Connect with us

Congress

Senate Republicans run from politically toxic payout provision designed just for them

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader John Thune thought he was giving Republicans a gift when he secured a provision in the shutdown-ending government funding package that could award hundreds of thousands of dollars to senators subpoenaed as part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump.

It turns out, several of them don’t want it.

Of the eight known Senate Republicans whose phone records were subpoenaed as part of Smith’s probe into Trump’s 2020 election interference, only one so far — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — has announced definitive plans to take advantage of the new legislative language that would allow senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if they discover their electronic records were seized without notification.

“Oh definitely,” Graham said at a news conference after the passage of the government funding bill. “And if you think I’m going to settle this thing for a million dollars — no. I want to make it so painful, no one ever does this again … I’m going to pursue through the court system — remedies.”

The others, however, were less enthusiastic or more opaque about their intentions. In public comments, social media posts or statements to Blue Light News over the past few days, the seven remaining Senate Republicans declined to publicly commit to seeking compensation for being singled out by Smith — as the Democrats pummel the GOP for endorsing a taxpayer-funded windfall and fellow Republicans in both chambers decry the provision as poorly conceived.

“I think the Senate provision is a bad idea,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in a statement. “There needs to be accountability for the Biden DOJ’s outrageous abuse of the separation of powers, but the right way to do that is through public hearings, tough oversight, including of the complicit telecomm companies, and prosecution where warranted.”

It could all soon be moot. Republicans in the House were enraged over the provision’s inclusion, and Speaker Mike Johnson responded by promising to hold a vote for a bill that would repeal the legislative language. The effort is expected to pass overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.

Johnson told reporters Wednesday that he had spoken with Thune about the issue earlier in the day, and that he communicated his disapproval of his Senate counterpart’s maneuvering.

It’s not clear what Thune plans to do with the bill, assuming it passes the House. A person familiar with the provision’s introduction into the funding bill, who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said that Senate Republicans requested that Thune include the language in the legislation.

The person cited a “strong appetite” among the GOP to pursue accountability for the so-called Arctic Frost investigation, a Biden-era probe that Republicans say constituted a weaponization of the Justice Department.

But as it turns out, the provision in the funding bill related to Smith’s probe is already creating political liability for Senate Republicans. Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.), who is running for governor of his state next year, quickly introduced legislation in the House that would reverse the provision. His challenger for the Republican nomination, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, later said she would vote for a bill to undo the language — but expressed a desire to take some legal recourse as a Smith target.

“Senator Blackburn’s plan has always been to seek a declaratory judgment — not monetary damages — to prevent leftists from violating the constitutional rights of conservatives,” a spokesperson for Blackburn said in a statement.

Even Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who is co-leading the investigation into Smith’s probe with Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said that while he stood by the provision he wouldn’t act on the cash opportunity.

“I have no plans at this time,” he said in a statement. “If I did sue, it would only be for the purpose of using the courts to expose the corrupt weaponization of federal law enforcement by the Biden and Obama administrations. With the full cooperation in our congressional investigations from the Trump DOJ and FBI, that shouldn’t be necessary.”

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said he would not seek damages nor did he want taxpayer money.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) tried to distance himself from the provision’s origin story, with a spokesperson saying he only learned about the payout language while reading the bill. He would support a House measure to repeal it, the spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Sen. Cynthia Lummis also emphasized that the Wyoming Republican did not play a role in the provision’s formulation — but added that the lawmaker supported the language.

“We must not allow the politicization of federal agencies to become routine,” the spokesperson said. “Liquidated damages provisions are commonly used and this provision is the only way to hold Jack Smith and wrongdoers accountable.”

A spokesperson for Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), another gubernatorial aspirant, pointed to the lawmaker’s statement on social media, noting that he would “sue the living hell out of every Biden official involved” if Smith was not jailed and Judge James Boasberg — who approved the effort to prevent senators from being notified of the subpoena — was not impeached.

The spokesperson wasn’t clear on whether Tuberville intends to sue the federal government under the provision in the funding bill.

Graham, during his press conference this week, said he believed the language would benefit everyone.

“This wasn’t about investigating me or other Senators for a crime — it was a fishing expedition,” Graham said. “I’m going to push back really hard … that will protect the Senate in the future.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

GOP senators urge Trump to find Iran exit plan as energy prices rise: ‘The clock is ticking’

Published

on

President Donald Trump promised a quick end to the war in Iran, but the ongoing conflict has kept energy costs high — and some Senate Republicans are starting to go public with their concerns.

GOP lawmakers who already feared November would be an increasingly tough battle are trying to nudge the president toward clearly defining his endgame after a surge in oil, gas and fertilizer prices. Trump warned the sticker shock might not completely recede by the time the November elections roll around, though news Friday that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen could begin to bring some relief if the agreement sticks.

Several GOP senators are warning the president could face growing pushback, including them not supporting military action against Iran after the conflict hits the 60-day mark at the end of the month, if he doesn’t articulate his plan. The White House could try to invoke a 30-day extension for national security reasons.

