Tim Russert Accuses Senator Dodd Of Using FISA Hold For Political Purposes
By Logan Murphy Saturday Oct 27, 2007 11:03am
Download | play 
Download | play
Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd has been front and center in the fight to protect civil liberties by putting a hold on the latest FISA legislation which gives immunity to telecom companies for illegally turning over customer data to our government. This morning on Meet The Press Tim Russert, armed with all the Bush talking points, ambushed Dodd and directly accused him of using the FISA issue for purely political purposes.
Dodd held his own, but when read a quote from Sen. Jay Rockefeller disagreeing with his views on FISA, he failed to mention the massive donations Rockefeller has accepted from the telecom industry which just might have something to do with his desire to give them immunity.
Login or Register to post comments.
And I accuse the founding fathers of blatant use of the Constitutional for political purposes! Back in your court Tim.
Yes, of course. Dodd, in actually trying to enforce the rule of law and uphold the Constitution, is playing politics.
It's the "Tim the Tool" show. I am so tired of these idiots ruining my country.
Rendition for all Bush Tools!
Talk talk talk
Duh. Of course it's political. It's anti-fascist, pro-constitution. Can't have the mainstream media approving that sort of thing, can we?
And Tim asked Dodd about meetings he had with hedge fund managers . . . they were legit questions but some folks get love fests and other folks get real questions.
And accusing Dodd of meeting with lobbyists in Washington is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Tim is a major league tool. I think he has a crush on Tom Friedman which is cool . . . just wish they would be honest about their attraction.
But of course those seeking retroactive immunity for Telecoms couldn't possibly be doing that for "political purposes."
Russert is yet another national disgrace among the dancing clowns who call themselves "pundits."
Just because you have a serious hair cut and a serious suit and a serious expression on your face doesn't mean you're not a clown, Russert.
Dodd shoulda' said:"Tim, Don't BUFFALO me on this BILL, because I know you're more interested in the HEISMAN than FISA."
Dodd is completely overrated, as indicated by his poll rating of 0%.
The question is, who are the 0% fools who support him?
rockefeller is of the rockefellers, and i imagine it would be hard to buy him off with 50 grand.
Even Russert has his limits on objectivity.
roooth @ 2:
I thought you were talking about "Home Improvement" for a minute there.
But that was "Tool Time" with "Tim the-tool-man Taylor," right?
This is just "Timmeh-the-Tool" on "Deadeye Dick's Sit-n-Spin Show"
"my only regret is that I have but nine lives to give for my country!"
Oh wait...that's my cat.
"temeh the tool"... know thy enemy... take a look in the mirror you ass hat.
Is ass hat one word?
Accepting millions from corporations to legislate in their favor is acceptable, but accepting 100,000 from people to protect their rights is politics? oh boo hoo my pet corporation is crying because it can't rape even more profit while these sheep cry over being sheered and left in the snow. What's next, an executive order that the Constitution be deemed a recruiting tool of terrorists? "with the internets and peace rallies these domestic teris's are thinking of ways to hurt the bottom line and we'll be ever vigilanties in our war to put these evil doers to rest."
Russert is a potato (head).
This show should be called "Red State Press". Tim Russert is hip deep in trying to keep the right wing lie machine in business. Wrong host for a show that has missed too many "Meetings".
And that old gray wind is blowing and theres nothing left worth knowing
mike @ 9:
Of course the 50 grand means very little to him. But how many of his plutocrat friends hold large chunk of telecom stocks? What does HE own? Never think he represents you and me. He represents actual Americans... the ones who have as much money as him.
Isn't it amazing that Russert actually takes himself seriously, considers himself important?
What the hell has he ever accomplished? Aside from learning to babble while frowning?
I just wasted a lot of breath on another site over this, not realizing that you picked up on it. What a joke for Russert to attack Dodd for 100 thou in contributions (which are from small donations I would imagine) while Clinton has received millions from corporations and special interests which may be a conflict of interest. Russert really put the screws to Dodd. Did he do that to Clinton too, or did he just throw her softballs? I may be an oddball, but constitutional concerns are a priority on the list of issues I am concerned about, and Dodd is the only candidate to date who has addressed them.
