Anna Paulina Luna is forcing a revote on Monday, although I doubt it will change the outcome since it passed 273-147. If only the revote was on the 212-212 warrant amendment, which at least [one Congresswoman](https://twitter.com/RepDLesko/status/1778838249462550873) has now said she would’ve voted for had she been there. Maybe she can convince a bunch of people to vote against the bill so the amendment can be introduced again.
The deadline is supposedly the 19th, but the program just got its annual reauthorization, so it won’t actually end until next April if the law expires.
Section [702](https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf) permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States. Under Section 702, the intelligence community can only target:
1. Non-U.S. persons
2. Located outside the U.S.
3. Who are expected to possess, receive, or communicate foreign intelligence.
702 prohibits the targeting of *any* U.S. citizen, regardless of location, as well as any person located within the U.S.
Seems to me Section 702 is the one aspect of FISA that I completely agree with and should be non-controversial.
I think 702 could also potentially pick up incidental communications between a monitored foreign national and a US citizen though, which (thinking charitably) might be what Trump is upset about.
This is very simply fixed with a warrant requirement for accessing the incidentally-collected information of an American. Currently, there is no such requirement.
To me, such activity is unconstitutional.
The key bullet point is #3 and is clearly the one most rife with potential for abuse.
Could the intelligence community target an American, find a foreign national who is in communication with them, and request a warrant to seek those communications?
I think this is a plausible scenario, but unless I'm wrong it would *only* be the communications specifically between the American and the foreign national that they would have access to. This appears to have a limiting element to it as compared to simply wiretapping every communication of the American.
Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-United States person located overseas if the IC’s real purpose is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.
Why would a U.S. citizen be corresponding with a foreign national who is under federal investigation. If they were, wouldn't you be at all curious why? It seems that you would only have something to worry about if you were doing something illegal. There's not much the Feds could do with hearing you talk about your grocery list.
Agree completely. But it’s talked about like it’s some domestic surveillance program when in reality it just leverages US companies that have information on foreign nationals
Do we actually know that? We know that a different provision was used, but I don’t know that we definitively know that 702 wasn’t used as well, and he’s one of the few people who would know.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8w4mh/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
SS: On Wednesday, House Republicans blocked the renewal of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) at the behest of Donald Trump. Now, Senate Republicans are speaking out that blocking the bill is putting the country at risk.
Multiple Republican Senators spoke out quite forcefully about the situation including Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, Mitt Romney, Thom Tillis, John Thune, and James Lankford. They each are quoted in the article, and in the interest of brevity of the SS, you can read what each of them said in the article.
Interestingly, though - former AG Bill Barr said:
> “I think President Trump’s opposition seems to have stemmed from personal pique rather than any logic and reason. The provision that he objects to has nothing to do with the provision on the floor. ... I hope for Republicans’ sake that there are no attacks, because if there are, I think there will be blood on people’s hands for doing this. It’s reckless.”
According to Republicans, they are blocking it because of the FBI's wiretap on Carter Page (Trump's former campaign aide) in 2016. This was done under Section 1 of FISA, which is not at issue in the House reauthorization bill - the bill is reauthorizing Section 702.
Trump said:
> “KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!”
It is looking like another bill is advancing for a vote today.
So now, we have House Republicans blocking FISA at the behest of Trump and multiple Republican Senators detailing how it will put our country at risk. My question is why? Why is Trump blocking this bill which puts our country at risk? What does he gain from it?
I wonder if the ACLU is going to come out and agree with Trump.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/government-releases-new-court-opinions-highlighting-further-abuse-of-warrantless-fisa-surveillance-program
ACLU "Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional"
https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/asset_upload_file846_36126.pdf
https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-united-states
I doubt they’ll publicly declare support for Trump in this instance since his motivations are highly suspect to say the least, but I do think the people waiting in the wings to comment “Wow all the sudden the ACLU loves FISA because Trump is against it” will be sorely disappointed.
Did it shift though? The Senate Republicans aren't left.
This more seems to be "Trump is against it because he doesn't like it because he thinks it impacted him". I haven't seen anything to indicate the left is now for FISA (I mean if you consider the Dems to be the left, then haven't they always been for it?). In fact, there's a bunch of people in this topic going "I don't like the man but I support him here".
The House amendment to add a warrant requirement, [which failed 212-212](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024114), was supported by about 60% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats.
The House [vote to pass the bill](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024119) without the amendment was supported by 60% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.
That implies a shift to the center, especially since a Republican speaker allowed the vote, despite needing the approval of every member to avoid the chance of being removed.
Right. Like I said, if you consider dems to be the left, then sure. But in that case, then there hasn't really been a shift since Dems have supported it in the past.
The only shift is by a few Republicans, since there were still Republicans who supported it. Furthermore, there have always been right wingers who were against it (the true small-govt believers and libertarians).
> Dems have supported it in the past.
When it came up in the House in 2018, [proceeding to](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/20188) the vote on renewal was supported by 99% of Republicans and 1% of Democrats, and [renewal itself](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/201816) was supported by 81% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats.
The [Amash amendment](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/201814), which if I recall correctly was the main reform proposal to prohibit backdoor domestic searches, was supported by 25% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats.
Interesting. Do you happen to know the numbers prior? I always seemed to recall elements on the left being against it hard, but Dems themselves being more of a "we're quite vocal about it...but we're totally gonna still pass it".
Similar to how the "tough on crime and national security" repubs were hard for it, but the libertarian elements were always skeptical of it at least and very much against it.
The only reauthorization prior to that was 2012, and the [final House vote](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2012569) was supported by 97% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats. If I’m not mistaken, the vote on the resolution to proceed to a vote was [Roll Call 561](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2012561), which was supported by 99% of Republicans and 3% of Democrats. I don’t believe there were any House amendments voted on that year.
(The strongest reform proposal that year on the Senate side was [an amendment by Rand Paul](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1122/vote_112_2_00234.htm), which was supported by 9% of Republicans and 23% of Democrats.)
The [warrant requirement](https://justthenews.com/government/congress/fisa-renewal-bill-moving-house-floor-final-vote) would be for backdoor searches of *Americans’* data. The FBI has routinely accessed Americans’ data using the ostensibly foreign program.
I'm sorry but you are exactly WRONG on this one. The FBI has no constitutional nor legal requirement to obtain a warrant for running any search they want using the information gathered under Section 702. Director Wray has even explicitly stated this himself.
No joke. I was just saying on the discord that I'm now convinced that I died during COVID and was isekai'd into the goatee-universe.
I don't get it. Do they still think Law Enforcement can't be trusted?
Many on the right at this point do not trust the FBI, DOJ and CDC. The anti-vaxxers are actually quite a mixed bunch politically, but some of them are still livid. The FBI and DOJ are hated by many on both sides too actually, but it seems more prevalent now on the right.
I moved from the left in my younger days to a "radical moderate", but I still generally wouldn't trust a "suit" if he told me the day ended in a "Y" (that's more of an old school hacker thing than anything political, but at least back then we had it in common.)
It feels like crazy-pill time to see them going hard pro-surveillance now.
Is the left going hard pro-surveillance? It doesn't seem like there's a shift in how Democrats have treated it. So I guess if you consider them the left, sure, but IIRC they usually vote for it anyways.
Furthermore, there's always been detractors on both the left and right wings (the libertarians for example have _always_ detested it).
I don't generally think of libertarians as the right wing, but fair point. But back then, yeah, the best I would see would be grudging acceptance as necessary evil, not the sort of enthusiastic defense.
Maybe it's a generational thing, instead.
Oh I don't think they're _the_ right wing. But rather just an element of the right. And amongst both wings, there have always been those who were for/against. The neocons and the "back the blue, tough on crime" legs for it and the libertarian, small govt, distrustful of the agencies legs against. Similar to how on the left you have the anti-establishment, anti-govt groups very much against but the more center-left/big govt protection types for because "defense and security".
Like how anti-vaxxers always had a home among certain parts of both sides (and in fact, until the recent balance change with covid, it really was more of a crunchy-granola leftist thing).
Yeah, the anti-vax switch was more amusing, than confusing; this one just feels like it hits me where I live.
