The Young Turks

Cenk Uygur: Senator Feingold, welcome to The Young Turks.

Senator Russ Feingold: How are ya?

Cenk Uygur: I'm good, except for Telecom Immunity. How are you?

Senator Russ Feingold: Pretty much that and the rest of the bill, which stinks too.

Cenk Uygur: That's true too. All right, so, let's talk about this new FISA bill coming up. Some are calling it a compromise. You're calling it a capitulation. Why do you think it's a capitulation, and what is so fundamentally wrong about this telecom immunity.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well the idea that this is somehow a compromise, where we got a few things and they got a few things is just false. Senator Kit Bond is one of our worst opponents on this, is basically doing a jig. He's so happy, bragging that the White House is shocked at how it got everything it wanted, basically. There's two huge problems. One is the one you mentioned. This retroactive immunity for telephone companies, whether or not they followed the law in giving out this private information to the government. That is a terrible precedent in terms of the rule of law, and one that's generated a lot of attention. We got like a thousand calls in the last couple of days in my office against this deal. The other piece that I think is even more important, that you hear less about, is the way in which this is going to allow the government to basically suck up all international communications between Americans and anybody overseas, even Americans overseas, in a giant data bank if they want. And this is an amazing intrusion into the freedom of the American people. There's no court review of it. There's no requirement showing that there's anybody doing anything wrong. So these two things together make for just an awful piece of legislation that nobody should be voting for, especially a Democrat.

Ben Mankiewicz: Ok. Two things Senator Feingold. One, what private information when you say "suck up all this private information." What private information are we talking about?

Senator Russ Feingold: Anytime you email anybody overseas, or receive an email, anytime you text message anybody, anytime you make a phone call, you name it...just a normal kind of transaction between parent and child, a parent and a soldier, business associates, relatives...

Ben Mankiewicz: I like couching things in terms of what people in general may not understand, when it's really I who doesn't understand. So I think people might be confused. When you say there's no court review, and it's all put into a data bank, what does it really mean, "put into a data bank?" Is the actual email put into a data bank? Is a recording of the call put into a data bank where people listen to the call?

Senator Russ Feingold: Well, I can't really go into that much detail. All I can say is that it's a vast power that has no limits as far as I can tell. And there's no regulation of it. Where not just talking here about the fact that somebody made a call. We're talking here about the content as well.

Cenk Uygur: Ok, that's the important part. The content is actually in there, not just that you made an overseas call. But that's what you said in the call.

Senator Russ Feingold: That's right. No. It's not just tracing the number of calls, it's content.

Cenk Uygur: Alright, now Senator Feingold, on the retroactive immunity, it seems to me and correct me if I'm wrong, that you guys don't know what you're giving immunity for. So...

Senator Russ Feingold: Some of us do, but that's only about 30 of us. Seventy senators don't know because they haven't been or had the opportunity to be read in as they say to the illegal wireless wiretapping program....wiretapping program. I have. I'm on the intelligence committee, and also the judiciary committee. But most senators don't know exactly what it is.

Cenk Uygur: So that's my question. I mean, do you guys...you're on the intelligence committee, so do you guys know who they wiretap? Because if you don't know who wiretapped, isn't it possible that they wiretapped you, for example?

Senator Russ Feingold: Well I can't say I've seen a list, but I known basically how they go about doing it, and I know what's potentially subject to being obtained, and, I mean, it's perfectly possible, but I can't say for sure.

Cenk Ugyur: That's interesting. Alright, so let's get to the specifics of what's going to happen in the Senate, Senator Feingold, which is, you have promised to do a filibuster of this bill. How is the logistics of that going to work out? Does that come up first, and do you think you're going to be able to muster out 40 senators on your side to be able to do it? Forty one senators? Can you tell us the latest on that?

Senator Russ Feingold: Sure. Well I'm not optimistic that we're going to have 41 people stand tall on this, because I'm very concerned about the number of Democrats approaching this. But we've already started the process of what people normally call a filibuster. I mean, normally bills are just allowed to come up. We said, "No. We're going to make you wait two days, and you have to actually win a motion to proceed to the bill. Sixty votes, which happens today." So they first have to do that. Then we're going to talk about the bill for a while. A number of people wanted us to just allow it to go through with a couple of hours of debate. We said no. Senator Dodd and I have both spoken at length, and we both want to talk some more. There are also a number of people that want to offer amendments. And they said, "No, let's block that." We said no to that. They also asked if we could just let the bill have a final vote, and we said, "No. You're going to have a cloture petition. You're going to have to get 60 votes to have the final vote and cut off amendments." So we're going to demand that as well. So basically, what we're talking about is making sure they don't jam it through today or first thing tomorrow, but there will be a few days. The truth is, they would be able to stop this filibuster with 60 votes by the end of the week in any event. But we believe this is important enough to make them go through that process. That is the nature of the filibuster.

Cenk Uygur: So, I want to be clear on this, because this is very important. So there's two 60-vote barriers that they have to get through. One is the motion to proceed today, and then at a later time this week, there's going to be another 60-vote barrier that they need to get...

Senator Russ Feingold: To cut off amendments and cut off debate, and then be able to move into the final period where the final vote would be taken.

Cenk Uygur: So, in that second vote, if there's going to be a prolonged filibuster type of a activity, that's where we would have it?

