Monthly Archives: January 2020

CONCORD A state senator said its time to ask New Hampshire voters whether they want to make flag burning an unlawful expression of free speech.

Sen. Harold French, R-Franklin, presented to the Senate Election Laws and Municipal Affairs Committee Thursday a proposed amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution (CACR 19) to make it illegal to burn a flag except as a respectable means of disposing of a worn or damaged one.

People had the right to express themselves, but as I got older I realized it was not just the flag; it was a symbol of unity. As all of us look at that flag, we see the same thing and that is the unity the flag brings to us, French said.

There are other instances that we prohibit things which could be considered freedom of speech. This is just one other I would like to add to that.

Jeanne Hruska, political director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, said even if adopted by voters, the law would last as long as it took a judge to examine it and conclude it violated the U.S. Constitution.

This amendment is very much about speech and protest, including peaceful protest, since incitement to violence is already illegal, Hruska said. Burning the flag may be offensive speech to many, but it is the kind of speech that is most important to protect if free speech is to retain its meaning.

The first flag protection amendment was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protests against the Vietnam War.

Over time, 48 of the 50 states adopted their own flag protection laws, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989 struck them all down as unconstitutional in a 5-4 ruling.

When Congress adopted another law in response, the court voted 5-4 to knock that one down, too.

Congress then spent nearly the next decade trying to get the necessary two-thirds vote to amend the U.S. Constitution. The movement passed the U.S. House but finally died in the U.S. Senate by a single vote in 2006.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right enjoyed by citizens in this country, said liberal activist Nancy Brennan of Weare.

Although I have no desire to burn the American flag, I do understand why some people may feel so disenfranchised, so angry about something that they burned or desecrated the flag.

The hearing was sparsely attended, though six senators have signed on to the amendment, including first-term Sen. Jon Morgan, D-Brentwood.

The hearing featured some spirited debate.

I have to say I feel the Supreme Court was wrong-headed in that decision, said Sen. Regina Birdsell, R-Hampstead and a Coast Guard veteran.

We have had numerous people who died under the flag. Its a desecration to them that others are allowed to burn the flag.

Sen. Tom Sherman, D-Rye, said many in his family fought against the Nazis in World War II, including an uncle whom he never met.

I find it absolutely abhorrent to burn the American flag. My family has been here since the origins of the nation. Can I put in a constitutional amendment next year to end hate speech? What is going to stop us from stopping this kind of speech? Sherman asked rhetorically.

Sen. Melanie Levesque, D-Brookline, tried to stay in the political median for now.

Our freedom of speech is also very important. Without weighing in here I can understand both sides, Levesque said.

Amendments to the State Constitution require at least a three-fifths majority vote in the House of Representatives and the State Senate.

Then,without the governors involvement, the question automatically would be placed on the November 2020 ballot, requiring a two-thirds vote to be adopted.

See the original post here:

Franklin Republican wants to make it a crime to burn symbol of liberty - The Union Leader

Democrats say they've made concessions to get Republicans on board with a revised carbon policy plan. Republicans say rural Oregon could still pay a stiff price.

SALEM One question has lingered in political circles in the days since Democratic legislators unveiled their latest plan to limit the states greenhouse gas emissions.

What do the Republicans think?

The GOP holds a shrinking share of seats in the Legislature, but still possesses just enough members to halt legislative business.

Senate Republicans made national headlines for tanking last years proposal by fleeing the state, a possibility that looms over the coming session, which begins Feb 3.

Hence the interest: are the slate of changes recently proposed by Democrats enough to get their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stay in the building?

Sen. Herman Baertschiger, R-Grants Pass, who leads Republicans in the Senate, was rather opaque about those odds when taking questions from reporters on Wednesday.

Well, you know, it's a very fluid, dynamic situation, Baertschiger said. It's ever-changing. You know, I'm still having conversations, but nothing is off the table. And I would not want to speculate one way or the other at this point because it is such a dynamic situation.

On Monday, the interim Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee heard three hours of testimony on the revamped proposal from invited guests, ranging from the chief operating officer of a truck stop company to a policy adviser at the Nature Conservancy. Lawmakers are in Salem this week for a series of interim meetings.

