The 212 House lawmakers who voted in favor of the warrant requirement that failed to pass will have a second chance to stop the bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s (FISA) controversial Section 702 surveillance program, which passed out of the chamber on Friday.
This would have renewed a warrantless FISA through 2026.
By a master stroke from Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), the warrant requirement is still on the table. She forced an additional procedural vote to stop Speaker Johnson et al who would betray the privacy of We the People.
The amendment to end warrantless surveillance passed in a tie vote of 212-212 on the House floor (Read: Speaker Johnson betrayed We the People with his vote against warrants), but Rep. Luna objected to its passage. Luna requested a vote on the motion to reconsider the legislation. That means the FISA bill will not be able to head to the Senate yet until after the House votes to table the motion to reconsider the vote next week. more
To the Moon, Alice!
Nice try, and well-played. Rep. Luna, but the IC has all the dirt they need on the Rubber Stamp Congress, and this is just a bump in the road. But at least the craven, compromised coward will have to sweat in the spotlights a second time. And we don’t need a third time to know that it’s enemy action.
Nothing done in the House now will repair the loss of Speaker Johnson’s integrity.
The proposed vote on warrantless FISAs with a two year extension is not a win for the GOP or Americans.
Allowing warrantless searches of Americans, for any period of time, is an attempt to bastardize the Constitutional Rights of every American.
Nah, smoke and mirrors.
congress twats
Congressthing: “The bill of rights is sacrosanct. The 4th amendment rights of US citizens should never be abridged for any reason!”
FBI: “Mr. Congressthing, here’s a video of you banging an underaged, transvestite male hooker.”
Congressthing: “According to the latest classified briefings I’ve just received, grave national security interests must overrule the bill of rights in the interests of our nation’s very survival.”
So reconcile this: “House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said on this week’s broadcast of “Sunday Morning Futures” that former President Donald Trump was “100%” with him.”
And this: “House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he will be pushing aid for Israel and Ukraine this week as part of a national security package he has been working on for several months.”
Are we to assume that they know something we don’t?