Rand Paul, citing Flynn case, proposes FISA amendment to curb surveillance of Americans

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 months ago  •  109 comments

By:   Brooke Singman (MSN)

Rand Paul, citing Flynn case, proposes FISA amendment to curb surveillance of Americans
Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday introduced an amendment to the House-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect Americans' privacy, citing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn as an example of "abuse" and saying it "should never be allowed to happen again."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday introduced an amendment to the House-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect Americans' privacy, citing the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn as an example of "abuse" and saying it "should never be allowed to happen again."

Paul, R-Ky., who is an outspoken advocate for privacy reforms, proposed an amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 - which passed the House on a bipartisan basis earlier this year - to protect Americans' privacy, ensure due process and "reassert the Fourth Amendment."

"It flies in the face of our Constitution that a secret court can authorize invading an innocent American's privacy," Paul said in a statement Tuesday. "Recent months have once again made all too clear how such a system leads to abuse. It's time for Congress to stop paying lip service to reform and pass real safeguards that respect Americans' rights."

He added: "What happened to General Flynn and President Trump should never be allowed to happen again."

Paul's amendment would still allow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to order surveillance of non-Americans and enemies abroad, but would require the government to obtain a warrant from a traditional federal court - as opposed to the secret FISC - to surveil an American.

The amendment would also prohibit the federal government from introducing into evidence any information gained from warrantless surveillance on an American, and would guarantee an American's ability to use that evidence in their defense.

Paul's proposal comes as the FISA bill hits the Senate floor and amid rapidly unfolding developments about the origins of the Russia investigation.

Last week, the Justice Department dropped the case against Flynn, after they determined that the FBI's 2017 Flynn interview - which formed the basis for his guilty plea of lying to investigators - was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis." His conversations with Russia's former ambassador to the U.S. were picked up during the presidential transition.

Meanwhile, FISA is at the center of the FBI's original Russia probe. The FBI obtained FISA warrants to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found widespread errors in the process of obtaining the warrant against Page, including that at least two FISA warrant renewals against Page lacked probable cause. Horowitz, in his report, also revealed that there were at least 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the Page FISA applications.

The FISA reform legislation requires more oversight to the process — including a requirement for the attorney general to personally sign off on surveilling government officials.

The bill will also expand when FISA judges should appoint an outsider to critique the government's position. Currently, judges are only to do so when addressing a novel and significant question of interpreting surveillance law.

The FISA reform bill includes stricter penalties for abusing the FISA process and the FISC for political purposes. False declarations before FISC or other FISA abuses, including engaging in electronic surveillance without authorization, disclosing or using information obtained by e-surveillance without authorization, will now have a penalty of up to eight years in prison, up from five.

The bill has a section stipulating the penalty also applies to "an employee, officer, or contractor of the United States Government [who] intentionally discloses an application, or classified information contained therein, for an order under any title of this Act to any person not entitled to receive classified information."

Meanwhile, a controversial portion of the FBI's surveillance powers, known as Section 215, gave the government broad powers to demand "business records" from companies in the name of national security investigations.

The new legislation allows obtaining business records to continue but bans using such an order to collect information like cell phone data that in a criminal investigation requires a warrant, which has a higher legal standard.

Fox News' Chad Pergram, Morgan Phillips and Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Texan1211
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 months ago

Good on you, Rand Paul.

No American should be subjected to the nonsense that can occur when there is little to no oversight to protect Constitutional rights.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 months ago

There was a time when you could count on "good liberals" (I know) while conservatives were supposedly chomping on the bit to suppress everyone.  NO MORE!

They have flipped the script and become the authoritarians.  And not very cleverly disguised as they were in the past.

Now some may want to raise the issue of the Neocons and that would be legitimate, but as most should know, Rand is not one of them.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 months ago

Perhaps you could point out WTF FISA has to do with Flynn? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 months ago

Both are part of the failed coup, which targeted incoming Trump officials in order to cripple the new administration with allegations it had colluded with Moscow.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.2    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.3    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 months ago

So nothing. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2    2 months ago
Perhaps you could point out WTF FISA has to do with Flynn? 