In what is depending on whom you ask either a breakdown in communication between the parties, or the rhetoric of political theater, Republicans convey concern that Democrats wont listen to them.

As long as we can sit down and collaborate and work on common goals, on issues, I am 100 percent behind doing that, said Sen. Lynn Findley, R-Vale, the newest member of the Senate and its environment committee. And that's (what) I believe that we should all be here for ... But if it's, My way or the highway, then that's a difficult decision to make.

Rep. David Brock Smith, a Port Orford Republican who served on the committee that considered last years proposal, said he was not involved in crafting the new legislative concept released last Friday.

Not being included in the new discussions was rather unfortunate, Brock Smith said in an interview, Because we might have been able to mitigate some of the issues that this bill has.

Republicans seem to want to focus on nudging Oregonians to sign on to cleaner energy sources.

We have to have a carrot, perhaps wrapped in chocolate icing, before you go with the stick, said Findley, who was sworn in as a senator just last week, jumping over from the House to fill the seat of a resigning lawmaker. And right now, we don't. So I think I think it's imperative that we do that.

Brock Smith said Wednesday he has gathered bipartisan support for a bill that would boost incentives for Portland-area residents to buy electric cars and hybrids.

The greenhouse gas proposals architects, Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, and Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, said the new plan includes significant changes in response to Republican concerns from last year, like phasing in new regulations for transportation fuels.

Yet before fielding questions Wednesday, Baertschiger made a forlorn speech his cadence that of a priest resignedly lamenting the state of the world to his congregation.

We talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, said Baertschiger, We see that all the time. Well, I think this is kind of an example. Because the average working family just don't have the ability to deflect these costs. They're stuck. I think because of the polarization of this particular piece of legislation we can't seem to come to any agreement, we can't even move towards any agreement that maybe it's just time to let the voters make the decision.

Baertschiger said Republicans have discussed a direct referral to voters and indicated there could be some support among Republicans for that.

But the draft legislation contains an emergency clause, which means that the bill cant be referred to voters by lawmakers. Voters could still use the initiative process to force a public vote.

Dembrow said that making the legislation effective immediately after legislators approve it would allow the state to prepare for the programs launch in 2022, even if an initiative is set in motion.

Asked what specific policy ideas Republicans had tried to suggest but hadnt stuck, as he phrased it, Baertschiger said his colleague, Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, had worked on quite a bit about, you know, electrification and some credits, tax credits and stuff with that. Incentives could help electric companies accommodate demand on the grid as transportation starts using more electricity, Baertschiger said.

You know, the problem with fossil fuels is when it comes to the natural resource sector is there's nothing out there in technology yet that replaces the brute horsepower we need to produce the natural resources, whether it's tractors or fishing boats or any of those kind of things, Baertschiger said. There's nothing really out there yet. And I think we ought to keep trying to incentivize new technology to be able to replace that. But those are things that are going to take a long time.

Dembrow said that Democrats have been making efforts to include Republicans, pointing to Girods involvement in early talks on the current proposal.

We have been listening to and to a certain extent working with other Republicans as well, Dembrow said. But I'm not going to go into detail on that. But I will say that their concerns and ideas are included in this bill and were the grounds for the changes that we made.

Brock Smith isnt convinced that rural Oregonians would be spared the effects of anticipated higher fuel costs in metro areas if the legislation passes.

The initial increase in cost of transportation fuels will still fall to rural Oregonians in the costs of goods and services, right? he said. An apple that someone buys, or an article of clothing that somebody buys in Brookings, is going to be more expensive because it costs more to bring it there from Portland. And so they're not mitigating any of those financial impacts.

Dembrow said the proposal prohibits fuel importers from passing the costs associated with complying with the new regulations to customers in areas of the state that arent subject to the regulations.

The proposal would regulate fuels beginning in the Portland metro area in 2022, and in 2025, extends to metro areas of the state and cities where at least 10 million gallons of fuel are imported.

Whether or not they can vote for the bill, is, that's up to them, said Dembrow of Republicans. They have to do what's right for their values and the way they perceive their constituency.

He said that while he cant speak for Republicans, he would expect them to try to affect what the bill looks like, and then vote against it if they still didnt support it.

I vote on a lot of things I wish I didn't have to vote on, Dembrow said. But if you have majority support, you have majority support. And, you know, I think people need to respect that. And let me just add, that given the changes that we've made in the bill, if Republicans don't show up, I'm not sure how much of it is about the program itself and how much of it is really about politics and ideology.

Reporter Claire Withycombe: cwithycombe@eomediagroup.com or 971-304-4148.

Read more here:

As Democrats resurrect carbon bill, Republicans leave all options on the table including another walkout - malheurenterprise.com

Paul GazelkaPhoto: Screenshot/YouTube

Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka spoke at length in an interview about the importance of keeping conversion therapy legal, arguing that people turn gay because of bad parenting or sexual abuse.

Gazelka appeared on the Truth & Liberty podcast, which is co-hosted by televangelist Andrew Wommack, who supported Ugandas Kill The Gays bill.

Related: Minnesota Republicans are fighting to keep ex-gay therapy legal

One of the interviewers read a question about how to fight conversion therapy bans. Last year, the Minnesota House passed a conversion therapy ban but the state senate shot it down.

Gazelka started his response by lying about the law, saying that it would ban both counselors and pastors from talking to young people about their sexual feelings of identity.

He said that if a minor went into a counselors or pastors office to talk about unwanted same-sex attraction, the law would tell the professionals dont offer any help, just, you know, wing it.

Thats not what the proposed conversion therapy ban in Minnesota said. It only applied to state-licensed mental health professionals (not pastors) and would only ban them from attempting to change a patients sexual orientation they can still offer real help for young people struggling to accept themselves.

Gazelka went on to say that homosexuality is a sin and that many people find total freedom from homosexuality through counseling.

He then told a story that someone told him about a lady that was lesbian.

According to Gazelka, the speaker said, Before you judge her, let me just tell you her backstory. He said she was chained to a toilet as a like 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-year-old girl and raped by her dad, for years and years. How do you think shes gonna feel? In other words, hes trying to get you to realize that theres a deeper backstory.

In a separate anecdote, Gazelka said that a gay man lobbied his office several times. The second time Gazelka talked to him, he asked, Were you raised by your mom and dad, or was it just your mom?

Because a lot of times, same-sex attraction- theres not a good connection to the biological parent of the same sex.

And he says Its funny to say that, you know, because my my mom and my grandma raised me. The point Im trying to make is we actually had a conversation that we could talk about the issues around the why and the what.

The theories that homosexuality is caused by a poor relationship with the parent of the same-sex or is a result of sexual abuse have already been debunked. But conversion therapy is based on the idea that LGBTQ people are profoundly broken by negative developmental experiences, a point of view that Gazelka apparently shares.

Gazelkas support for conversion therapy is more than political he sent one of his own children to it. His child Genna, who is non-binary, said that they were sent to conversion therapy as a teen when their parents thought they might be a lesbian.

The therapy was tantamount to what could be said of torture or sexual torture, they said.

They said that they were sent to Marcus Bachmanns clinic. Hes the husband of former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and his clinic is known for conversion therapy.

Their parents also encouraged Genna to go to Janet Boynes Ministries, which helps people who are trapped in the sin of homosexuality and yearn to be set free.

Gazelka claims that he did not send his child to Bachmanns clinic for conversion therapy, but just for healing.

Minnesota Democrats have condemned Gazelkas comments.

The bigoted beliefs Gazelka expressed in this interview are exactly the attitudes that made it so difficult for me to come out and still make it hard for LGBT Minnesotans to simply be who we are, the party said in a statement. Paul Gazelka cannot claim to love the LGBT community while fueling the homophobia that causes our community to face heightened rates of depression and suicidal ideation.

The full interview is below. The part about conversion therapy starts at the 43:45 mark.

Read more:

Republican leader who sent their child to conversion therapy says child abuse makes people gay - LGBTQ Nation

It's the latest reminder of Trumps vice-like grip on the GOP and how any hint of opposition within the party has been extinguished. Even before a single contest has been held, the president has already gone a long way toward securing renomination: He will be the only candidate on the ballot in nine states that collectively account for nearly one-third of the delegates needed.

Walsh and Weld have complained bitterly that several states have scrapped their primaries, calling it undemocratic and part of a broader effort to rig the nominating contest in Trumps favor. Yet the challengers are missing out on opportunities to compete against the president, even in states where it's relatively easy to qualify.

Neither Walsh nor Weld will be running in Kentucky, where candidates are only required to pay $1,000 and fill out a statement of candidacy form. Walsh failed to get on the ballot in Louisiana, where it costs just $1,125. Weld wont be running in Oklahoma, where a presidential aspirant only needs to cut a $5,000 check.

The two are also MIA in some of the countrys most delegate-rich battlegrounds. While Walsh, a former congressman, didnt file in his home state of Illinois, Welds attempt to get on the Ohio ballot was rejected by election officials who said he didnt meet the states requirements.

The Walsh and Weld campaigns say theyve faced fierce resistance from pro-Trump state GOP organizations which are working to keep them from competing. They have been particularly frustrated by the Georgia and Minnesota Republican parties, which submitted only Trumps name for the primary ballot.

"It became very clear very early in the process of gaining access to individual state ballots and caucuses that the Trump-controlled state party organizations would not be helpful to challengers, said Weld spokesman Joe Hunter, adding that some states have rendered it virtually impossible for any candidate other than the incumbent to qualify.

Walsh campaign manager Lucy Caldwell called the opposition from the GOP apparatus unprecedented.

When it comes down to it, were talking about millions of Republican voters who are having their say disenfranchised, she said.

Yet Trump campaign officials say their challengers absence from key states simply reflects a lack of seriousness. While Walsh and Weld have generated loads of media attention, it hasnt translated to fundraising dollars or encouraging poll numbers.

President Trump is the Republican nominee. Anyone else was just pretending so they could appear on MSNBC or maybe get a book deal, said Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh. They were never serious.

For presidential campaigns, ballot access is a complicated and often costly process one that typically benefits well-organized incumbents over upstart challengers. States are governed by different criteria from fees to petition signatures - which determine whether a candidate can get on the primary ballot.

While the Trump campaign has an entire team devoted to ensuring that hes eligible for each contest, Walsh and Weld have struggled to keep up.

Rick Wilson, who serves as an adviser to a conservative anti-Trump super PAC, described an effective ballot access operation as a threefold struggle that required a substantial amount of funding, legal expertise, and organization.

Unfortunately, neither man has the resources to do that, said Wilson, noting Walsh and Weld were facing barriers to entry across the country.

Trump aides have welcomed the news. While the presidents team has never been overly concerned about Walsh and Weld, they have worked diligently ensure that neither embarrasses Trump the way Pat Buchanan did to incumbent George H.W. Bush in 1992. Buchanans surprisingly strong performance in the New Hampshire primary that year raised questions about Bushs support from conservatives and his viability as a general election candidate. Bush would go on to lose reelection.

Trump campaign officials are also trying to prevent either challenger from staging a distracting protest at the Republican convention in August. Trump aides want the four-day convention to be a smooth-running infomercial for the presidents reelection devoid of the chaos and infighting that defined the partys 2016 confab.

The two challengers are picking their spots. Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, has been heavily focused on New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary on Feb. 11 and has opened a campaign office there. Walsh, meanwhile, elected not to file in deep-red states like Alabama and Arkansas because his campaign regarded it as overwhelmingly pro-Trump.

Walsh, Caldwell said, was running a guerrilla campaign focused on states where she argued he could gain traction.

Theres a huge disconnect between the Trump-installed party bosses and what every day Republican voters want, she added. So, were leaning into tactics to help those voters voices rise to the top.

See the original post:

Never Trumpers flame out - POLITICO

Senate Republicans will vote unanimously in support of President TrumpDonald John TrumpNational Archives says it altered Trump signs, other messages in Women's March photo Dems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Democratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' MORE on the great matter of articles of impeachment, following what will be a farcical show trial if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Senate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment MORE (R-Ky.) gets his way. I propose Republicans have a patriotic duty to support and pass a censure resolution condemning Trumps repeated praise of foreign dictators, his repeated efforts to solicit foreign dictators to attack his Democratic opponents, and his pressure against a democratic ally under attack by Russia to fabricate political dirt against former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSanders to headline Iowa event amid impeachment trial Hillicon Valley: Biden calls for revoking tech legal shield | DHS chief 'fully expects' Russia to try to interfere in 2020 | Smaller companies testify against Big Tech 'monopoly power' Hill.TV's Krystal Ball on Sanders-Warren feud: 'Don't play to the pundits, play to voters' MORE, the Democratic candidate he fears the most by far.

Let me be clear about one thing. The censure resolution I believe Senate Republicans have a patriotic duty to propose should not be a long list of grievances and wrongs, but should be strictly limited to the one question that undoubtedly poses an existential and extreme danger to the future of American and Western democracy.

If the result of a Senate impeachment trial legitimizes the presidents solicitation of foreign nations to attack and corrupt American democracy, Senate Republicans would be giving aid and comfort to the Russian attack against American democracy first in 2016 and now in 2020, and guarantee that these attacks from Russia and other hostile nations continue and escalate in 2020 and future elections.

If my call to patriotism from Senate Republicans is not sufficiently persuasive, I would warn that some of them, who are up for reelection in 2020, could be defeated. And other Republicans will almost certainly, at some point sooner or later, join Democrats as targets of attacks from hostile foreign powers themselves.

If any Republican is ever attacked by Russian intelligence, North Korean intelligence, Iranian intelligence or any other intelligence service of a hostile nation I would defend them just as aggressively as I defended Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonSupreme Court agrees to hear 'faithless elector' cases Poll: Sanders holds 5-point lead over Buttigieg in New Hampshire Climate 'religion' is fueling Australia's wildfires MORE in 2016 and defend Joe Biden today.

Exhibit A for a GOP-supported censure resolution is Trumps despicable behavior in 2016 when he asked Russia are you listening?, and when his aides shared voter information with Russians using that information, which was obviously the intent of Trump associates who shared it, to attack American democracy in that election.

Exhibit B is Trump suggesting it would be good for China to dig up dirt against Biden or other Democratic opponents in 2020.

Exhibit C is Trump withholding military assistance to Ukraine, while Ukraine was under attack from Russia, in a transparent attempt to blackmail, bribe or extort Ukraine into attacking Biden. By doing this, Trump simultaneously aided the Russian attack against Ukraine and sought to corrupt American democracy, which President Volodymyr Zelensky wisely and courageously refused to do.

Exhibit D is Trump suggesting, repeatedly, that many who are defending America by investigating the Russian attack against America were guilty of treason, for which they could be put to death.

Exhibit E is Trumps repeated high praise of foreign dictators, which is unprecedented in the history of American presidents. Would President Reagan or any other president have bragged about exchanging love letters with the North Korean butcher Kim Jong UnKim Jong UnBrent Budowsky: The patriotic duty of Senate Republicans US ambassador: 'I was personally surprised' North Korea did not send 'Christmas gift' Overnight Defense: Foreign policy takes center stage at Democratic debate | House delivers impeachment articles to Senate | Dems vow to force new vote on Trump's border wall MORE, or said they believe Russian intelligence more than American intelligence, as Trump has done?

Exhibit F is when American intelligence reports that the story that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the American election was a lie spread by Russian intelligence. Any Republican who parrots Russian propaganda spread by Russian intelligence, while Russia is attacking America, should be ashamed and humiliated.

Exhibit G is the latest report that Russian intelligence has recently been hacking the Ukrainian company Burisma, suggesting the Russian crime against Hillary Clinton in 2016, designed to elect Trump, is being repeated in 2020, designed to reelect Trump, if the allegation is proven true.

I am NOT suggesting Senate Republicans have a patriotic duty to remove President Trump from office.

I am suggesting that Senate Republicans DO have a patriotic duty to condemn clearly, publicly and unequivocally the Russian attacks against American democracy and the presidents attempts to encourage or exploit them.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the House of Representatives. He holds an LLM in international financial law from the London School of Economics.

See the original post:

Brent Budowsky: The patriotic duty of Senate Republicans | TheHill - The Hill

A pair of Republican lawmakers demanded answers from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about why it selected former Obama administration lawyer David Kris to oversee reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process.

Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina sent a letter Thursday to James Boasberg, the new presiding judge over the FISA court, asking him a series of questions about why picked Kris to serve as amicus curiae, a position that is supposed to provide impartial advice to the court.

"If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's goal is to hold the FBI accountable for its serious misconduct, Mr. Kris does not appear to be an objective or likely effective amicus curiae for several reasons. At minimum the selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI to ensure it effectuates meaningful reform," the congressmen wrote in the letter obtained by the Washington Examiner.

Kris, a former assistant attorney general with the Justice Departments national security division during the Obama administration, has on the Lawfare blog and elsewhere spoken out in support of the FBIs Trump-Russia investigation and criticized the House Intelligence Committee's 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses. Last week, he was selected last week to oversee the implementation of reforms in response to a scathing Justice Department watchdog report on serious errors found in the FBI's efforts to wiretap Carter Page, an American foreign policy adviser who helped President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Kris filed a letter with the FISA court on Wednesday where he said the reforms proposed by the FBI in the wake of the Horowitz report were "insufficient" thus far, and that the bureau "must restore" a "culture of accuracy and completeness" in the FISA process.

Jordan and Meadows laid out three main objections to Kriss appointment by the court.

The first was Kris has frequently defended the FBIs existing electronic surveillance practices including when he boasted about the rigorous process or FISA warrants prior to the early 2018 release of then-House Intelligence Committee Chairmen Devin Nuness FISA memo laying out FISA abuses by the bureau and then when Kris claimed that the FBI misled the court was itself misleading once the Nunes memo was made public.

Mr. Kris was wrong, the congressmen said.

The second was the former Obama official seemingly prejudged the FBIs conduct with respect to Carter Page when hundreds of pages of heavily redacted FISA applications on Page were released in the summer of 2018, when Kris claimed the FISA applications and renewals and predicted its going to get worse, not better for Page.

But, the congressmen said, the inspector generals report and testimony confirmed that the FBI illegally surveilled Mr. Page.

And third, following the Horowitzs reports release, Kris seemed to minimize the FBIs actions when he said the FBIs misconduct wasnt political and attributed the missteps to sloppiness by the FBI.

However, inspector general Horowitz testified that the office of inspector generals review did not rule out political bias or intentional misconduct, Jordan and Meadows said.

With three FISA provisions expected to sunset in March, House Republicans say they intend to make a stand against Kris. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes said this week that Congress should consider abolishing the FISA court if "[the] Democratic Party gets to use these tools to attempt to remove presidents and target political operatives when they want to."

Jordan and Meadows emphasized their belief that the FISA court also has a heightened responsibly to protect the civil liberties of American citizens in proceedings where no defense lawyer is present.

The congressmen asked the spy court to tell them which candidates aside from Kris theyd considered and whether theyd taken Kriss writings and statements about Page, the Nunes memo, and the FBIs Trump-Russia actions into consideration when appointing him.

The duo also pressed the FISA court on whether it bore any responsibility for the FISA abuse against Page; when it first received evidence that the FBI was misleading the court and what it did in response; whether the court had conducted a review of the Page FISA filings prior to the Horowitz reports release; what disciplinary action the court was taking against FBI or DOJ lawyers who had misled them; whether the court was reviewing other FISA filings aside from the ones against Page; and what the court was doing to ensure FISA abuses dont occur in the future.

Jordan and Meadows set a deadline of Jan. 30 for the FISA court's responses.

More here:

'Too personally invested': Republicans demand FISA court explain why Obama official picked to oversee reforms - Washington Examiner