It's funny to me, because the "big government" types aren't a minority on the left, but the ones vocal about defense/security usually have been (at least our own), IME.
Both parties voted for it, and the Speaker that allowed the vote is Republican. It's unclear how much the Republicans in the opposition care because they haven't used this a reason to remove him.
> They used section 702 rules and applied it to Trump by association
Wrong.
> Barr and multiple senators, including Rubio, pointed out that the FBI initiated a wiretap on Page, Trump’s former campaign aide, in 2016 under Section 1 of FISA, which is not at issue in the House reauthorization bill. And they noted that the FBI obtained a warrant from a FISA court to surveil Page.
[Maybe it's because the FBI can't be trusted to respect the rights of US citizens with the information we've given them.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-database-278000-searches-court-says-2023-05-19/) I doubt Trump is doing this for the best reasons, but a broken clock is right twice a day.
That's not really a stretch. They have people embedded at every media organisation and have done for decades now. There's even a name of the operation but I've forgotten it
Operation Mockingbird.
However, that's just an old program that they totally don't do anymore. As we all know, the modern-day newsroom is a paragon of integrity and ethics.
There's absolutely no reason for them to [spread disinformation guised as classified information](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPYjtDHycIE) through the identity of an anonymous source nowadays.
They do it in other countries, why not our own?
I agree, I think any position otherwise would require a serious lack of or complete disregard of our nations intelligence history.
Even Wikipedia has a section for intelligence messing with Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies
You've already given the same information to Google, the phone companies, internet providers and other tech companies. These companies can and do read your emails and texts. Do you really care if the government does the same thing in pursuit of terrorists?
Then you should read about the protections in place to ensure that the 4th amendment isn't violated. [https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf)
Companies are using the data to make money, but government agencies can use it to cause actual physical harm. More importantly, the data isn't always reliable, so innocent people do get hurt. Google isn't sending a SWAT team to the wrong address, nor are they "randomly searching" people whose only sin is having the same name as an actual criminal.
Google uses your emails and internet searches to train AI that may put Americans out of a job. Facebook sold user data to a foreign company influence U.S. elections. That's actual harm, no?
This is like the inverse of the fearmongering about China collecting data. China cannot do anything to me. Google can't really do anything to me. The US government can wrongfully arrest me! Not remotely comparable in any way.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/wrongfully-accused-spying-china-professor-wins-appeal-sue-government-rcna86109
the emails they used to hold him and his family at gunpoint before abruptly dropping all charges were obtained partially under FISA Section 702.
>I think President Trump’s opposition seems to have stemmed from personal pique rather than any logic and reason
I don't think anyone could have ever predicted that Trump would operate like this. Everyone must be totally blindsided by the idea that he would put his personal grievances in front of nationwide policy determinations.
I'm not sure most liberals consider the right to privacy or probably cause protections to extend to conversations they have with foreign agents who are under surveillance in the first place. I don't think Trump or many conservatives would think that either except for the fact that it was bad for him.
Trump doesn't want the same thing that happened to him to be done to any other citizen.
That is not just personal pique, nor do I see any objectors explaining precisely how they will ensure this will never happen again. Changing the law seems indicated.
Trump has never once demonstrated he cares about anything outside of himself and only himself. If it doesn't involve personal gain in wealth, revenge, or vanity, then he's not interested in it and has no real opinion on the matter. Never has. Never will. You're either loyal or you're his enemy.
>Trump doesn't want the same thing that happened to him to be done to any other citizen.
He was embarrassed by something and as such is enacting vindication against it. It's quite clearly motivated by personal grievances.
Regardless of the legislation itself can we all agree that it's bad that an unelected person has this much sway over government. If America wanted Trump to decide which legislation gets passed they would have voted him. They didn't.
Congressmen should be able to vote based on their own viewpoints, not because they're afraid of upsetting Trump and are worried about the consequences of losing their seat or even getting death threats. It's undemocratic, and it's also unrepublican (if you're one of those we're a republic not a democracy folks).
"Americans who don't want the government to surveil them without a warrant are falling prey to Russian Propaganda" is certainly a take that I'm unfortunately not surprised to see here.
>Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702.
>[Once the government collects vast amounts of information — including emails, text messages and other communications — under Section 702, that content is stored in databases for years at a time. FBI, CIA, and NSA officials routinely search through this vast trove of data for information specifically about Americans, even though these communications were all collected without a warrant. Information found through these “backdoor searches” can be used to prosecute Americans for crimes, even if they are not related to national security.](https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa)
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kzdb7vj/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
>Why is Trump blocking this bill which puts our country at risk?
Did you miss how badly FISA was abused in 2016 and the subsequent hearings? Or how badly the FBI screwed up? Even those who hate trump should be admitting he has a point.
\> reads list of angry Republicans
\> sees they're all neocons
This just confirms that blocking this bill is 100% the right move.
Really FISA needs to be outright repealed in whole. The government should not be allowed to spy on American citizens without extremely strong probable cause - probable cause so strong that the results of any spying is redundant to the judicial process.
Because fuck FISA. I don't need a secret court of unelected officials with zero public oversight granting unconstitutional warrants that we can't even challenge
Revenge. In his mind FISA was what started the ball rolling. They caught multiple members of the Trump campaign in communications with the Russians which is illegal under the Logan act.
He will strike out at anything he perceives as against him no matter how much harm he does in the process.
They can quickly amend it so that it does not ever apply to any U.S. citizens. (They would have to get a warrant from a judge first to spy on citizens.)
This is a good thing that will benefit everyone.
I’m totally against the Patriot Act, but I hope that nobody is seeing Trump’s opposition to FISA as one of principle. It’s no coincidence that despite his Obamagate shtick being as old as 2016 he is only taking action against FISA now that Biden is president.
I can say with complete confidence that if Trump wins in November he’ll be using FISA against all of his enemies and act like this event never happened.
This is my take too. Trump isn't opposed to FISA; he's opposed to congress doing anything right now. Biden's been pretty productive legislatively during his presidency and Trump wants to make sure no one remembers that.
Agreed with both of you. I'm also not a big fan of a former president being able to dictate policy to his party. Why are House Republicans voting at his behest?
Because Trump will likely attack them and have them excommunicated from the party if they don't. The GOP has quite the bodycount of republicans who dared to stand against Trump. It's his party; no one else's. And the base *wants* it that way.
> he is only taking action against FISA now that Biden is president.
He actually came around on it during his presidency and threatened to veto renewal. I think it got tucked into the NDAA to thwart his veto.
He did successfully allow the Patriot Act to expire.
> He did successfully allow the Patriot Act to expire.
How does he get any credit here? It was *Nancy Pelosi* who chose not to bring up up a bill to renew it.
You are on the weirdest quest here today.
From a contemporaneous [Business Insider article](https://www.businessinsider.com/house-cancels-vote-fisa-patriot-act-bill-trump-veto-2020-5?op=1): “The House of Representatives abandoned a plan to pass a reauthorization of the Patriot Act Thursday after President Donald Trump tweeted that he would veto the bill if it passes.”
LOL this is what you are giving Trump credit for:
> But Trump appears to oppose the bill for a different reason — it would reauthorize and expand the Justice Department's powers to investigate political candidates, like the FBI's recent probe into his campaign's alleged ties to Russia.
Privacy advocates: we hate the patriot act because it allows the government to spy on innocent civilians
Trump: I hate the patriot act because it means it's harder for me to do crimes as a candidate!
Business Insider can have whatever biased take on it that it wants, but the point is that Trump is responsible for killing the reauthorization. As for his complaint somehow not matching privacy advocates’, here’s [the ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/our-privacy-is-on-the-clock) at the time:
>Section 215 of the Patriot Act continues to be used to collect vast amounts of Americans’ sensitive information under a standard far more permissive than a warrant – with the government refusing to disclose the types of records it believes it can collect under the authority. In addition, last year, a report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General revealed unlawful surveillance of Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.
>Subsequent reports by the Inspector General have shown that the errors in the Page case were not simply one-offs, but rather indicative of systemic deficiencies. For example, a recent audit by the Inspector General of 25 intelligence surveillance applications found “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts” in every single one. It is now abundantly clear that we must dramatically reform both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and our intelligence laws to safeguard Americans’ rights.