I could.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.6    2 months ago

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.7    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.7    2 months ago

I did.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.9    2 months ago

Please post a link. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    2 months ago

Please read the article and then do your own research.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.11    2 months ago

I did. That is how I KNOW that Flynn'd case doesn't have a fucking thing to do with FISA. Why avoid admitting that FACT?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.13  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.12    2 months ago

Sometimes merely reading an article isn't sufficient.

And because you declare something to be a fact doesn't make it one.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.13    2 months ago
Sometimes merely reading an article isn't sufficient.

Hence my question that you've deflected on repeatedly. 

And because you declare something to be a fact doesn't make it one.

Which your comments clearly illustrate. 

 
 
 
Ender
2  Ender    2 months ago

deleted [ph] 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @2    2 months ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.36  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago

This thread has been cleaned up and is locked. Please stay on topic 

 
 
 
charger 383
3  charger 383    2 months ago

wow, Rand Paul said something I like 

 
 
 
Ender
3.1  Ender  replied to  charger 383 @3    2 months ago
including a requirement for the attorney general to personally sign off on surveilling government officials

Sorry but, not a good idea. The right constantly says Holder was in Obama's pocket, just like I say Barr is in donald's pocket. It would basically only give two people the right to sign off on any surveillance of suspected government officials.

It would turn it into a partisan nightmare. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1    2 months ago
Sorry but, not a good idea. The right constantly says Holder was in Obama's pocket, just like I say Barr is in donald's pocket. It would basically only give two people the right to sign off on any surveillance of suspected government officials.
It would turn it into a partisan nightmare. 

It is an EXCELLENT idea. Imagine having to have the AG sign off on an attempt to get a warrant in a regular court to "spy" on Americans.

How horrible!

SMH

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.2  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 months ago

So you only want the power to be held in the hands of one (two including the president) person.

This would do the exact opposite of what you think you are trying to accomplish.

It would allow a partisan administration the ability to pick and choose who they would go after.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @3.1    2 months ago

It would turn it into a partisan nightmare. 

It already has, because the Democrats and their stooges decided to weaponize the FBI and previous DOJ

to dig up dirt on Trump and his associates, none of whom were ever convicted of a real crime.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.2    2 months ago
So you only want the power to be held in the hands of one (two including the president) person.

Do not be obtuse, and don't try to put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

This would do the exact opposite of what you think you are trying to accomplish.
It would allow a partisan administration the ability to pick and choose who they would go after.

It is painfully obvious you didn't read the article, or didn't understand it.

The proposal is for applying to a regular federal court for a warrant before spying on American citizens. I think it is an EXCELLENT idea that the AG look at such cases carefully, examine any evidence to support such surveillance, and put himself and his reputation on the line.

Had such things been in place, maybe we wouldn't be hearing about abuses now.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @3.1.2    2 months ago
It would allow a partisan administration the ability to pick and choose who they would go after.

That exactly what the Obama administration did, and that's OK with you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.5    2 months ago
That exactly what the Obama administration did, and that's OK with you?

Well, it was Obama, not Trump, so yeah, probably.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.7  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    2 months ago

So take any need for secret surveillance and put it in the hands of the regular court system. Then what would be the need of the FISA court?

No matter how you try to say otherwise, sounds to me like consolidation of power.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.7    2 months ago
So take any need for secret surveillance and put it in the hands of the regular court system.

Not what was said. STOP being obtuse.

Then what would be the need of the FISA court?

To approve of surveillance of non-Americans. As stated in the article you didn't read or didn't understand.

No matter how you try to say otherwise, sounds to me like consolidation of power.

I am sure it must seem that way to someone who doesn't grasp the meaning of the article or even what it says.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    2 months ago
I am sure it must seem that way to someone who doesn't grasp the meaning of the article or even what it says.

