Is filibustering off the table now? I can't remember but I think it is, which sucks.

George Bush said that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. He's a genius! Giving immunity to the telecoms, and thereby preventing the American public to know for certain just how much of their freedom they lost, is the best way to beat the terrorist!

They won't hate us anymore because we're not free!

George W. Bush... Super Genius!!!

This is a Pelosi con job, change the focus of the law...

she has been compromised into granting Bush TOTAL IMMUNITY from Impeachment... now she has to burry the immunity approval.

WATCH IMMUNITY!!!! This will be the mechanism to get it through.

After being attacked for "throwing my vote away" when I voted for Nader in 2000, I bucked up and voted Demo-crass across the board in the last two elections.

Funny, but I've never understood what "throwing my vote away" meant until now; can you say "HUSTLED"?

(note: full disclosure= I am VERY happy with my vote for Keith Ellison. And my vote for Feingold when I used to live in WI, back when he first ran)

This is not going to work:

a measure that would explicitly state that the bill would be the "exclusive means" by which the government would conduct surveillance

FISA, as it existed in 2001 going forward, was the exclusive means by which the government would conduct surveillance. Pelosi and others would ask that we believe a fiction: That the "new bill" would do something new. It does not.

Let's turn it around, and apply the facts -- what little we know -- to this "new exclusivity"-clause. The US Congress and President have both violated and not enforce the original "exclusive" structure of FISA. Why should we believe that this "new exclusive"-standard is going to be enforced; or not violated/not enforced and explained away?

The House leadership has yet to explain why it is not enforcing the existing "exclusive"-standard of the existing FISA Act. To suggest they'll abandon that standard, and change the focus from violations of that standard to whether or not there is a "new exclusive standard" is absurd.

The House is pretending it is involved with some sort of novel debate. It is not. It is avoiding the existing violations under the existing exclusivity standard. Rather than impeach or investigate the President for violations under the existing FISA exclusivity standard, the House wants to avoid what the President has violated, and engage in political theatrics over moving the goal post. This is not leadership. It is complicit with the original violations.

The House leadership brings discredit upon itself. The House should move to remove Pelosi as Speaker, end this non-sense over a "new standard" of exclusivity, and enforce the existing standards in FISA. If the House will not enforce the existing exclusivity-standards, then there is no reason any American should believe that the "new exclusivity"-standard will be enforced.

This speaker must be removed. She has brought discredit upon herself, her Speakership, the House of Representatives, and the United States. She has not justified confidence in her leadership. She is making excuses to move the goal post, but not enforce the existing exclusivity standards. Arguably, she is not full asserting her oath of office, has mental reservations, and the State AGs show open a preliminary inquiry to prosecute her for alleged 5 USC 3331 violations. The Speaker has shown she is not serious about being a leader, but making excuses. Time for her to go.

My Senator, D/PA Bob Casey, voted for the retroactive immunity version of the bill. I called his office in DC and politely expressed my displeasure with his vote. They gave me some bullshit about Casey voting for amendments trying to improve the bill before he finally voted for it.

The next day Casey was a guest on C-SPAN and I was able to get through on the phone. I again told of my displeasure with his vote and he gave me the same BS about voting for amendments to improve before voting for final passage.

The votes to improve the bill failed and they were simply cover your ass political votes that they knew wouldn't pass.

Do they think we just fell off the turnip truck?

This defies reason:

Pelosi added that the House leadership was "at the mercy of the 17 or 18 Democrats in the Senate who are voting with the Republicans on this" and said that "we are trying to work with the Dems in the Senate to come to an agreement" on exclusivity, immunity, and other issues.

There is no reason the House Rules Committee should pass a rule permitting this bill to get voted on, unless the Speaker gives her assent to the Rules Committee to permit this bill.

Further, if the Speaker would like to "not" be at the "mercy" of 17 or 18 who would like to illegally assert judicial power and affect ongoing litigation, the Speaker could end this non-sense, by starting an impeachment investigation, and shutting down all other House business. The Speaker refuses. She is not at the mercy of anything. She chooses not to assert power and compel a challenge to the President. The Speaker has brought this on herself, by her choice.

Seems to me that a signing statement would take care of "Exclusivity". So Ms Pelosi can pretend to be doing the peoples business and her husband can continue to do his business with the government.

Signing statements-remember those? This would let everyone off the hook now wouldn't it? Things could get back to normal.

Pelosi-the first hundred days we give the people bread crumbs. The next 265 days we give our financial backers control of government.

Ah, the sound of capitulation.

The Speaker has yet to address the core problem: How does she explain how this bill, when it is passed, would survive a constitutional challenge?

The Congress, as a legislature, does not have judicial power to affect the outcome ongoing, pending litigation. This bill would impersmisssly do just that, unlawfully exercise judicial power, and "agree" to a joint assertion of Judicial Power by the President and Congress. Only the judicial branch can decide the outcome of pending cases. Even if this law were passed, the law the courts would apply to the pending cases would (hopefully) be the law which existed when the violations occurred, not as it has been retroactively rewritten.

Even if the bill were to get approved, the Speaker has made no provision for how the likely EFF challenges to this bill would do exactly the opposite of what the Speaker proposes. Rather than resolving an issue, this would extend the court litigation, delay resolution, and expand the time the public has to further lose confidence in the Congress.

Pelosi has not adequately explained, nor consulted with legal counsel, on issues related to the unlawful assertion of judicial power. In so doing, she is not resolving anything, but compounding her problem. That is not leadership. It is more of the same. We voted for change. Time for the Speaker to change: Remove Pelosi as Speaker.

I am about to give up hope

Is Pelosi suffering from 'Memento syndrome,' or does she think We The People are? If I couldn't remember yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that, etc., I might be excused for thinking this is a rational proposal. However, given what we know about the cabal, in power, expecting them to suddenly adhere to this new law is foolish. (I'm sure the R's are guffawing about this behind closed doors).

I'm from Pelosi's district (and DINO DiFi's), and I agree she should be removed--perhaps Jerry Brown could pull of this maneuver? Does he have the wherewithal to do it?

Also, geting rid of that turdbag creep looking over Pelosi's shoulder would be nice. Who did he blow to get his job?

What a disappointment Mrs. Pelosi has turned out to be as Speaker.

All of the effort across the country to give the Democrats majorities in the House and Senate and it comes to this. We would hand our party the reins of power during the most criminal administration in history and they can't even find their way to exert even the most basic oversight.

What message does this send to the young people who have become energized by the candidacy of Barack Obama? "Don't bother," it says. "If you work hard and vote and spread the word, you'll just be disappointed when the people you elect turn out to be nothing but complicit weaklings."

Maybe this is why so many "childrens crusades" have turned out to be ineffective when it comes to general elections. Between the primaries and the general, these young new voters learn the facts of life from watching useless Democratic leaders like Pelosi and Reid and just decide not to bother.

I can't say I blame them one bit.

Still not clear why there is a rush to pass this bill, especially when the issues are unclear, the documents are still getting reviewed, and we're still not clear what the telecoms did.

- Why is the Congress reluctant to let the Judicial branch review this?

- Why would Congress delegate to itself Judicial power to review this?

Not asking for the motivation of the Congress and President to rush this, and prevent a court review; but why the Congress isn't willing to let the Judicial branch take it's time, and lazily review the legal issues, facts, and laws.

Congress would ask that it quickly do something that the Judicial branch takes time doing. The inconsistent review timelines a curious difference the House leadership has yet to address. Why the rush, and why is the Congress asking the public to support an accelerated timeline which the Judicial branch does not follow?

Members of Congress are legislators who pass bills; they are not judicial officers who can adjudicate, except the Senate in cases of impeachment. What does Congress think it is when it has no legal foundation to exercise judicial power; but would ask that we believe they have two hats: Legislative and judicial? The one hat they have does not fit well: The impeachment option is off the table; but the Congress has placed on the table a new Judicial-legislative power. They have but one head to place the already ill-fitting hat; the second hat will fit no better.

Congress needs to stick to its legislative powers and impeach, not impersmissibly exericse judicial power in areas it is not designed to adjudicate: Judicial matters. Granting immunity impermissibly asks us to believe the fiction that the Congress which will not enforce the law through impeachment can be trusted to enforce the law through non-lawful assertions of judicial power. Congress has well proven it cannot be trusted on legislative matters; we need not seriously consider whether they can be trusted on judicial ones.

