Olbermann Tries but Doesn’t Fully Re-Reverse Himself re: Obama’s FISA Reversal
By Deb Cupples on July 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM in 4th Amendment, Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
Monday, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann dropped his pompoms and attempted to re-reverse himself by doing a "special comment" about Barack Obama’s recent reversal on FISA (Crooks & Liars has the video and transcript). Mr. Olbermann made two major mistakes:
1) He said that Sen. Obama has a second chance to fight FISA
2) He indicated that he still believes that Obama has a secret plan to criminally prosecute Telecom folks even if they get immunity from civil suits.
Actually, there is no second chance to fight the new FISA bill, which the House has already passed and the Senate will likely vote on next week. The numbers needed to defeat the bill just aren’t in the Senate: we’ve known this for some time.
The U.S. Senate is nearly 50% Republican, and most Republicans support the new FISA bill and Telecom Amnesty. That and too many Senate Democrats (like Jay Rockefeller and Claire McCaskill) have sided with Republicans on FISA and Telecom Amnesty.
When the FISA bill comes to a vote, chances are great that the Senate will pass it — however Sen. Obama votes, whatever words he speaks.
The only real chance to effectively fight the FISA bill existed before the House passed it. [The House has far a larger proportion of Democrats than the Senate does.]
Sen. Obama’s chance to really fight FISA evaporated on or about June 20, when 94 House Democrats changed their mind and voted to pass the FISA bill. That was around the same time that Sen. Obama publicly voiced support for the bill.
If Sen. Obama had been truly committed to defeating the FISA bill, then he would have used his popularity to pressure House Democrats to vote against the bill.
Now, all Sen. Obama can do is vote against and speak against the FISA bill. This might make some of his supporters believe that he really meant to fight it all along — except those supporters who are actually aware of the current composition of the Senate and House.
That’s why I consider Mr. Olbermann’s idea that Sen. Obama will get a "second chance" on FISA next week to be purely fictional.
The other mistake that Mr. Olbermann made was trying to perpetuate the myth that Sen. Obama had planned to let FISA pass then later go after Telecom folks on criminal grounds.
Sen. Obama is smart enough to know that President Bush has the power to pardon all Telecom folks who end up targeted for criminal prosecution — even before they go to trial. President Bush knows this, because his father (in 1992) pardoned a few guys involved in the Iran-Contra scandal before they went to trial.
It wouldn’t be that hard to arrange. The current President Bush has a very compliant Justice Department. If FISA passes without providing immunity from criminal prosecution, President Bush could get the Justice Department 1) to open investigations into a list of Telecom folks, 2) to issue quick indictments, and 3) to schedule trial dates.
Then, President Bush could simply swoop in and pardon the defendants.
Even if President Bush’s pardoning powers weren’t an obstacle to effective criminal prosecution, Sen. Obama is too smart to let a constitutionally disastrous FISA bill become law on the mere hope that he could start criminally prosecuting Telecom folks come January.
That would involve enormous risks — especially with government accountability and fundamental rights at stake — because Sen. Obama might not win in November. In that case, John McCain (who likes FISA and Telecom Amnesty) would be left to push for accountability and carry out the criminal prosecutions.
I suspect that Sen. Obama — who has taught Constitutional Law for years — places too high a value on our constitutional rights to roll the dice like that.
That’s why Mr. Olbermann’s criminal-prosecution ideas seems to have been pulled out of Mr. Olbermann’s habitually flaring nostrils.
Below is some background info, for those coming in on the second act.
In January, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann capital-H Hated the Bush Administration’s attempt to 1) expand its domestic spying powers, and 2) grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had broken the law (likely against their lawyers’ advice) while helping the Bush Adminsitration spy on Americans.
Mr. Olbermann repeatedly, intensely and rightly railed against these things and against the Bush Administration on his show. (See video here.)
In June, Barack Obama publicly supported a new FISA bill that would 1) expand the Bush Administration’s domestic spying powers, and 2) grant retroactive immunity to telecoms.
Did Mr. Olbermann intensely rail against Sen. Obama’s reversal on FISA — the way he
had railed against the Bush Administration? Absolutely not.