What amazes me is that anyone that actually believes the government doesn't monitor everything we already do.  Even right here on NT.

Big brother is real and expanding.  Fortunately,we still have some degree of freedom and liberty left which is a far cry from what others in other countries enjoy.  But "technology" is slowly eating away at that also.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.10  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    2 months ago

So I said it would tie the courts hands and you said no it wouldn't, it would move it to a different court. So I said it would be in a regular court system and you said it doesn't say that.

So putting any decisions only in the hands of one man is not a consolidation of power?

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.11  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.9    2 months ago

That was my point. We are already under surveillance yet Paul's proposal does nothing to address that.

It only gives more protection to government employees.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.10    2 months ago
So I said it would tie the courts hands and you said no it wouldn't, it would move it to a different court. So I said it would be in a regular court system and you said it doesn't say that.

Here is what you wrote:

So take any need for secret surveillance and put it in the hands of the regular court system. Then what would be the need of the FISA court?

Well, first you have to at least understand WTF FISA stands for.

But an American should be treated with due process, not some secret court.

So putting any decisions only in the hands of one man is not a consolidation of power?

Not one man. You still don't get it. The AG would have to first approve of the application for a warrant to spy on an American. He doesn't have the authority to grant the warrant, only for the application based on law. A judge would consider the application and then decide. Judges decide stuff all the time, based on law.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @3.1.11    2 months ago
That was my point. We are already under surveillance yet Paul's proposal does nothing to address that.

If you think it only started when the "Patriot Act" was enacted, I have a few bridges and tunnels in New York for sale real cheap.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.14  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    2 months ago

What would be the point of surveillance of a suspected spy if it is not done in secret?

And yes I get it. It is putting the decision in the hands of one man whether or not a warrant would even go before a judge.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.14    2 months ago
What would be the point of surveillance of a suspected spy if it is not done in secret?

Oh, FFS. of course survelliance of foreigners may be done secretly.

But as Americans, we have rights

And yes I get it. It is putting the decision in the hands of one man whether or not a warrant would even go before a judge.

Sorry, but not everything in life can be done by committee. Deal with it.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.16  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.15    2 months ago

So yes, consolidation of power.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @3.1.14    2 months ago
What would be the point of surveillance of a suspected spy if it is not done in secret?

Don't assume the government knows all.   Hell, they did after all put Aldrich Ames on the very same task force that was searching for the CIA mole.  Yeah, that was Aldrich Ames.

And then there is Robert Hanssen.   FBI agent that actually worked in the FBI Counter Intelligence division.  He was likely the worst intelligence disaster this country ever saw and was responsible for numerous assets being outed and killed.

However, surveilling an incoming NSA and trying to entrap him for what he was actually supposed to be doing is disingenuous at best and as we have seen criminal at worst.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.18  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.16    2 months ago
So yes, consolidation of power.

I just don;t get why you bitch about that consolidation of power when today ONE judge on FISA determines if the warrant is issued, so NO CHANGE in WHO decides.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.19  Heartland American  replied to  Ender @3.1.2    2 months ago

And be held accountable 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

hopefully Paul can stop this.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5  XDm9mm    2 months ago

How about this as an alternative?

Have a rotating panel of three SCOTUS Justices reviewing the request and EVIDENCE, of course having that evidence signed and sworn to on penalty of criminal prosecution with the signature being used as evidence of a guilty plea if abused or exculpatory evidence hidden?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  XDm9mm @5    2 months ago
How about this as an alternative?

On second thought, make the SCOTUS review panel TWO Justices.  In that way, should the case ever go to the SCOTUS for whatever reason, those two justices would by statue be recused from any hearings and deliberations and there would still be 7 justices available to ensure there is a possible majority ruling possible.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1    2 months ago

I think the 3 judges would be just fine. If it went further, and somehow the Justices were deadlocked, then the original order would stand--just like when the SC refuses to take a case and allows lower court ruling to stand.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

Who cares. No matter what the government, foreign governments, and some fucker in a basement are watching you. ANYTHING you put on a computer is the property of everyone else with a computer. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6    2 months ago
ANYTHING you put on a computer is the property of everyone else with a computer. 

