NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently-passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.
Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multi-pronged: some are angry that it was tucked away into the Legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up, others see it as nothing more than a quick pay day for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe.
REPUBLICANS FEUD OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURE, BUT CRITICS OFFER NO CLEAR ALTERNATIVE
“I think it was outrageous that that was put in and air dropped in there,” Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital. “It’s outrageous. It’s basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers. It’s absolutely outrageous, and needs to be taken out.”
The provision was included in the spending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from lawmakers in the GOP. And it was given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
The provision is narrowly tailored to just include senators, and would require that they be notified if their information is requested by the DOJ, be it through the subpoena of phone records like in the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the DOJ to go after sitting senators now and in the future.
Thune pushed back on the notion that lawmakers weren’t aware the provision was in the bill, given that the entire package was released roughly 24 hours before it was voted on, but acknowledged their frustration over how it was added was warranted.
“I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,” Thune said.
Schumer, when asked about the anger brewing on both sides of the aisle, heaped the blame on Thune, but noted that it was an opportunity to get protection for Democrats, too.
GOP UNITY SHATTERED BY CONTROVERSIAL MEASURE IN GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BILL
“Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,” Schumer said. “So we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.”
The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains in the air though.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe. He told Fox News Digital that he was neither asked about the provision, nor told about it, and like many other lawmakers, found out about it when he read the bill.
“I just think that, you know, giving them money –- I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,” he said. “I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.”
LINDSEY GRAHAM VOWS TO SUE OVER ‘ARCTIC FROST’ INVESTIGATION TARGETING GOP LAWMAKERS’ PHONE RECORDS
He also took issue with the fact that the provision was narrowly tailored to only apply to the Senate, and argued that it could be reworked to only provide for declaratory judgement in court rather than a monetary one.
“I could see the value of having a court say this was illegal and ruling against the government,” Hawley said. “I think it’s the monetary provisions that most people, including me, really balk at. Like, why are the taxpayers on the hook for this, and why does it apply only to the Senate?”
The provision set a retroactive date of 2022 to allow for the group of senators targeted in Smith’s Arctic Frost probe to be able to sue. That element has also raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that he supported repealing the provision, but wanted to fix it.
“The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,” he said. “The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.”
Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital that the provision was a “total mess,” and raised concerns on a bipartisan basis.
Not every Senator was on board with ditching the provision, however.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made clear that he intends to sue the DOJ and Verizon, his phone carrier, and argued that he didn’t believe that the provision was self-dealing but rather to deter future, similar actions. He also wants to take the provision, or the core idea of it, a step further.
Graham said that he wanted to open up the process to others, including dozens of groups, former lawmakers and others affected by the investigation.
“Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,” Graham said.
“If you’ve been wronged, this idea that our government can’t be sued is a dangerous idea,” he continued. “The government needs to be held accountable when it violates people’s rights.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., was far more succinct. When asked if he would support a repeal of the provision, he told Fox News Digital, “No.”
Read the full article here