Instead, Mr. Olbermann meekly — and without any nostril-flaring intensity — said that he was "confused" by Sen. Obama’s reversal on FISA. Then, Mr. Olbermann concocted a rickety defense: that Sen. Obama was secretly planning to let FISA and Telecom Amnesty become law then later prosecute Telecom folks criminally. (See video here.)
In short, Mr. Olbermann continued leading cheers, though Sen. Obama had committed what should have been a deal breaker for Mr. Olbermann.
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald (and others) took Mr. Olbermann to task for his reversal and explained the inanity of Mr. Olbermann’s imaginary, double-secret plan — essentially delivering a humiliating knock-out punch that left Mr. Olbermann’s pompoms and pleated skirt blood stained.
That seems to be what prompted Mr. Olbermann to do his "special comment" on Monday about Sen. Obama’s reversal on FISA.
Thank you for this post! sounds like the setup for Uhhbama to talk against and vote against the bill (as you point out now that it doesnt count for jack) and save face is already being put out there
Oblahmamann works for Axelrove..maybe he can take Oblahhmaman to Chicago with him when he retires from DC in ignominious defeat in November, wouldnt that be great!! (sorry Chicago)
Olberdouche had the FARTHEST to FALL off that SOAP BOX HEROES LIST
He is now nothing but SPLAT on the ground to me. All the Kings horses and ALL the Kings men couldn’t put HUMPtey OR Olberdouche back together again.
(or Alter or KOS or Aravosis)
AKA also known as SHIT MONKEYS FOR BAMBI
KO would have loved to host MTP. Too bad no one has a shred of respect for his “journalistic integrity.
Time for the Olbermann joke:
Senator Obama had a physical recently just to measure stress levels and such and when they asked him for a stool sample he said, “I’m in a hurry. Just wipe down Olbermann’s nose.”
BO has a lot of secret plans, but sending other crooks to jail aren’t included.
Just another one of Obama’s flip flops. He can’t amke up his mind on waht he wants except to be President.
He even showed ambivalence on being President when he was getting his a** kicked all over the Appalacian Trail. And we thought Bush was a lazy, petulant prima dona?
yea baby!
No he doesn’t want to BE president… he just wants the TITLE…. I mean after all, as Meeeeesheellll puts it, “it’s not rocket science”… So glad they take it so seriously…. Uh…. which button should we push today dear?
It does seem that way
His wife must dress him. It would take hours for him to pick out a pair of socks.
Keith Obamamann just keeps digging that deeper hole he himself has spoken of. And in this effort of his, is making HIMSELF a laughing stock. Talk about the steepest RISE and f a l l of a media star. ooOOoops.
…only this is TOTALLY self inflicted.
And sorry, I’ll have to take your word for it. Beccause I am SO over Keithie and disgusted by him, I won’t even watch his video.
Too, because it’s still embarrassing to watch him dance around his hypocrisy and make up his fairytale this way.
I susepct that many of Keith’s former fans agree with you.
It’s funny these people like ko, do they not notice that every day they have to explain away another stupid statemant of mistake. They are like parents with a brat for a kid.
Wow, this is approximately the most even-handed, non-hysterical post I’ve ever seen on this site. Well done. I detect the requisite sarcasm in “I suspect that Sen. Obama — who has taught Constitutional Law for years — places too high a value on our constitutional rights to roll the dice like that” and how Obama is “smart enough” to see possible pardons coming. Overall, though, given that I’m an Obama supporter who thinks his support for the FISA capitulation is fairly pathetic, even if politically understandable, I found nothing to raise my hackles here. It does bother me when some of Obama’s supporters, including Olbermann (whom I really can’t watch in any event, he’s just super-arrogant), twist themselves into pretzels trying to make excuses for the bad, anti-progressive stuff he does, like caving on FISA or supporting the death penalty for those who rape children. Obviously he’s still a ton better than McCain, so why pretend Obama’s perfect?
What happened to hopey changey and no more politics as usual?