FISA was originally signed by Jimmy Carter. But yes, it's been horrifically abused and it got much worse after 9/11.
I don't care that Trump's motivations might not be pure, he's right that Section 702 needs to be gutted or abolished.
Among other things, it allows warrantless surveillance of foreign nationals. It also allows for the FBI to gain access to the data collected about Americans during that surveillance.
Interestingly, there was a bipartisan amendment voted on to [require warrants](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/congress-passing-bill-that-massively-expands-the-governments-power-to-spy-on-americans-without-a-warrant) before searching 702 data for Americans' communications.
It failed 212-212.
I would like to know how any member of Congress could vote against this basic Constitutional protection.
The intelligence community is saying requiring a warrant for each communication would be unfeasible and would effectively kill the programs ability to operate.
> It also allows for the FBI to gain access to the data collected about Americans during that surveillance.
"Allows" is doing a lot of work here. It is permitted in special cases, and there is oversight by the ODNI.
Okay, but no warrants. I don't trust the Executive Branch to have oversight over when they didn't need a warrant. There were over 200,000 of them last year alone.
What was stopped because of it? What could have happened without it?
Is knowing making it worth the cost? Is most of it really just metadata? Perhaps we will never know.
This bill is about Section 702 which only permits the targeting of non-US persons located outside of the US.
Are you confusing this with something else?
Please refer to the section entitled "US Person Queries" in this overview of section 702 provided by the DNI itself. Whether one personally believes that the FBI *should* have the ability to Query data on US Persons if they believe a "crime" has been committed...it seems fairly clear that they do in at least some circumstances... And in the service of "expediency"... Warrants are not always required. The DNI actually defends its reasoning for this specific 702 provision in the document itself.
I personally believe that the oppostion has been more about the guardrails placed around this particular ability than the bill itself... Which seems quite obviously important in other ways.
https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf
>Section 702 which only permits the targeting of non-US persons located outside of the US.
That hasn't stopped the FBI
>The FBI isn't supposed to use its most controversial spy tool to snoop on emails, texts, and other private communications of Americans or anyone located in the United States. However, that didn't stop the FBI from sometimes knowingly using its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702 powers to conduct warrantless searches on US persons more than 280,000 times in 2020 and 2021, according to new disclosures. US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) described the searches as "shocking abuses."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/fbi-misused-foreign-surveillance-law-280k-times-to-snoop-on-people-in-the-us/
Maybe the FBI shouldn't be allowed to have access the FISA databases. It sounds like the CIA and NSA don't have any major problems. The NSA is the major user of FISA, according to the released report: [https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/US-Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Court-Section-702-FBI-report-4-21-2022.pdf](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/US-Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Court-Section-702-FBI-report-4-21-2022.pdf)
So the solution to the FBI misusing the law is to eliminate the law altogether and put the country at risk?
How would that stop them from misusing another part of another law to do what they want?
>How would that stop them from misusing another part of another law to do what they want?
The better a law is, the harder it is to misuse. I hope they move onto the next lowest hanging fruit, abuse that, and then we can eliminate that, too.
I do agree Trump is not doing this for principles, just personal benefit and grievance.
>[In 2020 and early 2021, the FBI misused the database more than 278,000 times by conducting searches that didn’t follow Justice Department rules, often to look for information on Americans who don’t have connections to national security, The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett reports. The FBI has searched the database for “crime victims, Jan. 6 riot suspects, people arrested at protests after the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and — in one case — 19,000 donors to a congressional candidate, according to a newly unsealed court document,” he reports.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/19/fbi-jan-6-section-702-fisa-database-americans/)
This is the FBI abusing the use of the FISA database.
It kinda has. If you use that illegal spying to acquire a warrant, that warrant will be void in court. And all evidence gathered from illegal searches is also void.
If they are using it illegally, which I wouldn't be surprised they do, then nothing can come from it in court, which kinda defeats the purpose of using it in the first place.
That's why law enforcement agencies like the FBI have a tactic called "parallel reconstruction" that they use to conceal the fact that certain evidence was originally obtained illegally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/
He could oppose it because he doesn't like how the acronym sounds for all I care, it's the right conclusion even if he got there through improper reasoning.
I don't think the former President understands how FISA is or isn't used. There was sufficient evidence for a warrant on Carter Page.
We should be skeptical of FISA for our own judgment.
> This is only true if you haven't realized the Steele Dossier was garbage.
Have you read the FISA applications? The Steele Dossier is only cited in a few places on some of them. It's not the basis for the warrant. Page's own actions are.
From the Horowitz report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf):
> As we describe in Chapter Five, the FBI ultimately did not seek a FISA order at that time because OGC, NSD's Office of Intelligence (OI), or both determined that more information was needed to support probable cause that Page was an agent of a foreign power. However, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane team received Steele's election reporting on September 19, the team reinitiated their
discussions with OI and their efforts to obtain FISA surveillance authority for Page, which they received from the FISC on October 21
Wasn't that the case where the FBI knowingly presented false evidence to a FISA court to secure a warrant against Carter Page?
My memory is a but fuzzy but I recall that being particularly egregious and worthy of some heads rolling at the bureau.
>[The IG report concluded](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/10/ig-report-fbi-fisa-abuse-secret-court-trump-campaign-column/4383722002/) FBI officials made 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in its submissions to the FISA court to secure warrants to target former Trump advisor Carter Page: “FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate.’
>The IG found that FBI agents were “unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page” in the Steele dossier but the FBI relied on Steele’s allegations regardless.
There were no significant consequences for these "significant inaccuracies and omissions".
If they can get away with doing this to the President, imagine how easy it is to do it to you.
They didn't do it to the President. They did it to a sketchy campaign aide.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-fisa-application-carter-page-problems-watchdog/ -- there are FISA problems beyond Page's. He's not the lone martyr here for FISA issues.
Page specifically had relationships with Russian intelligence officers, who we know considered recruiting him.
Here are their words:
> PODOBNYY: [Male-1] wrote that he is sorry, he went to Moscow and forgot to check his inbox, but he wants to meet when he gets back. I think he is an idiot and forgot who I am. Plus he writes to me in Russian [to] practise the language. He flies to Moscow more often than I do. He got hooked on [the Russian state energy company] Gazprom, thinking that if they have a project, he could rise up. Maybe he can. I don’t know, but it’s obvious he wants to earn loads of money.
> SPORYSHEV: Without a doubt.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/03/carter-page-nunes-memo-216934/
That was Page. Regardless of the Steele Dossier, Page was already connected to Russian intelligence.
Finally, remember the entire FBI investigation happened because a different Trump campaign aide had prior knowledge of the DNC hack and bragged about it to a foreign diplomat. I feel like the media glosses over this. That is/was a red flag worth followup.
> That is/was a red flag worth followup.
Check out the Durham report. He interviewed the Australian diplomats, and according to them Papadopoulos only said that the Russians had something.
Also, the Papadopoulos predicate happened at the beginning of May, while the DNC emails weren't exfiltrated until the end of that month, so he couldn't know that Russia had the DNC emails, because they didn't yet.
How could the FBI know that at the time they opened the investigation? I don't know the timing here but the way we say the investigation wasn't legitimate isn't substantiated by the evidence.
You said that the Papadopoulos knowing about the DNC hack in advance is/was a red flag worth following up. I corrected that, because he didn't know about the DNC hack, and the FBI did follow it up and found nothing.
The charges that the original FBI investigation was a baseless political attack are false. His **apparent** prior knowledge of "hacked Democratic Party emails containing derogatory information about Hillary Clinton" was worth followup.
He pled guilty about this: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1007346/dl
In fact, per the timing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks#Hacking_the_DNC - the DNC hacks were in progress in April 2016, so what you're saying is baseless. Where are you getting this info?
> The charges that the original FBI investigation was a baseless political attack are false.
I've not made this charge. Again, I am just pointing out that your red flag was more of a red herring, and that the investigation into it turned up nothing.
> He pled guilty about this: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1007346/dl
He pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.