Instead of wasting our time ridiculing fools, like coulter and billO, we should spend our effot and attention on stopping the manipulation that is the mainstream press.
Russert, Blitzer, and Mathews in particular, but also the fundamental organization of news at the NY Times, Wash Post, etc. are deliberately and effectively suppressing any perspective other than a just short of extreme right wing view.
I wonder when we get to ask them 'so how's that brave new world you promised us shaking up?'
So what were being fed by the right-wing noise machine is that unless you are running on a "business as usual" ticket - anything you say is politically motivated and has no substance...however no matter what crime the republicans in power commit or who they try to slime it's never politically motivied and has substance? and there are people that eat this shit and ask "please sir, may I have somemore?"
Oh for god's sake. What a ridiculous conversation. What complete jibberish. The quote from Rockefeller was ridiculous. Russert's was ridiculous. Hell, Dodd sounded ridiculous just responding to it.
More and more I seem to have what I call "crazy talk" conversations with ordinary people. All of the basic assumptions and functions of government and society now can't be agreed upon anymore. Laws don't apply to the President, government has no function whatsoever, all taxes are crazy and unneeded, torture is OK if we call it something else.
Seriously, do we really need to argue that when someone asks you to do something clearly illegal you bear the responsibility if you do it?
Apparently we do in America the Stupid. Thanks Timmy!
Yes, finally a Senator holds a bill.
It only takes one Senator.
Where was he on the other unconstitutional bills?
russert
is being used
for political purposes
heh...
getalife @ 24:
They weren't unconstitutional enough for Dudd to make a stand yet!
Dodd ... failed to mention the massive donations Rockefeller has accepted from the telecom industry which just might have something to do with his desire to give them immunity.
He was smart not to mention the donations to Rockefeller. That's what Timmy was expecting, which is why his next question was about Dodd accepting donations from hedge funds. Dodd was able to fend off that criticism without appearing hypocritical.
Hey, Tim, you fucking asshole, are you familiar with ad hominem fallacies? Attacking someone's motives for taking a stand or making an argument is an ad hominem fallacy! It has nothing to do with whether that argument has merit.
Political purposes? Every fucking politician has political motives behind their actions. It doesn't mean they aren't doing the right thing. Tim Russert should be fired, tarred and feathered.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 26:
Dodd's been front and center, actually. Where have you guys been?
Preacher Boob @ 8:
Are you being serious or ironic?
Showing somebody actually thinking does not look good on TV.
RUSSERT IS A TOOL... EMAIL CALL him and tell him so... I"m sick of his phony neutrality
he's a good forum for CHENEY if you recall
Notice that Russert framed the question that the Administration went to these companies after 9/11. In truth it was at least six months prior. What a tool Tim has been for the GOP. When did Meet The Press become a one man presser (kiss ass) instead of a panel? Probably after Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. I wonder if Russert's still wearing his Bush/Cheney button under his lapel.
It seems to me that the immunity can be considered separately from the FISA legislation. Things that should be disclosed is the economic benefits already received by the telecoms for cooperating with the Bush regime.
In particular, was the re-monopolization of the telecoms a quid pro quo for participating in the wiretapping? It will require investigation and hearings, as the Bush regime can hardly be relied upon to tell the truth.
Today on MTP host Tim Russert caught his Republican guests in a number lies after asking the same questions that the Clinton campaign had been voicing lately...
Oh that's right, that would never happen.
That would NEVER happen.
Karen @ 29:
'Are you being serious or ironic?' Yes.
So by definition Russert is now PRO-DICTATORSHIP?
Should have known it all along....Another Cheeeenny dweeb.
I really do not like Tim Russert, who is just a hack in my book.
Ask yourself which is worse: illegally turning over hundreds of thousands of private communications for political gain to an administration which consists mostly of traitors to the United States, or doing the right thing...which just happens to benefit Senator Dodd's campaign?
Russert: just part of the corporate media, which we know now exists solely to gain favor with republican war profiteers and traitors.
Russert: What's your excuse for being part of the problem?
Russert: After September 11th, the government went to many of the private telecom companies in our country, and asked them for information, data. The government said they were legally justified to it. They wanted to see if there was a nexus between some international terrorists and some phone calls made back here to the United States. You have been very outspoken about giving those companies immunity from prosecution, even though they were doing what the government asked them to do.
1. Replace "telecom companies" with "doctors" and "some phone calls" with "your medical records." Still think those companies should just offer up private information?
2. The government asked them to? Shades of the Nuremberg defense? We were only following orders?
when are we going to stop calling PAC contributions and call them what they are...
bribes
Yeah. A hold for political purposes. Deal with it.
Did Timmy ever say this to a Rethuglican?
Preacher Boob @ 35:
'Are you being serious or ironic?' Yes.
You're being both?
Paul is running on the Freedom Act and Dodd is running on restoring the Constitution.
We have come full circle back to king george in this experiment they calll democracy.
Preacher Boob @ 35:
You're being both?
Rockefeller: [We] recognize that private companies who received legal assurances from the highest levels of government should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security. The onus is on the Administration, not the companies, to ensure that the request is on strong legal footing, and if it is not, is is the Administration that should be held accountable.
Translation: The government should simply be trusted, not questioned.
You know, if indeed, governmental deception or duress played a part in the companies' compliance, that should be PART OF THEIR DEFENSE at their trial. It does not mean they should be granted immunity so that no trial takes place.
Why do people even watch this crap anymore. Hell, everybody knows exactly how it is going to go. Dodd should have mentioned that "front runner" Hillary Clinton has recieved more money from the telecoms than anyone else, and that may be the reason that she hasn't said one word about retroactive immunity. Apparently, criminals get a free pass from Hillary as long as they fill her pockets.
There are some dissues about the Immunity deal I have not had the good fortune to discuss. Until now.
1. Why Didn't Congress, When It Passed the Patriot Act, Include Immunity Going Forward?
Viet Dinh was the author of the Patriot Act. He is with Bancroft Associates. His company has been linked with wiki updates to his wiki profile. Viet Dinh, as author of the Patriot Act, should have known what the FISA permissions would entail. Congress overwhelming approved the Patriot Act change. Why didn't Viet Dinh include in the Patriot Act a provision for Immunity which Congress would then rubber stamp immediately after Sept 2001? It appears the real "immunity" would hope to be applied not to events going forward from Sept 2001, but all events -- even those before Sept 2001 -- that have not been disclosed?
2. New Disclosed Evidence: What Did Telecoms Realize Had Been Disclosed And Was Not Protected; and what other illegal activity connected with the original FISA violations has yet to be disclosed??
Once the FISA Immunity is discussed openly, this casts aside any credible claim that the program is a "state secret". Rather, let's consider the lines of evidence which are likely to be known to have been created, and have been disclosed. Putting aside whether tere is or is not immunity, what is the range of the "now disclosed evidence" which the Administration appears incapable of suppressing, hiding, or explaining away? What specific evidence do the telecoms know exist -- outside their control -- that they have not been able to suppress; and what is the plan to review how this evidence -- of FISA violations related to data capture -- does or does not relate to the next step: Use of that illegally captured information for subsequent crimes, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other to-be-understood illegal activity. It makes no sense to "grant immunity" for the original violation, when we have yet to understand the subsequent uses of that illegally captured information for other not-yet-known illegal activity.
3. Presidential Liability For FISA Violations: How will Congressional immunity for telecoms relate to the President's alleged illegal FISA violations?
Once the issue of immunity is discussed, we have to consider Viet Dinh's Patriot Act, the President's direction to "approve" the program outside the FISA Court. Immunity isn't about the narrow issue of telecom immunity, but the larger issue: The President's link with that illegal activity, his unlawful orders, and his direction to violate FISA. Does the Congress -- in granting immunity to the telecoms -- plan to apply this "immunity" to individuals like the President? That is irrelevant: The States have the power to enforce state privacy statutes; even if Congress decides not to impeach or enforce FISA, Congressional immunity -- as it would relate to the President's criminal liability -- is not fully resolved: The States still have the power to enforce the law against the President.