That was and is campaign rhetoric. What happened to Bush being a “compassionate conservative,” or Clinton “feeling the pain” of welfare families who he screwed by going along with the destruction of AFDC (welfare reform)? Clear-eyed supporters of any candidate ever, voters who know how the game is played, are never surprised to see their candidate or the opposing candidate shift his position when it is politically convenient. McCain is not straight-talking maverick just because he and the media like to pretend he is, either. Obama is a politician, somewhat better than average in terms of intelligence and judgment in my view and pretty typical in terms of political courage (which is to say, he doesn’t have much).
I guess it must really disappoint you guys to discover that most Obama supporters aren’t your mirror images, unhinged and unwilling to apply logic or reason to him or his candidacy. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. He’s not the messiah, he’s just a politician who is leaps and bounds better on policy and personal temperament than his opponent.
Based on what?
What are you asking about the basis of? I made several claims in my post, some of which I supported within it, some of which I assumed were common knowledge. What specifically are you asking about?
No, the whole thing just sounded like you talking out of your ass.
* Obama is just a politician who is leaps and bounds better on policy and personal temperament than his opponent.
* McCain is not straight-talking maverick just because he and the media like to pretend he is, either.
* Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are interchangeable when it comes to “screwing” the American people
* Therefore, when Obama “screws” over people, he is doing what politicians do. McCain does it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. But somehow it will be a good thing if Obama does this.
* You are more lucid and willing to apply logic by saying all this, therefore you are so much better than the people you attack and condescend to on this site.
Which part of this isn’t complete BS is a fair question. That, I gather, is what jbjd meant when he asked based on what?
Now, whatever happened to, “that’s the politics of the past”? Don’t see any “New” politics now… No surprise to us Hillary supporters.
Hillary ‘08!
This is where you people are blowing. Screw campaign rhetoric. We want the truth from that jerk for once. He couldn’t tell the truth if god him/herself told him to. I’m sorry to say but he acts just like my ex. A crack addicted man that could tell you with a perfectly straight face that blue is yellow.
Check out HuffPo during the primaries for unhinged Obama supporters.
ANON22 Welfare Reform was not a bad thing. Many people went to school or to work or both and began to feel better about themselves.
because Obama says he’s perfect. I’m not so sure Obama will be better than McCain. What do we really know about him? All I know is that barky has no problem using the race card against anyone who questions his qualifications.
I can’t take the risk with Obama, and thus will be voting McCain to ensure Obama’s defeat in a landslide.
Oh, boy, this should be good. Looking for that quote on Obama claiming that he is perfect. Perhaps you are confusing Obama with some of Obama’s more fervent supporters?
What do we know about him? He has a record from his career in public life. He has a lot of good policy proposals publicly available, and being a mainline Democratic politician who needs to secure the support of his progressive base, there’s no particular reason to believe he won’t at least try to deliver on things like universal health insurance, mandatory cap-and-trade emissions policy, and pursuing some sort of responsible withdrawal from Iraq. It’s possible he’s lying about everything he says he’ll do, despite the fact that he lies no more than the typical politician and the typical politician doesn’t turn around and do something completely different from what he campaigned on once he’s in office. But it’s also possible that John McCain is an alien double agent who will ship us all off to the salt mines on Pluto if he is elected. Realistically, I think both of them will do approximately what they’ll say they will do, and because I’m a progressive, I support Obama’s version of what to do. Reliable public opinion data seems to show that if anyone is heading for a landslide defeat, it is McCain.
Guess the kool aid has eaten away at your brain. What’s happened to hope, change, new politics, etc? And if Mr. Messiah can admit he’s not perfect, why is he such a god-awful wimp whenever anyone dares criticize him? Pleeeeaaaasssse. Not ready for prime time.
Hillary ‘08′
You know Obama could have come into this election and said look there are some people in my past that they’ll try to use against me. I’m not proud to have been associated with them. When I found out what they stood for. I separated myself from them.
But he didn’t, because he couldn’t, because he chose to associate with those people till it caused a problem with this race.
I don’t understand what part of Black Liberation Theology you don’t understand? Obama chose to sit in that church for 20 years listening to that theology. Then he chose to subject his children to it.
