A "conservative" is not generally a "moderate"....whereas a Republican can be.....

that just about sums it up

Sigh ... too easy new rule. The immunity for telecoms bill recently narrowly defeated, in a vote largely along party lines, conveniently hits all three you asked for.

 I really didn't expect you to understand this NR ... If a corperation is sued or found guilty of breaking laws of privacey or constitutional protections out of what column would the award or fine be paid??
 Clearly this legislation was designed to protect their money.

 Some lovely misdirection and strawman argument there Mr. New Rule.
  Well what would the legislation make them immune to, if not monetary suit awards or fines? Does that not protect their profit while giving them permission to disregard  the law? It certainly wouldn't give them immunity to negative public opinion as they play ball with big brother in defying the constitution. The dots connect themselves as the constitution is pushed aside and corperate money is protected simultaneously.  Any time a select group is given immunity to the constitutional restrictions all others are subject to, EVERY Americans rights are violated. This is a matter of principals, there is no need to cite examples. Frankly the American people have about had it with this " you must give up your rights and freedoms to be safe" crap.

 You should ask those who proposed the immunity legislation that question neue. Judging by how pissed off junior was there was a lot on the line. They had to have something in mind when this very unusual immunity legislation was put before congress. The very worst part about this is, the top secret, covert nature of the operations. Who knows what this administration could, or would or have already done with private communications intercepted without the knowledge of either party. They have already demonstrated how they will use any power they have for partisan political advantage without restraint or conscience. The proposed immunity was to be retroactive so one can only surmise that some pretty nasty things have already been done, and they want to cover the ass of their conspiratorial sources.

 That is the point we don't know. But deductive reasoning and the retroactive nature of the legislation would tell, even the slowest among us, that violations have been committed.
 What we DO know is that junior wants to make exceptions to the law and the constitution to protect huge corporations from something they have done. Even though they haven't been caught yet. The evidence that laws have been broken lies in the desire to make the immunity retroactive.
 The indictment of wrongdoing lies in the defense!
 The  precedent of their willingness to subvert the constitution to gain partisan political advantage I refer to is, the AG firings and the attempt to change the requirement of congressional approval of replacements as was hidden into the patriot act.
 Observation of the facts reveals a pattern of contempt for the constitution by this administration, and a desire to subvert its intentions by underhanded means.

 What I'm saying is, they definitely need to be investigated and the constitution needs to be upheld. The whole point of retroactive immunity is so no investigation will go forward. Who is going to investigate if immunity has been granted?