Hillary Clinton, A Bundle of Telecom Money....And A Strange Silence
It looks like Chris Dodd's hold on any bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies is rather unpopular with Republicans, who seem to think shielding corporate executives from the rule of law is of paramount importance in the war on terror:
As Democrats squabble, the administration and top Republicans are moving to exploit the issue. They accuse Democrats of sacrificing national security for short-term political gain. "Al Qaeda is not going to give us a break just because we're having an election," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, who demanded last week that Dodd donate to charity any campaign money he raised as a result of his filibuster threat.
I'm not quite clear on how getting a bunch of rich telecom executives out from underneath their lawsuits is going to make us all safe from Islamofacism, but that is in fact the hammer they will attempt to use to drive immunity home:
MoveOn claimed credit for the presidential candidates' opposition to the bill. "This is a great example of progressive voters demanding boldness and principle from Democratic candidates and Democrats responding by being bold," said spokesman Adam Green. But the maneuvering by the contenders--and the role played by MoveOn--also raised concerns among senior Democrats on Capitol Hill that presidential politics might impede efforts to reach a compromise on such a sensitive and important national-security measure. "We need to get things done on this bill," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters Tuesday.
Evidently one of those things Reid does not feel he needs to get done is pass the Emmet Till cold case bill, which called for more money for unsolved civil rights crimes. Tom Coburn put a hold on the bill -- and Reid just let that one go. The bill died.
Reid, on the other hand, has announced his intention to ignore Dodd's hold. I guess we all have our priorities.
Obviously Dodd gummed something up, some game plan Reid had for how this would all play out. What exactly was that?
Well, the current FISA bill was due to sunset in February. The Democrats were apparently going to make some unconvincing noise about concern for civil liberties, rule of law, yadda yadda yadda, but the only part of this bill that deals with national security -- the updating of certain technology issues that allow for eavesdropping on foreign-to-foreign calls that are routed through the US -- is something that everyone, even Russ Feingold, agrees needs to happen. Nobody is opposing that. A bill like that could pass tomorrow.
But George Bush won't sign that bill. He's made it clear he will only sign a bill that grants retroactive immunity, and one can imagine that these erstwhile telecom jailbirds are going to be singing like a flock of canaries about those in the administration who induced them to commit these crimes if they can't shake the charges post haste. So the Democrats planned to argue up until the last minute, and then much like what happened in August, the whole "war on terror" meme would receive a serious right-wing flogging and the Democrats would cave lest they be considered "soft on terror." Or at least enough of them would to get 60 votes, which should be no sweat, what with 49 Republicans plus "Slummy Joe" Lieberman plus 6 Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who already gave it a pass.
This was the brilliant strategy coming straight out of Senate offices. Opponents of retroactive immunity were told we were just going to have to "live" with this eventuality. And it was all going to go quite smoothly, according to script, until Chris Dodd threw a monkey wrench into things.
Now everyone who has been soaking up all that telecom money, who needed that "war on terror" excuse as cover for their vote, is in a bit of a bind. Jay Rockefeller was quite concerned that the poor telecoms were only doing what the government asked them to, and thus cannot be blamed for egregiously breaking the law. But as Judge Vaughn Walker wrote when he dismissed AT&T's petition for immunity in one such case:
AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.
Now Rockefeller is getting a wee bit touchy because people are noting the sharp uptick in his contributions from telecom executives over the past year and wondering what connection it might have with his deal with the White House, which calls for them to turn over a small fraction of the documents to the Intelligence Committee they are legally required to do anyway in exchange for immunity (a deal obviously made with Majority Leader Reid's blessing). Pat Leahy is apparently about as pleased with this deal as liberal bloggers are, and had made the highly unusual move of calling additional hearings on the matter in the Judiciary Committee.
The threat of fililbuster has apparently upset the delicate balance of comity in the Senate chamber. Oh my.
But one question few are asking -- is it a coincidence we haven't heard anything convincing from Hillary Clinton, who took in $87,130 in telecom contributions in the 2006 cycle -- more than anyone else currently in the Senate? That makes Jay Rockefeller's contributions look like abject chicken feed.