A. Is Congress, in granting immunity to the telecoms, also broadly saying the President is also immunized from FISA violations? One3 cannot be "immunized" -- at the Federal level -- unless there were violations.
B. How does the State-level litigation plan to incorporate the evidence related to "known discussions about immunity after FISA violations occurred in the State-level privacy issues being litigated against the telecoms, NSA, President, and US Government.
Preacher Boob @ 19:
Nada...Zip...Bupkis...Not one fuking thing has PumpkinHaid ever accomplished.
Karen
I have a feeling that is exactly why Bush is pushing so hard for the telecoms immunity. Immunity means no testimony to screw the Bush administration. That is also the very reason to take out the retroactive immunity part of the bill. Rockefeller is a bought and paid for whore the same as Hillary. You know and I know that all of these huge corporations have whole legal departments that should have (and probably did) advise these corporations NOT to betray their customers and illegally spy on them for the government.
QUALAR @ 32:
I think you mean his red, white and blue BushCo. Buttplug with electric vibrator action....don'tcha?
Somethings cheneyed about Rim Tussel, he used to have some notion of WTF was going on, but recently he sounds like an analgam of Tush Bimbo and Ayn L. Colder.
Time for Big Russ to woodshed?
foolme1ns @ 48:
Very possible.
Oh, how I just wish I could argue this every time a client gets arrested. But, Your Honor, my client thought he was doing what he was doing for national security purposes. We shouldn't even have a trial here. He should be immune from prosecution altogether.
Here we have Russert, journalist extraordinaire ( ;) ) parroting the telecom PR line.
Russert's bringing up the position that this is for political reasons, and then the website, is laughable on it's face. No, really? Politics? Unheard of! So that was just stupid.
However. This site has a track record of attacking journalists who ask tough questions of their guests to their faces. To me there is a huge difference between raising an unflattering suggestion and actually letting the person address it, and sitting all by yourself in front of a camera and smugly making accusations that can't be defended. Contributors to this site seem to not draw a distinction.
I think Russert did an admirable job for most of that clip because he actually let Dodd talk, uninterrupted, for quite a long stretch. He didn't talk over him, or shout him down like some do. Yes, the "some have suggested ... political reasons" line was dumb. At least he said it to his face and let him respond. So I give Russert good marks for letting Dodd talk, but poor marks for the idiotic premise that a politician doing something for political reasons is shocking. Russert could have a show 24/7 if he wants to call out every politician who is doing something for political gain.
Rockefeller is wrong, by the way. The onus is not solely on the government. That is absurd. Dodd's point that the telecoms have very high-powered legal departments is a good one. Is Rockefeller really so naive to suggest that if government asks you to do something, then they must have already cleared it's legality ... so just trust them and do it?? That's exactly what the Bush administration would like you to believe ... and the right wing pundits ... that is until there is a democrat in office.
I'd like to see a contributor post an example of a journalist asking adversarial questions of a guest without sounding like they are on the offensive. I'm sure examples exist. But my point is that asking adversarial questions doesn't immediately make you one of the bad guys.
If a journalist asks softball questions, they get called out for having their tongues up the pol's ass (as they should). But as soon as they ask a tough question, they get called out for doing that. Russert didn't go on the attack. He raised a dumbass point. Can you imagine how Bill O'Reilley would have handled the exact same interview? Come on. Give a little credit where it's due, and have at least a little objectivity. This post should not have been about Russert. It should have been about how Dodd continues to artfully defends his position on retroactive immunity.
When Timmeh quoted Dodd's website soliciting contributions based on Dodd's actions, Dodd should have fired back at Timmeh: "Politics, when it's working properly in this country, should be about taking right actions based on important principles and beliefs, and then asking like-minded supporters for their contributions and votes. Political news reporting, when it's working properly, should be about finding at least a shred of evidence of wrongdoing, or impropriety or ill-motivation, and when you find that evidence you ask a politician such as me a tough pointed question to explain himself. You obviously don't have a shred of evidence that I am some Machiavellian politician who took this position in a premeditated way for the purpose of winning contributions and votes. So without that evidence you ask me what becomes an insulting question as to my motivation, and you deliver it with your on screen graphics in your famous "gotcha" style. You should apologize to me Tim, or else explain yourself, and you should do so before asking your next question."
