I'm glad that the Republican memo has been released. It makes many conclusory assertions, some of which are serious.
Throughout this process, members of the @libertycaucus and @freedomcaucus have called for the public release of evidence supporting the memo's allegations. We also have called for the release of the Democratic memo (which I have read).
Given the current rhetoric from @SpeakerRyan and others, it represents a breach of the public trust that, just a few weeks ago, he and many of the memo's biggest pushers were demanding the reauthorization of #FISA702, opposed by a bipartisan coalition of liberty defenders.
Unlike #FISA702, which authorizes systematic violations of the #4thAmendment, the section of FISA discussed in the memo requires probable cause and a warrant.
The central allegation is that a warrant was obtained fraudulently or without sufficient cause. If true, it shows the dangers of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, something @libertycaucus and @freedomcaucus members have been saying for a long time.
But #FISA702 is far more dangerous. It permits the FBI and other agencies to conduct unconstitutional, warrantless searches on millions of innocent Americans (whose communications were incidentally collected while targeting foreigners overseas).
If the speaker and others believe abuses are occurring in the execution of one section of FISA, then why would they insist on reauthorizing another section of FISA (702) that has far greater potential for abuse?
Congress now has an obligation to re-examine #FISA702 and pass reform legislation like the #USARIGHTSAct to protect the rights of the people we represent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many of the allegations against @POTUS are serious and should be taken seriously, especially by members of Congress.
We should allow Robert Mueller to complete his investigation and issue his report before taking any action potentially affecting the president’s tenure.
Based on the deliberations of the Framers of the Constitution and Federalist No. 69, I believe that a sitting president should not be criminally prosecuted. Before facing ordinary criminal liability, he first would have to be impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office.
“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.…
“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.…
“It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.…
We say diplomacy and dialogue are good. Few Americans would disagree with that. Peace and prosperity can’t be secured without communication and engagement.
For my part, I have urged presidents to meet with the leaders of Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and other countries to build better relationships. These interactions make it possible to change behavior, to turn foes into friends.
Since many people continue to unwittingly promote socialism with their misguided insistence that "every tax cut is good," I'm going to illustrate why a TARGETED (e.g., just for one entity) tax break is welfare, economically equivalent to a subsidy, and a cost to other taxpayers.
Imagine a state with only three people: Al, Bo, and Cy. Each person pays $4 in annual taxes, so the government collects $12 total. The government spends all that money providing services. It distributes services equally among its residents and is required to balance its budget.
Suppose the government wants to attract a new person, Di, to the state. The government is excited about all the business Di will bring, so it promises Di that her annual taxes will be only $1 if she makes the move. Di is thrilled and accepts the offer.
You’re going to hear and read the false, tired assertion that the War Powers Resolution (or Act) allows the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval for 60-90 days. Here’s why that’s not true:
Read the War Powers Resolution:
§1541(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement…
…in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
I keep seeing the same absurd claim going around on social media—that the omnibus is not so bad because it’s not a budget. This is totally backward. The omnibus is law; a budget is not. A bad budget is irresponsible but toothless. The omnibus (spending bill) does the real damage.
Another bogus claim is that this letter (whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…) means president can repurpose approps as he likes. It means no such thing. Omnibus lets him designate some global health activity spending as emergency, so it won’t count toward spending cap. This letter does that.
The omnibus is one of the worst—and most costly—pieces of legislation ever to become law. Period. That's why I voted no.