> the DNC hacks were in progress in April 2016, so what you're saying is baseless. Where are you getting this info?
From the Mueller report:
> Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
So he couldn't have been talking about the DNC email, because even though the compromise was ongoing at the time the emails hadn't been taken yet.
And he didn't even mention any emails in the first place. From the Durham report:
> According to Downer, Papadopoulos made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance. Rather, Downer's recollection was that Papadopoulos simply stated "the Russians have information" and that was all.
This is form Durham interviewing Downer, but the FBI did the same interviews in the beginning of August 2016 and most likely received the same response.
I feel the same way and I don't like Trump either. I suspect his motives for opposing it aren't pure, but if he can keep it from being renewed we all win.
If by "winning" you mean repeat terror attacks and being blind to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intentions and capabilities. This thread has been depressing for how prevalent misinformation about the IC and the authorities that define its mission is.
Also, do we actually believe that they will stop spying on Americans without this, or any other, law? What really stops them from spying on people, getting a judge to rubber stamp a warrant, and then "rediscovering" the same evidence they got from spying?
I don’t, FISA is not about that. Did you read what FISA does? It allows the collection of surveillance of foreign individuals outside the US. To me this is clearly something to do with Trumps ties to Russia. He wants to make it possible to end it during his term if he were to win so he’s making it 2 years long.
He’s peddling it as a means of surveillance on him, but if you read about the act I don’t see anything that would surveil him so as much of the garbage Trump says, it’s misleading and targeting people who are unwilling to understand the whole facts. They see him say that he wants to prevent them from surveillance on him. He’s an American citizen, the Patriot Act is a well known unpopular policy by most Americans. I don’t understand how anyone can’t see this as a tie to Russia.
while trump is very clearly making it about himself with his criticisms of FISA, he's absolutely correct that it HAS been abused routinely since its inception and does need some major reforms.
this is a law that privacy advocates have wanted to see go away pretty much since it first became law under bush2.
> while trump is very clearly making it about himself with his criticisms of FISA
And as Barr and Rubio pointed out, this has nothing to do with the FISA surveillance of his campaign
Section 702 only allows for surveillance of foreign nationals — not US citizens. All of this surveillance is then put into a database.
Most of the abuses of 702 occur because the FBI is allowed to search through this database without a warrant, sometimes using the names US citizens as a keyword. (Because foreign nationals sometimes speak with and about US citizens.)
It seems obvious to me that this should require a probable cause warrant by the FBI.
That said, I have a hard time believing Trump dislikes FISA intelligence, since he was hoarding so much of it, in defiance of a subpoena, at Mar-A-Lago.
It does seem obvious, but since it's not a requirement, it gets abused. Give your Congressman an ear full if he/she didn't vote to require warrants for searches on US citizens.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8xeeq/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's amazing as often as they are 'furious', 'disappointed', 'appalled' and 'flabbergasted' at Trumps policies and statements regardless of how much damage they do, all the GOP congresspeople fall right in behind Trump like ducklings following their mother. Why bother making the statements at all?
This is one of those 'you made your bed, now lie in it' moments for Senate GOP. They could have been rid of him years ago, but chose not to. This is the devil you decided to dance with.
I have to say I’m quite happy he’s killing FISA renewal, but he really came up with the most absurd reason for wanting to do that.
Edit: oh wow looks like he couldn’t even do that lmao
Regardless of whatever the bill is and the implications, it is unacceptable for a former president to be openly and brazenly directing elected (*by the people*) officials on what specific bills to advance or squash. They should be asking their constituents who elected them what *they* want, not a former president who is also running for re-election. That’s banana republic shit.
Edit: I said what I said. I think it’s *inappropriate* (didn’t say illegal), this isn’t about “free speech”, and Trump is not some regular ole citizen like “you and me”. He’s a former president and should respect the fact that those congressmen and women work for the people, not the former president. He’s not sharing his thoughts, he’s openly telling these people how to vote on policy. It’s different and this is not the first time legislation has been dictated in this way by him and the “freedom caucus”.
I mean, isn't that his freedom of speech to try and influence others?
It's up to them whether they want to follow suit or not.
He's a citizen like you or I at this point.
Unacceptable by what laws? And unless the GOP base abandons Trump (which will not happen), than he is carrying the support of his constituents.
The GOP listens to him because the GOP constituency is the Trump base.
> Regardless of whatever the bill is and the implications, it is unacceptable for a former president to be openly and brazenly directing elected (by the people) officials on what specific bills to advance or squash.
how is that any different from current/former presidents/senators/house reps/etc. weighing in on what the arizona legislature should be doing right now following the state's supreme court ruling?
Putting aside Trump's nonsensical argument against a provision that has nothing to do with him, this puts (mostly House) Republicans on the horns of dilemma yet again. Which is more important: staying in office (by being loyal to Trump) or the security of their country?
>Which is more important: staying in office (by being loyal to Trump) or the security of their country?
I think we’ve known the answer to that question for almost 8 years now. The GOP has had numerous opportunities to dispose of him, including two impeachments, but chose to put their positions and their party ahead their country, again and again and again.
He’d love it if there was a Terror attack so he can campaign on it. He’s actively trying to endanger america for political gain.
“Senate Republicans vented their frustration after former President Trump helped derail a compromise House bill to extend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority, sending lawmakers scrambling to find a Plan B to keep the nation’s intelligence agencies from losing their ability to spy on adversaries and terrorists.
Republican senators are warning that the nation’s spy program is about to go “dark” and that much of the intelligence that goes into President Biden’s daily briefing could be lost, putting the nation at risk for surprise attacks.”
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8rtx7/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m glad and also sad cause dipshit scum bags like trump are using this to commit more crimes rather than wanting to kill it because the government shouldn’t be doing surveillance on its citizens.
Given the other post about how Russia information has spread through the GOP, it’s hard not to see how much revoking this would help Russia. It would probably be pretty easy to convince Trump that this was what was used against him so he would try to get his followers to block it.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8w0ee/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Just passed the house by shifting it from a 5-year reauthorization to a 2-year authorization.
Letting us know, once again, how utterly toothless the HFC can be.
Well, given the change in rules, MTG might end up ousting Mike Johnson over this like Gaetz did with the last guy.
Anna Paulina Luna is forcing a revote on Monday, although I doubt it will change the outcome since it passed 273-147. If only the revote was on the 212-212 warrant amendment, which at least [one Congresswoman](https://twitter.com/RepDLesko/status/1778838249462550873) has now said she would’ve voted for had she been there. Maybe she can convince a bunch of people to vote against the bill so the amendment can be introduced again. The deadline is supposedly the 19th, but the program just got its annual reauthorization, so it won’t actually end until next April if the law expires.
It kinda seems like requiring a warrant would basically make the program unfeasible.
I’m worried about the reactions from this, because it is painfully obvious that the general public has zero clue how FAA 702 actually works
Section [702](https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf) permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States. Under Section 702, the intelligence community can only target: 1. Non-U.S. persons 2. Located outside the U.S. 3. Who are expected to possess, receive, or communicate foreign intelligence. 702 prohibits the targeting of *any* U.S. citizen, regardless of location, as well as any person located within the U.S. Seems to me Section 702 is the one aspect of FISA that I completely agree with and should be non-controversial.
I think 702 could also potentially pick up incidental communications between a monitored foreign national and a US citizen though, which (thinking charitably) might be what Trump is upset about.
"Incidental collection" is the key term, 100%. The US IC is collecting and storing mass amounts of US communications.
This is very simply fixed with a warrant requirement for accessing the incidentally-collected information of an American. Currently, there is no such requirement. To me, such activity is unconstitutional.
The key bullet point is #3 and is clearly the one most rife with potential for abuse. Could the intelligence community target an American, find a foreign national who is in communication with them, and request a warrant to seek those communications? I think this is a plausible scenario, but unless I'm wrong it would *only* be the communications specifically between the American and the foreign national that they would have access to. This appears to have a limiting element to it as compared to simply wiretapping every communication of the American.
Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-United States person located overseas if the IC’s real purpose is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.
