-Russia allegations began in late July.

Because Fisa exists to restrict national-security surveillance on Americans, the standards the FBI must meet to obtain one against a specific US citizen are high. They require a certification that probable cause exists that the target of the intended surveillance is an agent of a foreign power.

When the Guardian approached Page, he disputed the factual allegations Bremmer made against him about his departure from the Eurasia Group but said he would not comment for this story.

Page has repeatedly said he wants to testify before the House intelligence committee’s inquiry into Trump-Russia contacts to clear his name. In the interview with ABC News on Thursday, Page initially denied discussing sanctions with Russians during his Moscow trip, but then backtracked under questioning, saying “something may have come up” with unidentified Russian contacts.

“Let’s see what comes out in this Fisa transcript,” Page told the journalist George Stephanopoulos.

One person who knew Page and is familiar with his employment history said the former Trump adviser was not regarded as particularly effective or intelligent-- he was “not smooth or a slick guy”, the source said.

The 2016 Fisa warrant, lasting 90 days and reportedly renewed at least once for another 90-day period, does not mark the first time Page has come under counterintelligence suspicion.

A January 2015 indictment of a Russian spy ring identified Page, under a pseudonym, as a contact of a Russian intelligence operative, Victor Podobnyy. Page confirmed to BuzzFeed that he was Podobnyy’s “Male #1” associate, from whom Podobnyy, operating out of Russia’s UN office, acquired documents about the US energy industry.

“I think he is an idiot and forgot who I am ... He got hooked on Gazprom thinking that if they have a project, he could rise up,” court papers quote Podobnyy as saying about Page.

Page, relatively obscure in US foreign policy circles, was among the most forthrightly pro-Russia advisers to sign on with Trump. In July 2016, Page traveled to Moscow to speak before the Kremlin-connected New Economic School. His speech, reportedly approved by the Trump campaign, lambasted US and western “hypocrisy” in pushing “democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” while urging “mutual respect” between Moscow and Washington.

In 2015, Page referenced the Kanye West song New Slaves, a meditation on race and wealth, to accuse Barack Obama, the first black US president, of mistreating Russia. Page said the sections on Russia in Obama’s February 2015 national security strategy “closely parallel an 1850 publication that offered guidance to slaveholders on how to produce the ‘ideal slave.’”

Although Trump unveiled Page as a foreign policy adviser in March 2016, the campaign and later the Trump administration disavowed him as marginal, particularly after reports of his ties to Russia surfaced.

In January, following confirmation that Page was among several Trump surrogates to meet with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, said: “Carter Page is an individual who the president-elect does not know, and was put on notice months ago by the campaign.”

If the Carter Page end of Putin-Gate intrigues you at all, Patribotics Blog had a super explanation of why this is an important stranding the venetual impeachment proceedings. This stuffiest pretty hairy, especially the part about Trump being so personally wired in on everything between Page and the Kremlin.

A tiny aside first: yesterday radio syndicator Sinclair Broadcasting announced it had hired Boris Epshteyn, a Russian FSB spy, who once worked for the Palin vice-presidential campaign and was fired from the Trump White House a couple of weeks ago. The main points Patribotics is making is that "intelligence sources say that Page, Manafort and Epshteyn, possibly also with Trump, are on tape discussing how Page should carry a recording of Donald Trump to Moscow, offering his bona fides in exchange for Russia’s help hacking the election; and that the said tape of Trump was played by Page to Russian intelligence, possibly including Mr. Diveykin, the Russian official in charge of hacking the election; and that multiple foreign intelligence services, among them the UK, Germany and Ukraine, have a tape of this; and that finally, in October, the FBI was able to listen to that tape." Impeachable?

Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin. In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian government in hacking the election.

On November 7th I reported that the FBI had been granted a FISA warrant to investigate the activities of two Russian banks, Alfa Bank and Silicoln Valley Bank. I also reported that an earlier attempt to obtain a FISA warrant, in June, had failed in the court because it named Donald Trump himself and three of his associates. In an exclusive at Patribotics, I reported that these named associates were Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Boris Epshteyn.

Sources close to the intelligence community now report that this application was made because a recording exists of all three men discussing the possibility of Page taking the tape of Trump to Moscow as an earnest of good faith. There is a minor dispute over whether Trump himself is also on that tape, as well as the tape that was delivered to Moscow by Carter Page of Trump making this promise.

A separate source with links to the intelligence community reported to me several months ago that Boris Epshteyn, alone of the four men named in the first FISA application, is an actual FSB agent, and, the source said, is the son of two other sleeper agents. Paul Manafort is registering as an agent of a foreign power; Carter Page has admitted, from public reporting, to have met with Russian intelligence agents.

It may therefore be surmised that Page, Manafort and Epshteyn, in this conversation wherein they discussed taking the Trump tape to Moscow, were all acting in concert as agents of the Russian state first and foremost, and Trump staffers second. Because the provision of such a tape to Putin would clearly be the ultimate in kompromat on a future American President (far worse than any sexual blackmail tape).

The FISC judge, as I reported, rejected that application, made in June. Director Comey likely proved to the satisfaction of the court that Page, Manafort and Epshteyn were acting as Russian agents. But he may have felt that Trump, by now the nominee, was just a very stupid patsy. And the planned trip had not taken place.

Director Comey redrew this request and presented FISC with a new warrant application. The Washington Post says that there is a FISA warrant on Page, but it does not say that there is NOT a FISA warrant on the other two men named in the June application. I will therefore assume from now on that the July FISA warrant granted targets Page, Manafort and Epshteyn.

