We all have been waiting for the House leadership to Stand for the Constitution and Rule of Law on FISA. Glenn Greenwald has all the sad details. It is not pretty and you need to fortify yourself when you go below the fold.
Update from Glenn
This report was based on unimpeachable sources close to the whole process. I'm getting a little bit of pushback already from others claiming that the plan and strategy of the House Democratic leadership is more nuanced than what I've described, and that the bill they will promote is better (the statement: "A House aide disputes both the specifics of the draft and the presumed strategy"). I'll be happy if that's true (though I doubt it), and hopefully, the fact that there's pushback at all means this is still a vibrant, ongoing process that can be affected. I'll be happy to add any statements, denials and the like.
That dull thud you hear is the other shoe dropping. Nancy Pelosi and Sylvestre Reyes dangle "Bright Shiny Objects" and the barest fig leave to cover their Cave-in.
The new bill Does NOT have telecom immunity in it. BUT, that is a fig leaf. The process takes this bill without telecom immunity and passes it. THEN it goes to Senate where Telecom immunity will be added back in by the enablers who did it in the Senate the first time. THEN, the House will get it back WITH Telecom immunity for an up-or-down vote. We know what the Blue Dogs will do with that.
Their soon-to-be-unveiled bill, unsurprisingly, is designed to give the White House exactly what it has demanded, with only the smallest and most inconsequential changes.
The current draft does not contain telecom immunity (solely for temporary strategic reasons -- see below), but incorporates every substantive warrantless surveillance provision of the Rockefeller/Cheney bill passed by the Senate, with several small and worthless exceptions that they'll try to sell to what they obviously think is their stupid base as some vital "concessions":
* The House bill has a 4 year-sunset provision rather than the Senate's 6 years;
* It provides for an audit by the DOJ's Inspector General of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (the only change that I would describe as something other than worthless);
* It contains a provision stating that the bill is the "exclusive means" by which the President can conduct electronic surveillance (the same provision that FISA has now which the President violated, and which the Senate refused to insert into its bill); Nancy Pelosi was trying just yesterday, lamely, to sell this provision as some sort of vital safeguard;
* The bill mandates some minimal re-review of some of the provisions in 2009; and,
* It contains some mild changes to some of the definitions (the specifics of which I don't know).
The plan of the House leadership is to pass this specific bill in the House, send it to the Senate (where telecom immunity will be added in by the same bipartisan Senate faction that already voted for immunity), have it go back to the House for an up-or-down-vote on the House-bill-plus-telecom-immunity (which will pass with the support of the Blue Dogs), and then compliantly sent on to a happy and satisfied President, who will sign the bill that he demanded.
The bill was drafted with the participation of, and input from, Nancy Pelosi and Silvestre Reyes, at the very least. Reyes, of course, was last seen on CNN meekly pleading with Wolf Blitzer to give him a few more days to come up with a capitulation plan, and is now making good on his commitment to Blitzer (while violating all of the tough, defiant statements he had been making when pretending to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping and for the rule of law). My thoughts on the behavior of the House Democrats -- as stupid and self-destructive as it is craven -- are here.
Nancy Pelosi, my mama did not raise a fool and I did not fall off the Turnip Truck just today. Sylvestre Reyes your 1/2 inch fig leaf is too small by half.