Reading [an article by The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/29/ndaa-danger-american-liberty), I stumbled upon a sentence which I cannot make sense of:

> 
> Yes, the worst things you may have heard about the National Defense
>  Authorization Act, which has formally ended 254 years of democracy in
>  the United States of America, and driven a stake through the heart of
>  the bill of rights, are all really true. The act passed with large
>  margins in both the House and the Senate on the last day of last year
>  – even as tens of thousands of Americans were frantically begging
>  their representatives to secure Americans' habeas corpus rights in the
>  final version.
> 
> 
> **It does indeed – contrary to the many flatout-false form letters I
>  have seen that both senators and representatives sent to their
>  constituents, misleading them about the fact that the NDAA destroys
>  their due process rights.** Under the act, anyone can be described as a
>  'belligerent". As the New American website puts it,
>  ...
> 
> 
> 

I understand the meaning of the sentence. I just can't make sense of the grammar. It does indeed what? It does indeed misleading them? Or does "It does indeed" refer to a previous sentence, as in

> 
> I think it violates my rights. It does indeed - contrary to the fact that many lawyers might tell me otherwise. 
> 
> 
> 

I posted the previous paragraph so that you can see that this isn't the case either.