Comments (9)

luneylegume wrote on September 20, 2007 12:09 PM:

Seems doubtful that with the present milieu an egregious mulligan like this would be allowed before the nineteenth whole . Of course depending on what their swallowing while lounging on the unfairway enjoying the nineteenth is what the matter cruxes on .

Dan wrote on September 20, 2007 12:14 PM:

There SHOULD be consequences.

if it was illegal for them to have provided this information, then they should be held accountable for bre4aking the law.

At the same time, this really makes the case for impeachment.

Challenging this provision and requesting public testimony before the house or senate would be the best possible thing democrats could do.

If only they had a strong independent leader. Sadly, Pelosi appears to have been bought and paid for.

drational wrote on September 20, 2007 12:19 PM:

According to Risen at the NY Times, Immunity is a done deal.

Democratic Congressional aides say they believe that a deal is likely to provide protection for the companies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/washington/19nsa.html

Roberta wrote on September 20, 2007 12:35 PM:

"Among those coordinating the industry’s effort are two well-connected capital players who both worked for President George H.W. Bush ..."

Is "capital" a Freudian slip by Newsweek, or a typo by TPMm? Because, yes, we're talking about money, money, money in the Capitol.

"... warning of dire consequences if the lawsuits proceed ..."

They've got to get back--somehow--to changing, stiffening, toughening, and cleaning the rules on "donations" to these guys in Congress so that lobbyists don't have the power to make these kinds of threats.

Their clout completely undermines any punitive power the Congress has over the telecoms (and other big players) and certainly does the American people no good.

SPENCER wrote on September 20, 2007 1:51 PM:

And Bush gave these companies the right to keep their accounting rules secret, if they're doing work for the intel community.

Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules
MAY 23, 2006
by Dawn Kopecki
BUSINESSWEEK.COM

Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.

The timing of Bush's move is intriguing. On the same day the President signed the memo, Porter Goss resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency amid criticism of ineffectiveness and poor morale at the agency. Only six days later, on May 11, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had obtained millions of calling records of ordinary citizens provided by three major U.S. phone companies. Negroponte oversees both the CIA and NSA in his role as the administration's top intelligence official.

FEW ANSWERS. White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said the timing of the May 5 Presidential memo had no significance. "There was nothing specific that prompted this memo," Perino said.

In addition to refusing to explain why Bush decided to delegate this authority to Negroponte, the White House declined to say whether Bush or any other President has ever exercised the authority and allowed a company to avoid standard securities disclosure and accounting requirements. The White House wouldn't comment on whether Negroponte has granted such a waiver, and BusinessWeek so far hasn't identified any companies affected by the provision. Negroponte's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Securities-law experts said they were unfamiliar with the May 5 memo and the underlying Presidential authority at issue. John C. Coffee, a securities-law professor at Columbia University, speculated that defense contractors might want to use such an exemption to mask secret assignments for the Pentagon or CIA. "What you might hide is investments: You've spent umpteen million dollars that comes out of your working capital to build a plant in Iraq," which the government wants to keep secret. "That's the kind of scenario that would be plausible," Coffee said.

AUTHORITY GRANTED. William McLucas, the Securities & Exchange Commission's former enforcement chief, suggested that the ability to conceal financial information in the name of national security could lead some companies "to play fast and loose with their numbers." McLucas, a partner at the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr in Washington, added: "It could be that you have a bunch of books and records out there that no one knows about."

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

Mark Richards wrote on September 20, 2007 2:47 PM:

Congress will most certainly give this little bonus to AT&T and all the others.

In the future, should we still have a judiciary, some court ought to rule on the constitutionality of giving immunity to an individual or a corporation that knowingly violates the law.

Regardless, the telecommunications corporations have Americans by the balls. We can't put them out of business as protest for their crimes because they are a government-protected monopoly.

What The? wrote on September 20, 2007 6:19 PM:

And here we thought the Dems gave a damn about civil liberties.

They can't burn the Constitution fast enough. Quick, deliver them some more lighter fluid.

pointus wrote on September 20, 2007 11:39 PM:

Jesus, the news just gets worse and worse. Congress is selling the population into slavery and tyranny, and most of us are fattening ourselves (like lambs to the slaughter) in front of the TV set, voting for the next American idol or watching amusedly as COPS break down doors of inner city black people.
Is there a country anywhere on this earth with progressive government & an engaged citizenry, where greed & apathy aren't the prevailing social values?

Aerows wrote on September 21, 2007 10:23 AM:

How long before they also control the internet? Once they are immune when committing one violation of privacy, there will be others.

The sad thing is that there *are* plenty of people complaining to their Congressman. I've personally written emails to all of mine, the Speaker of the House, and other officials, but none of them listen.

We have got to make people accountable, that is our problem. No one is accountable for any of the crimes they commit anymore.