“I hope that we are arriving at an exit strategy here to bring this to a close to preserve our security interests and bring down the cost of gasoline,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters this week, adding that the “clock is ticking” on the war.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in an interview that she and a group of other senators are in the process of drafting an authorization for the use of military force against Iran, which would lay out when and how Trump could use force. She pointed to the 60-day threshold as a possible deadline for hammering out text, saying it would be “helpful” for it to be done by then.

Even senior Republicans are warning that if the administration wants Congress to greenlight tens of billions in additional war funding, Republicans are going to need to know more about the president’s ultimate Iran strategy beforehand.

“I think our members are going to be very interested in what next steps are,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, predicting that the administration’s forthcoming Iran war spending ask “will be an important inflection point if and when the administration submits their request.”

Thune, like most congressional Republicans, has been supportive of the administration’s Iran campaign but said the impact on gas and fertilizer prices is “a big deal” back in his home state of South Dakota.

“We’re in planting season so if you didn’t buy fertilizer ahead of time, you’re really feeling it, and obviously fuel is a critically important part of production, agriculture,” Thune said this week, prior to the Strait’s reopening.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) predicted his party would ultimately keep the Senate majority, but said the Iran war and the related spike in pricing could be a drag when they are already facing “headwinds.”

“The president has to help us get the vote out,” Tillis said. “But the base alone is not going to be able to do it. The way we’re going to get the other ones is addressing the energy challenges, particularly the price at the pump and some of the other affordability issues.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), in an interview before Friday’s announcement, predicted that prices would come down after the strait’s reopening and that it would matter the most in September, when swing voters start tuning in for the midterms.

“If we’re going into September and, even more, October … with super high — you know gas prices over $4 — I mean it’s going to be a problem,” Cramer said.

There were early signs of celebration from Senate Republicans Friday over the announcement that the strait had reopened, even if it’s potentially only temporarily.

“Very glad to hear the Strait of Hormuz is open, at least for the remainder of the ceasefire,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on X.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), also took a victory lap: “Will Dems be making comments about the massive drop in oil prices?” he asked.

Trump has suggested that he is eager to negotiate a deal to end the conflict. And GOP lawmakers have largely deferred to Trump so far — including defeating attempts in both chambers this week to limit the president’s ability to carry out additional military action without Congress.

But even with oil shipments through the strait set to resume now, some Republicans say generally, they want to see the president focusing more on affordability issues.

“I would like to see the president spend 70 percent of his time talking about all the things that we and he have done to reduce the cost of living and 30 percent of his time on other important stuff,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said in an interview.

Continue Reading

Congress

GOP hard-liners threaten to tank FISA vote

Published

on

House GOP hardliners are threatening to tank the FISA rule shortly on the House floor as Speaker Mike Johnson tries to force through a five year extension, according to four people granted anonymity to speak about plans not yet public.

They’re livid over the “inexplicable 5 year extension, the fake warrant requirement, and the walk back of the promise from this afternoon to include CBDC,” according to one of the people, referring negotiations to prohibit a central bank digital currency.

Continue Reading

Congress

‘The original sin:’ Hill Republicans blame White House for slow-walking FISA sales pitch

Published

on

A messy GOP battle over a key government spy authority boiled over in the House this week — but the crisis was months in the making.

White House officials and Republican Hill leaders have tried to pressure GOP hard-liners into approving a clean, 18-month extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that President Donald Trump demanded. But amid a GOP rebellion on Capitol Hill, Speaker Mike Johnson Thursday afternoon punted a vote on the measure for the second day in a row.

The program expires Monday night. Senators went home for the weekend as Johnson continued to pursue a compromise with the holdouts for an extension as long as three years with reforms, and raced to hold a vote.

Now, the finger-pointing among Republicans is rampant and temperatures are running high.

A band of House ultraconservatives — who have long been concerned that warrantless government surveillance of foreign individuals could sweep up data on Americans — shot down Trump and GOP leaders’ long-held plans for the 18-month extension with no reforms earlier this week.

“A clean extension ain’t going to move on the floor,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the head House GOP holdouts, warned earlier this week.

In interviews with more than two dozen Republican lawmakers and aides on Capitol Hill involved in the talks, many of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about the contentious policy debate, the consensus is that the White House is largely responsible for the current breakdown as GOP factions snipe and assign blame.

“This is why we shouldn’t wait until the last minute on these things,” one House Republican fumed Thursday. A congressional GOP aide added, “The White House was too late to come to a decision. That was the original sin.”

A senior White House official disputed the characterization from some Hill Republicans that the administration had taken too long to plead their case. They pointed to a briefing in the Situation Room months ago with Republican lawmakers, during which “the president heard arguments on both sides of the issue.”

The official added, “We’ve had multiple briefings from senior officials, both on the House and Senate side, about the desirability of this program. Again, going back months ago.”

