Orin, this at best only vaguely on topic but I'm curious: In the Gonzales perjury thread you shared your view that "based on the public record, the allegations that he committed perjury seem pretty weak". But as JaO commented, making false or misleading statements to Congress can also be a crime under 18 USC 1505 and 1515, even if not perjurious. Do you have any thoughts on the strength or weakness of the (public) case that Gonzales committed this crime?
The general administration objection is apparently one of executive hubris -- refusal to accept the principle that a generalized FISA court order is required to authorize such surveillance.
Yet, according to what we know from press reports in Newsweek, the LA Times and the Washington Post, that was precisely the status before the FISA court ruled a few months ago rejecting such a generalized court order. Prior to that decision, the administration was willing to live with that status quo. I suspect that the court's objection was that it lacked jurisdiction for such an order, which this legislation would provide.
However, the White House seems to have decided to make this a political issue rather than a pragmatic one.
There seem to be some interesting internal administration politics to all this. Spencer Ackerman at TPMm is reporting that:
A key Democrat in the negotiations, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), says that a deal had in fact been reached with [Director of National Intelligence] McConnell, who has been busy lobbying Congress on a FISA update all week. "We had an agreement with DNI McConnell," Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards tells TPMmuckraker, "and then the White House quashed the agreement."
I haven't researched the elements of 1505/1515. Without looking at the cases, it's hard to answer that.
Yet, according to what we know from press reports in Newsweek, the LA Times and the Washington Post, that was precisely the status before the FISA court ruled a few months ago rejecting such a generalized court order. Prior to that decision, the administration was willing to live with that status quo. I suspect that the court's objection was that it lacked jurisdiction for such an order, which this legislation would provide.
However, the White House seems to have decided to make this a political issue rather than a pragmatic one.
There seem to be some interesting internal administration politics to all this. Spencer Ackerman at TPMm is reporting that: