Read on Twitter
The Senate is voting on whether to require a warrant before the government can secretly obtain Internet searches and web browsing history.
Kind of a Big Deal happening here guys. You might want to turn on your CSPAN-2.
Seriously, history being made here.
The bipartisan effort by Wyden and Daines to block the government from secret warrantless surveillance of Web browsing and search data failed despite getting 59 votes, ***one vote shy*** of the 60-vote threshold set by the Senate.
37 voted no; 4 missed the vote.
37 voted no; 4 missed the vote.
Why is a warrant a big deal? Because a warrant requires probable cause. That's a much higher standard than the Patriot Act required to get business info.
Four Senators who did not vote
ALEXANDER
MURRAY
SANDERS
SASSE
I've reached out to their offices. (Alexander is self-isolating because a staffer has COVID.)
ALEXANDER
MURRAY
SANDERS
SASSE
I've reached out to their offices. (Alexander is self-isolating because a staffer has COVID.)
The full roll call vote is here. Bipartisan both pro and con. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00089
NEW: Murray is flying back to DC and would have voted AYE on the Wyden/Daines Internet surveillance amendment, which failed by *1* vote https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-13/senate-blocks-warrant-rule-for-secret-internet-surveillance?sref=fjrBr5qu
Thing is, even if Murray had been there (or Sanders or Sasse?) not 100% that would have changed the outcome. McConnell wanted the amendment to fail. Could he have prevailed on another R to vote no and not be vote #60?
