How much I am not sure. But it changed enough so many more people voted for it this time.
Does that make him a liar?
I don't know what his objections were the first time. He clearly did not like the immunity provisions either time. But personally, I think the civil immunity is overplayed. I am a civil lawyer and what we are concerned with is obtaining monetary damages. That is how we get paid, especially if the case is taken on contingency. I don't know how much money one can expect a jury to award for being wiretapped. What is the financial harm? Did you lose a job? Did you lose any income? Did you incur any medical expense? And the rule on punitive damages is clear -- no actual damages, no punitive ones either. Been there done that with an inmate once.
The fact that Lehey and other senators wanted the private lawyers to finance these cases and get information from the government and get the government on record rather than have government lawyers do it at government expense did not sit well with me. He really didn't seem to care if the telecoms were found liable and had to pay the spied upon people. He just wanted information. Kinda pissed me off. He's got subpoena power. If he wants to know something, let him subpoena the person. Of course these guys are too damn spineless to hold someone in contempt if the person refuses to come testify or refuses to answer.
Just my .02$.