Trump told House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that he wanted a clean extension, without reforms, in February. The president arrived at this position, a second White House official said, after “the administration completed a policy process through the interagency and advised POTUS that a clean extension was the best course and solicited views on length from Blue Light News.”

There was also coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill, according to three people familiar and the senior White House official: Johnson requested the reauthorization run for 18 months, and Trump agreed.

The administration succeeded in convincing Jordan, who had previously pushed for changes to Section 702, to publicly support a clean extension following a White House meeting on the subject.

But ultraconservatives on Capitol Hill were harder to convince, with some House Republicans correctly predicting two months ago they were going to have issues as the vote drew nearer. Trump has forced those hard-liners to cave in recent months on other fights, but the spy powers legislation was one area where members have not been as willing to relent.

While Trump officials made outreach to members at least two months ago, Hill engagement ramped up in the days leading up to the scheduled vote. That has included appeals to lawmakers from CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Deputy CIA Director Michael Ellis and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine, according to five people. Ellis has made personal phone calls to members, according to two people familiar with the pressure campaign.

White House deputy chief of staff James Blair, White House Legislative Affairs chief James Braid and other legislative affairs officials have also been calling individual House Republicans and working through negotiation details, according to six other people with direct knowledge of the conversations.

Noticeably absent from this outreach is Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Her office plays a statutory role in overseeing Section 702 and has historically been a key proponent of the powerful spy powers.

Gabbard in early February expressed concerns to Trump about reauthorizing the statute without additional privacy guardrails, as Blue Light News reported earlier Thursday, though her appeal appears to have been unsuccessful.

And while the administration’s position on Section 702 came into focus in February, there were signs earlier in the month that its position had not fully crystallized. Officials meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time refused to divulge the White House’s stance on extending the surveillance power and adding reforms, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The exchange frustrated Republicans and Democrats on the panel, who are generally supportive of the surveillance program.

Due to a quirk in the law, the administration will still be able to operate the program for nearly a year even if it is not renewed, and privacy advocates have argued that Monday is a false deadline. But without the law on the books, communications providers like Google and AT&T, which the government tasks to surveil foreign messages, could stop complying with those orders.

But White House officials want an extension codified now, all the same. They have been arguing in conversations with lawmakers that the country is at war and national security is paramount amid threats from Iran. Therefore, they say, hardliners should fall in line to back the clean extension without delay, according to five people involved in the conversations.

“The program is critical for the United States military to listen to the conversations of foreign terrorists abroad while we are engaged in a military operation in Iran. That’s what we’ve been telling individuals, as well as the elevated threat levels around the world, as well as the threat from Mexican drug cartels,” the senior White House official said.

Two groups of House GOP hard-liners, after being summoned by Trump Tuesday night, met with officials at the White House. But some of the Republicans declined the invitation.“I’ve heard everything that the executive has to say on FISA,” Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said in an interview that evening. That meeting, however, marked a shift: Those House Republicans who went to the White House alongside GOP leaders — among them Roy and Reps. Keith Self of Texas, Byron Donalds of Florida, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Warren Davidson of Ohio — took the opportunity to begin negotiations about a framework for a possible agreement around the use of warrants to access certain information.

The discussions included how the White House and GOP leadership needed to make good on a months-old promise to advance legislation that would ban a central bank digital currency. Enough House GOP holdouts late Thursday evening were threatening to still tank the procedural vote to advance the extension if the White House didn’t address the digital currency matter, according to four people with direct knowledge of the matter. “Unless it’s included, there’s enough votes to kill the rule,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said in an interview Thursday afternoon. But other Republicans, White House officials and Senate GOP leadership are warning that attaching the measure directly would tank the FISA bill.

In exchange for making these concessions, GOP leaders and the White House have been pushing for a Section 702 extension that’s longer than 18 months and closer to three years.

The senior White House official also said Thursday the administration has “focused in on potentially having conversations about reforms to the program that we think would strengthen protections for American civil liberties … those conversations are ongoing.”

Jordan, meanwhile, has been helping build support for a clean extension by privately telling some Republicans that, if they can pass this 18-month clean extension now, they could potentially work on warrant reforms later, according to three people with direct knowledge of the discussions. That’s raised some eyebrows internally among House Republicans.

The House delays are leaving barely any time for the Senate to act. Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Thursday that he’s already started having conversations with his own members about what they would need to clear a FISA extension Monday.

Ultimately, even if GOP leaders strike a deal on changes to the current proposed extension, it could risk support for reauthorization among key Democrats, who Republicans will need to pass the final legislation in a narrowly-divided House. While some House Democrats are expected to help Republicans get the final bill across the finish line — including top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — Democratic leaders have so far declined to shore up the votes for any fast-tracked process.

“I am deeply skeptical of a straightforward extension,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday, adding he told Johnson a few days ago there was “great Democratic skepticism” on a clean extension.

One Democratic Hill aide said Johnson and Trump did far too little to coordinate their pitch with Democrats, who carried a razor-thin vote to re-up the law in 2024.

“They never came to us,” the aide said.

Continue Reading

Trending