Mike McCurry and Jamie Gorelick, who both served in the previous Clinton administration, have been raking in money as telecom lobbyists (Gorelick has been providing "strategic advice" to Verizon about obtaining immunity). And Howard Wolfson -- currently a senior advisor to the Clinton campaign -- is a partner in Glover Park, who represent Verizon. No doubt they'll all have some s'plainin to do if Hillary joins Dodd in his filibuster -- as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have already said they would do.
If as Hillary Clinton says she accepts lobbyist money and yet it doesn't influence her vote, wouldn't now be a nice time to prove it? I think we're at one of those moments where the rubber meets the road on that particular claim. By making an unequivocal statement and bringing attention to the matter, she could create a groundswell of public support that puts pressure on other Senate Democrats to respect the rule of law.
Then again, maybe that's the problem.
You can sign the petition to Harry Reid asking him to honor Dodd's hold here.
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com.
Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Fantastic! very educational, had no idea about this before this post....an
This is why I never quite got the Clinton hate from the right. Other than the ability to tolerate gays and not fear sex they're Republicans.
Gee, not bad....onl
We desparately need election reform but it will never happen with Hillary at the helm. Fundraising seems to be the marker for viabiltiy. If you compared private, individual fund raising only- Barack Obama would be way, way ahead of Hillary.
Barack's too busy with his gay/not gay clash of the homosexual priests minstral show tour of the South to be bothered by election reforms!!! Your guy is a fucking jerk for getting involved with "formerly gay" performing priest who say God turned him straight! This is the "family values" dem. Candidate????He's a wet-behind-the-ears rookie shlump!!!!!
Obama needs to stand up to these crooked bullies. he needs to make it clear that the message of HOPE does not mean avoiding personal attacks when attacked. It does nmot mean criticizing or question untruths in the Clinton campaign. Obama is not becoming a bully or abandoning his principles. He is calling her out on her lies and contradictions.
Obama rebuff Hillary and her rotten connections. be direct, straight forward and simple enough for every american to understand. Stop talking in complex political jargon. This is a primary campaign. Do not let Hillary define the terms, especially the ones you coined. Take the lead and begin to fight now. Time is running out.
Hillary Clinton is like George W Bush but with two more boobs.
If the Chimp doesn't start a war with Iran, she will for certain.
" Hillary Clinton is like George W Bush but with two more boobs."
Since George had Cheney and Rumsfeld, does that mean that Hillary has a total of 4?
Jane, thanks. My husband and I looked up Clinton's donations for the first three quarters of 2007, and just from two telecom companies (AT & T and Verizon) the FEC says she has already collected over $57,000.
There can be no doubt that it would go a long way towards restoring some faith in Hillary if she took a strong, believable stand against this immunity component to the bill in question.
Hopefully true blue Democrats will be willing to put their differences aside and support Sen. Clinton after she's nominated.
Or you can bitch and moan and stay home give the Republicans another chance.
Think.
Or here's a concept, what about supporting a candidate who's not already bought and paid for by the plutocracy? As long as netroots Dems and others keep repeating the meme that Hillary is out candidate, we're doomed. She's a right-wing Republican on a GOOD day (cf. Barry Goldwater). Why not a real democrat (that means capitalism SERVES social democracy--not the other way around)? I'm not going to support her, not matter what -- get it Rahm, et al.?
Agreed. I'm tired of the "Hillary is inevitable" meme. It's like the only primary that counts is the media primary. Hillary is already taking our votes for granted and moving to appease the corporations. No one's suggesting that we stay home if we don't get our perfect candidate, obviously, anyone with half a moral compass and half a brain would be better than what we currently have. Until we pick a candidate, though, Hillary gets no breaks from me. The other thing that bothers me, aside from her corporatist leanings, is the idea of American royalty. Do we want a country that has Bush/Clint
The more we know of Hillary, the more attractive Obama and Edwards appear. Why should a 'true blue Democrat' be satisfied with just another leader beholden to corporations? If she does act very soon and lead the charge to stifle this bill for immunity, she will most likely be our next president. Otherwise, she is just another polished, well-funded, empty suit.
If you vote for Hillary, you are voting for a Republican. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I'd choose one who has the guts to actually be registered with that party, rather than someone pretending to be something she isn't.
Hillary Clinton's claim that all that $$$ she rakes in from Washington Lobbyists (who just represent "ordinary people" according to her) doesn't influence her votes or her priorities was the big laugh line at the Yearly Kos debate here in June. Of course, it's the lobbyists and their employers who get the last laugh, thanks to their pal in the Senate, soon to be the Democratic nominee for President (with a little help from her friend$).
When Hillary becomes President (or loses to the Republican because of her high negatives) and declines to do anything serious about the climate crisis (after hitting up the energy companies for cash first, of course), Al Gore will rue his decision not to enter the race while he could. And so will the entire planet.
I'm confused. I thought the conservatives want government to leave private enterprise alone. But here they are advocating for the government to tell businesses what to do and to get involved in their legal issues.
I thought that if Americans had an interest in domestic intelligence, they would individually choose to purchase and consent to such services through their preferred communications providers. Then we'd have the freedom to choose how much we're willing to sacrifice according to our individual assessments of the value of our personal communications to national security.
The whole premise of this war on terror is that the only people who sacrifice are compensated volunteers and employees. So why are Americans sacrificing their privacy without volunteering or being compensated?
This has been marketed as a war of the willing. Leave the rest of us out of it.
If the government wants to wiretap my communications, then they can pay for my phone and internet service.
Really. Make the phone free, and most of us wouldn't even give a hoot if they took it back to party lines. There is something evil about paying exorbitant fees for something. then on top of that, getting your privacy trampled on with the government's blessing. None dare call it treason. But I will ;-) In fact, what the law is going to create could be called...r
UNTREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
It's all about money. The telecoms get to squeeze the public by the cojones, then make a mint devising methods to help the federales listen in. They've got us coming and going.
"Watson, come here! I want you...to tap my phone line!"
jsarets,
you wrote, "I thought the conservatives want government to leave private enterprise alone."
This is only true when it benefits corporations, not when it benefits the average citizen. The REAL TRUTH is that without government intervention, corporations could never have attained the power they have today. The Founding Fathers did not trust corporations AT ALL, and corporate tyranny was one of the primary motivating factors behind the American Revolution.
Back then, corporations were not allowed except under very special circumstances, and for very specific goals, after which they were dissolved and their assets divided among shareholders. They should never have been allowed to become what they are in today's society.
I've defended HIllary Clinton many times on these pages and even considered voting for her in the primary. She'd be a crackerjack domestic policy president, and she's obviously the wiliest campaigner of the bunch.
But the more I learn about her continuing foreign policy and homeland security associations, the more concerned I become for the future of this country. These people are throwbacks to a different time, and we can't risk their bungling things again like they did with Iraq.
Last night we had a dinner party, all of us either recovering (ie intelligent) Republicans, or Democrats. Of twelve, only 2 still say they will "hold their noses" and vote for HIllary. The rest of us, having educated ourselves, will stay home if Hillary wins the nomination. We think she's at least as dangerous as the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, because she is part of a group of people who consider that US total control of mideast oil and the containment of Israel's foes to be more important then the funding of a progressive domestic agenda and the balancing of our budget.
Democrats need a huge wake-up call with regard to the Clintons. It's time to stop letting the charm of Bill Clinton cloud our vision. The Clinton Machine is not without responsibility for the invasion of Iraq.
It's all about economics; the Clintons are all about economics. And there is a history there, and I believe a well-kept secret, regarding the Clintons and Iraq, that we need to discover. The Democratic political establishiment knows the truth, but they're not telling. Instead, they're rallying around Hillary in an effort to keep it all secret. It's no coincidence that most Dem pols who voted against the Iraq invasion do not support Hillary. Onlyt he flip-floppers support her, at least for the most part.
Never has it been more important for Americans to set aside their anger and hatred for the other guy, and instead, seek the truth.
"I've defended HIllary Clinton many times on these pages..."
Hey Boadicea, I've defended her too. Even as recently as this morning on another thread. But as this race churns along, I am so glad I am supporting Barack Obama, and not Mrs. Clinton.
We still have two months to go before IOWA, so maybe someone will bring the truth out about Mrs. Clinton. I hope so. But I believe she has to be beaten in IOWA (and even New Hampshire) before there is any bad infomation put out against her by Democratic starategists who now are backing her.
We'll see.
I read a review of a movie called Rendition by Roger Ebert, and he said that he was sorry to have to say it, but extraordinary rendition started under the Clinton administration. There is no way I will vote for his wife.
How will staying home help anything?
Instead of that, vote third party. Vote for your dog.
Just vote.Nobod
Yep. You'd be surprised at how many things Democrats have found objectionable in the Bush Administration were initially rolled out under the Clinton Administration. Example #1: remember the uproar about Cheney keeping the members of his Energy Task Force secret? HRC did it with the Healthcare bill she rolled out. I believe she even went to court over it. Bush signing statements? While he uses them more, Clinton did it as well.
Have no doubt, Clinton believes in a strong executive. Personally, I believe that she thinks the only problem with what's happened under Bush is he did it incompetently. Look at (one of) her position(s) on Iraq--Bush screwed up; otherwise it wasn't a mistake. People need to educate themselves on who she is and what she believes.
As long as politicans whore themselves out to big business and special interests, We The People are doomed. Billion dollar elections are part of the problem, greed is another. Hillary is part of the problem, not the solution.
Actually, The Left Coaster theleftcoa
Perhaps, Ms. Hamscher, as a published author, you could do such an analysis too, and show us how money bought her votes. That's typically how good journalism is done, 'grassroots' or not. You know, research rather than innuendo.
Personally, I'm fine with telecoms not being held liable for warrantless spying - because - those prosecutions need to target the government agencies and individualsthat directed telecom spying. Those are the real criminals. Opening up telecoms to legal liability is a guaranteed way to turn this into a gigantic 'big pockets' lawyer festival of entrepreneurial lawsuits.
We are a nation of laws.
Laws were violated, and you're fine with it?
Which other laws can be ignored?
Just the bad ones, right?
It's not just votes, it's what she LEADS on or fails to LEAD on. It's what issues she champions and which ones she helps die in Committee so she never has to vote on them. This is bad enough in a Senator. A Party Nominee (and of course a President) has far more power to set the national agenda. Imagine where we might be right now if Kerry had chosen to take a stand against the Iraq war instead of saying in August 2004 that he would still have voted to authorize Bush's adventure.
No no. Everyone in the chain should be held liable. It's called aiding and abetting.
The telecom companies have lawyers out the wazoo. I'm willing to bet that they learn early on how to tell what's a crime or not. It's only later that they learn how not to tell the truth.
Since when have we decided not to exact justice because it might make a lawyer rich? That doesn't make any sense. Let's not build houses, because it makes contractors rich. Let's not cure disease because it makes doctors rich. Huh? Doing right, doing good, should be our goal.
One of the problems with not holding the telecoms responsible for breaking the law is that, in future, corporations will do whatever those in political tell them to do whether it is legal or not, knowing they won't be prosecuted for breaking the law. Corporations who actually follow the law are our only firewall against an administration's attempts to gather information illegally.
The individuals in government who directed these activities also need to be prosecuted, but if the telecoms had held out, thousands of messages would never have been illegally monitored.
Hillary has said she supports the filibuster, but that she is studying the matter. Ok, I'm studying too. There's no reason to judge her prematurely, but it's perfectly legitimate to point out that her ultimate response to this issue bears watching.
Nothing like clarity from a candidate for President (and, as Groucho Marx would say, certainly nothing like it here!).
When did she say this? I haven't heard a thing.
I don't believe that money from lobbyist don't influence policy.
What killed the Hillary health care plan? The insurance company. Now she is taking money from them so she can do what is right for the people? Puleease!
Her health care is mandatory! IT WOULD BE A CRIME TO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE UNDER HILLARY! That is not good for the poor who needs it most, yet they are the ones that don't take time, or don't have time to read up on candidates. They support a name that rings a bell, Bill CLINTON.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