There is a daughter that extremely upset that Obama came in at the end of the Abestos cleansing and took full credit for it when her mother worked her entire life on it.
His uncontested run because he waited till the deadline to challenge the signatures, then said it wasn’t nothing person we did the same thing to everyone on the ticket. Why? Because he knew he wasn’t going to win against her? Keyes came in carpetbaggin with less than three months to campaign and still took almost 30% of the vote from him. That shows you how much respect he had. Most had no idea who Keyes was or he would have gotten more. He lost his congress bid by a landslide and people knew who he was. Look at his district before Obama came into office and look at it now. That’s the change you want? He also ran his name twice on the ticket in ‘96 as a new party candidate and as a Democrat. You do know who is part of the new party correct? Now tell me again he had no idea what was being preached in that church. Clear back in ‘96. Yet he stayed from ‘96 to ‘08.
Trouble is, obama is not a “ton” better than the choice of Hillary, who people like you denigrated. Actually, its the other way around. Unless something happens, you’ll have to live with your bad choice.
No, he wasn’t a ton better than Hillary. But it also wasn’t the other way around; she was not a ton better than him. They were both pretty good, with Obama being slightly better in my view. Both are also miles better than McCain on every policy issue conceivable.
Hillary or McCain ‘08. Obama is a dangerous extremist, unelectable, with no platform other than promoting Obama. Hillary is a brilliant leader; Obama isn’t fit to shine her shoes. And McCain is a war hero who loves America. Perhaps after the Obama Party disintegrates Obama will go into detox where he belongs.
Unless he’s been indicted and sent to prison by then.
I’m sure an Obama Presidency would finish the job of destroying the Democratic Party.
It would destroy America.
I know! And why pretend you’re not an O-troll? VOTE FOR MCCAIN, NOT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
more excuses for Obama and I’m sure we will hear them on here too.
I have always wondered what kind of communications security members of Congress have for their own communications.
I can easily imagine certain members of Congress capitulating on their defense of Constitutional rights in order to protect themselves. If any particular member of Congress is a sleaze, that member probably has every reason to worry about the security of their own communications and their own vulnerability to eavesdropping by vengeful opponents, if not legitimate law enforcement.
I have no idea how the whole business works, but this aspect of the eavesdropping business is the first thought that enters my mind, considering the track record of both Democrats and Republicans in recent years.
I remember some Israeli communications technology firm having provided Congress members with some part of their system. Don’t remember details. This was reported more than 4-5 years ago. At the time it seemed insanely insecure.
You make a very interesting point.
From D. Cupples blog entry:
“…swishing his pleated blue skirt and shaking his matching pompoms.”
That’s hysterical but it is an image of Olbermann I could do without!
Good- Oblabbermann gets a taste of his own medicine
Waiting for his name to be part of the
Obama Scandal Countdown!
My guess is that if Obama kidnapped and murdered your children, you’d find it “politically understandable” and “nothing to raise your hackles” about.
I also imagine you are one of those people who turned beet red with rage at Hillary’s “Bosnia Gaffe” and joined the “there she goes again, another Clinton liar thank God we have a Real Anti-Politican Leader in Obama” chorus.
What a shock- an Obamabot who thinks it’s no big deal that his hero has dumped overboard his position on one of the most important issues of our time. Thanks for showing up and once again confirming how hopelessly in love you idiots are with the myth you’ve created.
*standing ovation* for John
Obamabots are like battered spouses who put on a fake smile and bleat “sure he hits me, but it’s better than being alone, and he only does it when he’s drunk” whenever someone points out they are married to an asshole.
You don’t need to convince me. I’m already on board with that.
alright for you John! Well said on both comments.
And he said he’d never do it again.
No, you misunderstood, which is hardly surprising, given that you frequent this website and probably believe in the whitey tape and Obama born in Kenya fantasies.
I said I found nothing to raise my hackles about in this diary (or post, or whatever they call them here). It was an even-handed treatment of the issues. Obviously, if I’m characterizing Obama’s retreat on FISA as “pathetic,” that did raise my hackles.
