6 ms·
House cancels vote to renew surveillance powers after Trump threatened veto
- m12k 6y agoWell, even a broken clock is right twice a day
- WiseWeasel 6y agoHooray! Trump’s fear of his corruption being (further) exposed works in our favor!
- klmadfejno 6y agoThis is being downvoted, but it's probably not "wrong". This was used to look into the trump campaign, and is likely a major reason that he's opposed to it.
- JamalW 6y agoIt is wrong because OP’s premise assumes Trump is corrupt.
- boojums 6y agoThis sounds like surprisingly good news. I would be curious what caused the shift. > “The two-thirds of the Republican party that voted for this bill in March have indicated they are going to vote against it now,” Mr. [House Majority Leader ]Hoyer said. “I am told they are doing so at the request of the President. I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people.”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bkohlmann 6y agoThe power of the Presidency, especially within the party of the President, cannot be overstated - especially in the current political age. Similar to how when the Democratic Speaker tells her colleagues to fall in line...they tend to comply.
- zitterbewegung 6y agoWhy waste time to vote when its going to be vetoed? Also, you can claim in the future that you didn't vote for the bill. It benefits both parties.
- cletus 6y agoThat actually works both ways though. Voting for a bill you know will never get enacted allows you to argue you voted for it but someone else killed it. There's a huge potential for virtue signaling.
- elliekelly 6y agoThis is a rare instance where progressive Democrats have been outspoken critics of this bill (though most still voted for it) and now Republicans have done a complete U-turn (publicly, at least, following Trump’s lead) and agree. There isn’t much virtue to signal when the opposition is bipartisan.
- csharptwdec19 6y agoexcept the pending virtue signalling of people in each party being 'bipartisan' as a result of this event...
- elliekelly 6y agoThat’s a fair point. But in this case I suspect it’s a “you win this time” and not a “you win.” I don’t think this is the end of Patriot Act wiretapping but I hope I’m wrong.
- elliekelly 6y agoHis tweets suggest that he believes his privacy had previously been invaded by FISA court-approved wiretapping under the Obama administration. Like most things he says, that seems to be mostly false but based in a shred of truth: someone from his campaign was subject to wiretapping approved by a FISA court as part of the Russian election interference investigation. He’s linking FISA to his “Obamagate” conspiracy. This explains his party’s push to add language to the bill providing additional due process before a FISA court could approve wiretapping a candidate for an elected office in the federal government. A win for civil rights is a win for civil rights though. I hope.
- 4bpp 6y agoMight wind up being a net loss, because now Democrat-associated civil rights organisations such as the ACLU will be reluctant to be seen opposing FISA courts lest they be accused of providing fire support to Trump. Nominally one would expect Republican-aligned or neutral organisations to pick up the slack to the same extent as the Democrat ones drop it, but I am not aware of any ones that are similarly established and effective in the civil liberties niche.
- panzagl 6y agoSo do you really believe in civil rights or do you just care that your team wins?
- 4bpp 6y agoWhich side are you even insinuating is "my team"...? I can assure you I care about civil rights legislation in the US (which affects the whole Western world, since the US controls every major piece of ASCII-based WWW) more than I care about either political party in the US winning, not being American myself. What I was trying to say with my previous post is that I suspect that _most organisations_ that would be in a position to defend said civil rights legislation really just care that their team wins, which is a problem for civil rights if civil rights wind up being seen as a win for the other team.
- cwhiz 6y ago>I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people. This fear mongering is so pathetic.
- GoodJokes 6y agoProgressive democrats bucked shitty party leadership (pelosi).
- SmallPeePeeMan 6y agoMy daughter was killed at the Pulse incident in Orlando. I want this bill to become law.
- mikece 6y agoThis is good news but I am concerned that “the other shoe is going to drop” and A.G. Barr’s request that all encrypted communications have a back-door for law enforcement (and hackers) will be strongly advocated. You know, to keep the kids safe.
- pm90 6y agoHe can’t make requests that aren’t backed by any laws. He’s a law enforcer not lawmaker.
- panzagl 6y agoHe also can't overturn math.
- inimino 6y agoDon't be naive.
- Fauntleroy 6y agoWe'll see about that. If there's anything this presidency has taught me, it's that our governments' protections against bad actors are very weak against the two party system.
- babesh 6y agoJust you wait. I suspect that it will eventually be passed when no one is paying attention. This is just posturing on both sides.
- saurik 6y agoIt is infuriating how Pelosi seems to be the main person who really in the end actually wanted these surveillance powers: she should be celebrating a win here, not wishing that there were still a competent republican in office who would have helped her keep FISA.