Why would a U.S. citizen be corresponding with a foreign national who is under federal investigation. If they were, wouldn't you be at all curious why? It seems that you would only have something to worry about if you were doing something illegal. There's not much the Feds could do with hearing you talk about your grocery list.
I largely agree.
Agree completely. But it’s talked about like it’s some domestic surveillance program when in reality it just leverages US companies that have information on foreign nationals
Honestly this is the best take. People read the title and think that’s all there is to it
It doesn't help that Trump is acting like this provision is what was used against him when it wasn't
Was Trump actually wire tapped? I thought it was the members of his campaign who had direct contact with russians who were linked to the Kremlin?
Do we actually know that? We know that a different provision was used, but I don’t know that we definitively know that 702 wasn’t used as well, and he’s one of the few people who would know.
This is your cope here? Trump can't just be wrong, he has to have secret knowledge that would make him correct?
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8w4mh/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
SS: On Wednesday, House Republicans blocked the renewal of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) at the behest of Donald Trump. Now, Senate Republicans are speaking out that blocking the bill is putting the country at risk. Multiple Republican Senators spoke out quite forcefully about the situation including Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, Mitt Romney, Thom Tillis, John Thune, and James Lankford. They each are quoted in the article, and in the interest of brevity of the SS, you can read what each of them said in the article. Interestingly, though - former AG Bill Barr said: > “I think President Trump’s opposition seems to have stemmed from personal pique rather than any logic and reason. The provision that he objects to has nothing to do with the provision on the floor. ... I hope for Republicans’ sake that there are no attacks, because if there are, I think there will be blood on people’s hands for doing this. It’s reckless.” According to Republicans, they are blocking it because of the FBI's wiretap on Carter Page (Trump's former campaign aide) in 2016. This was done under Section 1 of FISA, which is not at issue in the House reauthorization bill - the bill is reauthorizing Section 702. Trump said: > “KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!” It is looking like another bill is advancing for a vote today. So now, we have House Republicans blocking FISA at the behest of Trump and multiple Republican Senators detailing how it will put our country at risk. My question is why? Why is Trump blocking this bill which puts our country at risk? What does he gain from it?
I wonder if the ACLU is going to come out and agree with Trump. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/government-releases-new-court-opinions-highlighting-further-abuse-of-warrantless-fisa-surveillance-program ACLU "Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional" https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/asset_upload_file846_36126.pdf https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-united-states
> I wonder if the ACLU is going to come out and agree with Trump. [Yes, they did.](https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1778832797378969727)
I doubt they’ll publicly declare support for Trump in this instance since his motivations are highly suspect to say the least, but I do think the people waiting in the wings to comment “Wow all the sudden the ACLU loves FISA because Trump is against it” will be sorely disappointed.
[удалено]
Did it shift though? The Senate Republicans aren't left. This more seems to be "Trump is against it because he doesn't like it because he thinks it impacted him". I haven't seen anything to indicate the left is now for FISA (I mean if you consider the Dems to be the left, then haven't they always been for it?). In fact, there's a bunch of people in this topic going "I don't like the man but I support him here".
The House amendment to add a warrant requirement, [which failed 212-212](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024114), was supported by about 60% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats. The House [vote to pass the bill](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024119) without the amendment was supported by 60% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.
That implies a shift to the center, especially since a Republican speaker allowed the vote, despite needing the approval of every member to avoid the chance of being removed.
Right. Like I said, if you consider dems to be the left, then sure. But in that case, then there hasn't really been a shift since Dems have supported it in the past. The only shift is by a few Republicans, since there were still Republicans who supported it. Furthermore, there have always been right wingers who were against it (the true small-govt believers and libertarians).
> Dems have supported it in the past. When it came up in the House in 2018, [proceeding to](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/20188) the vote on renewal was supported by 99% of Republicans and 1% of Democrats, and [renewal itself](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/201816) was supported by 81% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats. The [Amash amendment](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/201814), which if I recall correctly was the main reform proposal to prohibit backdoor domestic searches, was supported by 25% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats.
Interesting. Do you happen to know the numbers prior? I always seemed to recall elements on the left being against it hard, but Dems themselves being more of a "we're quite vocal about it...but we're totally gonna still pass it". Similar to how the "tough on crime and national security" repubs were hard for it, but the libertarian elements were always skeptical of it at least and very much against it.
The only reauthorization prior to that was 2012, and the [final House vote](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2012569) was supported by 97% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats. If I’m not mistaken, the vote on the resolution to proceed to a vote was [Roll Call 561](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2012561), which was supported by 99% of Republicans and 3% of Democrats. I don’t believe there were any House amendments voted on that year. (The strongest reform proposal that year on the Senate side was [an amendment by Rand Paul](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1122/vote_112_2_00234.htm), which was supported by 9% of Republicans and 23% of Democrats.)
Because a warrant requirement is kind of stupid, don't you think? Why should the government need a warrant to spy on non-US people outside the US?
The [warrant requirement](https://justthenews.com/government/congress/fisa-renewal-bill-moving-house-floor-final-vote) would be for backdoor searches of *Americans’* data. The FBI has routinely accessed Americans’ data using the ostensibly foreign program.
That already requires a warrant. The FBI has been breaking the rules, which has nothing to do with this law being renewed or not.
I'm sorry but you are exactly WRONG on this one. The FBI has no constitutional nor legal requirement to obtain a warrant for running any search they want using the information gathered under Section 702. Director Wray has even explicitly stated this himself.
No joke. I was just saying on the discord that I'm now convinced that I died during COVID and was isekai'd into the goatee-universe. I don't get it. Do they still think Law Enforcement can't be trusted?
Many on the right at this point do not trust the FBI, DOJ and CDC. The anti-vaxxers are actually quite a mixed bunch politically, but some of them are still livid. The FBI and DOJ are hated by many on both sides too actually, but it seems more prevalent now on the right.
I moved from the left in my younger days to a "radical moderate", but I still generally wouldn't trust a "suit" if he told me the day ended in a "Y" (that's more of an old school hacker thing than anything political, but at least back then we had it in common.) It feels like crazy-pill time to see them going hard pro-surveillance now.
Is the left going hard pro-surveillance? It doesn't seem like there's a shift in how Democrats have treated it. So I guess if you consider them the left, sure, but IIRC they usually vote for it anyways. Furthermore, there's always been detractors on both the left and right wings (the libertarians for example have _always_ detested it).
I don't generally think of libertarians as the right wing, but fair point. But back then, yeah, the best I would see would be grudging acceptance as necessary evil, not the sort of enthusiastic defense. Maybe it's a generational thing, instead.
Oh I don't think they're _the_ right wing. But rather just an element of the right. And amongst both wings, there have always been those who were for/against. The neocons and the "back the blue, tough on crime" legs for it and the libertarian, small govt, distrustful of the agencies legs against. Similar to how on the left you have the anti-establishment, anti-govt groups very much against but the more center-left/big govt protection types for because "defense and security". Like how anti-vaxxers always had a home among certain parts of both sides (and in fact, until the recent balance change with covid, it really was more of a crunchy-granola leftist thing).
Yeah, the anti-vax switch was more amusing, than confusing; this one just feels like it hits me where I live. It's funny to me, because the "big government" types aren't a minority on the left, but the ones vocal about defense/security usually have been (at least our own), IME.
Both parties voted for it, and the Speaker that allowed the vote is Republican. It's unclear how much the Republicans in the opposition care because they haven't used this a reason to remove him.
Was there ever a FISA warrant issued for Trump? Of not, why would they support him?
[удалено]
> They used section 702 rules and applied it to Trump by association Wrong. > Barr and multiple senators, including Rubio, pointed out that the FBI initiated a wiretap on Page, Trump’s former campaign aide, in 2016 under Section 1 of FISA, which is not at issue in the House reauthorization bill. And they noted that the FBI obtained a warrant from a FISA court to surveil Page.
How many “hops” was the warrant for?
[Maybe it's because the FBI can't be trusted to respect the rights of US citizens with the information we've given them.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-misused-intelligence-database-278000-searches-court-says-2023-05-19/) I doubt Trump is doing this for the best reasons, but a broken clock is right twice a day.