Page had always seemed weirdly confident about his relationship with Trump. He had the tape of Mr. Trump offering to change policy. Sources say that this tape was played in meetings with Russian intelligence officers in Moscow, and that several Western intelligence sources have recordings of the meetings and the tape which they supplied to US intelligence.

The Washington Post does not name the date in July when Director Comey obtained his warrant. It seems likely however that it would not have been before July 5-8, when Page was in Russia. Furthermore, my own story on the separate FISA warrant granted on the two Russian banks states that Director Comey specifically sought permission to examine existing transcripts and intercepts on US persons as they related to this inquiry into money laundering into the Trump campaign.

My November 7th report directly connects the granting of the banking warrant to election hacking of the DNC. It is fair to say that, at the time of writing, I did not understand precisely how these two matters were connected. I now know and have reported that the server was washing databases of DNC hacked materials with voter registration materials. It is clear that, if my sources were correct, Director Comey would not have been able to listen to the recording of Mr. Trump played by Mr. Page in the offices of Russian intelligence in Moscow until he obtained that warrant, in October; his July warrant on Page came too late to affect a trip on July 5-7th.

When Carter Page returned to the RNC in Cleveland, he and Jeff Sessions, who recruited him to Team Trump via the Alfa Bank lobbyist Richard Burt, both met with the Russian spymaster Sergei Kislyak. From public reporting, we know that they not only changed the RNC platform on Ukraine at the behest of Russia, but also discussed lifting sanctions, a violation of the Logan Act.

Mr. Epshteyn was probably also present at that meeting. The reason I say this is that I can personally report that Mr. Epshteyn, whom I had met several times in the green room at Fox News, and I, had a bet on-- I bet him $100 that the Republican Party would not actually nominate the racist and sexist Donald Trump.

I lost that bet and made a point of texting Mr. Epshteyn at the conference to pay up. He was charming. I handed over the $100. He went back to Mr. Trump’s private suite.

I now realize that I was probably giving money directly to a second generation sleeper agent of the FSB. But if I could not hear what Mr. Epshteyn, Mr. Page, Mr. Manafort, and Mr. Kislyak were discussing with the Russian Ambassador behind the door of Donald Trump’s suite, the FBI most certainly could.

So America Decided To Turn Itself Into A Surveillance State?

The Patriot Act should have been repealed the second the Democrats won control of Congress. Instead, many Democrats worked with Republicans to keep it in place. Same for FISA. Now people are demanding Congress investigate the NSA's and Verizon's indiscriminate, bulk spying on American citizens. Congress? Investigate? What a joke! Congress is responsible for this-- and in a very conservative consensus ("bipartisan") way. Lindsey Graham, hardly an Obama apologist, was just on Fox saying "I’m sure we should be doing this.”

Yesterday, the NY Times slapped the Obama Administration down big time:

Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive-- whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism-- especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the 9/11 attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.

...This stunning use of the act shows, once again, why it needs to be sharply curtailed if not repealed.

When FISA came up for reauthorization last year it passed the House in a landslide, 301-118. 74 Democrats joined 227 Republicans in favor, including Hoyer of course, but also, very disappointingly, Pelosi. Meanwhile 7 Republicans joined the 111 Democrats who opposed it. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison, rallied votes against it. The one member of the Democratic House leadership who bucked that leadership and voted "no" was Xavier Becerra (CA). It's worth noting that then-Senate candidates Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) voted "no" and were elected and wretched New Dem Shelly Berkley (NV) voted "yes" and was defeated.

Bernie Sanders wasn't as surprised as he was ready to tear someone's head off. "As one of the few members of Congress who consistently voted against the Patriot Act, I expressed concern at the time of passage that it gave the government far too much power to spy on innocent United State citizens and provided for very little oversight or disclosure. Unfortunately, what I said turned out to be exactly true. The United States should not be accumulating phone records on tens of millions of innocent Americans. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what freedom is about. Congress must address this issue and protect the constitutional rights of the American people."

Voting with the Republicans in favor of reauthorizing FISA was one of the last votes in the dreadful careers of Jason Altmire (Blue Dog/New Dem-PA), Joe Baca (Blue Dog-CA), Howard Berman (D-Israel), Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK), Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA), Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY), Mark Critz (PA), Kathy Hochul (New Dem-NY), Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA), Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC), Silvestre Reyes (TX), Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR), and Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC). Ed Markey (D-MA), who will face Massachusetts voters June 25, voted against reauthorizing FISA. The Republicans in opposition to Boehner and Obama on this included libertarian-leaning conservatives like Walter Jones (NC), Ron Paul (TX), Jimmy Duncan (TN), Tom McClintock (CA) and Justin Amash (MI).

And I might add that corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, currently challenging progressive Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, was a proponent of FISA, voted for it and continues to be one of the most shady Democrats when it comes to taking legalistic bribes from the worst players in the Military-Industrial Complex President Eisenhower warned us against. Hanabusa has been a real problem in the House and she wants to get into the Senate-- where she can do even more damage. You can help keep her out of the Senate by backing Schatz's reelection bid. He has a very different approach to domestic spying than Hanabusa:

"My first vote as United States Senator was against the FISA Amendments Act because it failed to provide transparency, accountability and reasonable limits when the federal government conducts surveillance for intelligence purposes. While I recognize that the FISA Amendments Act has helped to produce useful intelligence, I fear that we do not have a full understanding of the impact that this law has on the privacy of Americans. We need a comprehensive review of the FISA Amendments Act to ensure that Americans’ privacy and civil liberties are protected."

Not just different... better, much better.