Posted on 05/27/2020 7:39:55 AM PDT by RandFan
The Justice Department said on Wednesday that it opposes House-proposed changes to surveillance reform legislation and will urge President Trump to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
The statement, from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, is the latest setback for the legislation, which is currently scheduled to get a vote on the House floor on Wednesday, after Trump on Tuesday night urged GOP opposition to vote against it.
The veto threat from the Justice Department is a marked shift from March, when Attorney General William Barr helped negotiate the initial version of the bill with House leadership. The bill was then approved by the House in a 278-136 vote.
The bill reauthorizes three surveillance programs and makes some changes to the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But the Senate, when it took up the bill earlier this month, added language to create new legal protections for some FISA warrant applications, a change that garnered pushback from the Justice Department.
Boyd said on Wednesday that the Justice Department had offered "specific fixes to the most significant problems" stemming from the changes made by the Senate but signaled that they had been ignored by House lawmakers.
Instead, the House will vote on an additional amendment to the legislation as part of its debate on Wednesday that would tighten the limits on the FBI’s ability to access Americans’ web browsing history.
Boyd warned that the Justice Department believes the proposed change from the House would "weaken national security tools while doing nothing to address the abuses identified by the DOJ Inspector General."
"The Department opposes the Senate-passed bill in its current form and also opposes the Lofgren amendment in the House," he said, referring to a sponsor of the measure, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.).
"Given the cumulative negative effect of these legislative changes on the Department’s ability to identify and track terrorists and spies, the Department must oppose the legislation now under consideration in the House. If passed, the Attorney General would recommend that the President veto the legislation," he added.
The Justice Department opposition comes as the surveillance reform bill is facing fresh opposition from both sides ahead of the House vote, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) urging Democrats to delay the vote on the bill following Trump's tweet.
In his tweet, Trump referenced what he has cast as a conspiracy against his administration by the Obama administration.
“I hope all Republican House Members vote NO on FISA until such time as our Country is able to determine how and why the greatest political, criminal, and subversive scandal in USA history took place!” Trump tweeted.
A Justice Department inspector general investigation completed last year faulted the FBI for errors and omissions in surveillance applications used to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as part of the bureau’s investigation into Russian interference.
The internal watchdog review did not find evidence that agents were motivated by bias in their decisions to open investigations into Trump campaign associates, however, undermining a key talking point of Trump and his GOP allies.
Kerri Kupec, Director of Communications & Public Affairs, Department of Justice
https://twitter.com/kerrikupecdoj
https://twitter.com/Kerri_Kupec
I think “Justice” doesn’t like the Lee provision where outside counsel represents the recipient of the warrant.
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul just doesn’t like the bill full stop and see’s it as weak sauce.
Both sides calling for the veto so it’ going to happen...
One thing is the three “key” provisions that allow roving wiretaps will NOT be renewed. They will expire and cannot be used much to the disappointment of the FBI and the Deep State! :)
Make no mistake this is a victory.
Three “key” provisions supported and USED by the Deep state expire and disappear.
HAHAHA
They hate this no matter what brave face they put on...
Awesome...now lets shine a light on FISA abuse rather than talk about Joe Scarborough. Please.He can do both.
Are you trying to protect Joe Scarborough?
Another thing I just thought of...
Shifty Adam Schiff was trying to slip in a provision to allow the FBI have access to people’s web searches.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called him out on it much to his credit.
Obviously this won’t happen either once the bill is VETO’d!
So yes this is a major Victory!!
FISA and all vestiges of the old Patriot Act must be eliminated entirely.
^^^ THIS
Thanks - that all makes it clear to me!
Oh sure. That bandaid fixes everything.
Nuke the Star Chamber.
The media can't acknowledge it because they were in on the criminal misuse of FISA.
Rather, the House democrats are trying to “protect” against abuse by institutionalizing ADDITIONAL wrong and ineffective safeguards against the wrong part of the problem, while NOT doing anything against the actual abuses by the FBI-DOJ-CIA-White House under Obama.
The Senate added some protections, but not enough. Not enough in the right areas.
Barr proposed “original” extra almost-effective safeguards back in March into the original House Bill, but those were rendered ineffective and were washed out during subsequent (democrat) House changes. So the current House version of the FISA bill has almost NO safeguards at all! But you won’t find that summary in this published story at all!
I share his concern, and I am NOT a troll. I think the Joe S. thing is a loser. All I want to do is Win.
Agreed
Veto it, stop funding it, tear it down and salt the ground it stood on.
Is that Barr’s daughter?
You know the communist party will find a way to keep it going?
If signers of FISA warrant applications are willing to lie and sully their reputations (such as they are), all the while knowing there's a very low likelihood of them ever being held to account, the process is still worthless.
Fair enough - but after four years of watching President Trump win, I have come to accept that he will say things I wouldn’t have said - and that’s OK with me.
He doesn’t win in spite of his “loose cannon“ approach - it is part of WHY he wins. I’m not saying I understand it completely, but I’m convinced there is method to the madness.
I used to report to a CEO that alternated between extreme flattery and extreme criticism. I thought doing this would eventually devalue his words - that his subordinates would tend to discount both the flattery and the criticism, making him less effective.
But the fact was he was an extremely effective CEO, so at one point I asked him about it. His explanation made a lot of sense: he said he wanted his subordinates to care deeply whether he approved or disapproved of their job performance, and that if he moderated his approval/disapproval, they would eventually stop caring.
So, the swings between extreme approval and extreme disapproval seemed unfair and erratic at times, but his team was always inspired to win his approval. As CFO, I managed my team a different way - I wanted to be seen as fair and reasonable. But I suspect I was not nearly as effective a leader as he was. My team probably felt safer, but were they as motivated?
I think President Trump is doing something similar with his loose cannon tweets. People have come to accept that there is nothing he won’t say - nothing too politically incorrect - by resetting that expectation, he has given himself a lot of freedom regarding what he can get away with saying. Freedom is a good thing.
I have learned not to second guess him - he knows what he’s doing.
I know what you mean. I second guessed him for many things in 2016, and he won. I am hoping this year is a repeat of that one!
“Awesome...now lets shine a light on FISA abuse rather than talk about Joe Scarborough. Please.”
Amen to that. President Trump is damaging himself every time he brings up Joe Scarborough, even if Joe is a scumbag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.