I was waiting for someone to say it, and finally at #32, someone did.
Russert's very FIRST sentence is a lie. "After September 11th, the government went to the many of the private telecom companies in our country, and asked them for ...data" LIE. It was before 9/11 that BushCheney went to the Telecoms.
Fact.
Anyway, its worse than a lie, because clearly the pundit's intent and is broadcast and even fully realized in the framing of his question, and yet he goes on with the question anyway, pretends to be some kind of "news" person, awaiting a verbal confirming grunt from his subject before he continues the sentence, as if to check the faulty premise to see how bad it wobbles before stacking his pound of bullshit atop the mess.
So either Tim Russert is
a) a fool, not even knowing the history and news he is reporting
or
b) he is a tool
or
c) he is a tool AND a fool.
Too many people are getting paid good money nowadays to tell lies, and they aren't even fun or inventive or colorful or stylish lies that add up to exciting and enriching stories. They are lies that serve to cement the crumbling structure of our corrupt system. I hope its clear to people at least WHY Russert and all others reliant upon that system purposefully choose to support it, even though (I think) they know full well we are headed off kilter and into deep danger. What other choice do they really have? If they denounce it, they cut off their own lifeline. And they are, almost to the last of them, too small for that kind of courage.
Curious @ 46:
These are all excellent points ... especially pertaining to setting precedent. Unfortunately, nobody in the media, or the campaigns, gives us enough credit to think we could understand these points. But then I don't blame them, I guess. Americans are pretty dumbed down and don't want to hear that many words. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, America doesn't have time.
Tim Russert is a pumpkinheaded repub water carrier. He can go to hell. Pinochetist suburbanite on the march
foolme1ns @ 48:
Right on.
Thank you for this commentary:
foolme1ns @ 48:
1. What evidence is the President unable to suppress?
I hear you on the "no testimony"-benefit; but what about the open evidence -- related to the telecom involvement -- that is openly floating around? That evidence -- whatever it is -- admissible to court; and even the States can use the information. In my view, even if Congress refuses to review the information, others -- us in the blogosphere -- can still raise the issue, openly discuss it, and mobilize voters. One issue is: Even though the RNC deleted WH e-mails, is there evidence -- outside the e-mails that have been destroyed -- that the GOP, telecoms, GOP, and OVP are unable to suppress, destroy, hide or explain away?
2. What other illegal activity is there connected with the original violations?
Stopping some hearings by granting immunity doesn't make the issue go away; forces the public to openly discuss what might have been settled. Congress' decision to not confront the issue is not the final answer. Just because the DNC -- in this case, Rockefeller -- appears to roll over, that is hardly a final resolution, but demands further inquiry: Despite the open evidence of illegal activity, what other illegal acts -- connected with that first illegal access of data in violation of FISA -- have yet to be understood? Rather than focusing on the narrow issue of "telecom immunity for FISA violations", it's appropriate to explore the larger issues: What other illegal activity-- to be understood -- relied on that illegally captured information; and what other illegal acts -- beyond the original illegal violations/data capture -- have yet to be explored, much less discussed openly.
Karen @ 51:
Do it! Force the courts to rule on the absurdity of the notion. Get it on record.
I am so sick of Russert.
Now he asks of Dodd: "...can you prove it?"
Russert has repeated millions of lines that are lies, I.E. "NOT PROVABLE".
Fool/tool, these are the sweetest of labels for this media guy who has sold his soul. A fat man who is so paper thin.
PurplePatriot @ 56:
Thank you for your feedback. My view: Regardless what the media does or does not do, the media cannot stop the public from openly discussing the very things the media is avoiding, not confronting. As with alleged media-complicity with Iraq-WMD-sham, the public finally found the truth. It doesn't matter what the media "thinks the public can understand," the issue is whether the media will accept: The collective public conscience can outmaneuver the media when the media avoids issues, or pretends the public can be manipulated. The framers assumed the public would figure it out; a complicit media is not binding on the public, but grounds for the public to charge the media with being complicit with illegal activity, unreliable, and warranting other sources of information.