WHAT?

omfg

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1    2 months ago
WHAT? omfg

Some like to think that.  Ergo, why even us lowly citizens should ALWAYS employ encryption on ALL devices.

Better yet, have an encrypted boot to even get your computer operational and then have that encrypted.

Send emails to friends encrypted just make sure they would know what the key is....   like their anniversary date, or year of birth.

If done properly, it would take a super computer years to decrypt.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    2 months ago
Send emails to friends encrypted just make sure they would know what the key is....   like their anniversary date, or year of birth.

Oh...   just to follow up since I neglected this earlier, 

IF you start sending encrypted emails, anticipate that you WILL become a likely target of scrutiny electronically and physically if you're adept enough to spot it.  The feds are quite interested in encrypted emails and who sends them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6    2 months ago
Who cares.

People.

No matter what the government, foreign governments, and some fucker in a basement are watching you. ANYTHING you put on a computer is the property of everyone else with a computer.

Do you believe that anything obtained by such spying should be allowed in a court of law and used to prosecute Americans?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    2 months ago

Our elected officials used to care about individual rights. It’s incredible to me that Rand Paul seems to be the only member of Congress who still does,

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Tacos! @7    2 months ago

Only as long as he has something personal to gain from it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1    2 months ago
Only as long as he has something personal to gain from it. 

Your personal cynicism is duly noted.

Perhaps he gets a sense of satisfaction from trying to preserve American rights.

There is at LEAST as much evidence to suggest that than there is for your theory.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.1    2 months ago
Perhaps he gets a sense of satisfaction from trying to preserve American rights.

Yet much like his father, his attempts have utterly failed. After 4 years in the Senate, Paul hasn't had even one of his Sponsored bills pass in the Senate. The rest of his legislative record is hardly groundbreaking. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.1.2    2 months ago
et much like his father, his attempts have utterly failed. After 4 years in the Senate, Paul hasn't had even one of his Sponsored bills pass in the Senate.

Why post such deliberate falsehoods?

Your post is ridiculously wrong.

78. S.743 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Merrill's Marauders Congressional Gold Medal Act
Sponsor: Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] (Introduced 03/12/2019) Cosponsors: (76) 
Committees: Senate - Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs | House - Financial Services; House Administration 
Latest Action: House - 12/09/2019 Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee... (All Actions) 
Tracker: 
This bill has the status Passed Senate

JOINT RESOLUTION
111. S.J.Res.68 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Sponsor: Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA] (Introduced 01/09/2020) Cosponsors: (31) 
Committees: Senate - Foreign Relations 
Latest Action: Senate - 05/07/2020 Failed of passage in Senate over veto by Yea-Nay Vote. 49 - 44. Record Vote Number: 84. (All Actions) 
Tracker: 
This bill has the status Failed to pass over veto
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
IntroducedPassed SenatePassed HouseTo PresidentVetoed by PresidentFailed to pass over veto

JOINT RESOLUTION
114. S.J.Res.48 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the United Arab Emirates certain defense articles and services.
Sponsor: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 06/05/2019) Cosponsors: (7) 
Committees: Senate - Foreign Relations 
Latest Action: House - 06/20/2019 Held at the desk. (All Actions) 
Tracker: 
This bill has the status Passed Senate

IntroducedPassed SenatePassed HouseTo PresidentBecame Law 
JOINT RESOLUTION
115. S.J.Res.47 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services.
Sponsor: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 06/05/2019) Cosponsors: (7) 
Committees: Senate - Foreign Relations 
Latest Action: House - 06/20/2019 Held at the desk. (All Actions) 
Tracker: 
This bill has the status Passed Senate
JOINT RESOLUTION
116. S.J.Res.46 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to the United Arab Emirates certain defense articles and services.
Sponsor: Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 06/05/2019) Cosponsors: (7) 
Committees: Senate - Foreign Relations 
Latest Action: House - 06/20/2019 Held at the desk. (All Actions) 
Tracker: 
This bill has the status Passed Senate

https://www.congress.gov/member/rand-paul/P000603?pageSize=100&page=1

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.3    2 months ago

Tex, NOT ONE of the bills that you cited are SPONSORED by Rand Paul.