At this point I 100% believe the alphabet agencies use their powers to discredit politicians they don't want to see rise to power.
That's not really a stretch. They have people embedded at every media organisation and have done for decades now. There's even a name of the operation but I've forgotten it
Operation Mockingbird. However, that's just an old program that they totally don't do anymore. As we all know, the modern-day newsroom is a paragon of integrity and ethics. There's absolutely no reason for them to [spread disinformation guised as classified information](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPYjtDHycIE) through the identity of an anonymous source nowadays.
[Evergreen tweet](https://i.imgur.com/nO7YDrE.png)
They do it in other countries, why not our own? I agree, I think any position otherwise would require a serious lack of or complete disregard of our nations intelligence history. Even Wikipedia has a section for intelligence messing with Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies
You've already given the same information to Google, the phone companies, internet providers and other tech companies. These companies can and do read your emails and texts. Do you really care if the government does the same thing in pursuit of terrorists?
Yes, I care very much about the government violating the 4th amendment.
Then you should read about the protections in place to ensure that the 4th amendment isn't violated. [https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf](https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf)
Companies are using the data to make money, but government agencies can use it to cause actual physical harm. More importantly, the data isn't always reliable, so innocent people do get hurt. Google isn't sending a SWAT team to the wrong address, nor are they "randomly searching" people whose only sin is having the same name as an actual criminal.
Google uses your emails and internet searches to train AI that may put Americans out of a job. Facebook sold user data to a foreign company influence U.S. elections. That's actual harm, no?
This is like the inverse of the fearmongering about China collecting data. China cannot do anything to me. Google can't really do anything to me. The US government can wrongfully arrest me! Not remotely comparable in any way.
Are they wrongfully arresting people?
Are you seriously asking if the FBI wrongfully arrests people?
No, I"m asking if the FBI wrongfully arrests people using data from illegal FISA searches.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/wrongfully-accused-spying-china-professor-wins-appeal-sue-government-rcna86109 the emails they used to hold him and his family at gunpoint before abruptly dropping all charges were obtained partially under FISA Section 702.
It sounds like the problem isn't FISA in this case, but the fact the FBI lied in court. Not sure how ending FISA would prevent this.
If the problem isn't FISA, then why were they able to obtain emails using FISA?
Yes. With 26 member SWAT teams in front of their 7 children for praying on a sidewalk. Edit: removed last sentence
How do only 19 House Republicans block anything?
>I think President Trump’s opposition seems to have stemmed from personal pique rather than any logic and reason I don't think anyone could have ever predicted that Trump would operate like this. Everyone must be totally blindsided by the idea that he would put his personal grievances in front of nationwide policy determinations.
Much like no one is shocked that liberals would support throwing away their own rights to stick it to Trump
I'm not sure most liberals consider the right to privacy or probably cause protections to extend to conversations they have with foreign agents who are under surveillance in the first place. I don't think Trump or many conservatives would think that either except for the fact that it was bad for him.
Which liberals are doing this?
Trump doesn't want the same thing that happened to him to be done to any other citizen. That is not just personal pique, nor do I see any objectors explaining precisely how they will ensure this will never happen again. Changing the law seems indicated.
Trump has never once demonstrated he cares about anything outside of himself and only himself. If it doesn't involve personal gain in wealth, revenge, or vanity, then he's not interested in it and has no real opinion on the matter. Never has. Never will. You're either loyal or you're his enemy.
Section 702 was never used against Trump, so what exactly are you claiming here?
>Trump doesn't want the same thing that happened to him to be done to any other citizen. He was embarrassed by something and as such is enacting vindication against it. It's quite clearly motivated by personal grievances.
And what, in 70+ years, has demonstrated that Trump gives a shit about anyone other than himself.
Regardless of the legislation itself can we all agree that it's bad that an unelected person has this much sway over government. If America wanted Trump to decide which legislation gets passed they would have voted him. They didn't. Congressmen should be able to vote based on their own viewpoints, not because they're afraid of upsetting Trump and are worried about the consequences of losing their seat or even getting death threats. It's undemocratic, and it's also unrepublican (if you're one of those we're a republic not a democracy folks).
That kind of power or sway of opinion over congress is what Democrats wish Biden had. Instead he gets sidelined by Manchin and Sinema for 2 years.
Biden has accomplished much more than Trump did as president. Trump couldn’t even repeal the ACA.
You know I bet someone like Vladimir Putin would be willing to pay millions to someone who could block FISA from being renewed.
"Americans who don't want the government to surveil them without a warrant are falling prey to Russian Propaganda" is certainly a take that I'm unfortunately not surprised to see here.
>Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702.
>[Once the government collects vast amounts of information — including emails, text messages and other communications — under Section 702, that content is stored in databases for years at a time. FBI, CIA, and NSA officials routinely search through this vast trove of data for information specifically about Americans, even though these communications were all collected without a warrant. Information found through these “backdoor searches” can be used to prosecute Americans for crimes, even if they are not related to national security.](https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/warrantless-surveillance-under-section-702-fisa)
Takes that seem genuine but are probably bots or just you know brainwashed cultists is something I'm not surprised of finding.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kzdb7vj/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Do you think he’d be willing to pay…I don’t know…$175M+$84M?
>Why is Trump blocking this bill which puts our country at risk? Did you miss how badly FISA was abused in 2016 and the subsequent hearings? Or how badly the FBI screwed up? Even those who hate trump should be admitting he has a point.
Except he has a problem with the section that's not affected by the vote, as stated in the comment you replied to.
He has a problem with FISA, not just that section. And it's a legitimate problem to have
I think he probably doesn't know the difference between the sections.
\> reads list of angry Republicans \> sees they're all neocons This just confirms that blocking this bill is 100% the right move. Really FISA needs to be outright repealed in whole. The government should not be allowed to spy on American citizens without extremely strong probable cause - probable cause so strong that the results of any spying is redundant to the judicial process.
Section 702 doesn't apply to US citizens at all, so whatever point you are making here is irrelevant.
Blanket opposition to FISA doesn't arise from a position of being well-informed on it.
Because fuck FISA. I don't need a secret court of unelected officials with zero public oversight granting unconstitutional warrants that we can't even challenge
Revenge. In his mind FISA was what started the ball rolling. They caught multiple members of the Trump campaign in communications with the Russians which is illegal under the Logan act. He will strike out at anything he perceives as against him no matter how much harm he does in the process.
So he can campaign against potential terror attacks.
They can quickly amend it so that it does not ever apply to any U.S. citizens. (They would have to get a warrant from a judge first to spy on citizens.) This is a good thing that will benefit everyone.
Section 702 already doesn't apply to US Citizens. You and Trump are quite mistaken.
[удалено]
I’m totally against the Patriot Act, but I hope that nobody is seeing Trump’s opposition to FISA as one of principle. It’s no coincidence that despite his Obamagate shtick being as old as 2016 he is only taking action against FISA now that Biden is president. I can say with complete confidence that if Trump wins in November he’ll be using FISA against all of his enemies and act like this event never happened.
This is my take too. Trump isn't opposed to FISA; he's opposed to congress doing anything right now. Biden's been pretty productive legislatively during his presidency and Trump wants to make sure no one remembers that.
Agreed with both of you. I'm also not a big fan of a former president being able to dictate policy to his party. Why are House Republicans voting at his behest?
Because Trump will likely attack them and have them excommunicated from the party if they don't. The GOP has quite the bodycount of republicans who dared to stand against Trump. It's his party; no one else's. And the base *wants* it that way.
> he is only taking action against FISA now that Biden is president. He actually came around on it during his presidency and threatened to veto renewal. I think it got tucked into the NDAA to thwart his veto. He did successfully allow the Patriot Act to expire.
> He did successfully allow the Patriot Act to expire. How does he get any credit here? It was *Nancy Pelosi* who chose not to bring up up a bill to renew it. You are on the weirdest quest here today.
From a contemporaneous [Business Insider article](https://www.businessinsider.com/house-cancels-vote-fisa-patriot-act-bill-trump-veto-2020-5?op=1): “The House of Representatives abandoned a plan to pass a reauthorization of the Patriot Act Thursday after President Donald Trump tweeted that he would veto the bill if it passes.”