Senator Russ Feingold: Well, at post cloture. Post motion to proceed cloture, there's a certain amount of time before you actually go to cloture. And, you see, at that point, if they get cloture, then there's a time limit. There is no...if they get cloture, that takes away your ability to have unlimited debate. That's the whole purpose of cloture. So if 60 votes, that means they've stopped the filibuster.

Cenk Uygur: So, Senator, how close do you think you are. How many senators do you think are...

Senator Russ Feingold: Not close enough. I'm sorry to report.

Ben Mankiewicz: If there were...what I was getting at there, or what I was about to ask is, if there were a movement in the leadership of the Senate to do this, could it be done? Or is it...

Senator Russ Feingold: Well, I think that would help. It would have helped if the Speaker not come down in favor of this thing. In fact, the majority leader has said that, of the Senate, he's going to vote against the bill. So that helps. But, you know, there's still a whole bunch of people that might be a little surprising that, who have been with us all the way, who are saying, "Well now it's time to do this because it's a compromise. It's at least an improvement." That's not true. It's absolute window dressing.

Ben Mankiewicz: Who would surprise us?

Senator Russ Feingold: I'm not going to get into that. I'm hoping they'll do the right thing. But I have my fears.

Cenk Uygur: I want to ask a specific question about the majority leader. He said he's going to vote against the bill. That's easy enough. But the real question is, how is he going to vote on cloture? And do you know the answer to that?

Senator Russ Feingold: I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry.

Cenk Uygur: Oh ok. Because isn't that really a political cover to say, "Oh what could we do? We put up the bill and I voted against it but I lost?"

Senator Russ Feingold: I would say really opposing this legislation involved voting against motion to proceed, voting against cloture, and voting against the bill. Anything less is helping the bill pass.

Ben Mankiewicz: Alright, well, Senator Feingold, without naming names, and I understand you don't want to single out any of your colleagues, what is the overall reasoning, do you think, what is going on with some of these Democrats who might surprise us? I mean, they're not stupid. Well...not all of them anyway. Why are they buying into a notion of a compromise when there really is no giving on the other side?

Senator Russ Feingold: It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible.

Cenk Uygur: It is incredible. So, I mean, it leads to the question that everybody's been asking. You know, whether it's our viewers, the readers of the blogs, etc. the actual bloggers, everybody that's paying attention is asking: Why are the Democrats doing it? You know, I got three possibilities. One is caving. They think, "Hey if we give into Bush, we're going to win more elections, and we don't really care about the policy, and the fourth amendment in the constitution are an interesting side note, but I want to win more elections." Number two is, they're scared of their own shadow and they didn't get the memo that the Republicans are grossly unpopular throughout the country, and that President Bush is the most unpopular President in the history of the United States. But if they didn't get that memo, you got to question a couple of different things about their judgment. The third theory out there is that they're complacent that people like Rockefeller signed off on some of these abuses and they get money from the lobbyists. So they don't really want to rock the boat.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well my honest belief is that it's the first two. I don't really see it as having to do with political contributions. I don't see it that they really want to cooperate with this stuff. I see it more as the first two things you said. Having to do with political fear, and, you know, calculations about elections to be honest with you. There are many areas that I think are grossly effected by money. I think it is less true of this, and it has more to do with political fear.

Ben Mankiewicz: Let me ask you this Senator. I know you don't have much time left. Do you, in making what I take it to be an impassioned plea to your colleagues, do they get that as long as they continue to do this, we're always going to have to do this? I mean, at what point do we stop saying, "Oh, the Republicans are stronger on national security, do what they say," then that's going to go on for 80 years. At some point, we have to sort of change the nature of the conversation so that people think, "Hey, you know what, those Democrats, they can also be strong on national security."

Senator Russ Feingold: Well, in their defense, and I'm not super inclined to be in their defense today, I would what they would tell you is that we're going to have a new President, he's going to be a Democrat, he's somebody who's sensitive on their issues, and we won't have all this crap coming at us from the Administration. That, I think is what they're thinking. You know, it's not irrational. I think it's wrong. I think it's much harder to change something like this once it's in place. We should hold it up, have a sunset for a few months, and let President Obama do the right thing on it. But I think that might be what they tell you.

Cenk Uugur: Senator Feingold, finally, how do we make this change happen? Because right now, Democrats are in this...I don't know if you want to call it a prisoners mentality, a Washington bubble... that they are so deathly afraid that the Republicans are right about everything, and it seems to be in mass. Obviously Senator Dodd, yourself, Senator Kerry, have led on some issues. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama claim to be leaders. I haven't seen them lead on anything in a fight against Bush. But how do we change that mentality? And do you have hope that we're going to be able to change it in the short-term or the mid-term?

Senator Russ Feingold: Well, I'm hoping that we have a very good election result in the House and the Senate, and elect President Obama. And then I think the excuses will all be over. I think that people will realize either we're going to be Democrats or we're not. So I am hopeful that people will no longer be intimidated. But I worry a great deal. Because I thought that was the message of the 2006 election and the performance when it comes to the areas of Iraq, and civil liberties in the constitution have not been good, and I really do regret it.

Cenk Uygur: Senator Russ Feingold, to be quite honest, the one guy we actually trust in the Senate.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well, you're very kind and I enjoyed being on the show. Thank you.

Cenk Uygur: Alright. Thanks so much for being on The Young Turks.