I didn’t turn beet red with anger over the Bosnia gaffe, no. I thought it was amusing, I was glad in purely tactical terms that it got her a few negative media cycles, I didn’t think it was a particularly big deal. Of course she distorted or misrepresented at times during the primary, but that didn’t make me hate her. The comment I remember being most angry about when it happened was the “McCain and I have passed the commander in chief test (threshold?) and Obama hasn’t” thing, and that was because she was undermining her fellow Democrat at a point when she ought to have known that she’d already fallen out of the race.
And you’re really twisting yourself around to label me an “Obamabot” in replying to a post stating that I really object to some Obama supporters’ habit of seeing no evil where he is concerned. I supported him during the primary mostly for electability reasons; originally, I would have been happy with either candidate as the nominee, but thought Obama had a better chance to win. I don’t have romantic misconceptions about him, I don’t mythologize him, I am disappointed but not surprised when he does things like cave on FISA. He’s a politician who is far better than the alternative, and that is plenty to merit my full-throated support for his candidacy and my criticism when he strays from good progressive policy.
Mostly for electability reasons? Nonsense. Hillary was polling so high against McCain and was sure to beat him, Obama was not.
By the end of the primaries, Clinton was polling better because a Clinton/McCain match up had become a hypothetical situation. People who really understood the delegate math had known since the end of February that Obama would be the nominee; and everyone else had figured it out by May 6 (NC/IN primaries). Clinton supporters were increasingly angry, and likely to say they would vote for McCain over Obama because they resented Obama for beating Clinton. At the same time, conservative-leaning independents were more likely to express support for Clinton than for Obama because Clinton had no chance of actually becoming the nominee, so it was “safe” to express support for her, because they would never get an opportunity to vote for her in the general election anyway. (In case you’re going to counter that the defection rate among Clinton supporters in those late primary GE polls was indicative of a real problem Obama is having now, I’ll simply note that Obama has reduced his defection rate to the mirror of McCain’s in a lot of critical battleground states already, and is likely to consolidate more support still after the convention in August.)
But in any event, my reference wasn’t to the unrealistic, increasingly irrelevant polling near the end of primary season. I’m talking about going in, and after the GOP chose its nominee but the Dems were still duking it out. At that point, I was looking at Obama’s better pull among independents (which has bee a finding of almost every poll to look at that sub-group between Clinton and Obama, at least nationally and in even moderately competitive states) and what I perceived as Clinton’s ability to unite the disparate elements of the GOP coalition in opposition to her as opposed to support for McCain. Although we’ll probably never know now, I still believe that judgment was correct, and that nothing could have rescued the GOP’s fortunes more than being able to polarize and mobilize their base for another great battle against the much-reviled Clintons. Obama is certainly very likely to win as things stand now; whether Clinton would have been in as strong a position had she won the primaries early on, as she’d planned on, is difficult to say, but I believe not.
You don’t know what independents were thinking or doing. You don’t know what Clinton voters were thinking or doing. You’re whole thesis is based on the shit you made up.
What you did not calculate is Clinton is a known
entity, there is nothing new to dig. Obama on the other hand has not even started to feel the effect of the dirt the republicans are going to bring up after the convention. Obama is a very dangerous bet. He is just too corrupt. I do not understand why that is not a part of your equation.
It is amazing how you have arranged the entire world to agree with your opinions, anon22.
Seems to have built a castle in the sky and is trying to live in it.
Well, anon22 - You certainly write better than the usual BO supporter, but there is still the faint whiff of flimflam and arrogance emanating from your prose. “People who really understood the delegate math had known….” Now are you including your esteemed self with the cognoscenti? And besides anon22,who are those intellectuals? They may have known that BO would be the nominee, but not because of the math. Because the fix was in and even then he couldn’t pull it off (and still hasn’t, let’s not forget) without the dei ex machina of the Howie and Donna crowd, carefully calibrating how MI and FL should be manipulated to make sure HRC could be cheated out of it. There is now too much evidence out that proves he had been anointed post 2004 as the chosen one, whether he had the right stuff or not. Lord Barack of the teleprompter rides in on a piebald horse.
As one who was leaning towards Edwards, I watched the media marginalize and trivialize his candidacy. I then watched HRC being demeaned and demonized and, though I hated the thought of any dynasty, found my respect for her growing with each day. I don’t someone who is photographed with a halo, I want someone who can make sense without a teleprompter. I want someone to talk about policy, not speak in platitudes. After eight years of Bushie I don’t want his flip side. GWB - a nice guy you can have a beer with, versus BO - a guy whose nonexistent hem you can kiss. I want to know - where’s the beef?
Obama lying about FISA, NAFTA, campaign financing, etc. is nowhere near Clinton’s Bosnia Gaffe. There were plenty of silly lies Obama had already been caught up in plus the particular relish with which he attacked his opponent’s character and her husband’s legacy in strictly Republican terms that made it clear to anyone paying attention that this guy was a rat trying to pass himself off as Mother Theresa and would sell out a lot of people since he seemed more intent on destroying his opponent and seizing power than actually changing anything. You sound like a pretty despicable character for even supporting this guy let alone coming here trying to convince us that any of his behavior was admirable.
But what ever happened to the mythology that Obama was not a politician? Oh, that’s right, you have your new talking points. Blaah blaah blaah blaah blaah blaaah blaah.
John,
I agree with the substance of what you’re saying — and you have a First Amendment right to insult pretty much anyone you want — but are insults the best way to persuade people?
So what is McCain doing on this? He is fully supporting it.
What is Obama doing - attempting to remove the Constitutionally awful retrospective pardoning.
What did the Hillary side do? I do not know about her - she was away - but I can guess from her record she would have clapped the bill through, especially given those that voted for it, were the last of the remaining Hillary Supers.
This is bad legislation that regardless of who you supported for the nomination should be opposed. There are two heroes in this and their attempts at filibustering it should be fully supported (and Mr Obama duly rewarded).
If this is not shot down by elected representatives, the Supreme Court should do its duty. This sets very bad precedent for legislation not just in the US but World wide.
Take a Brit’s word for it. He lives in the most spied on nation in the world.
Why don’t you harass Chuck and Cam instead of us. You can’t even vote and yet you think we’re interested in reading your opinion. Get a life in the U.K.
Great little video and I enjoyed some of the comments, too.
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/dig-it-short-video-about-barack-obamas.html
Good- Olblabbermann the hypocrite gets a taste of his own medicine!!!
Lets hear his phone calls with barkey!
Look for his name to be part of the
Obama Scandal Countdown!
bribe, bribe…censorship, censorshiip
O yes Olbermann of course is but
an egotistical lackey with the same
masters as Barkey…And who owns MSNBC!
Rockefeller & Gates!!!!
Olbermann gets his orders and his ego stroked-that
is all he needs…
Maybe barky is stroking something else
Olbermann, like the nominee he slavers over, is a flip-flopping creature who actually stands for nothing and believes in nothing.
Liars are the norm in both their professions and they are outstanding at that if nothing else. Pity we aren’t all as stupid as both Obama and his press agent Olbermann think we are.
This is OT but I found this on Yahoo News.
news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-first-ladies
Nevermind. I can not properly post the link. Sorry.
Why is it that posting links is so hard here?
The one thing that became clear as the end was beginning to approach for the conservative wave of hysteria was the willingness of the faithful to tie themselves up into knots in their attempt to rationalize the actions of the Bush administration. Other then tax cuts Bush had gone back on just about every conservative principle preached since the early eighties. Ultimately the only defense of the conservative faithful was you democrats would be worse. What’s funny about BOBO and his run for the money is that his progressive wave of hysteria is starting out this way. The progressive faithful is having to tie themselves into knots to rationalize away all the thing they thought BOBO stood for ( or at least they thought he stood for) during the primaries and is now flip flopping on as we approach the general. We all heard the progressives use the same line that conservatives use. BOBO is better because Hillary or John McCain would be worse. We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the progressive wave of hysteria. Hopefully it will occur before things truly begin for them, saving us the x number of years waiting around for the progressives also to fall miserably.
It’s up to us now. Keep the pressure up.
Wild Child,
You put it perfectly:
“The one thing that became clear as the end was beginning to approach for the conservative wave of hysteria was the willingness of the faithful to tie themselves up into knots in their attempt to rationalize the actions of the Bush administration.”
Just because the FISA bill passes with telecom immunity does not carve telecom immunity in stone and forever shred the constitution. Congress does not have the final say on the constitutionality of legislation, the Supreme Court does. Any legislation passed is subject to challenge in the courts and appeals up to the Supreme Court.
After the bill becomes passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, there will be class actions filed against the telecoms. The telecoms will of course file motions to dismiss on grounds that the law gives them immunity (and challenge class action status, which they will lose). the reply to the dismissal will raise constitutional grounds, and the appeal process begins. Find a liberal federal circuit to file the original case in, like the 9th district, and the Court of Appeals will throw out the immunity as unconstitutional.
The telecoms will then appeal to the Supreme Court that either will refuse to hear the case or hear arguments and issue a decision. Given the current makeup of the S. Ct., Justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote. I would predict he would rule against immunity.
Kennedy is a Republican, a Reagan appointee, who has always come down in favor of individual rights in the constitution over government power. He authored the recent Boumediene decision granting habeas corpus rights to non-uniformed enemy combatants captured on the field of battle. He concurred with O’Connor (another Republican Reagan appointee) in the Planned Parenthood case re-affirming Roe v. Wade.
Oh gee how lucky we are if the Supreme Court eventually rules on telecom immunity. With their track record we’ll be under surveillance and arrested for visiting the toilet too many times after midnight.
I feel so safe now!
I can’t wait to watch Keith O’s head explode when Nobama loses!
Of course I want to see it on air in August when we take back the DNC and crown Hillary the rightful nominee.
However, if I must, I can wait until November when John McCain wins with FLA- OH and hence, the Whitehouse!
Crazy-eyed, vein- popping, word-spitting, mentally decompensating MELTDOWN on live TV. Yahoo! Now that’s entertainment!
I would like to see that also…
taking back the dem party…I don’t know….Soros owns it…it will be hard to pry it out of his and his partners hands…
count on Obama to “miss” the vote in the Senate.
He doesn’t have to. He already cheered it through the House.
KO will melt down like he did on ESPN.
BO is no patriot and another corrupt Senator like McCain. They are spying on BO like MLK.
I don’t see how flip flopping all over the issues, crashing a plane on a carrier deck, getting shot down, wrestling with old men like Strom Thurmond, using the f-word liberally, dumping a cancer-stricken wife in favor of a rich one and committing adultery, and engaging in the Keating Five scandal qualifies him to be president.
Both suck.
We are screwed 08.
Don’t blame me…I voted for Hillary..this whole thing has been screwed up by the MSM…from the very start…they made celebrities out of two of the dem candidates…the others never stood a chance…now we are stuck…
The silver lining is that we Americans are strong. We survived 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush-!.
Whichever guy gets elected in 08, I suspect that we will survive that presidency.
Hillary or McCain ‘08!
He will do what ever he has to do to be elected…he will cover both sides of the fence…let me know when you find something he does not flip on…Is it that he does not remember what he said before?…lairs can’t remember what they told who so the story keeps changing…just like Obama…”change” you can’t believe in or trust…
McCain in ‘08
Bill Gaza I mean Bill Ohio where are your obligatory “this is a smear!” and “this is racist!” remarks?
Ask Axelrod for some new talking points dude.
He’s still smarting from being uncovered as a racist on the two earlier threads.
I saw that! Job well done PUMAs! I think he may have morphed into another clown though.
why are you so against us having something of our own for once? you had your turn to run thing for the last 200 years.
if Obama loses, expect race relations to get worse in this country.
You have foolishly bought into the lie of “something of our own” and we might all pay the cost for your shortsightedness. If Obama loses there will be a huge celebration and you will only have yourself to blame since you bought into the wrong “something of our own” having forgotten MLK’s words:
America will judge Obama’s character and find it deficient to be president. People can cry racism all they want. They can threaten riots. I will never vote for an unqualified president.