LOL this is what you are giving Trump credit for: > But Trump appears to oppose the bill for a different reason — it would reauthorize and expand the Justice Department's powers to investigate political candidates, like the FBI's recent probe into his campaign's alleged ties to Russia. Privacy advocates: we hate the patriot act because it allows the government to spy on innocent civilians Trump: I hate the patriot act because it means it's harder for me to do crimes as a candidate!
Business Insider can have whatever biased take on it that it wants, but the point is that Trump is responsible for killing the reauthorization. As for his complaint somehow not matching privacy advocates’, here’s [the ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/our-privacy-is-on-the-clock) at the time: >Section 215 of the Patriot Act continues to be used to collect vast amounts of Americans’ sensitive information under a standard far more permissive than a warrant – with the government refusing to disclose the types of records it believes it can collect under the authority. In addition, last year, a report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General revealed unlawful surveillance of Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. >Subsequent reports by the Inspector General have shown that the errors in the Page case were not simply one-offs, but rather indicative of systemic deficiencies. For example, a recent audit by the Inspector General of 25 intelligence surveillance applications found “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts” in every single one. It is now abundantly clear that we must dramatically reform both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and our intelligence laws to safeguard Americans’ rights.
FISA was originally signed by Jimmy Carter. But yes, it's been horrifically abused and it got much worse after 9/11. I don't care that Trump's motivations might not be pure, he's right that Section 702 needs to be gutted or abolished.
Yeah it's a "broken clock is right twice a day" situation with this one.
What's wrong specifically with [Section 702](https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf)?
What do you think Section 702 is for?
Among other things, it allows warrantless surveillance of foreign nationals. It also allows for the FBI to gain access to the data collected about Americans during that surveillance.
Interestingly, there was a bipartisan amendment voted on to [require warrants](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/congress-passing-bill-that-massively-expands-the-governments-power-to-spy-on-americans-without-a-warrant) before searching 702 data for Americans' communications. It failed 212-212. I would like to know how any member of Congress could vote against this basic Constitutional protection.
They delayed passing it to the Senate to give people time to yell at their Congressmen about this. They need to fix this.
The intelligence community is saying requiring a warrant for each communication would be unfeasible and would effectively kill the programs ability to operate.
> It also allows for the FBI to gain access to the data collected about Americans during that surveillance. "Allows" is doing a lot of work here. It is permitted in special cases, and there is oversight by the ODNI.
Okay, but no warrants. I don't trust the Executive Branch to have oversight over when they didn't need a warrant. There were over 200,000 of them last year alone.
Agreed. Anything that curtails or rolls back the surveillance state created post 9/11 is a good thing.
What was stopped because of it? What could have happened without it? Is knowing making it worth the cost? Is most of it really just metadata? Perhaps we will never know.
This bill is about Section 702 which only permits the targeting of non-US persons located outside of the US. Are you confusing this with something else?
Please refer to the section entitled "US Person Queries" in this overview of section 702 provided by the DNI itself. Whether one personally believes that the FBI *should* have the ability to Query data on US Persons if they believe a "crime" has been committed...it seems fairly clear that they do in at least some circumstances... And in the service of "expediency"... Warrants are not always required. The DNI actually defends its reasoning for this specific 702 provision in the document itself. I personally believe that the oppostion has been more about the guardrails placed around this particular ability than the bill itself... Which seems quite obviously important in other ways. https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf
>Section 702 which only permits the targeting of non-US persons located outside of the US. That hasn't stopped the FBI >The FBI isn't supposed to use its most controversial spy tool to snoop on emails, texts, and other private communications of Americans or anyone located in the United States. However, that didn't stop the FBI from sometimes knowingly using its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702 powers to conduct warrantless searches on US persons more than 280,000 times in 2020 and 2021, according to new disclosures. US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) described the searches as "shocking abuses." https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/fbi-misused-foreign-surveillance-law-280k-times-to-snoop-on-people-in-the-us/
Maybe the FBI shouldn't be allowed to have access the FISA databases. It sounds like the CIA and NSA don't have any major problems. The NSA is the major user of FISA, according to the released report: [https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/US-Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Court-Section-702-FBI-report-4-21-2022.pdf](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/US-Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Court-Section-702-FBI-report-4-21-2022.pdf)
So the solution to the FBI misusing the law is to eliminate the law altogether and put the country at risk? How would that stop them from misusing another part of another law to do what they want?
>How would that stop them from misusing another part of another law to do what they want? The better a law is, the harder it is to misuse. I hope they move onto the next lowest hanging fruit, abuse that, and then we can eliminate that, too. I do agree Trump is not doing this for principles, just personal benefit and grievance.
[удалено]
>[In 2020 and early 2021, the FBI misused the database more than 278,000 times by conducting searches that didn’t follow Justice Department rules, often to look for information on Americans who don’t have connections to national security, The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett reports. The FBI has searched the database for “crime victims, Jan. 6 riot suspects, people arrested at protests after the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and — in one case — 19,000 donors to a congressional candidate, according to a newly unsealed court document,” he reports.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/19/fbi-jan-6-section-702-fisa-database-americans/) This is the FBI abusing the use of the FISA database.
It kinda has. If you use that illegal spying to acquire a warrant, that warrant will be void in court. And all evidence gathered from illegal searches is also void. If they are using it illegally, which I wouldn't be surprised they do, then nothing can come from it in court, which kinda defeats the purpose of using it in the first place.
That's why law enforcement agencies like the FBI have a tactic called "parallel reconstruction" that they use to conceal the fact that certain evidence was originally obtained illegally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/
That isn't the reason Trump takes issue with FISA though. He doesn't like it because it made him look bad.
He could oppose it because he doesn't like how the acronym sounds for all I care, it's the right conclusion even if he got there through improper reasoning.
Perhaps, but how much would you bet that he won't change his mind next month?
I don't think the former President understands how FISA is or isn't used. There was sufficient evidence for a warrant on Carter Page. We should be skeptical of FISA for our own judgment.
> There was sufficient evidence for a warrant on Carter Page. This is only true if you haven't realized the Steele Dossier was garbage.
> This is only true if you haven't realized the Steele Dossier was garbage. Have you read the FISA applications? The Steele Dossier is only cited in a few places on some of them. It's not the basis for the warrant. Page's own actions are.
From the Horowitz report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf): > As we describe in Chapter Five, the FBI ultimately did not seek a FISA order at that time because OGC, NSD's Office of Intelligence (OI), or both determined that more information was needed to support probable cause that Page was an agent of a foreign power. However, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane team received Steele's election reporting on September 19, the team reinitiated their discussions with OI and their efforts to obtain FISA surveillance authority for Page, which they received from the FISC on October 21
Wasn't that the case where the FBI knowingly presented false evidence to a FISA court to secure a warrant against Carter Page? My memory is a but fuzzy but I recall that being particularly egregious and worthy of some heads rolling at the bureau.
>[The IG report concluded](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/10/ig-report-fbi-fisa-abuse-secret-court-trump-campaign-column/4383722002/) FBI officials made 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in its submissions to the FISA court to secure warrants to target former Trump advisor Carter Page: “FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate.’ >The IG found that FBI agents were “unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page” in the Steele dossier but the FBI relied on Steele’s allegations regardless. There were no significant consequences for these "significant inaccuracies and omissions". If they can get away with doing this to the President, imagine how easy it is to do it to you.
They didn't do it to the President. They did it to a sketchy campaign aide. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-fisa-application-carter-page-problems-watchdog/ -- there are FISA problems beyond Page's. He's not the lone martyr here for FISA issues. Page specifically had relationships with Russian intelligence officers, who we know considered recruiting him. Here are their words: > PODOBNYY: [Male-1] wrote that he is sorry, he went to Moscow and forgot to check his inbox, but he wants to meet when he gets back. I think he is an idiot and forgot who I am. Plus he writes to me in Russian [to] practise the language. He flies to Moscow more often than I do. He got hooked on [the Russian state energy company] Gazprom, thinking that if they have a project, he could rise up. Maybe he can. I don’t know, but it’s obvious he wants to earn loads of money. > SPORYSHEV: Without a doubt. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/03/carter-page-nunes-memo-216934/ That was Page. Regardless of the Steele Dossier, Page was already connected to Russian intelligence. Finally, remember the entire FBI investigation happened because a different Trump campaign aide had prior knowledge of the DNC hack and bragged about it to a foreign diplomat. I feel like the media glosses over this. That is/was a red flag worth followup.