When the Speaker shows she is able to lead the House on legislative issues, and impeach, we might have some confidence she could be considered for a judicial appointment. However, seeing that she is Speaker, and has no intention to be a judge, she should not act like a judge, but a Speaker. Either impeach the President, Madame Speaker; or make way for a new Speaker.

As discouraged as some are about this sad leadership, I would ask that those who are discouraged to consider something valuable. We've witnessed abuse of power; and a refusal of others to challenge that abuse.

Perhaps, with this discouraging turn of events, the abuses and complicity might be the catalyst to discuss solutions, and make the oversight of the US government more robust. Before the Magna Carta was written, people were discouraged; then there was change. The same can be done today: These discouraging behaviors can spark a discussion of what would be better.

Indeed, Pelosi's Speakership may be cast as a failure, but this is no reason we give up. Rather, let her failure be the catalyst for an open discussion of what is required to ensure this failure does not occur again, either by the primary violators, or those charged when challenging that original abuse.

Yes, it is discouraging, but that can be a needed catalyst to make things better. The solution doesn't have to be within the existing party structure, nor in concert with the existing system which has enabled this abuse. It can be something new, better, and different.

I can't figure out how the House Democrats ended up with a Speaker who promised to do nothing. It is just mind boggling.

Rep. Peter DeFazio wrote me a letter saying he does not favor impeachment as a symbolic action, but he said he is very keen on pursuing all legal avenues for halting the Bush Regime.

When Pelosi and Rockefeller grant retro-active amnesty to the telecoms, they will be blocking one legal avenue. They are literally trying to tie the hands of their fellow Democrats.
**************************

"Regarding the warrantless wiretapping program, I agree that this program violates federal law and the Constitution. But, the administration has a series of legal arguments on why the program is legal. I disagree, but the administration's arguments have not been fully tested in court, so who's right? One court ruled that the administration's program was unconstitutional. Yet, the Supreme Court just threw out that case arguing that the individuals did not have standing to sue because they couldn't prove they were harmed by the government action."
...
"So the choice is real action via hearings, investigations and legislation, or symbolic action that won't change anything via impeachment. I prefer real action."
-Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-4th)

When we're talking about exclusivity we're really talking about immunity. The Speaker.

Oh, you were tired of the speeches, and wanted something specific to discuss as a solution.

The Constitutional option, consistent with the oath of office is to enforce the existing laws, not change the debate or goal post based on the latest revelations. And we have more revelations of what Congress is ignoring.

- How does Congress credibly propose to legislate on the alleged illegal activity when the truth is still dribbling out?

- Once these facts in the current litigation are adjudicated, what showing can Congress give going forward from 2008, that their solution being debated this week will adequately ensure the types of abuses now revealed are adequately managed, regulated, and enforced?

testing, I think I love you! That was very inspiring! Thank you very much for your words of wisdom. It is true that change will not happen over nite and will not come just because I call it. It must be worked for but it is possible!

We all know that the penalty provisions against the telecoms existed not only to prevent private abuse but also to prevent abuse by the government. The whole purpose was to create an incentive for the telecoms to require a court order or other evidence that the seizure of private information was lawful. It was to prevent the exact kind of backroom dealing that led to the present situation.

There is absolutely no excuse for the Democratic Congress taking the position of caving in on this law. Frankly, the Schwartz was right - these are girlee men and I am quite frankly ashamed of my party. A president with the lowest approval numbers in modern history besting the congress. The Congressional approval - even lower than the president's approval. The God dammed fools cannot even see that their approval slipped as they failed to confron this president.

What will it take to redress the balance between the people and the hereditary Republican government(It will not matter who wins the election or controls the Congress - the DEMOCRAT Party is constitutionally unable to exercise leadership or government.) Violent revolution will eventually follow with the Republicans exercising anti-trerrorist powers to make this county look like ever other bannana republic.

The fact that you used the term
R E V O L U T I O N, warrants a further investigation and wiretapping, because you are now a threat.

Maybe when Bush looked into Putins eyes and saw his soul he actually saw his own image.

Any word on how Pelosi's latest leadership failures are helping her opponent?