The hearing was moved to 11 EST, and I still overslept it a little on the west coast. Jerry Nadler arrived a little late, too, so at least I'm tardy with good company.
One important point first: Conyers has signed an inquiry to home and internet service providers to find out how they turned over access. Stay tuned! Also, the hearing record is open for 5 days for members of congress to send questions, to be included in the record.
As I enjoyed my first cup of coffee and absorbed the comments of the distinguished speakers, I culled and paraphrased the best of them, partly in my own words, so you'll hear some echoes.
.
Once more, over the brink...
Rep. Robert Wexler got my vote today for impassioned elocution and statesmanship. If I could type any faster, it'd be copiously quoted and attributed perhaps, but no...I have no choice but to merely rehash. Someone else will document the transcript, and I'll link it here when they do. Instead, I just run it all back through the percolator to organize and reheat.
So we're clear, I'm always aiming for a lyric, so I take those liberties.
This is, I believe,
one way
to change
everything.
The president has broken the law, and it's time to act.
The administration's first act
as this seamy mess emerges
is to pursue whistleblowers.
Immediate steps:
- Congress should pass a shield law for journalists, immediately.
- Those within the administration and NSA that have been carrying out these intercepts should cease and desist immediately. Can you hear me now?
Those concerned about their own liability and responsibility in this, should be.
Those not,
will learn.
Spelling out the difference
'tween a wiretap and an intercept:
Not a guy climbing a pole with alligator clips.
A massive vacuum, infinitely filtered sort.
A Google.
Aw Geez....No wonder they want Google.
They WANT Google, OK?
Think about that.
The legal arguments
the administration makes
are frivolous.
They are the arguments of a monarch.
He is claiming absolute power
that no American in history
has ever claimed.
How can we remedy this?
The house should be having hearings, formal hearings, with subpoena power.
In a conspiracy involving the AG, we need a special prosecutor to investigate the matter.
It won't do to have the AG investigate.
There are indeed high crimes and misdemeanors that demand impeachment.
No question.
These are crimes prosecutable beyond the term of the presidency.
This house has not stood up for its responsibilities.
A precedent is established by not holding official hearings into the commission of crimes against the US.
This house will not stand up for its responsibilities.
(I hope I'm wrong about that too)
There will be other houses, other presidents.
This president upheld his hand and took an oath to protect the constitution.
Whatever any statute may have said, the president's authority trumps it? No.
Is there any unconstitutional encroachment upon liberty
beyond the power of the president?
On Gonzales standing up as he has done, including the 42 page rant:
Bruce Fein was once Attorney General.
What would he have done?
His answer?
"Resignation is the only method of responsible conduct for an Attorney General."
The best way is to get separation of powers nailed down.
Should the president be allowed to back down gracefully?
Impeachment is not an effort to get a president to "come around."
How do people feel about the sense of intimidation?
Fein suggests hearings held outside of Washington.
As long as the house refuses
it's oversight responsibilities,
the growing body of representatives
should continue asking questions.
Keep on talking.
The attorney General speaking
once to the senate
is not an oversight committee.
The president believes he's not violating federal law.
One argument of the 42-page rant is credible:
FISA allows exceptions.
The AUMF is one.
If it isn't one, then FISA is unconstitutional.
Does FISA allow exceptions?
The admin could have said originally
that FISA and PATRIOT
didn't make a bit of difference.
Why argue the PATRIOT before congress in the first place?
The only way through is to say
that FISA is unconstitutional.
No matter what statute,
as long as the president acts in National Security,
anything he does
anything his friends do
is legal.
There is no limit of authority.
The president would have the authority
to hire a hit man
to knock off anybody in the hearing room,
or in the world,
if he thought it would benefit national security.
The president thinks
this argument will never see a court of law,
only the court of public opinion.
He apparently believes
we have his back on this.
The president hasn't vetoed any laws
because he has taken it upon himself to ignore the laws.
He doesn't need to veto laws.
He appears to support all laws,
using written signing statements,
rendering his understanding upon them.