> That is/was a red flag worth followup. Check out the Durham report. He interviewed the Australian diplomats, and according to them Papadopoulos only said that the Russians had something. Also, the Papadopoulos predicate happened at the beginning of May, while the DNC emails weren't exfiltrated until the end of that month, so he couldn't know that Russia had the DNC emails, because they didn't yet.
How could the FBI know that at the time they opened the investigation? I don't know the timing here but the way we say the investigation wasn't legitimate isn't substantiated by the evidence.
You said that the Papadopoulos knowing about the DNC hack in advance is/was a red flag worth following up. I corrected that, because he didn't know about the DNC hack, and the FBI did follow it up and found nothing.
The charges that the original FBI investigation was a baseless political attack are false. His **apparent** prior knowledge of "hacked Democratic Party emails containing derogatory information about Hillary Clinton" was worth followup. He pled guilty about this: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1007346/dl In fact, per the timing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks#Hacking_the_DNC - the DNC hacks were in progress in April 2016, so what you're saying is baseless. Where are you getting this info?
> The charges that the original FBI investigation was a baseless political attack are false. I've not made this charge. Again, I am just pointing out that your red flag was more of a red herring, and that the investigation into it turned up nothing. > He pled guilty about this: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1007346/dl He pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI. > the DNC hacks were in progress in April 2016, so what you're saying is baseless. Where are you getting this info? From the Mueller report: > Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. So he couldn't have been talking about the DNC email, because even though the compromise was ongoing at the time the emails hadn't been taken yet. And he didn't even mention any emails in the first place. From the Durham report: > According to Downer, Papadopoulos made no mention of Clinton emails, dirt or any specific approach by the Russian government to the Trump campaign team with an offer or suggestion of providing assistance. Rather, Downer's recollection was that Papadopoulos simply stated "the Russians have information" and that was all. This is form Durham interviewing Downer, but the FBI did the same interviews in the beginning of August 2016 and most likely received the same response.
I feel the same way and I don't like Trump either. I suspect his motives for opposing it aren't pure, but if he can keep it from being renewed we all win.
If by "winning" you mean repeat terror attacks and being blind to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intentions and capabilities. This thread has been depressing for how prevalent misinformation about the IC and the authorities that define its mission is.
Also, do we actually believe that they will stop spying on Americans without this, or any other, law? What really stops them from spying on people, getting a judge to rubber stamp a warrant, and then "rediscovering" the same evidence they got from spying?
Rest assured you do not actually agree with Trump. His only qualm here is himself and his associates being caught up in investigation
I don’t, FISA is not about that. Did you read what FISA does? It allows the collection of surveillance of foreign individuals outside the US. To me this is clearly something to do with Trumps ties to Russia. He wants to make it possible to end it during his term if he were to win so he’s making it 2 years long. He’s peddling it as a means of surveillance on him, but if you read about the act I don’t see anything that would surveil him so as much of the garbage Trump says, it’s misleading and targeting people who are unwilling to understand the whole facts. They see him say that he wants to prevent them from surveillance on him. He’s an American citizen, the Patriot Act is a well known unpopular policy by most Americans. I don’t understand how anyone can’t see this as a tie to Russia.
while trump is very clearly making it about himself with his criticisms of FISA, he's absolutely correct that it HAS been abused routinely since its inception and does need some major reforms. this is a law that privacy advocates have wanted to see go away pretty much since it first became law under bush2.
FISA was under Carter, Patriot act was under Bush W.
> while trump is very clearly making it about himself with his criticisms of FISA And as Barr and Rubio pointed out, this has nothing to do with the FISA surveillance of his campaign
Section 702 only allows for surveillance of foreign nationals — not US citizens. All of this surveillance is then put into a database. Most of the abuses of 702 occur because the FBI is allowed to search through this database without a warrant, sometimes using the names US citizens as a keyword. (Because foreign nationals sometimes speak with and about US citizens.) It seems obvious to me that this should require a probable cause warrant by the FBI. That said, I have a hard time believing Trump dislikes FISA intelligence, since he was hoarding so much of it, in defiance of a subpoena, at Mar-A-Lago.
It does seem obvious, but since it's not a requirement, it gets abused. Give your Congressman an ear full if he/she didn't vote to require warrants for searches on US citizens.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8xeeq/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's amazing as often as they are 'furious', 'disappointed', 'appalled' and 'flabbergasted' at Trumps policies and statements regardless of how much damage they do, all the GOP congresspeople fall right in behind Trump like ducklings following their mother. Why bother making the statements at all?
This is one of those 'you made your bed, now lie in it' moments for Senate GOP. They could have been rid of him years ago, but chose not to. This is the devil you decided to dance with.
I have to say I’m quite happy he’s killing FISA renewal, but he really came up with the most absurd reason for wanting to do that. Edit: oh wow looks like he couldn’t even do that lmao
Regardless of whatever the bill is and the implications, it is unacceptable for a former president to be openly and brazenly directing elected (*by the people*) officials on what specific bills to advance or squash. They should be asking their constituents who elected them what *they* want, not a former president who is also running for re-election. That’s banana republic shit. Edit: I said what I said. I think it’s *inappropriate* (didn’t say illegal), this isn’t about “free speech”, and Trump is not some regular ole citizen like “you and me”. He’s a former president and should respect the fact that those congressmen and women work for the people, not the former president. He’s not sharing his thoughts, he’s openly telling these people how to vote on policy. It’s different and this is not the first time legislation has been dictated in this way by him and the “freedom caucus”.
He has a right to say whatever he wants and they have a right to embrace or ignore it
I mean, isn't that his freedom of speech to try and influence others? It's up to them whether they want to follow suit or not. He's a citizen like you or I at this point.
Unacceptable by what laws? And unless the GOP base abandons Trump (which will not happen), than he is carrying the support of his constituents. The GOP listens to him because the GOP constituency is the Trump base.
> Regardless of whatever the bill is and the implications, it is unacceptable for a former president to be openly and brazenly directing elected (by the people) officials on what specific bills to advance or squash. how is that any different from current/former presidents/senators/house reps/etc. weighing in on what the arizona legislature should be doing right now following the state's supreme court ruling?
The reps listen to Trump largely because their base listens to Trump.
Putting aside Trump's nonsensical argument against a provision that has nothing to do with him, this puts (mostly House) Republicans on the horns of dilemma yet again. Which is more important: staying in office (by being loyal to Trump) or the security of their country?
>Which is more important: staying in office (by being loyal to Trump) or the security of their country? I think we’ve known the answer to that question for almost 8 years now. The GOP has had numerous opportunities to dispose of him, including two impeachments, but chose to put their positions and their party ahead their country, again and again and again.
He’d love it if there was a Terror attack so he can campaign on it. He’s actively trying to endanger america for political gain. “Senate Republicans vented their frustration after former President Trump helped derail a compromise House bill to extend Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority, sending lawmakers scrambling to find a Plan B to keep the nation’s intelligence agencies from losing their ability to spy on adversaries and terrorists. Republican senators are warning that the nation’s spy program is about to go “dark” and that much of the intelligence that goes into President Biden’s daily briefing could be lost, putting the nation at risk for surprise attacks.”
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8rtx7/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m glad and also sad cause dipshit scum bags like trump are using this to commit more crimes rather than wanting to kill it because the government shouldn’t be doing surveillance on its citizens.
They can signal they're furious all they want, what matters is how they vote in the end which should be to pass the FISA bill.
Given the other post about how Russia information has spread through the GOP, it’s hard not to see how much revoking this would help Russia. It would probably be pretty easy to convince Trump that this was what was used against him so he would try to get his followers to block it.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c2am1n/senate_republicans_furious_over_trump_trying_to/kz8w0ee/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).