So that begs the question: 

Why post such deliberate falsehoods?

Your post is ridiculously wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.1.4    2 months ago

AMENDMENT 
782. S.Amdt.1678 to S.Amdt.1463   — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Purpose: To provide for the more accurate and complete enumeration of members of the Armed Forces in any tabulation of total population by the Secretary of Commerce. 
Amends Bill: H.R.1735 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 06/04/2015) (Proposed 06/18/2015) 
Latest Action: 06/18/15 Amendment SA 1678 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (All Actions) 

AMENDMENT 
1,000. S.Amdt.3554   — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
Purpose: To clarify that nothing in the resolution shall be construed as a declaration of war or authorization to use force. 
Amends Bill: S.Res.412 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 07/10/2014) (Proposed 07/10/2014) 
Latest Action: 07/10/14 Amendment SA 3554 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (All Actions) 

AMENDMENT 
1,297. S.Amdt.3119   — 112th Congress (2011-2012)
Purpose: To provide for the more accurate and complete enumeration of members of the Armed Forces in any tabulation of total population by the Secretary of Commerce. 
Amends Bill: S.3254 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 11/28/2012) (Proposed 12/03/2012) 
Latest Action: 12/03/12 Amendment SA 3119 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (All Actions) 

AMENDMENT 
1,336. S.Amdt.2029 to S.Amdt.2000   — 112th Congress (2011-2012)
Purpose: To require the Postal Service to take into consideration the impact of regulations when developing a profitability plan. 
Amends Bill: S.1789 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 04/17/2012) (Proposed 04/25/2012) 
Latest Action: 04/25/12 Amendment SA 2029 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (text as modified: CR S2687) (All Actions) 

AMENDMENT 
1,338. S.Amdt.2027 to S.Amdt.2000   — 112th Congress (2011-2012)
Purpose: To require the closing of post offices in the Capitol Complex. 
Amends Bill: S.1789 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 04/17/2012) (Proposed 04/25/2012) 
Latest Action: 04/25/12 Amendment SA 2027 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (All Actions) 

AMENDMENT 
1,343. S.Amdt.1999   — 112th Congress (2011-2012)
Purpose: Of a perfecting nature. 
Amends Bill: S.Res.80 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 03/29/2012) (Proposed 03/29/2012) 
Latest Action: 03/29/12 Amendment SA 1999 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (All Actions) 

AMENDMENT 
1,399. S.Amdt.784   — 112th Congress (2011-2012)
Purpose: To provide for testing to confirm the material strength of previously untested natural gas transmission pipelines located in certain areas, and to update fiscal year references. 
Amends Bill: S.275 
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Submitted 10/17/2011) (Proposed 10/17/2011) 
Latest Action: 10/17/11 Amendment SA 784 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (All Actions) 

There are more.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.1.4    2 months ago

Do you know what a co-sponsor is?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.5    2 months ago

Those are AMENDMENTS Tex. 

I said bill and I MEANT bill. 

Strike TWO. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    2 months ago

READING is fundamental Tex. 

I said Sponsored and I MEANT Sponsored and NO, I refuse to accepts your moving the goal posts. 

Strike THREE. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.1.8    2 months ago

Well, you worry over meaningless bullshit that has ZERO to do with the article.

Do you even know what the fucking topic IS?

Because your posts certainly don't reflect that you have a clue.

 
 
 
user image
9      2 months ago

I wish this guy had a chance for the presidency. Everytime i hear about him he is doing something I totally support.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Texan1211
loki12
Sunshine
GaJenn78
Tacos!
Sean Treacy
CB
devangelical


38 visitors