There are serious questions
about the legality of all this tripe.
It may be a slam-dunk case.
Many American citizens think they are immune.
American people need to know.
The president has the authority
to wiretap 3 full days
without going to court
to apply for a warrant.
Two tourists here can be wiretapped with a warrant.
Why does the president's legal argument have no limiting principle?
The principal of constitutional avoidance.
If there's ambiguity
his authority must be recognized.
The limit is
that they only wiretap individuals
that the president determines
are connected in some way
to Al Queda, their associates, or terrorism.
That's not a limit.
The president can say that about anyone, no oversight.
If the president determines that anti-war protestors are undermining his war effort...
FISA is clear & specific
but if the president doesn't understand or accept FISA,
it's avoidable.
It's a codicil to Nixon's assertion:
If the president says to do it: It's constitutional
Bush II:
As long as I'm fighting terrorism, it's legal
Concentration Camps?
Incident of war
Interstate Car Theft?
Incident of war.
Levy guidelines
intended to limit FBI intrusion and infiltration of groups,
without probable cause or reason to think there's a crime going on.
If no suspicion to think there's criminal activity, it shouldn't be done
Ashcroft said no to Levy guidelines:
Surveillance of a group
holding a public demonstration
that anyone can see
is not a 4th amendment violation,
though calculated to achieve a chilling effect.
The FBI should be there to take notes?
So, we have undercover FBI in religious meetings.
Defense Dept. is also sending people into these meetings: NSA intercepts.
The rules have changed about DoD infiltration into Americans' lives.
Can this be limited?
The president's argument doesn't lend itself to any moderate interpretation.
We are protected by the discretion of the president only.
Internal review every 45 days is supposed to be enough.
Theses guys believe in the unitary executive.
The Early Warning approach.
Listen to everyone.
Use what's found to get a FISA warrant.
Applications submitted and refused
because they were based on illegally gathered evidence.
Affidavits were then required,
that none of the evidence was acquired by illegal wiretapping.
24 hours notice for original FISA warrant
was changed to 72 hour notice.
It could change again.
Why hasn't it been brought before congress,
if there's such a good case for it?
If it's entirely legal, why didn't he go through the legal process?
President & Secretary of Defense have decided they don't need to.
Is there any information that is unavailable to the president with a warrant?
Admin & NSA claim there are technical means of thwarting surveillance,
and I suppose they assume that a FISA warrant would trigger those 'technical means'.
Don't they trust the FISA judges?
Don't they appoint the FISA judges?
Federal judges have been courageous-Hamdi
FISC has been brave too.
One way to force the leadership to act is public opinion.
Presuming that the president will act in the best interest of the US.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt.
It won't happen to me.
He's going after those with differing philosophical and political views.
Nothing to do with Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, or Osama.
The president has exercised his discretion
Rumsfeld has exercised his discretion
Commanders at the NSA, same.
Enlisted people who were ordered to sit with the Quakers, followed their orders.
What about those Quakers? Terrorists? Subversives?
Who was in that Palm Beach County church?
Richard Hersch was there. Evelyn Graschow 79, Debra Smith, Javier del Sol, Maurice Wicker, Alan Taylor, James Venable, Bonnie Redding, more.
None had traveled outside the country.
People interested in getting at some truth.
Teaching children how to think.
Giving them the facts.
These people were not connected to terrorism
or jeopardizing the security
of the United States.
If they had evidence of a credible threat, why didn't they just get an arrest warrant?
The truth is a credible threat,
so the Quakers are a credible threat.
The 4th amendment is clear.
But what's reasonable?
What's probable?
They are relying on school search cases
in the 42-page rant.
Principal finds joint in student's locker.
Reasonable?
We're only spying on terrorists.
Trust me.
I asked my friend.
They agree.
Trust us.
This country can rely on our all-terrain constitution.
Right now, we're in bad weather.
Take the necessary steps of a responsible branch of government.
Take the necessary steps of a responsible citizenry.
I am determined to continue with the kind of optimism that will help us move toward a stronger constitutional democracy.