Feinstein: Blowjob worse than violating rights of millions: 1999, censure for Clinton. 2007, retroactive immunity for telcos

Fresh from subjecting the body politic to cruel and unusual punishment by inflicting pro-torture Judge Mukasey on us at Justice, DiFi wrestles the Constitution to the ground and gratuitously kicks the carcass by attempting to destroy the rule of law entirely.

Yes--and I know this will surprise you--DiFi's supporting retroactive immunity for the telcos.

With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?

San Francisco Chronicle:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that she favors legal immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly shared millions of customers' telephone and e-mail messages and records with the government, a position that could lead to the dismissal of numerous lawsuits pending in San Francisco.

How much did the telcos leave on the dresser, DiFi?

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

Which is a lie, pure and simple. Of course, DiFi's channeling Fred Hiatt with the "costly litigation" meme, so that goes without saying. The telcos, under FISA, have an independent duty to obey the law, regardless of what Bush might or might not assert (and we still don't know the basis for his claims.) And while we're talking about "costly litigation," how about the $0 million the Republicans gave Ken Starr?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if our Diane showed the same maternal solicitude for the millions of American citizens whose rights were destroyed?

And of course, DiFi would be the swing vote on the SJC:

Feinstein, D-Calif., plays a pivotal role on the Judiciary Committee, which has a 10-9 Democratic majority. If she joins committee Republicans [and Upchuck?] in voting next Thursday to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for their roles in the surveillance program, the proposal - a top priority of President Bush - will become part of legislation that reaches the Senate floor

It's a top priority for Bush, no doubt, because once the Democrats help him take away a citizen's right to sue the telcos, he can bottle up any suits against the government by asserting a "state secrets" privilege.

Er, do I have to explain again why granting big corporations immunity for past lawbreaking, just because they say the President gave them the thumbs up, in secret, would be a really bad idea?

Now, back in 1999, DiFi introduced a resolution to censure President Clinton:

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate employee in the White House, which was shameful, reckless and indefensible;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people, and people in all branches of the United States government;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, president of the United States, gave false or misleading testimony and his actions have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence in judicial
proceedings;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's conduct in this matter is unacceptable for a president of the United States, does demean the office of the president as well as the president himself, and creates disrespect for laws of the land;

Whereas President Clinton fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior;

Whereas future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect;

Whereas William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal actions in a court of law like any other citizen;

When Clinton gets a blowjob, Diane gets very concerned about the rule of law. But when billion dollar telcos break the law, destroy the rights of millions of Americans, and then demand retroactive immunity? Not so much.

Oh, and the cream of the jest is that DiFi introduced this resolution after Clinton had already been acquitted. Honestly.

Our DiFi: What a silly bunt.

NOTE DiFi Iconoclast at Big Orange. Censure via Busy, busy, busy.

UPDATE Maybe DiFi's getting a cut? Via the incomparably clad Avedon.

UPDATE It's borne in upon me that some trollish wingers--sorry for the redundancy--are asking teh very Serious question: "But what about the perjury"?

Gawd knows I don't want to relitigate the 90s, or how the extremely legitimate Bush regime was finally able to seize power--I guess I'd assumed that the wingers were finally, in their hearts, if any, just a little ashamed of the lack of civility they exhibited during their vendetta--but here's why I don't give a flying fuck about the putative perjury by The Clenis :

0. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate. You guys lost.

1. Stipulate it's all true. Which is more important? Perjury about a blowjob, or violating the rights of millions?

2. Presumably the wingers who support giving retroactive immunity to the telcos for their illegal acts, will also support giving retroactive immunity to Clinton for his putative perjury? IIRC, Clinton lost his law license over it, so the wingers could make at least care enough to fake it by making a gesture toward intellectual integrity and supporting the idea of wiping his record clean. Fair's fair.

I could go into detail on the Clinton years... But then I'd be succumbing to trollish distraction.

Shouldn't the focus be on restoring Constitutional government? Why on earth would they try to distract us from that? Oh, wait....