There is no precedent in illegal activity.
Sandra Waszak @ 61:
I agree with you. But at least he does it to his face. Russert can be a tool, and was in this interview. But on his worst day, he is better than the "worst persons in the world" on their best days.
Timmmy Russert: Corporate mouthpiece for hire.
What a piece of shit!
Doesn't get any worse WHORE-WISE than Tim Russert. Bend over America.
[Posting the same comment over and over and over again is called 'spam' and it not allowed here. Use your super human powers to find the commenting policy-Sitemonitor]
PurplePatriot @ 63:
mike @ 9:
Who's to say what kickbacks he's received under the table.
I thought Dodd did a great job in pointing out that those telecoms who complied must have known what they were doing was illegal, as they have top-notch legal departments and did not even wait for a court order, and did so most likely because of the lure of lucrative government contracts if they went along with the illegal program.
Dodd covered all points except one. The one he missed, as others pointed out, was that Rockefeller just received a large sum of money from the telcos, and now he supports the telcos.
But despite missing one extra nail in the coffin (let's hope), Dodd did an excellent job.
Curious @ 62:
20% of us are pretty good at that. The other 80% will join us as soon as American Idol crowns it's new winner ... and they're all caught up with Britney's travails ... oh, wait, there is a murder trial where a guy killed a white girl. We need to get that resolved before we can put our attention somewhere else.
nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez @ 55:
Timmy and his spineless, manipulative colleagues are little more than panderers for ratings, Keith Olbermann and Jack Cafferty being exceptions. Their industry has devolved into little more than a circus freak show where one freak tries to outo the other in being the most outrageous and obscene. Journalistic integrity and the truth--inconvenient obstacles to maximizing shareholder return. They don't have the courage to stand for anything worthwhile. What they excel at is shilling for their self centered masters and their love of the bankrupt status quo.
Rob @ 66:
I can see where you get that perception. But, please. Don't you think you give the conservatives a little too much credit? You want a cult? Mention a Clinton to a conservative. Wait until there is a democrat in the presidency. You'll see a cult that will make Jim Jones' Guyana seem like vacation bible school.
I've seen many posts here where the comments are simple, and the persons writing the posts kind of frame how they want the discussion to go. But I've also participated in many posts were there was quite interesting debate and dialog. I was up until 4:30 last night participating in one.
Otay @ 70:
The cynic in me suspects that Dodd didn't miss it, but intentionally didn't bring it up. We can't remember that, even when the pols are saying something we agree with, they are still part of the good ol' boy network.
Rob @ 66:
Rob, it is sad that you interpret defense of our most precious freedoms as hatred for this country. Speaking for myself, if I truly hated this country I would want to see it continue farther and farther down the Bush-Cheney road until all freedoms were lost, all respect thoughout the world were permanently destroyed, its economy were in shambles and it had the income distribution curve of a sick banana republic. I would be rooting the neo-Cons on, and attacking all the good people who post on this site.
Rob @ 66:
That's your contribution to the discussion -- calling people nuts? Maybe you should stick to the wingnut sites.
Rob @ 66:
Who are you trying to kid pal. If you 'make a good living...' you are in the minority in this nation. As for the difference between this site and the 'conservative' blogs.....Nobody is banning comments favoring Ron Paul's candidacy as they did at RedState. I guess you didn't get the memo: There are almost no 'liberal' writers, 'news' reporters or papers in this country. If there were this blog and others in Free Left Blogistan would not exist.
As for 'Live is too short to be miserable all the time....' Click on this pal. And understand that your government with your acquiescence did that and worse. And further understand that no everyone on this planet is as fat, dumb and unaware as you are.
I find your attitude disgusting and shameful.
Good comments and responses, Sen. Dodd. Russert's suggestion that fund-raising on this issue is somehow politicizing the issue is ridiculous. Every single issue out there is politicized right now, including ones that are unbelievably narrow, such as prayer in public schools and intelligent design. I'm GLAD you're fundraising on an issue as important as this one!
I can't rmember: Did Russert question anyone during the outing of Plame about his conerns over their politicization of a covert CIA operative?
Linda @ 78: